High-dose dexamethasone plus antihistamine prevents colorectal cancer patients treated with modified FOLFOX6 from hypersensitivity reactions induced by oxaliplatin

High-dose oxaliplatin induces severe hypersensitivity reactions and high recurrence rates during rechallenge in patients treated with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy

AIM

To analyze the risk factors for oxaliplatin (OXA)-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions and identify the recurrence rate of the reactions after an OXA rechallenge in patients treated with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC).

METHODS

Among the 2251 patients treated with HAIC (OXA), 84 patients with gastrointestinal cancer who displayed hypersensitivity reactions between May 2013 and May 2022 were included in this study. Among the 84 patients, 23 (27.4%) developed severe anaphylactic reactions (grade III/IV), and 61 (72.6%) developed grade I/II reactions. We explored the risk factors for severe OXA-induced hypersensitivity reactions. Twenty-seven patients with grade I/II reactions underwent retreatment (HAIC with OXA), and the recurrence rate of the hypersensitivity reactions was determined. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the risk factors for OXA-induced hypersensitivity reaction.

RESULTS

In the study, multivariate analysis indicated that the dose of OXA (odds ratio [OR] 3.077, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.106-8.558, p = 0.031) was an independent risk factor for OXA-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions. Twenty-seven patients with non-severe hypersensitivity reactions underwent retreatment HAIC with OXA and 14 (51.9 %) experienced HSR recurrence, including 2 (7.4 %) who experienced hypersensitivity shock.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of OXA doses is a risk factor for OXA-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions in patients treated with HAIC (OXA). Rechallenging HAIC with OXA appears to be associated with a higher recurrence rate of the HSR.

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

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

A target map of clinical combination therapies in oncology: an analysis of clinicaltrials.gov

Combination therapies have taken center stage for cancer treatment, however, there is a lack of a comprehensive portrait to quantitatively map the current clinical combination progress. This study aims to capture clinical combination therapies of the validated FDA-approved new oncology drugs by a macro data analysis and to summarize combination mechanisms and strategies in the context of the existing literature. A total of 72 new molecular entities or new therapeutic biological products for cancer treatment approved by the FDA from 2017 to 2021 were identified, and the data on their related 3334 trials were retrieved from the database of ClinicalTrials.gov. Moreover, these sampled clinical trials were refined by activity status and combination relevance and labeled with the relevant clinical arms and drug combinations, as well as drug targets and target pairs. Combination therapies are increasingly prevalent in clinical trials of new oncology drugs. From retrospective work, existing clinical combination therapies in oncology are driven by different patterns (i.e., rational design and industry trends). The former can be represented by mechanism-based or structure-based combinations, such as targeting different domains of HER2 protein or in-series co-targeting in RAF plus MEK inhibitors. The latter is an empirically driven strategy, including redundant combinations in hot targets, such as PD-1/PD-L1, PI3K, CDK4/6, and PARP. Because of an explosion in the number of clinical trials and the resultant shortage of available patients, it is essential to rationally design drug combinations.

Crosstalk of Mast Cells and Natural Killer Cells with Neurons in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a major comorbidity of cancer. Multiple clinical interventions have been studied to effectively treat CIPN, but the results have been disappointing, with no or little efficacy. Hence, understanding the pathophysiology of CIPN is critical to improving the quality of life and clinical outcomes of cancer patients. Although various mechanisms of CIPN have been described in neuropathic anti-cancer agents, the neuroinflammatory process involving cytotoxic/proinflammatory immune cells remains underexamined. While mast cells (MCs) and natural killer (NK) cells are the key innate immune compartments implicated in the pathogenesis of peripheral neuropathy, their role in CIPN has remained under-appreciated. Moreover, the biology of proinflammatory cytokines associated with MCs and NK cells in CIPN is particularly under-evaluated. In this review, we will focus on the interactions between MCs, NK cells, and neuronal structure and their communications via proinflammatory cytokines, including TNFα, IL-1β, and IL-6, in peripheral neuropathy in association with tumor immunology. This review will help lay the foundation to investigate MCs, NK cells, and cytokines to advance future therapeutic strategies for CIPN.

