Evaluation of the incidence of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions in cancer patients

Management of infusion-related reactions in cancer therapy: strategies and challenges

Several anticancer therapies have the potential to cause infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the form of adverse events that typically occur within minutes to hours after drug infusion. IRRs can range in severity from mild to severe anaphylaxis-like reactions. Careful monitoring at infusion initiation, prompt recognition, and appropriate clinical assessment of the IRR and its severity, followed by immediate management, are required to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes. Lack of standardization in the prevention, management, and reporting of IRRs across cancer-treating institutions represents not only a quality and safety gap but also a disparity in cancer care. The present article, supported by recently published data, was developed to standardize these procedures across institutions and provide a useful tool for health care providers in clinical practice to recognize early signs and symptoms of an IRR and promptly and appropriately manage the event.

A survey of carboplatin desensitization therapy in Japan: A multicenter retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy are serious adverse events associated with cancer drug therapy and can occur with any antitumor drug. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of carboplatin desensitization therapy in Japan and established a method for treating carboplatin HSRs.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with gynecological (ovarian, endometrial, or cervical) cancers who underwent carboplatin desensitization therapy between 2016 and 2020 at the Gynecologic Cancer Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group were included. The carboplatin desensitization therapy at each institution and the implementation cases were registered in an online case report form.

RESULTS

This retrospective study enrolled 136 patients (ovarian, 108; endometrial, 17; and cervical cancer, 11). Pre-existing allergies were present in 37 (27.2%) patients, and 32 (23.5%) patients exhibited prodromal symptoms during treatment before HSR onset. Erythema was the most common symptom at HSR onset, affecting 93 (68.4%) patients, followed by itching in 72 (52.9%) patients and decreased oxygen saturation in 43 (31.6%) patients. Loss of consciousness occurred in three (2.2%) patients. The most common timing of HSR onset was during the first recurrence treatment (47%). The mean total carboplatin dose until HSR onset was 7331 (2620-18,282) mg, and the mean number of doses was 14 (4-63). Desensitization treatment was completed in 75% of cases, and breakthrough HSRs occurred in 25% (34/136). No deaths occurred in the study cohort. The risk factors for HSRs were not identified.

CONCLUSION

Although carboplatin desensitization therapy has high success rates in Japan, erythema and pruritus are important HSRs to consider.

Combination of H1 and H2 Histamine Receptor Antagonists: Current Knowledge and Perspectives of a Classic Treatment Strategy

Histamine receptor antagonists, which can bind to specific histamine receptors on target cells, exhibit substantial therapeutic efficacy in managing a variety of histamine-mediated disorders. Notably, histamine H1 and H2 receptor antagonists have been extensively investigated and universally acknowledged as recommended treatment agents for numerous allergic diseases and acid-related disorders, respectively. Historically, the combination of H1 and H2 receptor antagonists has been considered a classic treatment strategy, demonstrating relatively superior efficacy compared with single-drug therapies in the treatment of diverse histamine-mediated diseases. The latest emerging studies have additionally suggested the underlying roles of histamine and H1R and H2R in the development of anxiety disorders, arthritic diseases, and postexercise hypotension. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of systematic reviews on the clinical efficacy of combination therapy, greatly limiting our understanding of its clinical application. Here, we present a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge and perspectives regarding the combination of H1 and H2 histamine receptor antagonists in various histamine-mediated disorders. Furthermore, we critically analyze the adverse effects and limitations associated with combination therapy while suggesting potential solutions. Our review can offer a systematic summary and promising insights into the in-depth and effective application of the combination of H1 and H2 receptor antagonists.

Interleukin-6 as a biomarker of hypersensitivity reactions in chemotherapeutics and monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND

In recent years, a new type of immediate hypersensitivity reaction known as cytokine release began to emerge, and within this phenotype of reactions, interleukin-6 is the most frequently associated with the presence during drug administration. Chemotherapeutic agents (QT) and monoclonal antibodies.

OBJECTIVE

Determine interleukin-6 levels in hypersensitivity reactions to QT and monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS

Observational and prospective study that was carried out from March 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022 in a university hospital in northeastern Mexico. Symptoms, severity, interleukin-6 levels, and skin tests of hypersensitivity reaction were evaluated at QT and monoclonal antibodies.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients with oncological disease were included, the most frequent being ovarian cancer. Symptoms as initial hypersensitivity reaction were neuromuscular in taxanes and cutaneous in Platinums.41.5% presented elevation of interleukin-6, and it was found more frequently in presence of metastases. Positive skin tests were found more frequently in the carboplatin and doxorubicin groups. The most frequently presented phenotype was type I in paclitaxel, carboplatin, and doxorubicin, and mixed-reaction (type I and cytokine release) in oxaliplatin.

CONCLUSION

With the increasing prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions to biologic and antineoplastic therapies, interleukin-6 should be recognized as a biomarker in immediate hypersensitivity reactions to QT and monoclonal antibodies.

