Severe ocular irritation and corneal deposits associated with capecitabine use

Ocular side effects of oncological therapies: Review

With the advance of cancer therapy in recent years, the knowledge of the mechanisms involved in this disease has increased, which has meant an increase in the quality of life and survival of patients with tumor pathologies previously considered incurable or refractory to treatment. The number of drugs used has increased exponentially in number, and although the implicit toxicity is lower than that of conventional antineoplastic therapy, they lead to the appearance of new associated adverse effects that the ophthalmologist must recognize and manage.

Ocular complications of antineoplastic therapies

Ocular complications of antineoplastic agents can have a profound effect on the quality of life of cancer patients. New oncologic treatments like monoclonal antibodies, immunotherapies, antibody-drug conjugates, checkpoint inhibitors and growth factor receptors have resulted in increased ocular complications. These ocular complications differs in respect to distinct mechanisms of actions and lead to significant challenges in the management of cancer patients. In this review, we reviewed literature, clinical studies and cases detailing ocular complications due to administration of antineoplastic agents and emphasized the need for communication between oncologists and ophthalmologists toward early detection and management of ocular complications.

Ocular adverse effects of anti-cancer chemotherapy

Cancer ranks as the second leading cause of mortality in Europe, following cardiovascular diseases. Every year, 2.6 million people are diagnosed with this disease, and 1.2 million die. It has an impact not only on individual health but also on society and the economy. The survival rate has improved with the introduction of new diagnostic methods and anti-cancer chemotherapy. While more aggressive chemotherapeutic regimens and combination therapies have demonstrated efficacy against cancer cells, they also have detrimental effects on normal cells, leading to systemic and ocular adverse reactions associated with cytotoxicity, inflammation, and neurotoxicity. Consequently, we have an increased survival rate, but the appearance of these ocular adverse effects decreases the quality of life. Ocular toxicity induced by chemotherapeutic agents is often underestimated. While prevention may not be possible, proper management by an ophthalmologist, an integral part of the oncology patient's medical team, is crucial. The ophthalmologist should assess the patient before initiating chemotherapeutic treatment and continue monitoring throughout to identify any adverse ocular reactions resulting from the systemic chemotherapy. This article aimed to briefly highlight the adverse reactions occurring at the ocular surface in patients undergoing chemotherapeutic treatment. Fortunately, these ocular side effects are limited only to the period in which the chemotherapeutic treatment is done, with most of them disappearing a few weeks after stopping the treatment.

Case Report: Vision Loss Induced by Capecitabine in Patient with Preexisting Left Eyes Blind

Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine carbamate antineoplastic agent, widely used to treat different tumor types. Eye toxicity is not well established with this type of drug. Here, we report the case of a 57-year-old man with a low rectal cancer whose vision decreased 3 weeks after starting a daily treatment of capecitabine and radiotherapy. After eliminating all other diagnoses, toxicity of antineoplastic agents remains the most likely hypothesis, making it the first case of vision loss induced by this capecitabine.

Conjunctivitis associated with capecitabine treatment in a patient with colon cancer: The importance on educating patients into identifying adverse reactions

Introduction

Conjunctivitis is an inflammation of the conjunctiva, a thin translucent mucous membrane, characterized by a dilatation of the conjunctival vessels. Causes leading to conjunctivitis are diverse, being drug related one of them.

Case report

We report a case of an 80-year-old man with a diagnosis of relapsed stage IV colon cancer who developed a severe conjunctivitis, scar ectropion with lack of tissue and eversion of the subconjunctival conjunctiva after being treated with capecitabine.

Management and outcome

Capecitabine was discontinued and pharmacological treatment was initiated with a complete resolution of the symptoms.