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

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

Meta-analysis of risk factors associated with oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions in cancer patients

This study aimed to investigate risk factors associated with oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions in cancer patients through a meta-analysis. A comprehensive retrieve of Chinese databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Database and English databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase and Cochrane library was conducted. The studies that meet the requirements for meta-analysis according to inclusion and exclusion criteria were screened and assessed for eligibility. Odds ratio (OR) / Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) or calculable dichotomous and continuous raw data were extracted to perform meta-analysis using random effect model or fixed effect model on the basis of heterogeneity between studies through Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of 14 cross-sectional studies and 3367 cancer patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that platinum exposure history (OR value 3.13, 95% CI 2.19–4.48, heterogeneity P = 0.26), allergy history (OR value 1.76, 95% CI 1.09–2.85, heterogeneity P = 0.61), platinum free interval (OR value 3.75, 95% CI 2.00–7.06, heterogeneity P = 0.83), dexamethasone premedication dose (OR value 0.28, 95% CI 0.13–0.58, heterogeneity P = 0.21) were significantly correlated to oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions. Gender, age, metastasis, combination with bevacizumab, XELOX regimen and cancer types were detected to have no statistically significant effect on oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions. Platinum exposure history, allergy history and long platinum-free interval are risk factors of oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions. High dexamethasone premedication dose is a protective factor of oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions.

Clinical Features of Oxaliplatin-induced Hypersensitivity Reactions in Chinese Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The characteristics of oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in Chinese patients were investigated to provide a reference for patients treated with oxaliplatin.

METHODS

The study reviewed the records of patients who developed oxaliplatin-induced HSRs in 17 hospitals from May 2016 to May 2017. We collected and analyzed the basic information, history of oxaliplatin administration and premedication treatments, chemotherapy cycles, HSR symptoms, and the management and outcomes of these patients.

RESULTS

Oxaliplatin-induced HSRs were recorded in 137 patients who had been treated with oxaliplatin-containing regimens. Five different chemotherapy regimens were applied. The median infusion cycle when oxaliplatin-induced HSRs occurred was 7, and HSRs occurred during or shortly after oxaliplatin infusion. Most of the patients experienced grade 1 or grade 2 HSRs with mild symptoms of pruritis (49.64%), flushing (46.72%), chest discomfort (26.28%), and urticaria (25.55%). The majority of the patients completely recovered from HSRs following treatment with antihistamines and dexamethasone. Seven patients completed chemotherapy with oxaliplatin after the symptoms resolved with proper management.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that oxaliplatin-induced HSRs remain an important issue in safely and successfully fulfilling oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to analyze the risk factors and establish prophylaxis for such reactions.

Desensitization strategy for hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin in five patients with gynecological cancer

AIM

Carboplatin is a key drug for gynecologic cancers. However, hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) are major adverse effects that might necessitate carboplatin discontinuation. Desensitization is an effective method in patients who developed initial HSR and further required carboplatin treatment. Here, we aimed to evaluate our experience with the use of the carboplatin desensitization protocol in five patients at the University of Tokyo Hospital.

METHODS

We established a four-step, 5-h desensitization protocol for our hospital. Observational and retrospective analyses were performed. Additionally, we have shared the patients' clinical information with the emergency department to ensure the safety of this protocol.

RESULTS

Five patients with recurrent gynecological cancer were treated using this protocol. Four of the five patients were treated effectively and 28 of 29 desensitization protocols were completed successfully. In one patient, we switched to olaparib successfully after two courses of our protocol. One patient who developed grade 4 HSR during initial carboplatin administration developed grade 2 HSR and we discontinued the protocol.

CONCLUSION

The carboplatin desensitization protocol is very efficient. The outcome of our protocol was on a par with other protocols. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to indicate that switching to olaparib can be considered a suitable option in patients who develop HSR to carboplatin.