Management of chemotherapy hypersensitivity reactions and desensitization: An SGO clinical practice statement

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this practice statement is to help members and their multidisciplinary teams recognize infusion reactions and hypersensitivity reactions in the clinical setting. It will provide recommendations to help guide response to reactions and desensitization when appropriate, to promote safe use of chemotherapeutic agents among all providers in the delivery process.

METHODS

A multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Education Committee collaborated to review peer reviewed literature and guidelines to develop a practice statement on the management of chemotherapy hypersensitivity reactions and desensitization regimens.

RESULTS

There is always potential for a patient to have a reaction to any medication, with both infusion reactions and hypersensitivity reactions potentially occurring in the treatment of gynecologic cancers. Premedication to prevent reactions should be given at least prior to infusion for regimens that include the most common agents associated with reactions. At the time when reaction is occurring it might be difficult to distinguish between an infusion reaction versus true hypersensitivity given the similarities in signs and symptoms, therefore it is important that orders to manage reactions be included in every chemotherapy order set so the infusion nurse can provide immediate interventions while waiting for the provider to arrive to assess the patient. Desensitization is a potential option to allow the patient to continue to receive the offending agent. While a variety of desensitization regimens have been presented in the literature, the goal is to minimize steps and variability to decrease opportunity for errors during chemotherapy preparation or administration.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating a review of the literature and clinical experience from the SGO Education Committee, this paper provides an overview of current approaches for prevention and management of reactions to commonly used chemotherapy agents for gynecologic cancers.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents - A practical guide for the oncologist

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) to antineoplastic agents occur frequently, and every oncologist will encounter these reactions in their clinical practice at some point. The clinical signature of IHRs can range from mild to life-threatening, and their occurrence can substantially impede the treatment course of patients with cancer. Yet, clear guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management are scarce, especially from an oncologic point of view. Therefore, herein, we review the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and management of IHRs to chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies. First, we focus on defining the specific entities that comprise IHRs and discuss their underlying mechanisms. Then, we summarize the epidemiology for the antineoplastic agents that represent the most common causes of IHRs, i.e., platinum compounds, taxanes and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Next, we describe the possible clinical pictures and the comprehensive diagnostic work-up that should be executed to identify the culprit and safe alternatives for the future. Finally, we finish with reviewing the treatment options in both the acute phase and after recovery, with the aim to improve the oncologic care of patients with cancer.

Toxicity management and efficacy of carboplatin desensitization therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma: A real-world study

Epithelial Ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecologic cancer worldwide. Carboplatin (CP) is the main chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of ovarian cancer. However, the development of a hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) in 10% to 15% of patients with EOC is an important limiting factor for the clinical use of CP. Herein, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CP-desensitization (CP-D) therapy in the treatment of recurrent patients with EOC. Forty-seven ovarian cancer cases treated with CP-desensitization at the Istanbul University Oncology Institute were retrospectively analyzed between 01.01.2017 and 01.01.2022. The decision for CP-D was based on the patients' history of HSR and/or a positive skin test. For all patients, a 6-hour 12-step rapid drug desensitization protocol with a 30-minutes premedication regimen was used. Forty-seven patients were included in this study, and the median age at diagnosis was 53 years (range; 27-80). Twenty-one (43.7%) patients had 1 or more comorbid diseases, and 12.7% had a previous history of drug allergy. On average, HSR due to carboplatin was identified after 9 (7-16) cycles, and carboplatin was administered n = 11 (range, 3-36) times to patients. The overall survival from the first desensitization procedure (0S2) was 42.2 months (range: 25.3-59.1), and the 1-, 2-, and 5-years survival rates were 92.6%, 75.6%, and 47.2%, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 78.5%. Cumulatively, 496 CP-D procedures were performed, of which 478 (96.3%) were successfully completed. None of the patients included in this study developed severe (grade 3-4) HSR during CP administration (no adrenaline was used, no need for intensive care). No deaths due to CP-D were noted. CP-D is a beneficial and safe method in treating platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC patients with CP-induced HSR.

Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy: an EAACI Position Paper

Chemotherapeutic drugs have been widely used in the treatment of cancer disease for about 70 years. The development of new treatments has not hindered their use, and oncologists still prescribe them routinely, alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents. However, all chemotherapeutic agents can induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), with different incidences depending on the culprit drug. These reactions are the third leading cause of fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis in the United States. In Europe, deaths related to chemotherapy have also been reported. In particular, most reactions are caused by platinum compounds, taxanes, epipodophyllotoxins and asparaginase. Despite their prevalence and relevance, the ideal pathways for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these reactions are still unclear, and practice remains considerably heterogeneous with vast differences from center to center. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the allergological work-up in this field of drug hypersensitivity reactions. This position paper aims to provide consensus on the investigation of HSRs to chemotherapeutic drugs and give practical recommendations for clinicians that treat these patients, such as oncologists, allergologists and internists. Key sections cover risk factors, pathogenesis, symptoms, the role of skin tests, in vitro tests, indications and contraindications of drug provocation tests and desensitization of neoplastic patients with allergic reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs. Statements, recommendations and unmet needs were discussed and proposed at the end of each section.

