Hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin given to patients with relapsed ovarian carcinoma

Premedication Protocols to Prevent Hypersensitivity Reactions to Chemotherapy: a Literature Review

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy may prevent patients from receiving the most effective therapy. This review was undertaken to identify evidence-based preventive premedication strategies that reduce the likelihood of HSR in the first instance and improve the safety of subsequent infusions in patients who have demonstrated HSR to a certain class of chemotherapy. PubMed was searched until October 2021 using the key words: "hypersensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs," "hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents," "taxanes hypersensitivity," "platinum compound hypersensitivity," "premedication," "dexamethasone," "prednisone," "hydrocortisone," "antihistamine," "diphenhydramine," "cetirizine," "famotidine," "meperidine," "aspirin," "ibuprofen," and "montelukast." The search was restricted to articles published in English. A total of 73 abstracts were selected for inclusion in the review. Most premedication regimens have been derived empirically rather than determined through randomized trials. Based on the available evidence, we provide an update on likely HSR mechanisms and a practical guide for classifying systemic HSR. The evidence indicates that a combination of prevention strategies using newer antihistamines, H2 antagonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids and other interventions used judiciously reduces the occurrence and severity of HSR and improves safety.

Antitumor activity of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, BRCA-mutated, high-grade ovarian cancer, and an update on safety

OBJECTIVE

To report results from an integrated efficacy and safety analysis supporting the European Commission's approval of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as monotherapy treatment for relapsed, platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Efficacy was analyzed in platinum-sensitive patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who had high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and received two or more prior chemotherapies (including two or more platinum-based therapies). The primary end point was investigator-assessed, confirmed objective response rate (visit cut-off: April 10, 2017). Safety was analyzed in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA mutation status or lines of prior chemotherapies, who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg in either study (visit cut-off: December 31, 2017).

RESULTS

In the integrated platinum-sensitive efficacy population (n=79), objective response rate was 64.6% (95% CI, 53.0 to 75.0); 10.1% (8/79) of patients had a complete response and 54.4% (43/79) had a partial response. Median duration of response was 294 days (95% CI, 224 to 393). In the integrated safety population (n=565), the most common any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (77.7%, 439/565), asthenia/fatigue (74.7%, 422/565), vomiting (45.8%, 259/565), and hemoglobin decreased (44.2%, 250/565). Treatment-emergent adverse events led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, or discontinuation in 60.2% (340/565), 46.0% (260/565), and 16.8% (95/565) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with platinum-sensitive, BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer, rucaparib demonstrated antitumor activity and is the first and currently the only poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved by the European Commission as treatment for this population. The safety analysis used a more recent visit cut-off date and larger population than previously published, was consistent with prior reports, and was the basis for the treatment-indication safety population in rucaparib's recently updated European Union label.

A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Extended Carboplatin Infusion to Reduce Hypersensitivity Reactions in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Hypersensitivity with repeated exposure to platinum agents is common and can preclude continued treatment, even in patients with disease that remains platinum sensitive. We sought to compare the effects of prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion versus standard infusion on the rate of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

This was a single-institution, randomized, nonblinded trial comparing a graded, 3-hour extended infusion of carboplatin with a standard 30-minute infusion in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled from January 2011 to April 2015. The study was designed to detect a decrease in the HSR rate from 20% (standard infusion) to 5% (extended infusion) assuming a type 1 error of 10% and power of 80% using a 1-sided test.

RESULTS

Of 146 enrolled patients, 114 were evaluable. Fifteen (13%) had an HSR-11% (6/56) in the extended-infusion and 16% (9/58) in the standard-infusion groups (P = 0.582). Planned treatment completion was achieved in 50 (89%) of 56 patients and 49 (84%) of 58 patients, respectively. Of 25 patients who received single-agent carboplatin, 8 (32%) had an HSR (53% of all patients who had an HSR [8/15]). Of 23 patients who received carboplatin with gemcitabine, 4 (17%) had an HSR (27% of all patients who had an HSR [4/15]). Of 8 patients who received carboplatin with paclitaxel, 3 (38%) had an HSR (20% of all patients who had an HSR [3/15]). There were no HSRs with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, the most commonly given concurrent chemotherapy (46% of all patients).