Unexpected Ca2+-mobilization of oxaliplatin via H1 histamine receptors

Oxaliplatin is a widely used chemotherapeutic drug and represents the cornerstone of colorectal cancer therapy, in combination with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid. As with many chemotherapeutic agents, its use is associated with a number of side effects, ranging from hypersensitivity reactions to haematological dyscrasias. Oxaliplatin also induces acute and chronic peripheral neuropathy. While it is likely that the haematological side effects are associated with its anti-proliferative effects and with the ability to form DNA adducts, the molecular mechanisms underlying peripheral neuropathy and hypersensitivity reactions are poorly understood, and therefore the choice of adequate supportive therapies is largely empirical. Here we show that an acute low dose oxaliplatin application on DRG neurons is able to induce an increase in intracellular calcium that is dependent on the Histamine 1 receptor (H1). Oxaliplatin-induced intracellular calcium rises are blocked by two selective H1 antagonist, as well as by U73122, a PLC inhibitor, and by 2-APB, a non-specific IP₃ receptor blocker. Moreover, expression of the H1 receptor on HEK293 t cells unmasks an oxaliplatin-induced Ca²⁺-rise. Last, activation of H1 via either histamine or oxaliplatin activates TRPV1 receptors, a mechanism that has been associated with itch. These data, together with literature data that has shown that anti-histamine agents reduce the incidence of oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity, may provide a molecular mechanism of this side effect in oncological patients.

Glucocorticoid receptor upregulation increases radioresistance and triggers androgen independence of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite the overall success of radiotherapy, a significant number of patients develop radioresistance, which leads to local regional recurrence and distant metastasis. We studied whether repeated radiation treatment promotes androgen-independent survival of prostate cancer (PCa) cells and their metastatic potential. We also studied whether glucocorticoid receptor (GR) increase in radioresistant cells is associated with acquisition of these aggressive characteristics.

METHODS

Radioresistant LNCaP (LNCaPR18) and C4-2 (C4-2R26) PCa sublines were developed by repeated radiation treatments of parental cells. Levels and activations of androgen receptor (AR) and GR in radioresistant PCa cells and respective parental cells were investigated in quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction/Western blot analyses and immunofluorescence staining. Androgen-independent survival of radioresistant cells was tested in in vitro cell growth assays and the castration-resistant survival of these cell-derived tumors were investigated in mouse xenografts.

RESULTS

Higher GR levels, but lower AR levels were detected in radioresistant cells than in parental cells. Radiation-induced GR upregulation was associated with increased intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate. As a consequence of GR activation, LNCaPR18 cells survived well in an androgen-depleted culture condition while parental cells could not. Results of in vivo mouse studies showed survival of LNCaPR18 cell-derived tumors in castrated mice while parental cell-derived tumors regressed. The growth of LNCaPR18 cell-derived tumors in castrated mice was impaired when treated with the anti-GR agent mifepristone. In experiments with C4-2/C4-2R26 cell sets, GR activation in C4-2R26 cells increased their metastatic potential.

CONCLUSION

GR activation in radioresistant cells mediates androgen independence and facilitates PCa progression.

Radiation-induced glucocorticoid receptor promotes CD44+ prostate cancer stem cell growth through activation of SGK1-Wnt/β-catenin signaling