The Role of Skin Tests in the Prevention and Diagnosis of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Platinum Agents in Gynecological Cancer: A Single-Center Italian Retrospective Study

Simple Summary

The development of hypersensitivity reactions to platinum agents in patients with gynecological cancers limits the use of platinum re-treatment for recurrent disease. In those patients who developed a hypersensitivity reactions during treatment with platinum agents it could be safer to undergo allergy diagnosis. This approach includes the in-vivo skin tests before re-exposure to the platinum agent, especially in those patients who have to undergo a 2nd or 3rd line therapy. In our experience, skin test for platinum agents resulted in a simple and sensitive tool for the diagnosis and prevention of hypersensitivity reactions to platinum agents. In addition, this approach identified a sub-group of patients that became sensitized to the platinum agent during the previous platinum-based therapy.

Abstract

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR)s to platinum agents are increasing in frequency, due to their extensive use and repeated exposures in patients with increased life expectancy. The aims of our study are to analyze the frequency of both type I and type IV HSRs in patients with gynecological cancer treated with (CBDCA) carboplatin and/or (CDDP) cisplatin, to evaluate the role of skin tests in the diagnosis and prevention of HSRs. Methods: From 2011 to 2018, we evaluated 124 consecutive female patients previously treated with CBDCA and/or CDDP for gynecological cancer. All patients, including those with and without HSR to previous platinum-based therapy, underwent in-vivo skin tests for platinum agents before starting the second or more therapeutic lines. To reduce the risk of false negative results, patients with a negative skin test at the first evaluation were re-tested after 3 weeks from the platinum re-exposure. Results: Among the 124 patients evaluated, 58 (47%) experienced HSRs to at least one platinum agent: 35% were to CBDCA, 5% to CDDP, 7% to both. Fifty-six of the 58 HSRs were classified as immediate and two delayed. Skin tests confirmed an IgE-dependent mechanism in 67% of patients with immediate-HSRs to CBDCA and identified a cross-reactivity between platinum agents in 18% of patients. Moreover, among those who had never developed an HSRs during platinum-based therapy, in-vivo skin tests identified 12% of sensitized patients. Conclusions: On the basis of our findings, skin test for platinum agents is a simple and sensitive tool for the diagnosis and prevention of HSRs to CBDCA and/or CDDP and can be useful for detecting possible cross-reactivity among platinum agents.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Platinum Agents and Taxanes

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy agents can present a serious challenge to treating patients with preferred or first-line therapies. Allergic reactions through an immunologic mechanism have been established for platinum and taxane agents, which are used to treat a wide variety of cancers including gynecologic cancers. Platin HSRs typically occur after multiple cycles of chemotherapy, reflecting the development of drug IgE sensitization, while taxane HSRs often occur on first or second exposure. Despite observed differences between platin and taxane HSRs, drug desensitization has been an effective method to reintroduce both chemotherapeutic agents safely. Skin testing is the primary diagnostic tool used to risk-stratify patients after initial HSRs, with more widespread use for platinum agents than taxanes. Different practices exist around the use of skin testing, drug challenge, and choice of desensitization protocol. Here, we review the epidemiology, mechanism, and clinical presentation of HSRs to platinum and taxane agents, as well as key controversies in their evaluation and management.

Drug Desensitizations for Chemotherapy: Safety and Efficacy in Preventing Anaphylaxis

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to antineoplastic drugs are increasing due to the expanding use of classical and new drugs in a wide variety of malignancies. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to provide current best practices in the diagnosis and management of HSRs based on data and evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: A plethora of studies have provided evidence of the safety and efficacy of rapid drug desensitizations (RDD) to allow for the reintroduction of antineoplastic drugs following an HSR, based on risk stratification. Recently described biomarkers such as basophil activation test, total IgE, BRCA genotyping, and serum IL-6 can aid in guiding improved precision desensitization protocols. Personalized premedication regimens and protocols have improved RDD safety and outcomes. RDD allows for the continued use of chemotherapeutic drugs without impaired drug efficacy. RDD represents the best approach to maintain cancer patients on their most effective treatments.

Hypersensitivity to platinum salts according to BRCA status in ovarian cancer: A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to platinum are an important issue in the treatment of patients (pts) with ovarian cancer (OC). Germline BRCA mutations have been proposed as a risk factor. We aimed at evaluating the incidence and severity of HSRs to platinum in OC pts. with known BRCA status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 432 pts. from 5 Italian Centers. In addition, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published series.

RESULTS

Four hundred nine pts. received at least one prior platinum-based treatment line: 314 were BRCA wild type (77%) and 95 were BRCA mutated (23%). There was no statistical difference in exposure to platinum. Incidence of any grade HSRs was higher among BRCA mutated pts. [9% vs 18%, p = 0.019] and the time-to-HSRs curves show that the risk increases with the duration of platinum exposure, in BRCA mutated pts. more than in BRCA wild type. A multivariable analysis showed that harboring a germline BRCA mutation was related to a higher incidence of HSRs (HR: 1.84, 95% CI 1.00-3.99, p = 0.05) while having received pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was related to a lower incidence of HSRs (HR: 0.03 95% CI 0.004-0.22, p = 0.001). The systematic review confirmed the higher incidence of HSRs in BRCA mutated pts., though heterogeneity among series was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In OC pts. with BRCA mutations, there is a significantly higher incidence of HSRs to carboplatin, not justified by longer drug exposure. On the other hand, PLD exerted a protective role in our series.

