Use of amifostine in the therapy of osteosarcoma in children and adolescents

Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin or a combination of these, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. One of the most significant adverse effects is the occurrence of hearing loss or ototoxicity. In an effort to prevent this ototoxicity, different otoprotective medical interventions have been studied. This review is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of medical interventions to prevent hearing loss and to determine possible effects of these interventions on antitumour efficacy, toxicities other than hearing loss and quality of life in children with cancer treated with platinum-based therapy as compared to placebo, no additional treatment or another protective medical intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase (Ovid) to 8 January 2019. We handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (2006 up to and including 2018), the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (2007 up to and including 2018) and the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer (2010 up to and including 2015). We scanned ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials (on 2 January 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating platinum-based therapy with an otoprotective medical intervention versus platinum-based therapy with placebo, no additional treatment or another protective medical intervention in children with cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of included studies, including adverse effects. We performed analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs and one CCT (total number of participants 149) evaluating the use of amifostine versus no additional treatment in the original version of the review; the updates identified no additional studies. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma, and the other study included children with hepatoblastoma. Children received cisplatin only or a combination of cisplatin and carboplatin, either intra-arterially or intravenously. Pooling of results of the included studies was not possible. From individual studies the effect of amifostine on symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2 (NCICTCv2) or modified Brock grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. NCICTCv2 or modified Brock grade 1 or higher) were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Only one study including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin provided information on tumour response, defined as the number of participants with a good or partial remission. The available-data analysis (data were missing for one participant), best-case scenario analysis and worst-case scenario analysis showed a difference in favour of amifostine, although the certainty of evidence for this effect was low. There was no information on survival for any of the included studies. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided data on the number of participants with adverse effects other than ototoxicity grade 3 or higher (on NCICTCv2 scale). There was low-certainty evidence that grade 3 or 4 vomiting was higher with amifostine (risk ratio (RR) 9.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99 to 41.12). The effects on cardiotoxicity and renal toxicity grade 3 or 4 were uncertain (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies evaluated quality of life.In the recent update, we also identified one RCT including 109 children with localized hepatoblastoma evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate versus no additional treatment. Children received intravenous cisplatin only (one child also received carboplatin). There was moderate-certainty evidence that both symptomatic ototoxicity only (i.e. Brock criteria grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (i.e. Brock criteria grade 1 or higher) was lower with sodium thiosulfate (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; symptomatic ototoxicity only: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83). The effect of sodium thiosulfate on tumour response (defined as number of participants with a complete or partial response at the end of treatment), overall survival (calculated from time of randomization to death or last follow-up), event-free survival (calculated from time of randomization until disease progression, disease relapse, second primary cancer, death, or last follow-up, whichever came first) and adverse effects other than hearing loss and tinnitus grade 3 or higher (according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Effects version 3 (NCICTCAEv3) criteria) was uncertain (low-certainty evidence for all these outcomes). Quality of life was not assessed.We found no eligible studies for possible otoprotective medical interventions other than amifostine and sodium thiosulfate and for other types of malignancies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma or hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules that underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and the evidence was of low certainty, no definitive conclusions can be made. Since we found only one RCT evaluating the use of sodium thiosulfate in children with localized hepatoblastoma treated with cisplatin, no definitive conclusions on benefits and harms can be drawn. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. We identified no eligible studies for other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high-quality research is needed.

[Ifosphamide nephrotoxicity]

Ifosfamide is a cytotoxic drug usually used in malignant sarcomas. The nephrotoxicity of this agent has been described essentially among children, revealed by renal failure and proximal tubulopathy. We recently conducted a retrospective multicentre study, describing 34 adult patients admitted for ifosfamide nephrotoxicity. More than 80% of them presented with renal failure, diagnosed up to 48 months after ifosfamide administration. A Fanconi syndrome with hypophosphoremia, hypokaliemia, glucosuria and low-molecular weight proteinuria, was present in two third of all cases. Median estimated glomerular filtration rate was 31mL/min 1 month and 38mL/min 3 months after ifosfamide infusion, versus 67mL/min at baseline. Renal biopsy, performed in 14 of these patients, showed acute tubular necrosis with vacuolization of proximal tubular epithelial cells with marked nuclear modifications, whereas electron microscopy revealed major changes of mitochondrial structure inside those cells, suggesting a tenofovir-like mechanism of nephrotoxicity. After a median follow-up of 31 months, ten patients out of 34 reached stage 5 chronic kidney disease, requiring dialysis in five cases. Poor renal prognosis was associated with concomitant cisplatin use (P=0.02) and with older age at presentation (P=0.04). In conclusion, ifosfamide nephrotoxicity is often severe and irreversible, leading to proximal tubulopathy and sometimes-severe chronic kidney failure, that can be immediate or delayed, sometimes diagnosed months after chemotherapy completion.

Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin or a combination of these, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. One of the most important adverse effects is the occurrence of hearing loss or ototoxicity. In an effort to prevent this ototoxicity, different otoprotective medical interventions have been studied. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of medical interventions to prevent hearing loss and to determine possible effects of these interventions on anti-tumour efficacy, toxicities other than hearing loss and quality of life in children with cancer treated with platinum-based therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 8 July 2016) and EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 8 July 2016). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and we assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (2006 up to and including 2015), the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (2007 up to and including 2016) and the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer (2010 up to and including 2015). We scanned the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register (www.isrctn.com) and the National Institute of Health Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing trials (both searched on 12 July 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating platinum-based therapy together with an otoprotective medical intervention versus platinum-based therapy with placebo, no additional treatment or another protective medical intervention in children with cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of included studies, including adverse effects. We performed analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs and one CCT (total number of participants 149) evaluating the use of amifostine versus no additional treatment in the original version of the review; the updates identified no additional studies. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma, and the other study included children with hepatoblastoma. Children received cisplatin only or a combination of cisplatin and carboplatin, either intra-arterially or intravenously. Pooling of results of the included studies was not possible. However, in the individual studies there was no significant difference in symptomatic ototoxicity only (that is, grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (that is, grade 1 or higher) between children treated with or without amifostine. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided information on tumour response, defined as the number of participants with a good or partial remission. The available data analysis (data were missing for one participant), best case scenario analysis and worst case scenario analysis all showed a difference in favour of amifostine, but this difference was significant only in the worst case scenario analysis (P = 0.04). There was no information on survival for any of the included studies. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided data on the number of participants with adverse effects other than ototoxicity grade 3 or higher. There was a significant difference in favour of the control group in the occurrence of vomiting grade 3 or 4 (risk ratio (RR) 9.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99 to 41.12; P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between treatment groups for cardiotoxicity and renal toxicity grade 3 or 4. None of the studies evaluated quality of life. The quality of evidence for the different outcomes was low. We found no eligible studies for possible otoprotective medical interventions other than amifostine and other types of malignancies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma or hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules that underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and all studies had serious methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. Based on the currently available evidence, we are unable to give recommendations for clinical practice. We identified no eligible studies for other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high quality research is needed.

Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin and/or oxaliplatin, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. Unfortunately, one of the most important adverse effects is the occurrence of hearing loss or ototoxicity. In an effort to prevent this ototoxicity, different otoprotective medical interventions have been studied. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of any medical intervention to prevent hearing loss in children with cancer treated with platinum-based therapy (that is including cisplatin, carboplatin and/or oxaliplatin) when compared to placebo, no additional treatment or a different protective medical intervention. Secondary objectives were to determine possible effects of these interventions on anti-tumour efficacy, toxicities other than hearing loss and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 17 March 2014) and EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 17 March 2014). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (2006 to 2013), the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (2007 to 2013) and the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer (2010 to 2013). We scanned the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register and the National Institute of Health Register for ongoing trials (www.controlled-trials.com) (searched on 17 March 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating platinum-based therapy together with an otoprotective medical intervention versus platinum-based therapy with placebo, no additional treatment or another protective medical intervention in children with cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment of included studies and data extraction, including adverse effects. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs and one CCT (total number of patients 149) evaluating the use of amifostine versus no additional treatment in the original version of the review; in this update no additional studies were identified. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma, and the other study included children with hepatoblastoma. Patients received cisplatin only or a combination of cisplatin and carboplatin, either administered intra-arterially or intravenously. All studies had methodological limitations. Unfortunately pooling of the results of the included studies was not possible. However, in the individual studies no significant difference was identified in symptomatic ototoxicity only (that is grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (that is grade 1 or higher) between children treated with or without amifostine. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided information on tumour response, defined as the number of patients with a good or partial remission. The available data analysis (data were missing for one patient), best case scenario analysis and worst case scenario analysis all showed a difference in favour of amifostine, but this difference was significant only in the worst case scenario analysis (P = 0.04). No information on survival was available for any of the included study populations. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided data on the number of patients with adverse effects other than ototoxicity grade 3 or higher. There was a significant difference in favour of the control group in the occurrence of vomiting grade 3 or 4 (risk ratio (RR) 9.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.99 to 41.12; P = 0.004). No significant difference was identified between treatment groups for cardiotoxicity and renal toxicity grade 3 or 4. None of the studies evaluated quality of life. No eligible studies were found for possible otoprotective medical interventions other than amifostine and other types of malignancies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma or hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules which underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and all studies had serious methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. No eligible studies were identified for other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high quality research is needed.

Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin and/or oxaliplatin, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. Unfortunately, one of the most important adverse effects is the occurrence of hearing loss or ototoxicity. In an effort to prevent this ototoxicity, different otoprotective medical interventions have been studied.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of different otoprotective medical interventions in preventing hearing loss in children with cancer treated with platinum-based therapy. Secondary objectives were to determine possible effects of these interventions on anti-tumour efficacy, toxicities other than hearing loss and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 22 December 2011) and EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 22 December 2011). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (2006 to 2011), the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (2007 to 2011) and the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer (2010). We scanned the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register and the National Institute of Health Register for ongoing trials (www.controlled-trials.com) (searched on 20 December 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating platinum-based therapy together with an otoprotective medical intervention versus platinum-based therapy with placebo, no additional treatment or another protective medical intervention in children with cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment of included studies and data extraction, including adverse effects. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs and one CCT (total number of patients 149) evaluating the use of amifostine versus no additional treatment. Two studies included children with osteosarcoma, the other study included children with hepatoblastoma. Patients received cisplatin only or a combination of cisplatin and carboplatin, either administered intra-arterially or intravenously. All studies had methodological limitations. Unfortunately, pooling of the results of included studies was not possible. However, in all individual studies no significant difference was identified in symptomatic ototoxicity only (that is grade 2 or higher) and combined asymptomatic and symptomatic ototoxicity (that is grade 1 or higher) between children treated with or without amifostine. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided information on tumour response, defined as the number of patients with a good or partial remission. The 'available data' analysis (data were missing for one patient), 'best case scenario' analysis and 'worst case scenario' analysis all showed a difference in favour of amifostine, but this difference was significant only in the 'worst case scenario' analysis (P = 0.04). No information on survival was available for any of the included study populations. Only one study, including children with osteosarcoma treated with intra-arterial cisplatin, provided data on the number of patients with adverse effects other than ototoxicity grade 3 or higher. There was a significant difference in favour of the control group in the occurrence of vomiting grade 3 or 4 (RR 9.04; 95% CI 1.99 to 41.12; P = 0.004). No significant difference was identified between treatment groups for cardiotoxicity and renal toxicity grade 3 or 4. None of the studies evaluated quality of life. No eligible studies were found for possible otoprotective medical interventions other than amifostine and other types of malignancies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At the moment there is no evidence from individual studies in children with osteosarcoma and hepatoblastoma treated with different platinum analogues and dosage schedules which underscores the use of amifostine as an otoprotective intervention as compared to no additional treatment. Since pooling of results was not possible and all studies had serious methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. Based on the currently available evidence, we are not able to give recommendations for clinical practice. For other possible otoprotective medical interventions and other types of malignancies no eligible studies were identified, so no conclusions can be made about their efficacy in preventing ototoxicity in children treated with platinum-based therapy. More high quality research is needed.

