Stevens-Johnson syndrome associated with topical nitrogen mustard therapy

Interventions for mycosis fungoides

BACKGROUND

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a malignant, chronic disease initially affecting the skin. Several therapies are available, which may induce clinical remission for a time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012: we wanted to assess new trials, some of which investigated new interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for MF in all stages of the disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched 2 trials registries for additional references. For adverse event outcomes, we undertook separate searches in MEDLINE in April, July and November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of local or systemic interventions for MF in adults with any stage of the disease compared with either another local or systemic intervention or with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were improvement in health-related quality of life as defined by participants, and common adverse effects of the treatments. Key secondary outcomes were complete response (CR), defined as complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease, and objective response rate (ORR), defined as proportion of patients with a partial or complete response. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence and considered comparisons of psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA) light treatment as most important because this is first-line treatment for MF in most guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 20 RCTs (1369 participants) covering a wide range of interventions. The following were assessed as either treatments or comparators: imiquimod, peldesine, hypericin, mechlorethamine, nitrogen mustard and intralesional injections of interferon-α (IFN-α) (topical applications); PUVA, extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP: photochemotherapy), and visible light (light applications); acitretin, bexarotene, lenalidomide, methotrexate and vorinostat (oral agents); brentuximab vedotin; denileukin diftitox; mogamulizumab; chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, and vincristine; a combination of chemotherapy with electron beam radiation; subcutaneous injection of IFN-α; and intramuscular injections of active transfer factor (parenteral systemics). Thirteen trials used an active comparator, five were placebo-controlled, and two compared an active operator to observation only. In 14 trials, participants had MF in clinical stages IA to IIB. All participants were treated in secondary and tertiary care settings, mainly in Europe, North America or Australia. Trials recruited both men and women, with more male participants overall. Trial duration varied from four weeks to 12 months, with one longer-term study lasting more than six years. We judged 16 trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly performance bias (blinding of participants and investigators), attrition bias and reporting bias. None of our key comparisons measured quality of life, and the two studies that did presented no usable data. Eighteen studies reported common adverse effects of the treatments. Adverse effects ranged from mild symptoms to lethal complications depending upon the treatment type. More aggressive treatments like systemic chemotherapy generally resulted in more severe adverse effects. In the included studies, CR rates ranged from 0% to 83% (median 31%), and ORR ranged from 0% to 88% (median 47%). Five trials assessed PUVA treatment, alone or combined, summarised below. There may be little to no difference between intralesional IFN-α and PUVA compared with PUVA alone for 24 to 52 weeks in CR (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.31; 2 trials; 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). Common adverse events and ORR were not measured. One small cross-over trial found once-monthly ECP for six months may be less effective than twice-weekly PUVA for three months, reporting CR in two of eight participants and ORR in six of eight participants after PUVA, compared with no CR or ORR after ECP (very low-certainty evidence). Some participants reported mild nausea after PUVA but no numerical data were given. One participant in the ECP group withdrew due to hypotension. However, we are unsure of the results due to very low-certainty evidence. One trial comparing bexarotene plus PUVA versus PUVA alone for up to 16 weeks reported one case of photosensitivity in the bexarotene plus PUVA group compared to none in the PUVA-alone group (87 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between bexarotene plus PUVA and PUVA alone in CR (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.80) and ORR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.44) (93 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial comparing subcutaneous IFN-α injections combined with either acitretin or PUVA for up to 48 weeks or until CR indicated there may be little to no difference in the common IFN-α adverse effect of flu-like symptoms (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.88; 82 participants). There may be lower CR with IFN-α and acitretin compared with IFN-α and PUVA (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84; 82 participants) (both outcomes: low-certainty evidence). This trial did not measure ORR. One trial comparing PUVA maintenance treatment to no maintenance treatment, in participants who had already had CR, did report common adverse effects. However, the distribution was not evaluable. CR and OR were not assessable. The range of treatment options meant that rare adverse effects consequently occurred in a variety of organs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

​​There is a lack of high-certainty evidence to support decision making in the treatment of MF. Because of substantial heterogeneity in design, missing data, small sample sizes, and low methodological quality, the comparative safety and efficacy of these interventions cannot be reliably established on the basis of the included RCTs. PUVA is commonly recommended as first-line treatment for MF, and we did not find evidence to challenge this recommendation. There was an absence of evidence to support the use of intralesional IFN-α or bexarotene in people receiving PUVA and an absence of evidence to support the use of acitretin or ECP for treating MF. Future trials should compare the safety and efficacy of treatments to PUVA, as the current standard of care, and should measure quality of life and common adverse effects.