Adverse cutaneous reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs

Drug reactions resulting from chemotherapy agents are common and frequently affect the skin. Although often benign, a select few of these cutaneous reactions may necessitate immediate changes to the antineoplastic regimens. Given the diversity of chemotherapeutic skin reactions and their complex implications on patient management, an organized conceptual schema is imperative for proper patient care. We evaluate a number of commonly seen chemotherapy-induced skin toxicities organized by pathogenic mechanism and drug class, providing a framework for the identification and categorization of adverse events to prevent unrecognition. Groupings of these reactions include direct cytotoxicity and/or drug accumulation, immunologic hypersensitivity, and aberrant molecular signaling.

Antitumor activity of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, BRCA-mutated, high-grade ovarian cancer, and an update on safety

OBJECTIVE

To report results from an integrated efficacy and safety analysis supporting the European Commission's approval of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy treatment for relapsed, platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Efficacy was analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who had high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and received two or more prior chemotherapies (including two or more platinum-based therapies). The primary end point was investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response rate (visit cut-off: April 10, 2017). Safety was analyzed in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA mutation status or lines of prior chemotherapies, who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg in either study (visit cut-off: December 31, 2017).

RESULTS

In the integrated platinum-sensitive efficacy population (n=79), objective response rate was 64.6% (95% CI, 53.0 to 75.0); 10.1% (8/79) of patients had a complete response and 54.4% (43/79) had a partial response. Median duration of response was 294 days (95% CI, 224 to 393). In the integrated safety population (n=565), the most common any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (77.7%, 439/565), asthenia/fatigue (74.7%, 422/565), vomiting (45.8%, 259/565), and hemoglobin decreased (44.2%, 250/565). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, or discontinuation in 60.2% (340/565), 46.0% (260/565), and 16.8% (95/565) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, rucaparib demonstrated antitumor activity and is the first and currently the only poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved by the European Commission as treatment for this population. The safety analysis used a more recent visit cut-off date and larger population than previously published, was consistent with prior reports, and was the basis for the treatment-indication safety population in rucaparib's recently updated European Union label.

Incidence of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Carboplatin or Paclitaxel in Patients With Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer With or Without BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations

The association of BRCA mutation status with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to carboplatin has gained interest in recent years, particularly in patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The primary objective of this study is to determine whether the presence of BRCA mutations increased the likelihood of HSRs to carboplatin. The incidence of HSRs to paclitaxel and symptom grade based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, were explored as secondary endpoints. A retrospective chart review of patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer at the University of Arizona Cancer Center who underwent treatment with carboplatin-containing regimens and received genetic testing was performed. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the primary outcome. Out of 167 initial patients, 62 with germline test results constituted the evaluable sample. 15 of 62 (24.2%) BRCA-tested patients were treated with carboplatin monotherapy, while 44 of 62 (71.0%) patients were treated with paclitaxel-containing regimens. Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 4 of 13 (30.8%) BRCA-mutated patients and 22 of 49 (44.9%) BRCA wild-type patients (p = .5291). Hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel occurred in 1 of 13 (7.7%) BRCA-mutated patients and 26 of 49 (53.1%) BRCA wild-type patients (p = .0039). Overall, there were 11 grade 1 reactions, 14 grade 2 reactions, and 16 grade 3 reactions to carboplatin. All reactions to carboplatin in BRCA-mutated patients were grade 1. All paclitaxel reactions manifested as grade 2. The sample size was the main study limitation. The presence of BRCA mutations was not statistically significantly associated with a higher incidence of HSRs to carboplatin, but was statistically significant with regards to paclitaxel.

A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Extended Carboplatin Infusion to Reduce Hypersensitivity Reactions in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Hypersensitivity with repeated exposure to platinum agents is common and can preclude continued treatment, even in patients with disease that remains platinum sensitive. We sought to compare the effects of prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion versus standard infusion on the rate of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

This was a single-institution, randomized, nonblinded trial comparing a graded, 3-hour extended infusion of carboplatin with a standard 30-minute infusion in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled from January 2011 to April 2015. The study was designed to detect a decrease in the HSR rate from 20% (standard infusion) to 5% (extended infusion) assuming a type 1 error of 10% and power of 80% using a 1-sided test.

RESULTS

Of 146 enrolled patients, 114 were evaluable. Fifteen (13%) had an HSR-11% (6/56) in the extended-infusion and 16% (9/58) in the standard-infusion groups (P = 0.582). Planned treatment completion was achieved in 50 (89%) of 56 patients and 49 (84%) of 58 patients, respectively. Of 25 patients who received single-agent carboplatin, 8 (32%) had an HSR (53% of all patients who had an HSR [8/15]). Of 23 patients who received carboplatin with gemcitabine, 4 (17%) had an HSR (27% of all patients who had an HSR [4/15]). Of 8 patients who received carboplatin with paclitaxel, 3 (38%) had an HSR (20% of all patients who had an HSR [3/15]). There were no HSRs with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, the most commonly given concurrent chemotherapy (46% of all patients).