CONCLUSIONS

A prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion was not associated with a decreased HSR rate. The overall low HSR rate suggests that premedication may help reduce HSRs.

Outpatient desensitization in selected patients with platinum hypersensitivity reactions

Platinum-based chemotherapies are a standard treatment for both initial and recurrent gynecologic cancers. Given this widespread use, it is important to be aware of the features of platinum hypersensitivity reactions and the subsequent treatment of these reactions. There is also increasing interest in the development of desensitization protocols to allow patients with a history of platinum hypersensitivity to receive further platinum based therapy. In this review, we describe the management of platinum hypersensitivity reactions and the desensitization protocols utilized at our institution. We also describe the clinical categorizations utilized to triage patients to appropriate desensitization protocols.

A retrospective analysis of the risk factors for allergic reactions induced by the administration of oxaliplatin

This study retrospectively investigated the clinical features and risk factors of allergic reactions induced by oxaliplatin administration. This study investigated the incidence of allergic reactions and analysed the background and laboratory data in patients with colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy at Kyushu Medical Center between April 2012 and September 2012. A total of 62 patients were included in this study. The number of patients in the allergic and non-allergic groups was 7 and 55 respectively. The incidence of allergic reactions was 11.3%. We compared the patients' characteristics and laboratory data between the two groups and found that the average dose of dexamethasone in the allergic group was significantly lower than that observed in the non-allergic group (P = 0.0111). Furthermore, the incidence of allergic reactions in the group that received prophylaxis of less than 12 mg of dexamethasone was significantly higher than that observed in the group that received more than 12 mg of dexamethasone (P = 0.0103). In conclusion, a lower dexamethasone dose is a possible risk factor for allergic reactions induced by the administration of oxaliplatin; however, given the retrospective design used in this study, further validation of this finding is warranted.

Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation is an independent risk factor for carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions

Background:

We tested the hypothesis that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with ovarian cancer are at higher risk of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs).

Methods:

Medical records of women enrolled in two carboplatin+olaparib clinical trials (NCT01237067/NCT01445418) were reviewed. A maximum of eight cycles containing carboplatin were administered.

Results:

All women (N=87) had good performance status and end-organ function. Incidences of carboplatin HSR before enrolment and on study were 17% and 21%, respectively. Most patients who developed carboplatin HSR had a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation (93%) vs 50% in patients without HSR (P<0.0001). Multivariable analysis accounting for potential confounding variables including age, history of allergies, and cumulative prior carboplatin cycles confirmed deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation as an independent risk factor for carboplatin HSR (odds ratio 13.1 (95% confidence interval 2.6–65.4), P=0.0017). Mutation carriers had onset of carboplatin HSR at lower cumulative exposure (P=0.003). No significant difference in outcome was observed on our study between patients with and without a history of HSR.

Conclusion:

Deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation increased susceptibility and shortened time to carboplatin HSR, independently of other reported factors. These data suggest that at-risk women should be counselled regarding likelihood, symptoms, and potential earlier onset of carboplatin HSRs.

Hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin and cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment has changed in the past ten years due to the acceptance of platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy. In the event of relapse, patients are often retreated with platinum agents. Hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin are well documented among gynecologic oncology patients. Now that adjuvant chemotherapy is a component of NSCLC treatment, platinum hypersensitivity is also a concern in the lung cancer population. A 74-year-old male developed relapsed NSCLC two years after a lobectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy including carboplatin. He was treated with a carboplatin containing regimen, and experienced hypersensitivity during his 2(nd) cycle (post-relapse). We briefly report four additional cases of platinum sensitivity in NSCLC patients, to highlight the increasing likelihood of platinum hypersensitivity in this "at risk" group. Hypersensitivity reactions to platinum chemotherapeutics occur in NSCLC patients, and patients and treating medical staff should be aware of this serious, treatment-related complication.

Carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reaction

We describe a 65-year-old female with relapsed ovarian cancer who developed a severe hypersensitivity reaction during the second cycle of carboplatin treatment. The patient developed respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome and hypotension, requiring admission to the intensive care unit.