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.

Anticancer Drugs Induced Severe Adverse Cutaneous Drug Reactions: An Updated Review on the Risks Associated with Anticancer Targeted Therapy or Immunotherapies

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions are commonly seen in patients with anticancer drug treatment. Anticancer drugs, including chemotherapy, target therapy, and recent immunotherapy causing skin reactions ranging from mild skin rash to life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrosis (TEN) with increase morbidity and mortality while they are receiving cancer treatments, have been proposed to be a result of direct skin toxicity or drug hypersensitivity reactions (these are proposed mechanism, not definite). Differentiating SCARs from other more commonly seen reactions with a better outcome help prevent discontinuation of therapy and inappropriate use of systemic immunosuppressants for presumable allergic reactions, of which will affect the clinical outcome. In this article, we have reviewed published articles from 1950 to August 2017 for SJS/TEN associated with anticancer drugs, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. We aimed to provide an overview of SJS/TEN associated with anticancer drugs to increase clinician recognition and accelerate future studies on the pathomechanism and managements.

Life-threatening dermatologic adverse events in oncology

The incidences of life-threatening toxicities such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are inconsistently reported. The potential association of anticancer agents with SJS or TEN has not been systematically investigated. We searched the literature (Ovid: 1950 to June 2013 and PubMed: 1948 to June 2013) using terms for SJS/TEN and anticancer therapies. Primary case reports, case series, and clinical trials were included. In addition, MedWatch, the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), was searched (1968 to August 2012) for SJS/TEN reports associated with anticancer therapies. Proportional reporting ratios (PRR>2, N>3), empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM>2, N>3), and lower 95% confidence interval (EBGM0.05>2) were used as thresholds to constitute a signal of association between SJS/TEN and anticancer drugs. There were 46 SJS and 37 TEN cases associated with 18 and 22 anticancer drugs in the literature, respectively. Among cases in the FAERS, significant signals were associated with SJS for bendamustine and with TEN for bendamustine, busulfan, chlorambucil, fludarabine, lomustine, and procarbazine. Several drugs reported in the published literature to be associated with SJS/TEN were not found to have significant signals in FAERS. Proactive pharmacovigilance to detect and define safety signals serves to aid oncology practitioners in the recognition of possible, yet uncommon, serious, and/or life-threatening skin reactions.

Anaphylaxis and toxic epidermal necrolysis or Stevens-Johnson syndrome after nonmucosal topical drug application: fact or fiction?

BACKGROUND

Drug-induced anaphylaxis and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) or Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) represent severe immediate and delayed-type adverse drug reactions (ADRs), respectively. Occurrence of such reactions after topical drug application has only rarely been reported. Hence, we compiled a large number of such cases which we systematically analyzed.

METHODS

All such cases contained in the ADR database of the competent pharmacovigilance authority in Germany and cases reported in literature were identified, evaluated and analyzed with regard to potential risk factors. Since the application of drugs to mucous membranes facilitates their entry to the systemic circulation only cases occurring after non-mucosal topical drug application were considered.

RESULTS

After evaluation 28 anaphylaxis database cases and 48 anaphylaxis literature cases remained for analysis. Application to skin wounds or to skin with impaired barrier function was identified as a risk factor in 10/28 (36%) of the database cases and in 42/48 (88%) of the literature cases. In 9/28 database cases (32%), anaphylaxis was induced by drugs used for their hyperemizing effect and, in 8/28 cases (29%) by antibiotics or antiseptics. In the literature cases, anaphylaxis was induced by antibiotics or antiseptics in 35/48 cases (73%). Only one SJS database case and one TEN literature case remained after case evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylaxis does occur after non-mucosal topical drug administration. Application of drugs to skin wounds or to skin with impaired barrier function may pose a risk factor for its occurrence. TEN or SJS following non-mucosal topical drug application seems to be extremely rare.

Assessment and management of cutaneous reactions with amifostine administration: Findings of the ethyol (amifostine) cutaneous treatment advisory panel (ECTAP)

PURPOSE

To review reports of severe skin reactions during amifostine treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

The expert panel reviewed postmarketing reports of skin reactions and discussed strategies for evaluation and management.

RESULTS

Between 1994 and April 2002, 35 events were classified as severe skin reactions worldwide: erythema multiforme (8), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (10), toxic epidermal necrolysis (11), toxicoderma (3), and bullae (3). Unadjusted incidences were 6-9 per 10,000 radiotherapy patients and 0.8-1 per 10,000 chemotherapy patients. In 10 patients (29%) amifostine was continued after cutaneous signs and symptoms appeared.