CONCLUSIONS

A prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion was not associated with a decreased HSR rate. The overall low HSR rate suggests that premedication may help reduce HSRs.

Prophylactic 3-hour graduated infusion schedule minimizes risk of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions - A prospective study

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study was observation of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) frequency by using a 3-hour graduated infusion protocol with appropriate premedication as a prophylactic measure in patients with gynecological cancer receiving carboplatin retreatment in second line or above. None of the patients had experienced HSRs to platinum previously.

METHOD

All the patients in this study received premedication with corticosteroids and anti-histamines followed by carboplatin as 3-hour graduated infusion. Carboplatin was administered either as monotherapy or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients with ovarian (n=71), fallopian tube (n=9), peritoneal (n=9) and other gynecological cancers (5 uterine cancer, 5 abdominal cancer of gynecological origin) were retreated by a total of 611cycles of carboplatin administered as monotherapy (210cycles) or combination regime (401cycles). HSRs were recorded in only 11cycles (1.8%) in a total of 11 patients. While 8 of these patients had grade 1or 2 reactions (8.1%), only 3 patients had grade 3 reactions (3%). After pause in the infusion and complete resolution of HSR symptoms, an attempt of retreatment using this infusion protocol with extra premedication was successful in 6 of these patients without any reoccurrence of HSRs.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective study, we report that prophylactic 3-hour graduated infusion rate with appropriate premedication is associated with low frequency of HSRs in gynecological cancer patients requiring carboplatin retreatment in second line or above.

Risk Factors of Hypersensitivity to Carboplatin in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies

We evaluated the prevalence of and risk factors for hypersensitivity reactions related to carboplatin, which is commonly used to treat gynecological malignancies. All women with pathologically documented ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treated with carboplatin alone or a carboplatin-based combination chemotherapy regimen at a single hospital between January 2006 and December 2013 were retrospectively recruited. We analyzed the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, management, and outcomes of carboplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions among these patients. Among 735 eligible women, 75 (10.2%) experienced a total of 215 carboplatin-related hypersensitivity reaction events. The annual incidence of carboplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions gradually increased from 0.88% in 2006 to 5.42% in 2013. The incidence of carboplatin-related hypersensitivity was higher in patients with advanced stage disease (P < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test), serous and mixed histological types (P = 0.003, Kruskal-Wallis test), malignant ascites (P = 0.009, chi-square test), and history of other drug allergy (P < 0.001, chi-square test). Compared to women without hypersensitivity reactions, women who experienced hypersensitivity reactions had a significantly greater median cycle number (12 vs. 6, P < 0.001, independent sample t-test) and dose (6,816 vs. 3,844 mg, P < 0.001, independent sample t-test). The cumulative incidence of carboplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions dramatically increased with >8 cycles or dose >3,500 mg. Therefore, disease severity, histological type, malignant ascites, past drug allergies, and cumulative carboplatin dose are risk factors for carboplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions. Such reactions could potentially be reduced or prevented by slowing the infusion rate and using a desensitization protocol involving anti-allergy medications.

Hypersensitivity to Carboplatin in Children with Malignancy

Purpose: Carboplatin-based regimens have proven efficacy in children with cancer. However, the development of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) may have a negative impact on treatment intensity and patients’ outcome. The aim of this review is to summarize the incidence and the clinical features of HSRs occurring in children with cancer treated with carboplatin and their impact on treatment efficacy.

Methods: Data were collected by searching for relevant studies on the incidence, clinical features and management of possible side effects about the use of carboplatin in children, published from March 1987 to October 2016 in the PubMed database.

Results: Carboplatin HSRs present with mild/moderate to severe clinical patterns. The risk of HSR is related to the cumulative number of infusions. Moreover, a greater risk of developing an HSR has been observed in younger patients than in older age groups of children; risk is also greater in girls and in patients with a prior history of allergy to other drugs. Management options include cessation of carboplatin and switching to another agent, premedication with antihistamines and/or corticosteroids, and carboplatin desensitization. For sensitized patients who have obtained benefits from carboplatin, the continuation of the treatment is desirable and desensitization protocols have showed promising results.

Conclusion: Clinicians must not underestimate the potential risk and occurrence of carboplatin HSRs in the pediatric population in order to outline adequate management strategies. Desensitization protocols should be considered for patients sensitive to carboplatin in order to avoid having to discontinue an effective chemotherapy.

Outpatient desensitization in selected patients with platinum hypersensitivity reactions

Platinum-based chemotherapies are a standard treatment for both initial and recurrent gynecologic cancers. Given this widespread use, it is important to be aware of the features of platinum hypersensitivity reactions and the subsequent treatment of these reactions. There is also increasing interest in the development of desensitization protocols to allow patients with a history of platinum hypersensitivity to receive further platinum based therapy. In this review, we describe the management of platinum hypersensitivity reactions and the desensitization protocols utilized at our institution. We also describe the clinical categorizations utilized to triage patients to appropriate desensitization protocols.