Amifostine does not prevent platinum-induced hearing loss associated with the treatment of children with hepatoblastoma: a report of the Intergroup Hepatoblastoma Study P9645 as a part of the Children's Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

The current study was conducted to determine whether amifostine is effective in reducing the toxicities associated with the administration of platinum-containing regimens in children with hepatoblastoma (HB).

METHODS

Patients were enrolled on P9645 beginning in March of 1999. Patients who had stage I/II disease received treatment with 4 cycles of combined cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and vincristine (C5V) with or without amifostine. Patients who had stage III/IV disease were randomized to receive treatment with 6 cycles of either C5V with or without amifostine or carboplatin alternating with cisplatin (CC) with or without amifostine. Patients who were randomized to receive amifostine were given a dose of 740 mg/m2 intravenously over 15 minutes before each administration of a platinum agent.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were considered in a special interim analysis of the incidence of toxicity. The disease outcome for patients who received amifostine was similar to the outcome for patients who did not receive amifostine (P=.22). The incidence of significant hearing loss (>40 dB) was similar for patients who did or did not receive amifostine (38% [14 of 37 patients] vs 38% [17 of 45 patients], respectively; P=.68). There were no differences in the incidence of renal or bone marrow toxicities evaluated. Patients who received amifostine had a higher incidence of hypocalcemia (5% vs 0.5%; P=.00006).

CONCLUSIONS

Amifostine in the doses and schedule used in this study failed to significantly reduce the incidence of platinum-induced toxicities in patients with HB.

In vivo mesna and amifostine do not prevent chloroacetaldehyde nephrotoxicity in vitro

Chloroacetaldehyde (CAA) is the putative metabolite responsible for ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity. Whereas evidence suggests that sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (mesna) and amifostine protect renal cells against CAA toxicity in vitro, their efficacy in clinical studies is controversial. To better understand the discrepancy between in vivo and in vitro results, we combined the in vivo intraperitoneal administration of either saline or mesna (100 mg/kg) or amifostine (200 mg/kg) in rats and the in vitro study of CAA toxicity to both proximal tubules and precision-cut renal cortical slices. The measured renal cortical concentrations of mesna and amifostine were 0.6+/-0.1 micromol/g and 1.2+/-0.2 micromol/g, respectively; these drugs did not cause renal toxicity. Despite this, none of the adverse effects of 0.5 mM CAA was prevented by the previous in vivo administration of mesna or amifostine. Toxicity of 0.5 mM CAA to rat proximal tubules was shown by the fall of cellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP), total glutathione and coenzyme A + acetyl-coenzyme A levels and by the altered metabolic viability of renal cells. Long-term exposure of cortical slices to CAA concentrations > or =30 microM caused severe cell toxicity (i.e. decrease in cellular ATP, total glutathione, and coenzyme A + acetyl-coenzyme A levels), which was not prevented by the in vivo administration of mesna or amifostine.

Speech-language and hearing complaints of children and adolescents with brain tumors

Central nervous system (CNS) tumors generally leave sequelae that may compromise speech, language, swallowing, hearing, and voice functions. This report describes the incidence of speech-language and hearing complaints and disorders in children and adolescents with CNS tumor under treatment at one of the most important Brazilian reference center for pediatric cancer. One-hundred ninety patients were examined for speech-pathology screening and analysis: forty-two percent presented with complaints and symptoms. From the remaining patients, 68% presented clinical symptoms and 32% were actually free from any speech-language and hearing-related symptoms. The high incidence of complaints and symptoms indicate that these patients might benefit from specific rehabilitation interventions.

A pilot study of addition of amifostine to melphalan, carboplatin, etoposide, and cyclophosphamide with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric solid tumors-A pediatric blood and marrow transplant consortium study

Limited information is available regarding the use of amifostine in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients. Melphalan, carboplatin, etoposide +/- cyclophosphamide is a commonly used preparatory regimen in pediatric solid tumor HSCT. Therefore, we decided to determine the feasibility of the addition of amifostine (750 mg/m b.i.d. x 4 d) to melphalan (200 mg/m), carboplatin (1200 mg/m), and etoposide (800 mg/m) (level 1) and escalating doses of cyclophosphamide (3000 mg/m and 3800 mg/m, levels 2 and 3, respectively) followed by autologous HSCT. Thirty-two patients with a variety of pediatric solid tumors were studied. Seventeen patients were accrued at level 1, 9 at level 2, and 6 at level 3. Major toxicities during the administration of the preparatory regimen were hypocalcemia, emesis, and hypotension. Hypocalcemia required aggressive calcium supplementation during the conditioning phase. No dose limiting toxicities were encountered at level 3. Amifostine at 750 mg/m b.i.d. for 4 days can be administered with a double alkylator regimen consisting of melphalan (200 mg/m), cyclophosphamide (up to 3800 mg/m), carboplatin (1200 mg/m), and etoposide (800 mg/m) with manageable toxicities.