A retrospective review of the frequency and nature of acute hypersensitivity reactions at a medium-sized infusion center: comparison to reported values and inconsistencies found in literature

Purpose: To evaluate acute hypersensitivity reactions at the UCSD Moores Cancer Center in San Diego, compare our findings to those reported previously in the literature, and examine the effectiveness of the objective grading scale as represented by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).

Patients and Methods: Using the available pharmacy and electronic medical record data from 2006-2010, we examined our reported hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) using the CTCAE v.3.0 and v.4.0. A thorough literature review was also performed to compare our findings with those previously reported.

Results: We found 222 cases of HSRs, of which 50% were due to immunotherapeutics. Most were grade 1 or 2 by any CTCAE criteria. The clinical presentation of HSRs varied between drug classes. Using different versions of grading schema led to inconsistencies in ~50% of all HSRs. Fifty-two percent of all cases not due to blood products were rechallenged on the same day. The reported literature HSR frequencies for each causative agent showed a striking variability, possibly indicating that previous studies used a wide variety of grading and reporting systems for adverse events.

Conclusion: HSRs are common in clinical practice, and most are mild or moderate. There are inconsistencies in reporting HSRs between studies. The existence of several grading schema and subjective definitions of hypersensitivity could be contributing to poor clinical generalizability. Along with an improved system of reporting HSRs to minimize underreporting, a standard system of objectively assessing HSRs is necessary for purposes of research and clinical practice.

General considerations on rapid desensitization for drug hypersensitivity - a consensus statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions can occur with most drugs, are unpredictable, may affect any organ or system, and range widely in clinical severity from mild pruritus to anaphylaxis. In most cases, the suspected drug is avoided in the future. However, for certain patients, the particular drug may be essential for optimal therapy. Under these circumstances, desensitization may be performed. Drug desensitization is defined as the induction of a temporary state of tolerance of a compound responsible for a hypersensitivity reaction. It is performed by administering increasing doses of the medication concerned over a short period of time (from several hours to a few days) until the total cumulative therapeutic dose is achieved and tolerated. It is a high-risk procedure used only in patients in whom alternatives are less effective or not available after a positive risk/benefit analysis. Desensitization protocols have been developed and are used in patients with allergic reactions to antibiotics (mainly penicillin), insulins, sulfonamides, chemotherapeutic and biologic agents, and many other drugs. Desensitization is mainly performed in IgE-mediated reactions, but also in reactions where drug-specific IgE have not been demonstrated. Desensitization induces a temporary tolerant state, which can only be maintained by continuous administration of the medication. Thus, for treatments like chemotherapy, which have an average interval of 4 weeks between cycles, the procedure must be repeated for every new course. In this paper, some background information on rapid desensitization procedures is provided. We define the drugs and drug reactions indicated for such procedures, describe the possible mechanism of action, and discuss the indications and contraindications. The data should serve as background information for a database (accessible via the EAACI-homepage) with standardized protocols for rapid desensitization for antibiotics, chemotherapeutic agents, monoclonal antibodies/fusion proteins, and other drugs.

Hypersensitivity reactions associated with platinum antineoplastic agents: a systematic review

Platinum-containing chemotherapy agents (cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin) have been approved in the first-line setting of numerous malignancies, such as ovarian, bladder, head and neck, colorectal, and lung cancer. Their extensive use over the last decade has led to a significant increase in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, which are defined as unforeseen reactions whose signs and symptoms cannot be explained by the known toxicity of these drugs. Skin rash, flushing, abdominal cramping, itchy palms, and back pain are common symptoms. Cardiovascular and respiratory complications can prove fatal. Multiple pathogenetic mechanisms have been suggested. Hypersensitivity usually appears after multiple infusions, suggesting type I allergic reactions; however, other types of hypersensitivity also seem to be implicated. Several management options are available to treating physicians: discontinuation of chemotherapy, premedication, prolonging of infusion duration, desensitization protocols, and replacement with a different platinum compound after performing skin tests that rule out cross-reactions among platinum agents.