Incidence of and risk factors associated with nedaplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

Nedaplatin (NDP)-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) trigger adverse clinical events. Prediction and prevention of NDP-HSRs are thus essential to minimize the risk and maximize the benefit of NDP therapy. However, the incidence of NDP-HSRs and the associated risk factors remain unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined patients who received NDP monotherapy between April 2011 and July 2015 in Nagoya University Hospital. HSRs severity was defined according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 (CTCAE ver.4). Risk factors for NDP-HSRs were determined using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 111 patients who received NDP monotherapy, 90 (81%) were female; median age was 59 years (range, 29-78 years). Eighty-eight patients had gynecological cancer and 20 suffered from head and neck cancer. Eight of 111 patients (7.2%) experienced NDP-HSRs, six of which developed in the second NDP cycle. However, all patients with NDP-HSRs were treated with carboplatin (CBDCA) for more than three cycles. Grade 3 and 4 HSRs developed in 2 patients. NDP-HSRs were significantly associated with a history of CBDCA-HSRs (odds ratio 37.5, 95% confidence interval 5.38-262, p < 0.001) and with the interval between NDP administration and the previous platinum treatment (odds ratio 13.9, 95% confidence interval 1.23-158, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

The risk of NDP-HSRs increases in patients with a history of CBDCA-HSRs and in those administered NDP for more than 6 months after previous platinum treatment. Such individuals must be closely monitored if given NDP, even if they are expected to benefit from the treatment.

Adjunct Histamine Blockers as Premedications to Prevent Carboplatin Hypersensitivity Reactions

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of premedications given as an adjunct to carboplatin on the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions in women with ovarian cancer. Medications of interest include a histamine1 (H1 ) and histamine2 (H2 ) blocker in addition to dexamethasone.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review evaluating the addition of an H1 and H2 blocker in addition to dexamethasone as standard premedications on the incidence of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (CHRs) in women with ovarian cancer.

MAIN RESULTS

The odds ratio for premedication use was 0.46 with a 95% confidence interval (0.17-1.27), suggesting that patients with premedication use had approximately half the risk of CHR compared with patients without premedication. The overall incidence of CHRs decreased from 7.9% at baseline to 3.2% after the addition of premedications. The incidence of CHRs was 5.2% in 58 patients with recurrent or progressive disease compared with 2.1% in 96 newly diagnosed patients. Lifetime dose greater than 3377 mg, number of cycles more than six, and progressive or recurrent disease were predictive factors of CHR in women with ovarian cancer.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

Total lifetime exposure to carboplatin remains the greatest predictive factor of CHR in women with ovarian cancer. Although data analysis indicates the addition of premedications for all ovarian cancer patients receiving carboplatin did not result in a statistically significant reduction in CHRs, a patient benefit in CHR reduction was observed. A prospective study is needed to confirm these findings.

Anaphylaxis to chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies

Hypersensitivity reactions are increasingly prevalent, although underrecognized and underreported. Platins induce immunoglobulin E-mediated sensitization; taxenes and some monoclonal antibodies can induce reactions at first exposure. Severe hypersensitivity can preclude first-line therapy. Tryptase level at the time of a reaction is a useful diagnostic tool. Skin testing provides a specific diagnosis. Newer tests are promising diagnostic tools to help identify patients at risk before first exposure. Safe management includes rapid drug desensitization. This review provides information regarding the scope of hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions induced by chemotherapy and biological drugs, as well as diagnosis, management, and treatment options.

Oxaliplatin is a safe alternative option for patients with recurrent gynecologic cancers after hypersensitivity reaction to Carboplatin

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the tolerability and efficacy of oxaliplatin in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies after carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions in comparison with conventionally used cisplatin.

METHODS

Forty-six patients were treated with platinum-based chemotherapy from 2006 to 2011 and developed hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin. Oxaliplatin was administered to 27 patients; 19 patients received cisplatin. Clinicopathologic variables, toxicity, and time-to-failure were analyzed retrospectively using descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and independent sample permutation t tests.

RESULTS

The median number of carboplatin cycles and cumulative dose before reaction were similar in the oxaliplatin and cisplatin groups, respectively (6 vs 7.5 cycles, P = 0.93; 980 [662] mg vs 686 [579.6] mg, P = 0.49). Non-life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction to oxaliplatin developed in 2 of 27 patients. No reactions to cisplatin occurred. The median number of oxaliplatin/cisplatin cycles was 6 in both groups. Complete response to therapy was 34.6% (oxaliplatin) and 31.6% (cisplatin); stable disease was seen in 50.0% and 36.8% of oxaliplatin- and cisplatin-treated patients, respectively (P = 0.46). Exposure to oxaliplatin resulted in less neurotoxicity than cisplatin (25.9% vs 68.4%, P = 0.01). The median number of prior chemotherapy lines in both groups was 2. The median time-to-failure was 10.8 months in oxaliplatin group and 9.8 months in cisplatin group (P = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage therapy with oxaliplatin after hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin is associated with excellent tolerability and time-to-failure comparable to cisplatin. When further administration of carboplatin is precluded, oxaliplatin represents a safe and effective treatment strategy in the platinum-sensitive relapse setting. The significantly lower neurotoxicity profile makes it an attractive alternative to cisplatin.

