Carboplatin Hypersensitivity Reactions in Pediatric Low Grade Glioma Are Protocol Specific and Desensitization Shows Poor Efficacy

Chemotherapy in pediatric low-grade gliomas (PLGG)

Pediatric low-grade gliomas (PLGG) are commonly treated with a combination of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Recent trends prioritize reducing long-term morbidities, particularly in younger patients. While historically chemotherapy was reserved for cases progressing after radiotherapy, evolving recommendations now advocate for its early use, particularly in younger age groups. The carboplatin and vincristine (CV) combination stands as a standard systemic therapy for PLGG, varying in dosage and administration between North America and Europe. Clinical trials have shown promising response rates, albeit with varying toxicity profiles. Vinblastine has emerged as another effective regimen with minimal toxicity. TPCV, a regimen combining thioguanine, procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine, was compared to CV in a Children's Oncology Group trial, showing comparable outcomes, but more toxicity. Vinorelbine, temozolomide, and metronomic chemotherapy have also been explored, with varied success rates and toxicity profiles. Around 40-50% of PLGG patients require subsequent chemotherapy lines. Studies have shown varied efficacy in subsequent lines, with NF1 patients generally exhibiting better outcomes. The identification of molecular drivers like BRAF mutations has led to targeted therapies' development, showing promise in specific molecular subgroups. Trials comparing targeted therapy to conventional chemotherapy aim to delineate optimal treatment strategies based on molecular profiles. The landscape of chemotherapy in PLGG is evolving, with a growing focus on molecular subtyping and targeted therapies. Understanding the role of chemotherapy in conjunction with novel treatments is crucial for optimizing outcomes in pediatric patients with low-grade gliomas.

Interdisciplinary Healthcare Team Experience of Carboplatin and Oxaliplatin Desensitizations in a Tertiary Referral University Hospital

Purpose

Repeated exposure to platinum compounds increases the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR). To date, many different desensitization protocols with varying success rates have been reported. The presented study is aimed at disseminating the real-world experience of an interdisciplinary healthcare team focusing on platin desensitization.

Patients and Methods

This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study of 7 female patients with carboplatin- or oxaliplatin-induced HSRs. After a discussion with the oncologist and the patient, desensitization protocols were performed by a team consisting of an allergy and immunology specialist, a clinical pharmacist, and a nurse. Clinical data were extracted from the patients' medical records, and HSRs were reviewed and classified by an allergist according to severity and type.

Results

Twenty-five desensitization protocols were carried out for patients with carboplatin- or oxaliplatin-induced HSRs (N=4 and N=3, respectively; age range: 54-66). Two of the patients did not experience any HSR during a total of 8 desensitization cycles. The other patients had grade 1-3 HSRs on 15 cycles, which were successfully managed by oxygen and/or pharmacological interventions and infusions were resumed at a lower rate after stabilization of the patient. Compared to baseline, serum tryptase levels were elevated during HSRs (4.77±0.21 vs 9.50±1.71, P=0.028).

Conclusion

All the patients were able to finish the treatment protocol and receive full chemotherapeutic doses. Interdisciplinary teams may facilitate the preparation and administration of platinum-based chemotherapeutics and increase the success rates of desensitization protocols for platin-based chemotherapy, where the concentration and application of drugs differ from standard procedure.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients.

Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally.

The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe.

This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Cutaneous reactions to pediatric cancer treatment: Part I. Conventional chemotherapy

Chemotherapies often cause side effects of the skin, nails, and mucosal surfaces. These mucocutaneous toxicities contribute to morbidity and affect quality of life. Identification and management of these drug-induced eruptions is vital to allow for continuation of essential therapies. This review demonstrates the wide range of chemotherapy-induced cutaneous toxicities in children and includes clues for diagnosis as well as tips for counseling and management.

Evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to cancer chemotherapeutic agents in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapeutic agents have been increasingly documented.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate HSRs due to chemotherapeutics agents in childhood.

METHODS

From January 2007 to June 2019, the patients who were treated for neoplastic diseases in our hospital were evaluated. Patients who developed a HSR to a chemotherapeutic agent were included.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients with 65 reactions (60% anaphylaxis) were evaluated. Escherichia coli asparaginase was responsible for 38 (58.5%) of these 65 reactions. The other agents were polyethylene glycol (PEG)-asparaginase (n = 11), etoposide (n = 7), methotrexate (n = 4), carboplatin (n = 4), and procarbazine (n = 1). Of the 38 patients who had a reaction to E coli-asparaginase, 33 patients received alternative treatment (PEG-asparaginase or Erwinia asparaginase), 3 patients continued with desensitization, and 2 patients underwent bone marrow transplantation. Five patients who had an initial reaction to PEG-asparaginase continued their treatment with Erwinia asparaginase or E coli asparaginase uneventfully. Of 7 patients who had a reaction to etoposide (4 had anaphylaxis), 3 patients continued with desensitization, and 2 patients used the drug with premedication and prolonged infusion. Two patients had anaphylaxis with methotrexate. Treatment was continued with desensitization in 1 patient and methotrexate treatment was discontinued in the other patient. Of the 4 patients with carboplatin hypersensitivity, 2 had anaphylaxis. Desensitization was performed in 2 patients. One patient had procarbazine HSR, drug was given with premedication.