The prophylactic conversion to an extended infusion schedule and use of premedication to prevent hypersensitivity reactions in ovarian cancer patients during carboplatin retreatment

OBJECTIVE

Repeated exposure to carboplatin can lead to hypersensitivity reactions during retreatment with carboplatin. This may prevent its further use in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients. At our institution, an increasing proportion of patients are prophylactically converted to an extended schedule of infusion after 8 cycles of carboplatin. We sought to determine whether an incrementally increasing, extended 3-hour infusion of carboplatin with appropriate premedication was associated with a lower rate of hypersensitivity reactions compared to the standard 30-minute schedule in sequentially treated patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective electronic medical record review of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer retreated with carboplatin at our institution from January 1998 to December 2008.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and seventy-seven patients with relapsed ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer were retreated with carboplatin and met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 117 (17%) developed hypersensitivity reactions during second-line or greater carboplatin-based treatment for recurrent disease. Only 6 (3.4%) of the 174 patients who received the extended schedule developed hypersensitivity reactions (0% grade 4; 50% grade 3) compared to 111 (21%) of 533 patients in the standard schedule group (13% grade 4; 77% grade 3). The first hypersensitivity episode occurred after a median of 16 platinum (carboplatin and cisplatin) treatments in the extended group compared to 9 in the standard group. Using the Fisher exact test, there was an association with a reduced incidence of hypersensitivity reactions with the extended infusion schedule (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest appropriate premedication and prophylactic conversion to an extended infusion during carboplatin retreatment may reduce hypersensitivity reactions.

Oxaliplatin-induced allergic reaction in patients with colorectal cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin is a platinum compound that is clinically effective for colorectal cancer (CRC), in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV), and it is widely used for metastatic disease and for the adjuvant treatment of stage III CRC. With the increasing use of oxaliplatin in Japan, serious adverse events have been experienced other than hematologic and neurologic toxicities.

METHODS

In order to clarify the clinical features of allergic reactions to oxaliplatin, we retrospectively investigated CRC patients who had received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapies.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five CRC patients who had been treated with FOLFOX regimens (containing oxaliplatin, 5-FU, and LV) were examined, and 21 patients (17%) were found to have developed allergic reactions. Sixteen patients (13%) had grade 1/2 adverse events, classified according to the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTC-AE) version 3.0 and 5 (4%) had grade 3/4 adverse events. The allergic reaction appeared after a median number of nine cycles (range, 2-15 cycles). Previous chemotherapy included 5-FU/LV, CPT-11, and S-1. All of the patients with allergic reactions recovered completely when treated with antiallergy drugs. Oxaliplatin was reintroduced in 11 patients, with the use of prophylactic agents; allergic reaction to the reintroduction was not observed in 8 patients and grade 1/2 allergic reactions developed in 3 patients. No correlation was identified between allergic reaction and patients' background characteristics such as sex, history of allergy, and profile of other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Allergic reactions to oxaliplatin remain an important issue for patients being able to safely continue effective chemotherapies; further analysis will be needed to establish methods for the prediction and prophylaxis of such reactions.

Atypical presentations of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions: Characterization and management in patients with gynecologic malignancies

OBJECTIVES

Carboplatin skin testing (ST) can help identify patients with platinum hypersensitivity (PH), however, we have encountered patients who do not immediately test positive yet exhibit subtle or delayed allergy symptoms prior to PH. We describe the "atypical platinum reactions" (APH) of 14 patients and our experience with skin testing and desensitization.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed on carboplatin-treated patients. Patients with +ST, PH or APH were offered desensitization, and the number of successful additional treatments was recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 73 ST were administered to patients receiving their >6th carboplatin cycle. 19 +ST and 10 PH with -ST were identified. 14 APH were identified including delayed +ST conversions and allergy symptoms. The median onset and duration of symptoms after treatment were 6 and 3.5 days respectively. 12 APH patients had ST on their next cycle, seven of which were immediately positive. ST was positive in 36% of those tested, resulting in a negative predictive value of 76%. The median number of carboplatin cycles received prior to ST conversion, PH or APH was eight. 29% of patients with a +ST, PH, or APH had a prior history of systemic allergic reaction to other medications or allergens. Desensitization and dose escalation were successful in 14/20 patients (70%) for an average of 1.9 cycles/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

ST will not identify all patients with carboplatin-associated reactions. Careful questioning regarding symptoms in between chemotherapeutic cycles may identify patients who will benefit from desensitization, allowing continuation of treatment and prevention of life-threatening adverse events.