Toxicity prevention with amifostine in pediatric osteosarcoma patients treated with cisplatin and doxorubicin

Amifostine has emerged as a pancytoprotectant shown protection against nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity and ototoxicity in preclinical studies.

METHODS

We designed a prospective comparative randomized trial to evaluate the cytoprotective effects of amifostine in patients with osteosarcoma receiving cisplatin and doxorrubicin. Patients were evaluated for renal, hearing and cardiac toxicity.

RESULTS

We included 28 patients, mean age was 11.6 years, five had metastatic disease. Fifteen patients received amifostine and 13 did not. 20% of patients receiving amifostine developed renal toxicity compared to 30% in the control group (p = 0.318). Grade 1 and 2 audiologic toxicity was present in 100% of the experimental group against 85% of the controls (p = 0.501). Grade 1 cardiac toxicity was present in 2 patients in the control group (p = 0.175). There were no statistical significant differences between the two groups for chemotherapy-related toxicity. Response to chemotherapy was significantly better in the amifostine group.

CONCLUSION

amifostine did not reduce the ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity of our treatment regime. It was not well tolerated due to emesis. It is a selective cytoprotectant without reducing the effect of chemotherapy.

Ifosfamide toxicity in cultured proximal renal tubule cells

Renal injury is a common side effect of the chemotherapeutic agent ifosfamide. Current evidence suggests that ifosfamide metabolites, particularly chloroacetaldehyde, produced within the kidney contribute to nephrotoxicity. The present study examined the effects of ifosfamide and its metabolites, chloroacetaldehyde and acrolein, on rabbit proximal renal tubule cells in primary culture, using a transwell culture system that allows separate access to apical and basolateral cell surfaces. The ability of the uroprotectant medications sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (mesna) and amifostine to prevent chloroacetaldehyde-and acrolein-induced renal cell injury was also assessed. Ifosfamide (2,000-4,000 microM) did not affect transcellular inulin diffusion but caused a modest but significant impairment in organic ion transport; this impairment was greater when ifosfamide was added to the basolateral compartment of the transwell. Chloroacetaldehyde and acrolein (6.25-100 microM) produced dose-dependent impairments in transcellular inulin diffusion and organic ion transport. Chloroacetaldehyde was a more potent toxin than acrolein. Co-administration of mesna or amifostine prevented metabolite toxicity. Amifostine was only protective when added to the apical compartment of transwells. These results show that ifosfamide is taken up by renal tubule cells preferentially through their basolateral surfaces, and supports the hypothesis that chloroacetaldehyde is primarily responsible for ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity. The protective effect of mesna and amifostine in vitro contrasts with clinical experience showing that these medications do not eliminate ifosfamide nephrotoxicity in vivo.

Toxicity profile of delayed high dose sodium thiosulfate in children treated with carboplatin in conjunction with blood-brain-barrier disruption

PURPOSE

To assess the safety of delayed high dose intravenous (i.v.) sodium thiosulfate (STS) in a case series of 12 children with malignant brain tumors who were treated with intraarterial (i.a.) carboplatin in conjunction with blood-brain-barrier disruption (BBBD).

METHODS

Twelve children ages 17 months-12 years underwent a total of 132 BBBD chemotherapy treatments and also received delayed high dose STS (i.v.). Dose 1 of STS (10-16 g/m(2)) was administered 2 or 4 hr after carboplatin, and a second STS dose was administered 4 hr after dose 1 if the child had impaired baseline hearing. Toxicity data were graded in accordance with the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (Version 2). Audiologic monitoring to evaluate the otoprotective potential of STS was performed on 11 children. Ototoxicity was defined in accordance with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) criteria. Baseline and end of treatment hearing status were graded using Brock's criteria.