CONCLUSION

Among all chemotherapeutic agents reviewed in our study that caused HSRs, asparaginase was the most common culprit agent in children. Most of reactions are immediate type. Many of the patients can take their treatment by drug replacement or desensitization.

Protocols for drug allergy desensitization in children

Introduction: When a drug hypersensitivity reaction is proven, desensitization protocols allow the reintroduction of the molecule in patients for whom such therapy is essential. Through drug desensitization (DDS), a temporary immune tolerance is maintained for the single course of a specific therapy. In pediatrics, indications for such a procedure include children with chronic diseases, severe infectious diseases and/or malignancies, who have a proven drug hypersensitivity.Areas covered: We ran a search on PubMed and Web of Science for papers on DDS and on DDS in children. Most protocols and recommendations on DDS focus on adults and have been adapted for children. The best candidates for desensitization are children with a history of immediate, IgE-mediated drug allergy, but this therapy may be applied also in nonallergic hypersensitivities and in non-immediate reactions. Most protocols in literature focus on antibiotics, especially beta-lactams, on chemotherapeutic agents, and on monoclonal antibodies.Expert opinion: Pediatric allergists should cooperate with specialists in infectious diseases and onco-hematology to provide DDS to children in need. Standardized protocols and international guidelines are still needed to optimize such treatment and to implement it in clinical daily practice.

Pediatric drug hypersensitivity: which diagnostic tests?

Along with the anamnesis and clinical evaluation, diagnostic tests are one of the mainstream key points in the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). A wide knowledge gap, both in diagnosis and management of pediatric DHR, must be filled.  Only a few published studies evaluated sensitivity and specificity of skin and in vitro tests in children. However, selected case series show that diagnostic work-up for adults could be useful, with some limitations, in pediatric age. Indeed, despite improvement in in vivo and in vitro diagnosis, drug provocation test remains the gold standard in pediatric age, too. Unmet needs in children include multi-centric studies on incidence of DHR, utility and feasibility of in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests and specifically dedicated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of DHR in children.

Drug desensitization in allergic children

Drug allergy is an increasing problem worldwide, affecting all populations and races, children and adults, and for which diagnosis and treatment are not well standardized yet. Besides classical treatments, new drugs have been developed, especially for patients suffering from malignancies and chronic inflammatory diseases, that specifically target the cause of the disease. For those patients requiring such molecules, it is sometimes difficult to find an alternative drug when hypersensitivity reactions occur. Desensitization is therefore the best option whenever no alternative therapy is available but also when alternative treatments are considered therapeutically inferior and or more toxic. Despite its clinical success, little is known about the mechanisms and molecular targets of drug desensitization. Desensitization protocols use a gradual dose escalation to allow the safe administration of a treatment to which a patient previously presented a hypersensitivity reaction. The procedure requires special training and coordination of an allergy team, including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, working together to safely and successfully implement desensitization protocols when appropriate. There is no difference in desensitization protocol between adults and children, except for the final cumulative dose of the administered drug. (www.actabiomedica.it)

SIOP PODC Adapted treatment guidelines for low grade gliomas in low and middle income settings

Effective treatment of children with low grade glioma (LGG) requires a functioning multi-disciplinary team with adequate neurosurgical, neuroradiological, pathological, radiotherapy and chemotherapy facilities and personnel. In addition, the treating centre should have the capacity to manage a variety of LGG and treatment-associated complications. These requirements have made it difficult for many centers in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) to offer effective treatment and follow up. This article provides management recommendations for children with LGG according to the level of facilities available.

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.

Rechallenge to Carboplatin in Children with Low Grade Glioma and Carboplatin Hypersensitivity Reactions

Background: Carboplatin based regimens have demonstrated activity in pediatric patients with low grade gliomas (LGG). However, carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (CHRs) may be a major problem leading to premature cessation of an effective therapy. The objectives of this study were to describe the prevalence, characteristics and management of CHR.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of children with LGG treated between January 1994 and July 2015 with carboplatin and vincristine who had a documented CHR. We identified two groups: the first was treated following the schema proposed by Packer et al., and re-exposed to carboplatin using a desensitization protocol; the second was treated according to protocol SIOP LGG 2004 and re-exposed with the infusion time prolonged.

Results: CHRs were observed in 16 patients (34%) out of 47. Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 6 patients (20.7%) of the first, and 10 patients (55.5%) of the second group, respectively. The grade 2 reactions were the most common. The median number of carboplatin doses administered at the first episode of CHR was 7 (range, 3–9) for the first group, and 8.5 (range, 5–11) for the second, respectively. Six patients were re-exposed to carboplatin using a desensitization protocol; 10 with a prolonged infusion time. Overall success rate for re-exposition was 43.75% (100% and 10%, respectively) (P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Our results show that re-exposure is a safe alternative to abandoning carboplatin. Desensitization showed greater effectiveness compared to a prolonged infusion time, which allowed the patients to receive effective treatment without adverse reactions.