Rapid inpatient/outpatient desensitization for chemotherapy hypersensitivity: Standard protocol effective in 57 patients for 255 courses

OBJECTIVES

Hypersensitivity reactions (HR) to chemotherapy often prompt permanent discontinuation and deprive the patient of the most active regimen. We investigated the safety and effectiveness of a rapid desensitization protocol used in inpatient and outpatient settings for patients with HR to various chemotherapy and related agents.

METHODS

A 3-solution, 12-step protocol delivered doubling drug doses by step, infusing the target dose over 5.8 h for inpatient and 3.8 h for outpatient administration.

RESULTS

57 consecutive patients who had moderate to severe HR to chemotherapy were evaluated for desensitization. All 57 patients successfully completed 255 courses of desensitization (127 to carboplatin, 114 to paclitaxel, and 14 to four other agents) where 16 patients received 51 courses in the outpatient setting (34 to carboplatin and 17 to paclitaxel). 225 courses (88.2%) were completed without any HR. 18 patients had breakthrough symptoms (BS) over 30 courses (11.8%) that were less severe than their initial HR. After management of breakthrough symptoms, these patients finished all 30 courses and tolerated subsequent desensitizations on a modified protocol. 21 of 26 patients (81%) with HR to carboplatin had positive skin tests to carboplatin. Cancer response to chemotherapy administered by desensitization was within the expected range after 1-3 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The rapid desensitization protocol was safe and effective in both the inpatient and outpatient settings and allowed appropriate patients with moderate to severe HR to continue chemotherapy. This study warrants the incorporation of the protocol into standard clinical practice.

Cisplatinum rechallenge in relapsed ovarian cancer patients with platinum reinduction therapy and carboplatin hypersensitivity

Hypersensitivity reactions have been reported as limiting side effect in patients re-exposed to carboplatin for relapsed gynecologic malignancy. This study analyzed the incidence, clinical features, management, and outcome of carboplatin-associated hypersensitivity reactions. We performed a retrospective study and analyzed medical records of all gynecological cancer patients treated with carboplatin in our institution from 2000 to 2003. No hypersensitivity reactions were observed in 171 patients during the first carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. All six carboplatin-associated hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 69 patients who were re-exposed to carboplatin (9%). The median number of carboplatin cycles prior to hypersensitivity reaction was nine (range, 8-13). Cisplatin rechallenge was performed in five patients, and no hypersensitivity occurred. An increase in neurotoxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 2) was documented in two patients who had residual neurotoxicity grade 1 due to prior taxane treatment. Cisplatinum rechallenge is a feasible strategy to overcome carboplatin hypersensitivity. However, close monitoring of neurotoxicity is necessary, particularly in patients with residual neurotoxicity due to prior platinum- and taxane-containing chemotherapy.

Carboplatin hypersensitivity

Carboplatin has established an important role in many different cancers. As its use increased, the documented cases of hypersensitivity also picked up. Although the mechanism of these reactions remains unknown, the immediate type of hypersensitivity reaction mediated by IgE may be involved. It takes a while for the reaction to develop, but cases are reported even after 1st cycle. The incidence of hypersensitivity is highest at about 8th cycle of therapy with decline after that. These reactions themselves ranged from facial flushing or itching to seizures, dyspnea, and anaphylaxis. Many physicians currently do not use skin testing prior to 8th cycle of carboplatin therapy and retreat their patients with carboplatin after the first hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, it is suggested that skin test should be conducted prior to the 8th cycle, preferably before the 6th cycle, as hypersensitivity tends to increase on the 6th cycle-treatment. Methods published so far involve: desensitization, skin testing, switching therapy to another platinum analogue, and premedication. Despite all the process, the most effective drug toxicity prevention method remains skin testing prior to 8th cycle. It can accurately predict patients who will develop hypersensitivity reactions. Other methods so far have not shown consistent results.