RESULTS

Nausea and vomiting were well controlled with anti-emetics administered approximately 30 min prior to STS infusion. Analogous to results in adult patients, there was mild transient hypernatremia and a trend for improved protection from ototoxicity in children who received STS delayed to 4 hr post-treatment versus 2 hr. Tumor responses were seen in heavily pre-treated patients with relatively chemo-resistant tumors, suggesting that STS did not protect the tumor from platinum cytotoxicity.

CONCLUSION

High dose STS is well tolerated in children under 12 years of age. Further studies of STS in children are warranted to assess otoprotection and the impact of STS on platinum mediated efficacy.

Preventing organ-specific chemotherapy toxicity

Recent advances in treatment for pediatric cancers has increased overall survival rates. As more and more survive pediatric cancer, we continue to see the emergence of late effects of treatment within pediatric and the growing adult survivor population. The evaluation of late effects was initiated approximately two decades ago, and has become an extremely important facet of pediatric oncology. This review delves into several of the most serious organ-specific late effects of pediatric cancer treatment, outline what we know and what we do not currently understand about preventing or reducing them. Clinical and bench research are necessary to develop interventions that will avoid or mitigate late effects and improve the health of pediatric cancer survivors.

Neurophysiological study of peripheral neuropathy after high-dose Paclitaxel: lack of neuroprotective effect of amifostine

PURPOSE

To determine if there is a beneficial effect of amifostine in preventing or reducing the neuropathy induced by high-dose paclitaxel.

METHODS

Breast cancer patients receiving high-dose infusional paclitaxel (725 mg/m(2)/24 h) in combination with doxorubicin (165 mg/m(2)/96 h) and cyclophosphamide (100 mg/kg/2 h; ACT) were studied on two autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant protocols, one with and one without amifostine (740 mg/m(2) administered over 10 min before and 12 h after initiation of the paclitaxel infusion). Patients were evaluated before ACT and 20-40 days later with neurological examination, a composite peripheral neuropathy score, peroneal and sural nerve conduction studies, and quantitative sensory testing.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in paclitaxel maximum concentration, systemic clearance, or area under the curve determinations. Narcotic requirement as well as recovery of hematopoietic counts were also similar in subjects with or without amifostine. After ACT was administered, there was a decrease in peroneal nerve compound muscle action potential amplitude and sural nerve sensory action potential amplitude, as well as an increase in vibratory and cold detection thresholds. Clinical composite peripheral neuropathy scores were similar despite amifostine treatment; and logarithm to the base 2 ratios post/pre ACT showed no significant effect of amifostine on peroneal nerve compound muscle action potential, sural nerve sensory action potential, vibratory detection thresholds, or cold detection thresholds. All subjects had acroparesthesias and lost their ankle deep-tendon reflexes after administration of ACT.

CONCLUSIONS

Single high-dose paclitaxel produces predictable clinical and neurophysiological changes so that patients receiving high-dose therapy are ideal subjects to test the effectiveness of neuroprotective agents. Amifostine was ineffective in preventing or reducing the neurotoxicity of high-dose paclitaxel.

WR-2721 (Amifostine) ameliorates cisplatin-induced hearing loss but causes neurotoxicity in hamsters: dose-dependent effects

Chemoprotective agents reduce the toxic side effects of chemotherapy agents such as cisplatin. The conventional belief is that the chemoprotective agent WR-2721 (Amifostine), while protecting against most cisplatin-induced side effects, does not protect against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity (i.e., hearing loss). There is no knowledge, however, about the efficacy of high doses of WR-2721 (WR) in possibly protecting against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity. Thus, the dose-dependent effects of WR in possibly ameliorating cisplatin-induced ototoxicity were investigated. Hamsters were given a series of 5 cisplatin injections (3 mg/kg/injection once every other day, i.p.) either alone or in combination with 18, 40, 80, or 400 mg/kg/injection of the rescue agent WR ( n = 5 or 10/group). Other groups received either 80 mg/kg/injection WR alone ( n = 5) or were untreated ( n = 14). Ototoxicity was assessed by auditory brain stem responses (ABR). WR provided dose-dependent rescue from cisplatin's ototoxicity with no protection at the low dose of 18 mg/kg, moderate protection at 40 mg/kg, and nearly complete protection at 80 and 400 mg/kg. However, WR doses of 40 mg/kg or higher caused neurotoxicity as evidenced by prolongations in the ABR's interpeak latencies. Thus, high doses of WR provided the beneficial effect of protecting against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity, but had the harmful side effect of neurotoxicity. Previous failures to find chemoprotection from cisplatin-induced ototoxicity were likely due to the use of WR doses that were too small. The clinical implications of the beneficial and harmful effects of high doses of WR are discussed.