We observed cancer stem cell (CSC) population increase in radioresistant LNCaP (LNCaPR18) and C4-2 (C4-2R26) prostate cancer (PCa) cells compared with respective parental cells. Since the CD44 level increase was most significant in radioresistant PCa cells compared with parental cells among CSC markers tested, we isolated the CD44+ population from LNCaP/LNCaPR18 and C4-2/C4-2R26 cell sets via the immunomagnetic separation method and used them as CSC sources. We detected lower AR level, but higher glucocorticoid receptor (GR) level in CD44+ CSCs than CD44- non-CSCs. Higher GR level in CD44+ CSCs than CD44- cells was also detected when cells were isolated from mouse tumor tissues of LNCaPR18 cell and C4-2R26 cell-derived human xenografts and grown in culture. We then found blocking the GR signaling by adding the anti-GR agent mifepristone into the cell culture inhibited the CD44+ CSC growth while the addition of the anti-AR agent enzalutamide enhanced the CSC growth. In xenograft mouse studies in which tumors were developed from the injection of CD44+ CSCs of LNCaPR18 or C4-2R26 cell lines, retarded tumor growth in mifepristone-injected mice was observed compared with vehicle-treated mice. We next discovered the GR regulation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. We further found that the serum/glucocorticoid regulated kinase 1 (SGK1) is the GR downstream molecule that mediates Wnt/β-catenin signaling activation. Therefore, inhibition of either SGK1 or Wnt/β-catenin signaling impaired the in vitro CD44+ CSC growth. From these results, we suggest that blocking GR signaling or its downstream SGK1-Wnt/β-catenin signaling axis may suppress the radiation-induced CSC increase in PCa. KEY MESSAGES: Higher CSC population exists in radioresistant PCa cells than parental cells. Higher GR levels (and lower AR level) in CD44+ CSCs than CD44- non-CSCs. Use of anti-GR agent blocked the growth of CD44+ CSCs in in vitro/in vivo tests. GR downstream SGK1-Wnt/β-catenin signaling axis mediates the CSC increase. Targeting this signaling axis may enhance the radiotherapy efficacy in treating PCa.

A cohort study of hypersensitivity reaction in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated with carboplatin

Background

The prevalence and risk factors of hypersensitivity reaction of in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer treated with platinum are controversial.

Objective

To summarize the clinical characteristics and management of hypersensitivity reaction of carboplatin in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and to determine its effects on prognoses.

Methods

Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer between January 2013 and January 2016 were identified. Data were retrospectively collected by reviewing the medical records of a single tertiary teaching hospital. Patients’ demographic characteristics, symptoms, and treatment were described and compared between the hypersensitivity reaction and non-hypersensitivity reaction groups. The effects of hypersensitivity reaction on survival outcomes were analyzed in univariate and multivariate models.

Results

A total of 860 patients were identified, including 76 (8.8%) patients with 86 incidents of hypersensitivity reaction in 5807 courses of chemotherapy. Of all patients with a first attack of hypersensitivity reaction, 79% were classified as grade 1–2. The most common symptoms were shortness of breath and tightness in the chest (70/76 cases, 92.1%). Subsequent management included chemotherapy suspension, switching to a non-platinum regimen, desensitization therapy, separated infusion of drugs, adherence to the original therapy, and switching to cisplatin. However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with recurring hypersensitivity reaction among patients treated with different management methods (p=0.915). Disease relapse and chemotherapy courses ≥6 for primary epithelial ovarian cancer or ≥7 for recurrent disease were risk factors for platinum-based hypersensitivity reaction. There were no significant differences in median progression-free survival between the hypersensitivity reaction group and the non-hypersensitivity reaction group (p=0.144).

Conclusions

Most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with a carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reaction had mild symptoms and favorable outcomes, and their progression-free survival was not influenced. Disease relapse and the number of courses of chemotherapy were risk factors for a hypersensitivity reaction.

Trial registration number

NCT03291262.

Clinical Analysis of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Oxaliplatin Among Colorectal Cancer Patients

This study investigated the characteristics of oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) and evaluated the efficacy of premedication for controlling HSRs among colorectal cancer patients. A retrospective study was performed on the clinical records of 291 patients with colorectal cancer in The Tenth People’s Hospital of Shanghai from January 2008 to January 2016. Patients who experienced HSRs to oxaliplatin were compared with those who did not. A total of 291 colorectal cancer patients received oxaliplatin, with 39 (13.40%) experiencing HSRs. Oxaliplatin-free interval and premedication with dexamethasone and antihistamine were independent variables for oxaliplatin-related HSRs. Rechallenging patients with premedication was successful in 72.2% of the patients who successfully completed their treatment. Attention should be paid to patients with any prior exposure to oxaliplatin. Patients with grades 1 and 2 HSRs can successfully rechallenge with oxaliplatin and complete their treatment by premedication with dexamethasone and antihistamine.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison between hypersensitivity reactions to cycles of modified FOLFOX6 and XELOX therapies in patients with colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Although hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to oxaliplatin (L-OHP) therapy are well-documented, few reports have compared different therapies in terms of HSR occurrence. In this study, we compared the frequency and pattern of HSRs to modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6; 5-fluorouracil, levofolinate calcium and L-OHP infusions) and XELOX (capecitabine and L-OHP) therapies, and sought to identify risk factors associated with HSRs.