Synthesis and dual histamine H₁ and H₂ receptor antagonist activity of cyanoguanidine derivatives

Premedication with a combination of histamine H₁ receptor (H₁R) and H₂ receptor (H₂R) antagonists has been suggested as a prophylactic principle, for instance, in anaesthesia and surgery. Aiming at pharmacological hybrids combining H₁R and H₂R antagonistic activity, a series of cyanoguanidines 14-35 was synthesized by linking mepyramine-type H₁R antagonist substructures with roxatidine-, tiotidine-, or ranitidine-type H₂R antagonist moieties. N-desmethylmepyramine was connected via a poly-methylene spacer to a cyanoguanidine group as the "urea equivalent" of the H₂R antagonist moiety. The title compounds were screened for histamine antagonistic activity at the isolated ileum (H₁R) and the isolated spontaneously beating right atrium (H₂R) of the guinea pig. The results indicate that, depending on the nature of the H₂R antagonist partial structure, the highest H₁R antagonist potency resided in roxatidine-type compounds with spacers of six methylene groups in length (compound 21), and tiotidine-type compounds irrespective of the alkyl chain length (compounds 28, 32, 33), N-cyano-N'-[2-[[(2-guanidino-4-thiazolyl)methyl]thio]ethyl]-N″-[2-[N-[2-[N-(4-methoxybenzyl)-N-(pyridyl)-amino] ethyl]-N-methylamino]ethyl] guanidine (25, pKB values: 8.05 (H₁R, ileum) and 7.73 (H₂R, atrium) and the homologue with the mepyramine moiety connected by a six-membered chain to the tiotidine-like partial structure (compound 32, pKB values: 8.61 (H₁R) and 6.61 (H₂R) were among the most potent hybrid compounds. With respect to the development of a potential pharmacotherapeutic agent, structural optimization seems possible through selection of other H₁R and H₂R pharmacophoric moieties with mutually affinity-enhancing properties.

Hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin and cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment has changed in the past ten years due to the acceptance of platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy. In the event of relapse, patients are often retreated with platinum agents. Hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin are well documented among gynecologic oncology patients. Now that adjuvant chemotherapy is a component of NSCLC treatment, platinum hypersensitivity is also a concern in the lung cancer population. A 74-year-old male developed relapsed NSCLC two years after a lobectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy including carboplatin. He was treated with a carboplatin containing regimen, and experienced hypersensitivity during his 2(nd) cycle (post-relapse). We briefly report four additional cases of platinum sensitivity in NSCLC patients, to highlight the increasing likelihood of platinum hypersensitivity in this "at risk" group. Hypersensitivity reactions to platinum chemotherapeutics occur in NSCLC patients, and patients and treating medical staff should be aware of this serious, treatment-related complication.

Review of hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents

OBJECTIVE

To review the characteristics and management of hypersensitivity reactions caused by antineoplastic agents.

METHOD

We conducted a search in the Pubmed and EMBASE databases for the last 10 years.

RESULTS

Almost all chemotherapeutic agents have the potential to cause hypersensitivity reactions, but some groups have been associated with increased risk, such as platinum compounds, taxanes, asparaginase, monoclonal antibodies and epipodophyllotoxins. The clinical manifestations of these reactions are variable and unpredictable, including symptoms affecting the skin and the pulmonary, cardiac and gastrointestinal systems. The mechanism associated with their development is not yet fully understood. Diagnosis is based on patients' signs and symptoms and skin testing. The management of patients who suffer a hypersensitivity reaction to a chemotherapeutic agent varies with the severity of the reaction, the need to continue treatment, and the availability of alternative therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to a progressive increase in the use of chemotherapeutic agents an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions is to be expected. Desensitisation protocols are a noteworthy alternative that make it possible to re-initiate patients' therapy with the causative agent of the hypersensitivity reaction. Their use should be assessed individually, weighing risks and benefits.

Oncologic emergencies: Pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, and treatment

Oncologic emergencies can occur at any time during the course of a malignancy, from the presenting symptom to end-stage disease. Although some of these conditions are related to cancer therapy, they are by no means confined to the period of initial diagnosis and active treatment. In the setting of recurrent malignancy, these events can occur years after the surveillance of a cancer patient has been appropriately transferred from a medical oncologist to a primary care provider. As such, awareness of a patient's cancer history and its possible complications forms an important part of any clinician's knowledge base. Prompt identification of and intervention in these emergencies can prolong survival and improve quality of life, even in the setting of terminal illness. This article reviews hypercalcemia, hyponatremia, hypoglycemia, tumor lysis syndrome, cardiac tamponade, superior vena cava syndrome, neutropenic fever, spinal cord compression, increased intracranial pressure, seizures, hyperviscosity syndrome, leukostasis, and airway obstruction in patients with malignancies. Chemotherapeutic emergencies are also addressed.

