AERATE-lung: management and prophylaxis of EGFR inhibitor skin adverse events in NSCLC: variations between dermatologists and oncology teams in the UK
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Contact
Check for full-text access
Issue Date
2026
Type
Conference Proceedings
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
Introduction Guidelines exist for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor-related adverse events (AEs), but real-world healthcare professional (HCP) management in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly described; this study documents current practices and variations in dermatologic AE management. Methods A Medical Science Liaison-led, cross-sectional survey of UK HCPs involved in NSCLC management including clinical/medical oncologists (n = 23), lung cancer clinical nurse specialists (n = 6) and advanced nurse practitioners (n = 5), systemic anti-cancer treatment-nurses (n = 6), cancer pharmacists (n = 10) and dermatologists (n = 10). Descriptive analysis was conducted. [Formula presented] Results Prophylaxis included emollients (80%), sunscreen (68%) and less frequently oral antibiotics (15%) and topical corticosteroids (7%). Emollients were universally used across all AE grades. Escalation to topical corticosteroids and topical/oral antibiotics differed between oncology teams and dermatologists. For grade 1 AEs of the face 40% of dermatologists used topical steroids (vs. 6% for oncology) and 50% utilised topical antibiotics (vs. 18%) (Table 1). Dermatologists also prescribe oral antibiotics for grade 1 and 2 AEs at a higher rate than oncology teams. Guideline use varied, with 12% reporting no utilisation of guidelines. Discussion Dermatologists prescribe topical steroids at least 5x more often and topical antibiotics 3x more often for grade 1 skin AEs. Oncology teams prescribe topical steroids or topical/oral antibiotics for grade 2 skin AEs less frequently than dermatologists. These results demonstrate important differences in prescribing thresholds where oncology teams adopt less aggressive management of lower AE grades of the face whereas dermatologists adopt a more proactive approach. Differences in prophylaxis and pre-treatment practices highlight the need to streamline recommendations on patient education and multidisciplinary collaboration may enhance consistency and support earlier intervention. Conclusions These findings highlight the need for pro-active management of low-grade AEs and the importance of dermatologist multidisciplinary input to optimise patient outcomes. Funding(s): This study is fully funded by Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine. Disclosure TND has received renumeration for advisory work and educational activities with J&J. RP has received renumeration for advisory work and educational activities with J&J. TA has received numeration for advisory work with J&J. KH has received renumeration for advisory work with J&J. RM has received renumeration for advisory work with J&J. AK has received renumeration for advisory work with J&J. EO and JH are employees of OPEN Health Communications LLP, who were involved in scientific consultancy as part of this study; MQ and NN are employees of J&J. AJ has received renumeration for advisory work with J&J. Copyright © 2026 Elsevier B.V.
Description
Citation
Publisher
License
Journal
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Volume
Issue
Poster abstracts of the 24th Annual British Thoracic Oncology Group Conference 2026.