Discussion

Ocular toxicity derived from the use of systemic fluorouracil has been widely described in the literature, as well as the relationship between the use of capecitabine and the appearance of conjunctivitis. However, the development of severe conjunctivitis with other complications has not been previously reported. Monitor patients closely and perform full medication assessment should be undertaken when a patient reports visual changes to manage toxicity in the early stages. Following the patient evaluation and evolution and based on the Karch Lasanga algorithm modified by Naranjo, the adverse reaction is considered as probable.

Dose dependent slurred speech and laryngopharyngeal dysesthesia due to oxaliplatin

INTRODUCTION

Oxaliplatin is a platinum containing alkylating agent commonly used in the management of colorectal cancers. The most common dose-limiting toxicity of oxaliplatin is peripheral neuropathy, which can be severe enough to cause treatment discontinuation. We present a case of dysarthria and laryngopharyngeal dysesthesia (LPD) that developed during the first dose of oxaliplatin, which showed dose-dependent reduction in severity in subsequent cycles.

CASE REPORT

A 52-year-old female patient with adenocarcinoma of rectum (pT4N2M0) was prescribed oxaliplatin (130 mg/m²) and capecitabine(2000mg/m²). She developed heaviness in the tongue, slurred speech, jaw pain, perioral paresthesia within 30 min after the end of 3 h infusion of oxaliplatin in the first cycle. The symptoms subsided without any sequelae in two days. However, in the subsequent cycles as the dose of the oxaliplatin was reduced, similar symptoms reappeared but were of reduced in severity. No dysesthesia symptoms were observed in the 4th cycle when the oxaliplatin was administered at 85 mg/m².

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

As and when the patient developed symptoms - slurred speech, jaw pain during the first three cycles, she was managed with inj. Hydrocortisone (100 mg i.v.) and one ampoule of pheniramine (45 mg i.v.).

DISCUSSION

Occurrence of laryngopharyngeal dysesthesia due to oxaliplatin does not warrant drug withdrawal, dose titration can be helpful, thereby preventing the drug withdrawal for the patient management.

Treatment of Capecitabine Corneal Side Effects With Autologous Blood-derived Serum Eye Drops

BACKGROUND/AIM

To describe the clinical progress and management of ocular side effects in a 35-year-old patient with metastatic breast cancer who underwent oral chemotherapy with capecitabine and lapatinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Slit lamp evaluation revealed bilateral perikeratic hyperemia, perilimbal conjunctival edema associated with corneal marginal infiltrates and epithelial and anterior stromal defects in both eyes. Slit lamp examination, in vivo confocal microscopy and anterior-segment optical coherence tomography were highly suggestive for limbal stem cell deficiency. The decision to administer autologous blood- derived serum eye drops was made.

RESULTS

Following administration of autologous blood-derived serum eye drops, corneal marginal infiltrates, epithelial and stromal defects significantly regressed in both eyes after only 10 days. Chemotherapy was resumed and serum eye drops were prescribed simultaneously.

CONCLUSION

Autologous blood-derived serum eye drops may be an adequate therapeutic choice for bilateral corneal lesions detected as ocular side effects of capecitabine.

Overview of Ocular Side Effects of Selinexor

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to elucidate the type and frequency of ocular adverse events associated with selinexor with a goal to quantify the occurrence of these events in our investigator-initiated trial.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 174 patients treated with at least one dose of selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents between July 2015 and July 2020 at a comprehensive cancer center in the U.S. All reported ocular adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patient medical records were reviewed. All patients received at least one dose of selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents in our cohort of patients with advanced malignancies. A total of 34 (19.54%) patients experienced 37 ocular adverse events. The most frequently reported ocular symptom was blurred vision, which was reported in 22 (12.64%) patients. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event was dry eye syndrome reported in 21 (12.1%) patients, and 19 (10.9%) of them were diagnosed with mild dry eye. The second most common treatment-related adverse event was the progression of age-related nuclear sclerosis (cataract) reported in 7 (4.0%) patients. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight that ocular adverse events associated with oral selinexor were mild. The most frequently reported ocular treatment-related adverse events were mild dry eye and progression of age-related nuclear sclerosis. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patients receiving selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents were reviewed, with a total of 34 patients experiencing 37 ocular adverse events. Findings highlight that ocular adverse events associated with oral selinexor were mild. The most frequently reported ocular treatment-related adverse events were mild dry eye and progression of age-related nuclear sclerosis. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation.