CONCLUSIONS

Practical recommendations for practicing clinicians were developed. Cutaneous evaluation for rash, ulceration, or lesions-particularly on lips/mucosa, palmar/plantar surfaces, and the trunk-should be performed before amifostine administration. Reactions can be classified as local injection site/radiation port reactions or non-injection site reactions; and non-injection site reactions with associated fever or constitutional symptoms must be differentiated from radiation-induced dermatitis or cutaneous reaction with another etiology. Amifostine should be permanently discontinued for severe skin reactions or reactions associated with constitutional symptoms not known to be due to any other etiology. Increased physician awareness, proper patient management, monitoring before administration, and early intervention/discontinuation for non-injection site reactions may reduce the incidence of cutaneous reactions and enhance amifostine safety.

Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis in immunocompetent and immunocompromised hosts

A case of primary cutaneous cryptococcal infection is presented and cases of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis in normal and immunocompromised hosts are reviewed. Cutaneous cryptococcosis can occur from local inoculation or dissemination from a distant site of infection. Risk factors associated with development of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis are those which affect cell-mediated immunity, such as corticosteroid usage, solid organ transplantation, sarcoidosis and immunosuppression. The cutaneous manifestations of cryptococcosis are protean and may mimic other cutaneous diseases. Patients with a diagnosis of cryptococcosis from a skin biopsy or culture should undergo evaluation to exclude disseminated disease and an evaluation of cell-mediated immunity. Although some patients do well without antifungal therapy, these patients cannot be discerned prospectively and therefore antifungal therapy appears warranted in all patients with localized disease. Choice of therapy depends on the extent of disease and immunocompetence of the host.

Evaluation of a 1-h exposure time to mechlorethamine in patients undergoing topical treatment

BACKGROUND

Mechlorethamine is frequently used in the treatment of cutaneous lymphoma, but its application is limited in 30-80% of cases because of cutaneous intolerance. Reducing the concentration to avoid this side-effect has been only modestly successful.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether a shorter application period could reduce the frequency of intolerance.

METHODS

In an open prospective study in 39 patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or parapsoriasis, mechlorethamine was applied according to the usual practices of the participating physicians (number of weekly applications, treatment confined to lesions or performed over the entire body) and then washed off after 1 h in all cases.

RESULTS

Cutaneous intolerance was observed in 19 of 39 patients (49%). Six of these patients showed allergic contact dermatitis to mechlorethamine after a mean period of 9.3 weeks, while the other 13 developed irritant contact dermatitis after a longer period. Cutaneous intolerance did not differ significantly according to the number of applications per week or the extent of body area treated. The therapeutic response rate was 69%, and no difference in therapeutic efficacy was noted between daily and intermittent applications.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison with published studies showed no significant difference in the number of cases of cutaneous intolerance after short-term application, although their occurrence was delayed. Therapeutic response was decreased appreciably by short-term application as compared with results in the literature.

Practical evaluation and management of cutaneous lymphoma

Accurate evaluation of patients with suspected or known cutaneous lymphoma requires the integration of many sources and types of information, including clinical evaluation, microscopic analysis of tissue, immunophenotyping, gene rearrangement studies, clinical staging, and longitudinal observation. Diagnoses should be based on knowledge of specific lymphoma types as described in modern classification systems. Management of patients with cutaneous lymphoma requires collaboration among dermatologists, dermatopathologists, hematopathologists, and medical, surgical and radiation oncologists. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;46:325-57.)

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

At the conclusion of this learning activity, participants should better understand how to evaluate and manage patients for suspected or established lymphoma of the skin. Components include the clinical history and physical examination, optimal biopsy and tissue handling, interpretation of pathology and adjunctive test results, clinicopathologic correlation, and therapy. Participants should also understand the basis for establishing a specific diagnosis of cutaneous lymphoma based on current classification and staging.

Mucocutaneous reactions to chemotherapy

Chemotherapeutic agents are a widely used treatment modality. Side effects range from common to unusual and may be confused with other cutaneous sequelae of oncologic treatment. The goal of this communication is to elaborate on previous descriptions of the cutaneous manifestations of chemotherapeutic treatment and to discuss more recent findings.

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

At the conclusion of this learning activity, participants should be able to generate a differential diagnosis of possible etiologies for varying patterns of cutaneous involvement in patients receiving chemotherapy and identify the various cutaneous side effects of chemotherapeutic treatment. In addition, they should be able to distinguish life-threatening side effects that require immediate management from more benign manifestations of chemotherapeutic treatment.