Carboplatin hypersensitivity: a 6-h 12-step protocol effective in 35 desensitizations in patients with gynecological malignancies and mast cell/IgE-mediated reactions

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HR) is increased in patients treated with multiple courses of carboplatin. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the effectiveness of a 12-step desensitization protocol and to characterize the immune mechanism of carboplatin HR.

METHODS

We analyzed 10 consecutive patients who had documented HR to carboplatin and in whom continued treatment with carboplatin was considered advantageous. The patients were treated with carboplatin using a 6-h, 12-step desensitization protocol with a 30-min premedication regimen. Skin tests were performed on five patients.

RESULTS

Ten patients successfully completed 35 planned courses of desensitizations to carboplatin, 31 of which were without reactions. Four patients had symptoms during their first (n = 3) and third (n = 1) desensitizations but tolerated the re-administration of infusions without further reactions. For subsequent courses, the protocol was modified for two patients who had extracutaneous symptoms during desensitization and was unchanged for the patient who had mild urticaria. These three patients tolerated subsequent courses of desensitizations without reactions. The fourth patient with symptoms during desensitization no longer required carboplatin due to progressive disease. Of the five patients who were skin tested to carboplatin, four had positive wheal and flare reactions. In one patient, the skin test response to carboplatin became negative after desensitization.

CONCLUSION

The 6-h, 12-step desensitization protocol is safe and effective for treating patients with carboplatin HR. Positive skin tests to carboplatin suggest a mast cell/IgE-mediated mechanism. Conversion of the positive skin test to a negative response after desensitization supports antigen-specific mast cell desensitization.

Carboplatin desensitization

BACKGROUND

IgE-mediated carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions occur in up to 30% of patients receiving this agent for chemotherapy of solid tumors, thus limiting therapeutic options.

OBJECTIVE

To describe our experience with intravenous carboplatin desensitization regimens, which culminated in a standardized, successful protocol for safe administration.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients with ovarian cancer who had experienced severe anaphylactic reactions to carboplatin were referred to our hospital. Intradermal skin testing was performed by raising a 3-mm bleb by injection of undiluted carboplatin at 10 mg/mL, and the wheal size was read at 20 minutes. The outcomes of the various desensitization regimens were documented prospectively, and the experience gained was used to develop a standardized protocol for administration.

RESULTS

All patients had positive intradermal skin test results. The first 3 patients were treated with short (90 minutes to 6 hours) desensitization protocols, and all protocols failed on the first or second infusions. These 3 and a subsequent 5 patients were given intravenous carboplatin according to a protocol of gradual dose escalation over a 4-log dose range given during a 4-day period, with subsequent 3-weekly infusions given more rapidly by omitting the most dilute log dose on each occasion. All patients tolerated the longer infusion protocol without event, and all but 1 patient experienced appropriate tumor marker response.

CONCLUSIONS

Short carboplatin desensitization protocols (less than 6 hours) have an unacceptable failure rate in patients with carboplatin allergy, but longer infusion times (days) are well tolerated without recurrence of the allergic reaction and with good tumor response. In cases where carboplatin is the optimal therapeutic agent, clinicians should not be deterred by an anaphylactic reaction to it or by failure of shorter desensitization regimens.

Toxicities of the platinum antineoplastic agents

The platinum agents (cisplatin, carboplatin and oxaliplatin) are among the most useful anticancer agents available to oncologists. The drugs have the potential to produce both mild and more serious side effects. However, in general, the platinum agents can be delivered with acceptable toxicity, even when used in combination chemotherapy regimens. Furthermore, with appropriate dose modifications, the large majority of patients who may benefit from this class of cytotoxic pharmaceutical drugs will be able to complete a planned therapeutic programme.

Expanded Experience With an Intradermal Skin Test to Predict for the Presence or Absence of Carboplatin Hypersensitivity

Purpose: Carboplatin-associated hypersensitivity is increasingly recognized as a potentially serious toxicity when this agent is administered for more than six total cycles.

Patients and Methods: Our group has used a predictive skin test in women with gynecologic cancers who have previously received more than six cumulative cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Thirty minutes before all subsequent carboplatin courses, a 0.02-mL aliquot from the solution prepared for treatment is injected intradermally. A positive test is considered to be a ≥ 5-mm wheal, with a surrounding flare.