The impact of anticancer drugs on the ocular surface

Cancer is a global health problem and is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Pleasingly, the rate of survival has improved and continues in an upward trend mainly due to better diagnosis and treatment modalities. In particular, the development of anticancer drugs including cytotoxic chemotherapy, hormonal agents and targeted therapies have provided the most effective treatment options in combatting cancerous cells. However, the antineoplastic mechanisms of these drugs can also lead to undesirable systemic and ocular side effects resulting from cytotoxicity, inflammation and neurotoxicity. While survival rates are projected to increase with time, the number of patients presenting with these side effects that can substantially impact quality of life will also rise. The current paper reviews the ocular surface and adnexal side effects of anticancer drugs, the appropriate management and possible interactions between drugs for ocular surface pathology treatment and the anticancer drugs.

Ocular complications of cancer therapy: a primer for the ophthalmologist treating cancer patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer patients may develop ocular complications secondary to direct or metastatic involvement with cancer, radiation exposure, or chemotherapy. As many as 1.4 million new cancer cases arise in the United States annually.

RECENT FINDINGS

Chemotherapy administration remains a critical aspect of treating many cancers and offers improved prognosis and prolonged survival in many cases; however, these therapies are known to cause a wide range of toxicities.

SUMMARY

Ocular side effects such as photophobia, cataracts, glaucoma, retinopathy, and other ocular toxicities have been reported following chemotherapy administration. To effectively treat cancer patients, oncologists, primary care clinicians, and ophthalmologists should be aware of the potential ophthalmic toxicities certain widely used chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy may pose to their patients, particularly in the setting of preexisting ocular conditions.

Histopathologic evidence of capecitabine corneal toxicity in dogs

In an experimental model of transplant rejection, renal transplants were performed on 6 mixed-breed dogs. Capecitabine (CPC) was administered as an oral immunosuppressive agent. All recipients received systemic CPC, cyclosporine (CSA), prednisolone, and famotidine throughout the study. Two dogs developed superficial keratitis, which was characterized by multifocal geographic erosions, superficial corneal epithelial pigmentation, and corneal neovascularization. These clinical signs correlated with the dose of CPC given, whereas other drug doses remained unchanged. After euthanasia, routine histologic sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and with alcian blue periodic acid-Schiff for light microscopic evaluation. Ocular histopathologic abnormalities were limited to neovascularization and inflammatory infiltrate of the anterior corneal stroma and abnormal basal cell morphology, disorganization, thinning, and pigmentation of the corneal epithelium. The purpose of this communication is to describe the clinical and histopathologic evidence of CPC corneal toxicity in dogs.

Use of Capecitabine to Prevent Acute Renal Allograft Rejection in Dog Erythrocyte Antigen-Mismatched Mongrel Dogs

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy and toxicity of a capecitabine (CAP)-based regimen for preventing rejection of renal allografts in dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA)-mismatched mongrel dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, pilot study.

ANIMALS

Eight healthy, unrelated, DEA mismatched, adult mongrel dogs.

METHODS

All dogs received CAP, starting at 50 mg/m2 PO b.i.d. 4 days preoperatively, increasing to 200 mg/m2 PO b.i.d. by the day of surgery. All dogs received cyclosporine-A (CsA) and prednisolone starting 2 days preoperatively. Standard heterotopic renal transplantation with native nephrectomy was performed. After 90 days, surviving dogs were euthanatized and histopathologic examination was performed.

