Back to Authors

Zhang, Jun

0000-0002-7973-8416

Mayo Clinic

Ruijin Hospital

Citations 3

Recommendations for the Prophylactic Management of Skin Reactions Induced by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Patients With Solid Tumors
Hofheinz, Ralf‐Dieter , Deplanque, G., Kobayashi, Yoshimitsu, Ocvirk, Janja , Racca, Patrizia, Guenther, Silke, Lacouture, Mario E. , Jatoi, Aminah , Komatsu, Yoshito , Zhang, Jun

The Oncologist | July 23, 2016 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1483-1491

10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0051 Get It

Abstract Inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is an established treatment that extends patient survival across a variety of tumor types. EGFR inhibitors fall into two main categories: anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, such as cetuximab and panitumumab, and first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib. Skin reactions are the most common EGFR inhibitor-attributable adverse event, resulting in papulopustular (acneiform) eruptions that can be painful and debilitating, and which may potentially have a negative impact on patients’ quality of life and social functioning, as well as a negative impact on treatment duration. Shortened treatment duration can, in turn, compromise antineoplastic efficacy. Similarly, appropriate management of skin reactions is dependent on their accurate grading; however, conventional means for grading skin reactions are inadequate, particularly within the context of clinical trials. Treating a skin reaction only once it occurs (reactive treatment strategies) may not be the most effective management approach; instead, prophylactic approaches may be preferable. Indeed, we support the viewpoint that prophylactic management of skin reactions should be recommended for all patients treated with EGFR inhibitors. Appropriate prophylactic management could effectively reduce the severity of skin reactions in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors and therefore has the potential to directly benefit patients and improve drug adherence. Accordingly, here we review published and still-emerging data, and provide practical and evidence-based recommendations and algorithms regarding the optimal prophylactic management of EGFR inhibitor-attributable skin reactions.
Comparison of urine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization in upper urothelial tract samples
Reynolds, Jordan , Voss, Jesse S. , Kipp, Benjamin R. , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Nassar, Aziza , Clayton, Amy C., Henry, Michael , Sebo, Thomas J., Halling, Kevin C. , Nassar, Aziza , Zhang, Jun , Reynolds, Jordan P

Cancer Cytopathology | March 6, 2014 | Volume: 122 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 459-467

10.1002/cncy.21414 Get It

BACKGROUNDThe cytologic diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma (UC) of the upper urothelial tract (UT) is challenging. Using the UroVysion probe set adds diagnostic value for the detection of bladder cancer in voided urine. In instrumented UT specimens, the authors encountered positive UT cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) cases that did not demonstrate subsequent UT carcinoma.METHODSThe performance of cytology and FISH in the presence or absence of concomitant bladder cancer within 2 years was compared in 61 patients (112 samples) from 2003 through 2009. The mean follow‐up was 3.2 years. The authors also compared the performance of near‐tetrasomy versus hypertetrasomy. Biopsy confirmation of UTUC in 21 patients was considered the gold standard.RESULTSCytology alone was found to be poorly sensitive (38%) but highly specific (89%) for the detection of UTUC. FISH was found to increase the sensitivity of cytology and decrease specificity. Tetrasomy FISH resulted in many false‐positive cases. Other false‐positive FISH results were likely due to the presence of bladder cancer cells contaminating the UT specimen.CONCLUSIONSCaution should be used when evaluating instrumented urine specimens of the UT from patients with a previous history of bladder carcinoma, and tetrasomy FISH results should not be interpreted as abnormal because it significantly lowers the specificity of the test. The combination of cytology and FISH appears to have good specificity while maintaining good sensitivity in evaluating UTUC when using modified scoring criteria for the appropriate patient population. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2014;122:459–467. © 2014 American Cancer Society.
Assessing the Value of Reflex Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Testing in the Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer When Routine Urine Cytological Examination is Equivocal
Kipp, Benjamin R. , Halling, Kevin C. , Campion, Michael B., Wendel, Amy J., Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Sebo, Thomas J., Zhang, Jun

Journal of Urology | March 6, 2008 | Volume: 179 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 1296-1301

10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.082 Get It