Desensitization regimens for drug allergy: state of the art in the 21st century

Adverse reactions to drugs are increasingly being recognized as important contributions to disease in their own right as well as impediments to the best treatment of various conditions, including infectious, autoimmune, and neoplastic maladies. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) is an effective mechanism for safely administering important medications while minimizing or entirely circumventing such adverse reactions in sensitized patients. We reviewed the literature on RDD in the last 10 years, including our experience from the Brigham and Women's Hospital Desensitization Program with hundreds of patients desensitized to a broad variety of drugs. RDD in our programme has been uniformly successful in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, chemotherapeutics, and monoclonal antibodies. Any reactions that occur during desensitization are generally much less severe than the initial hypersensitivity reaction to the drug, and patients have received the full dose of the desired medication 99.9% of the time out of (796) desensitizations. To date, there have been no fatalities. RDD is a safe and highly effective method for treating sensitized patients with the optimal pharmacologic agents. Its use should be expanded, but because patient safety is paramount, protocols must be created, reviewed, and overseen by allergist-immunologists with special training and experience in modern techniques of desensitization.

Possible anaphylaxis to palonoestron

Anaphylaxis related to drug therapy with 5-HT3 antagonists, in particular, palonosetron has not been reported frequently in the literature. Here a case is presented where the patient possibly had an anaphylactic reaction to palonosetron. In this case report, a 40-year-old female with ovarian cancer developed shortness of breath and hypotension after receiving her palonosetron as part of her premedication for chemotherapy. The patient recovered successfully with fluids and supportive care. This case demonstrates that even after successful treatment in the past with palonosetron a patient may later develop a hypersensitivity to the agent.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with prolonged primary treatment intervals in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) relative to primary surgery (PS) to determine if there was a difference in the total time and number of chemotherapy cycles given in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We identified 263 consecutive women meeting eligibility from 1993 to 2005 for this institutional review board-approved study. Eligible patients in this analysis were those women with advanced disease (stage IIIC-IV) in whom a maximal cytoreductive effort was planned either at PS or after NC. Time to start chemotherapy was defined as follows: (1) NC group: confirmation of diagnosis through biopsy, cytological diagnosis from ascites, and pleural effusion; (2) PS group: confirmation of diagnosis from the date of surgery that confirmed the diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer. Total chemotherapy cycles: (1) NC group: NC chemotherapy cycles plus postoperative cycles; (2) PS group: chemotherapy after primary tumor debulking surgery. Clinical information evaluated included chemotherapy type, chemotherapy cycle number, total time to administer frontline chemotherapy, and survival.

RESULTS

Median chemotherapy cycles were greater in the NC group compared with the PS group (9 [range, 4-30] vs 6 [range, 3-19]; P < 0.01). The PS group was also more likely to undergo chemotherapy regimens involving platinum and taxane treatment compared with the NC group (79% vs 65%; P = 0.017). Total time undergoing primary chemotherapy from initial diagnosis was greater in the NC group compared with PS (223 vs 151 days; P < 0.01). No significant difference was observed in overall survival and progression-free survival in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, NC followed by abdominal hysterectomy is associated with improved perioperative outcomes including optimal cytoreduction, decreased blood loss, and decreased inpatient hospitalization. In this cohort, NC was also associated with prolonged chemotherapy treatment intervals and increased chemotherapy cycles without improvement in survival.

Usefulness of desensitization protocol for a carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction during docetaxel-carboplatin therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: Case report

We report a case of recurrent ovarian cancer in which desensitization for a carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction proved useful. The patient was a 65-year-old woman who presented with a recurrence of stage IIIc ovarian cancer. The initial chemotherapy consisted of 6 courses of paclitaxel and carboplatin. Recurrence in the pelvis, splenic hilum and para-aortic lymph nodes was detected 19 months after the final day of treatment. The patient was treated with docetaxel-carboplatin therapy for the recurrence, but a Grade 3 hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin was observed during the second course. Carboplatin desensitization was commenced with the third course and 6 courses were completed with no evidence of hypersensitivity reaction. The antitumor effect showed a complete response and the patient has had a disease-free survival thus far. Desensitization for patients diagnosed with a carboplatin hypersensitivity reaction appeared to be a key method of treatment for prolonging the survival time of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Hypersensitivity reactions associated with platinum antineoplastic agents: a systematic review

Platinum-containing chemotherapy agents (cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin) have been approved in the first-line setting of numerous malignancies, such as ovarian, bladder, head and neck, colorectal, and lung cancer. Their extensive use over the last decade has led to a significant increase in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, which are defined as unforeseen reactions whose signs and symptoms cannot be explained by the known toxicity of these drugs. Skin rash, flushing, abdominal cramping, itchy palms, and back pain are common symptoms. Cardiovascular and respiratory complications can prove fatal. Multiple pathogenetic mechanisms have been suggested. Hypersensitivity usually appears after multiple infusions, suggesting type I allergic reactions; however, other types of hypersensitivity also seem to be implicated. Several management options are available to treating physicians: discontinuation of chemotherapy, premedication, prolonging of infusion duration, desensitization protocols, and replacement with a different platinum compound after performing skin tests that rule out cross-reactions among platinum agents.