METHODS

Patients who had received mFOLFOX6 or XELOX chemotherapeutic regimens for unresectable colon or rectal cancer or as adjuvant chemotherapy following colon cancer surgery between April 2012 and August 2015 were included. Potential correlation between treatment modalities (regimen, dosage and route of administration of L-OHP, and injection timing for dexamethasone administration) and HSRs was assessed.

RESULTS

Among the 240 patients included in the study, 136 had received mFOLFOX6 therapy and 104 had received XELOX therapy. Although the frequency of HSRs did not differ between the two groups, incidence of HSRs in the first cycle was higher in the XELOX therapy group. Treatment method or cumulative dosage was not identified as a risk factor for HSR; however, the incidence of ≥grade-2 HSR was higher in cases where the cumulative L-OHP dosage was ≥600 mg/m² and in patients in whom dexamethasone was not co-infused with L-OHP.

CONCLUSION

Although HSR rates were comparable among patients treated with mFOLFOX6 and XELOX, HSRs tended to occur more frequently during the first cycle of XELOX therapy as compared to that with mFOLFOX6 therapy. Our findings warrant careful assessment of ≥grade-2 HSRs in patients who are prescribed cumulative L-OHP dosages of ≥600 mg/m².

A single-arm Phase II validation study of preventing oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions by dexamethasone: the AVOID trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin are at risk of hypersensitivity reactions, with the incidence estimated to be 12%-20%. Coinfusion of dexamethasone and oxaliplatin could potentially reduce the incidence of these reactions, but oxaliplatin is reported to be incompatible with alkaline compounds in solution. However, in a previous retrospective study we found that the pH of a solution of dexamethasone and oxaliplatin was less than 7.4, and that hypersensitivity to oxaliplatin could have been prevented by coinfusion of dexamethasone. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of coinfusion of dexamethasone and oxaliplatin to prevent oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The AVOID trial was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm Phase II trial conducted from January to September 2013. The study included 73 patients who received capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) or XELOX plus bevacizumab therapy for colorectal cancer. In all patients, oxaliplatin was administered in combination with dexamethasone. The primary outcome measure was the presence of hypersensitivity reactions.

RESULTS

Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in three patients (4.1%); all three experienced a cutaneous reaction (grade 1 erythema). None of the 73 patients developed respiratory symptoms, ocular symptoms, or anaphylaxis. Grade 3 or higher hemotoxicity occurred in 13.7% of the patients and grade 3 or higher nonhematological toxicity occurred in 13.7%. The response rate to treatment was 64.4%.

CONCLUSION

The coinfusion of dexamethasone and oxaliplatin effectively reduced oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions in patients with colorectal cancer. This approach should be considered for all patients treated with oxaliplatin, allowing treatment to be completed as planned.

Hypersensitivity reactions associated with oxaliplatin and their clinical management

INTRODUCTION

Oxaliplatin , has become an integral part of the medical treatment of colorectal cancer and other malignancies. Increased use of the drug during the last decade, has led to increased occurrence of oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), posing a significant challenge for clinicians. This article aims to review the existing literature regarding the incidence, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, risk factors and current management of oxaliplatin-induced HSRs.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review of the English literature published in PubMed and Medline was undertaken. The clinical manifestations of HSRs were found to be variable and unpredictable. These reactions should be an important concern, as their potential life-threatening risks can force doctors to stop treatment and seek alternatives, which may be less effective, not as well tolerated and/or more expensive. There are a few strategies to prevent these reactions so that patients can still benefit from oxaliplatin. Such strategies include the use of premedication (steroid and antagonists of type I and II histamine receptors), prolonged infusion time and desensitization.