Results: From October 1998 through March 2003, 126 patients received a total of 717 carboplatin skin tests (median per patient, four tests; range, one to 54 tests). Of the 668 negative tests (93% of the total performed), 10 were associated with evidence of carboplatin hypersensitivity (1.5% false-negative rate; 95% CI, 0.6% to 2.4%), none of which were severe (eg, dyspnea, hypotension, cardiac/respiratory compromise). Of the 41 positive tests, the decision was made to not deliver the drug to 32 patients, although seven women ultimately underwent a future attempt at re-treatment with a platinum agent using a desensitization program. In seven episodes where patients received the carboplatin despite the finding of a positive test, six were associated with the development of symptoms of anaphylaxis (none severe).

Conclusion: A negative carboplatin skin test seems to predict with reasonable reliability for the absence of a severe hypersensitivity reaction with the subsequent drug infusion. The implications of a positive test remain less certain, but limited experience with continued treatment suggests this approach must be undertaken with considerable caution.

Hypersensitivity reactions related to oxaliplatin (OHP)

Patients treated with platinum compounds are subject to hypersensitivity reactions. Our study has highlighted the reactions related to oxaliplatin (OHP) infusion. One hundred and twenty-four patients affected by advanced colorectal cancer were treated with different schedules containing OHP, at the Institute of Haematology and Medical Oncology 'L. and A. Seragnoli' of Bologna and at the Medical Oncology Division of Livorno Hospital. Seventeen patients (13%) showed hypersensitivity reactions after a few minutes from the start of the OHP infusion. Usually, these reactions were seen after 2-17 exposures to OHP (Mean+/-s.e.: 9.4+/-1.07). No patient experienced allergic reactions at his/her first OHP infusion. Eight patients developed a mild reaction consisting of flushing and swelling of the face and hands, itching, sweating and lachrymation. The remaining nine patients showed a moderate-severe reaction with dyspnoea, wheezing, laryngospasm, psycho-motor agitation, tachycardia, precordial pain, diffuse erythema, itching and sweating. Six patients out of 17 were re-exposed to the drug with premedication of steroids and all except one developed the hypersensitivity reaction again. The cumulative dose, the time of exposure to OHP and the clinical features are variable and unpredictable. The risk of developing hypersensitivity reactions in patients treated with a short infusion of OHP cannot be underestimated.

Successful administration of carboplatin in patients with clinically documented carboplatin hypersensitivity

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the tolerance and effectiveness of carboplatin rechallenge using a prolonged desensitizing carboplatin infusion regimen in patients with clinically documented moderate-severe carboplatin hypersensitivity.

METHOD

Patients admitted for carboplatin infusion were identified by computerized pharmacy records and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULT

Thirty-three patients with recurrent ovarian (N = 27), peritoneal (N = 4), tubal (N = 1), and cervical (N = 1) cancer treated with a prolonged desensitizing carboplatin infusion regimen were identified. The patients had received a median of 10 courses of carboplatin (range 3-33) before developing the moderate-severe hypersensitivity reaction. Two hundred and fifteen courses (median 5, range 1-52) were administered. Twenty-nine patients (88%) were successfully rechallenged while four had a recurrent moderate-severe carboplatin hypersensitivity precluding further administration. Despite initial tolerance of the infusion schedule moderate-severe carboplatin hypersensitivity recurred in 3 additional patients (9%) after two, three, and six subsequent courses. Objective responses to therapy were seen in 22 of 28 evaluable patients (79%).

CONCLUSIONS

A prolonged desensitizing carboplatin infusion regimen is tolerated in the majority of patients with clinically documented moderate-severe carboplatin hypersensitivity. Objective response rates seem acceptable with this schedule.

Carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions: re-treatment with cisplatin desensitisation

OBJECTIVE

This aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of re-treating patients who had experienced a hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin with cisplatin following desensitisation.

METHODS

Five patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had a previous documented hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin and a good clinical indication for continuing treatment with platinum were retreated following cisplatin desensitisation. All patients were rechallenged with cisplatin following a prolonged desensitisation protocol and the initial four patients then received subsequent cycles with a shortened protocol in an attempt to simplify and shorten the procedure.