RESULTS

Two of 8 dogs developed acute neurotoxicity leading to death or euthanasia within 5 days of surgery. For the 6 remaining dogs, there were no statistically significant changes in complete blood count or serum biochemical values. No opportunistic infections developed during the study period. Five of 6 dogs had no to minimal evidence of graft rejection. Two of 6 dogs developed superficial and pigmentary keratitis. Significant histopathologic findings in all dogs included mild lymphoplasmacytic gastroenteritis, steroid hepatopathy, and corneal epithelial thinning. One dog had moderate interstitial nephritis and pyelitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this experimental model, a CAP-CsA-prednisolone immunosuppressive regimen was effective in preventing rejection of allografts in DEA-mismatched dogs. Severe, unpredictable neurotoxicity and variable ocular toxicity significantly limit clinical applications at this time.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A CAP-CsA-prednisolone protocol is an effective, oral immunosuppressive regimen for prevention of allograft rejection in DEA-mismatched mongrel dogs. For clinical application, identification of patients susceptible to toxic side effects would be necessary.

Update on ocular complications of systemic cancer chemotherapy

The constantly growing list of cytotoxic chemotherapeutics requires a new survey of ophthalmic complications, which are often underestimated. Based on the review by Imperia et al (1989), an update on ophthalmic complications of currently used cytotoxic chemotherapeutics in oncology was written. Vision is a quality of life issue, which must be nurtured, especially if loss of vision can be prevented. The broad spectrum of ophthalmic complications induced by cytotoxic chemotherapy includes reversible and irreversible acute and chronic disorders. Mild to moderate ophthalmic complications are very common and reversible after cessation of anti-cancer therapy. Some major ocular toxicities may require a dose reduction or the discontinuation of cytotoxic chemotherapy in order to prevent visual loss. Ocular toxicities can be treated or even prevented, if detected early enough. That is why an ophthalmic baseline examination for patients receiving cytosine arabinoside, 5-fluorourocil, methotrexate, or docetaxel should be taken into consideration, and a consultation with an ophthalmologist has to be done as soon as symptoms are recognized. Oncologists and ophthalmologists must be aware of potential ophthalmic complications during cytotoxic chemotherapy, and should work together.

Capecitabine: a review of its use in the treatment of advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer

Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine which is selectively activated in tumour tissue to the active moiety fluorouracil and is cytotoxic through inhibition of DNA synthesis. In patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, first-line therapy with intermittent capecitabine achieved significantly higher objective tumour response rates than therapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin in pooled analysis. Response rates were also higher in patients pretreated in the adjuvant setting and whose primary site of metastasis was the lung. However, no significant differences between the two treatment groups were seen in the time to disease progression, time to treatment failure or overall survival. Preliminary data suggest response may be improved by combining capecitabine with other anticancer therapies such as oxaliplatin, irinotecan and radiotherapy. Capecitabine in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability. Diarrhoea and hand-and-foot syndrome are the major dose-limiting toxicities associated with capecitabine therapy, with adverse effects generally of a gastrointestinal nature. Overall, diarrhoea, stomatitis, nausea and alopecia were significantly less common with capecitabine than with bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin. In addition, capecitabine recipients experienced significantly less myelosuppression, although more capecitabine recipients discontinued therapy because of adverse events. Importantly, patients spent less time in hospital after capecitabine than after bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin therapy, and the oral route of administration of capecitabine is likely to be preferred. In conclusion, capecitabine has shown superior tumour response and less myelosuppression, although more grade 3 hand-and-foot syndrome, in comparison with the 'Mayo Clinic' regimen of fluorouracil therapy, but is unlikely to improve survival. Significantly, its oral route of administration is likely to be preferred by patients. Future strategies to improve patient response may involve selection of those patients likely to respond best to capecitabine, through determination of relevant enzyme levels and combination of capecitabine with various antineoplastic agents. Data on the effect of the drug on quality of life would help establish its role. In the meantime, capecitabine appears to offer an effective and more convenient alternative to fluorouracil as first-line monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.