Influence of age upon Ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity

BACKGROUND

Ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity is well recognized in children, although it has also been reported in adults. Whether ifosfamide nephrotoxicity is more common in children than in adults is not known.

PROCEDURE

Medical records of adults and children diagnosed with sarcoma whom received ifosfamide with a cumulative dose >20 g/m(2) were evaluated. Twenty-five children (</=18-years of age) and 28 adults were identified.

RESULTS

National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3-4 ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity was present in 24 and 17% of children and adults, respectively (P = 0.58). Cumulative ifosfamide doses were similar between the two populations, with the median (range) of 70.2 g/m(2) (22.4-72) for children and 59 g/m(2) (20.8-146) for adults (P = 0.25). Logistic regression analysis indicated that neither age or cumulative ifosfamide dose were associated with grade 3-4 ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Children and adults receiving >20 g/m(2) of ifosfamide have similar susceptibility to ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity. Factors other than age and cumulative dose should be considered for understanding the inter-individual variation in nephrotoxicity.

Side Effects of Ifosfamide

Ifosfamide is relatively well tolerated but it can be associated occasionally with life-threatening complications such as arrhythmias and heart failure, severe encephalopathy and hemorrhagic cystitis. Mesna administration can control the urothelial toxicity of ifosfamide, but it is without effect on the other complications. Other preventive measures, such as amifostine or methylene blue administration, have not yet been adequately evaluated in a sufficient number of patients. Clinicians prescribing ifosfamide, especially in high doses, should be watchful for early signs of toxicity in order to discontinue ifosfamide administration soon enough to avoid development of major toxicity.

Cisplatin nephrotoxicity affects magnesium and calcium metabolism

Cisplatin is not directly toxic to bone, but cisplatin nephrotoxicity leading to magnesium wasting may affect magnesium and calcium metabolism, both of which contribute to bone integrity. The specificity of the magnesium lesion suggests that cisplatin may have an affinity for proteins that regulate magnesium absorption. Sulfhydryls such as amifostine can reduce the toxicity of cisplatin in adults, but current pediatric data do not indicate a role for sulfhydryl therapy to reduce cisplatin toxicity in children.

Comparative toxicity of ifosfamide metabolites and protective effect of mesna and amifostine in cultured renal tubule cells

Renal injury is a common side effect of the chemotherapeutic agent ifosfamide. Current evidence suggests that the ifosfamide metabolite chloroacetaldehyde contributes to this nephrotoxicity. The present study examined the effects of chloroacetaldehyde and acrolein, another ifosfamide metabolite, on rabbit proximal renal tubule cells in primary culture. The ability of the uroprotectant medications sodium 2-mercaptoethanesulfonate (mesna) and amifostine to prevent chloroacetaldehyde- and acrolein-induced renal cell injury was also assessed. Chloroacetaldehyde and acrolein (25-200 M) produced dose-dependent declines in neutral red dye uptake, glucose transport and glutathione content. Chloroacetaldehyde was a more potent toxin than acrolein. Pretreatment of cells with the glutathione-depleting agent buthionine sulfoximine enhanced the toxicity of both chloroacetaldehyde and acrolein while co-administration of mesna or amifostine prevented metabolite toxicity. These results support the hypothesis that chloroacetaldehyde is responsible for ifosfamide-induced nephrotoxicity. The protective effect of mesna and amifostine in vitro contrasts with clinical experience showing that these medications do not eliminate ifosfamide nephrotoxicity.