EXPERT OPINION

The presented management strategies as well as novel diagnostic tools including skin/intradermal tests and specific IgE have shown promising results. However, future research and validation are warranted in bigger clinical trials.

Oxaliplatin-induced hypersensitivity reaction: underlying mechanisms and management

Hypersensitivity reactions are rare but feared drugs adverse effect. These reactions are not uncommon with anticancer drugs, such as taxanes, monoclonal antibodies, and platinum compounds. Oxaliplatinum, a third-generation platinum compound, one of the mainstay drugs in the treatment of many gastrointestinal cancers, can give rise to hypersensitivity reactions, sometimes with fatal outcomes. In this paper, we reviewed the incidence and mechanisms underlying the occurrence of this event, highlighting the most recent advances concerning the pathogenesis of the reaction and also reporting possible risk factors identified and the most effective treatment in preventing the onset of this event.

Management of hypersensitivity to platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy: cepo review and clinical recommendations

BACKGROUND

Although antineoplastic agents are critical in the treatment of cancer, they can potentially cause hypersensitivity reactions that can have serious consequences. When such a reaction occurs, clinicians can either continue the treatment, at the risk of causing a severe or a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction, or stop the treatment, although it might be the only one available. The objective of the present work was to evaluate the effectiveness of methods used to prevent and treat hypersensitivity reactions to platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy and to develop evidence-based recommendations.

METHODS

The scientific literature published to December 2013, inclusive, was reviewed.

RESULTS

Premedication with antihistamines, H2 blockers, and corticosteroids is not effective in preventing hypersensitivity reactions to platinum salts. However, premedication significantly reduces the incidence of hypersensitivity to taxanes. A skin test can generally be performed to screen for patients at risk of developing a severe reaction to platinum salts in the presence of grade 1 or 2 reactions, but skin testing does not appear to be useful for taxanes. A desensitization protocol allows for re-administration of either platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy to some patients without causing severe hypersensitivity reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Several strategies such as premedication, skin testing, and desensitization protocols are available to potentially allow for administration of platinum- or taxane-based chemotherapy to patients who have had a hypersensitivity reaction and for whom no other treatment options are available. Considering the available evidence, the Comité de l'évolution des pratiques en oncologie made recommendations for clinical practice in Quebec.

Hypersensitivity to oxaliplatin: clinical features and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin-based regimens induce a potential risk of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR), with incidence varying from 10% to 25% and lack of clearly identified risk factors. The present study aimed to assess incidence and risk factors in HSR.

METHODS

All patients treated with oxaliplatin in the Medical Oncology Department of the Lyon Sud University Hospital (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France) from October 2004 to January 2011 were enrolled. Incidence and severity of HSR were analyzed retrospectively and the potential clinicopathological covariates were tested on univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,221 doses of oxaliplatin were administered for 191 patients, 8.9% of whom experienced an HSR. Seventeen HSRs were observed, with 1.6% grade 3 and no grade 4 events. The first reaction appeared after a median of 3 oxaliplatin infusions. Using univariate analysis, HSR was associated with younger age (mean age, 56.2 years; p = 0.04), female gender (p = 0.01) and prior exposure to platinum salts (p = 0.02). No increased risk was associated with mean dose or with presence of atopic background. Multivariate analysis confirmed that women were at higher risk of oxaliplatin HSR than men (p < 0.05). Reintroduction of oxaliplatin was effective in 64.7% of hypersensitive patients using an appropriate premedication strategy. Patients who experienced a grade 3 HSR were not rechallenged.

CONCLUSION

The risk of developing oxaliplatin HSR should not be underestimated (8.9% of patients). The medical team's vigilance should be increased with women, younger patients and patients with prior exposure to platinum salts.