RESULTS

All five patients tolerated their first cycle of cisplatin on rechallenge using the full desensitisation protocol with no adverse reactions. Two patients received further treatments (one and three cycles) with a shortened protocol but treatment was terminated due to further adverse hypersensitivity reactions. Two patients received one further cycle with a shortened protocol and did not experience problems with hypersensitivity but treatment was stopped due to evidence of disease progression One patient received a further two cycles using the full desensitisation protocol without problems but treatment was stopped due to evidence of disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

A full cisplatin desensitisation protocol appears to be an effective way to re-treat patients who have previously experienced a hypersensitivity reaction to carboplatin. Attempts to shorten the procedure were associated with further allergic reactions, suggesting that the full protocol should be followed with each treatment.

Analysis of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer or fallopian tube carcinoma retreated with cisplatin after the development of a carboplatin allergy

OBJECTIVE

We report the outcome of seven patients treated for recurrent ovarian cancer with cisplatin after an allergic reaction to carboplatin. One case is presented in which a heavily pretreated patient suffered a severe anaphylactic reaction, which was refractory to standard resuscitative measures and resulted in her death.

METHODS

Six further patients who received cisplatin after documentation of an allergic reaction to carboplatin (CBDCA) for the treatment of recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer between 1993 and 2000 were identified from the MSKCC database. Electronic medical records were reviewed for relevant treatment and outcome data.

RESULTS

Five of six of these patients were successfully treated without further allergic reactions. One patient with platinum-refractory disease had an allergic reaction to carboplatin and subsequently to cisplatin.

CONCLUSION

Few patients with a carboplatin allergy are subsequently treated with cisplatin at our center. One patient suffered a serious hypersensitivity reaction following retreatment and died. Based on this limited experience, cross allergy can exist although the true incidence is not known. Routine retreatment of carboplatin-allergic patients with cisplatin in the relapsed setting cannot be recommended without careful consideration of potential risks and benefits.

Hypersensitivity reactions and the utility of oral and intravenous desensitization in patients with gynecologic malignancies

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to characterize hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy in patients with gynecologic malignancies and to determine the utility of oral and intravenous desensitization.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with hypersensitivity reactions identified by direct physician query and by review of charts with ICD9 code E933.1 (Adverse Effect Anti-Neoplastic).

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were identified: 27 with ovarian cancer, 4 with primary peritoneal cancer, and 1 with cervical cancer. Nine patients experienced hypersensitivity reactions during the primary regimen and 23 during chemotherapy for recurrent disease. Hypersensitivity occurred following an average of nine courses. Hypersensitivity occurred secondary to paclitaxel (10) carboplatin (16), cisplatin (4), bleomycin (1), and paclitaxel/carboplatin combination therapy (1). Patients had previously received the agent in 93.8% of carboplatin reactions, in 54.5% of paclitaxel reactions, and in all other agent reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions most commonly included flushing, dyspnea/bronchospasm, back pain, chest discomfort, pruritus, erythema, and nausea and occasionally included alterations in blood pressure or pulse rate. Reactions were successfully treated in 96.9% of patients by interrupting the infusion and administering steroids, antihistamines, benzodiazepines, nebulized beta-agonists, and/or pressors. Seventeen patients underwent desensitization, one to two agents, with 94% success. Nine of ten patients had successful iv desensitization, and 8/10 patients had successful oral desensitization. One failure on the oral regimen had previous successful iv desensitization.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapeutic agents do not necessarily require exclusion of a compound from the treatment regimen. Intravenous and oral desensitization protocols are useful for successful and safe administration of paclitaxel and platinum compounds in patients with prior hypersensitivity reactions.

Carboplatin skin testing: a skin-testing protocol for predicting hypersensitivity to carboplatin chemotherapy

PURPOSE

A high incidence of moderate to severe hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) is noted in patients who have been treated with multiple courses of carboplatin. Presently, there is no reliable way to predict which patients may be at risk for this potentially severe adverse reaction. We developed a skin-test protocol to identify patients at high risk for HR to carboplatin chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing more than seven courses of carboplatin received a 0.02-mL intradermal injection of an undiluted aliquot of their planned carboplatin infusion 1 hour before each course of the agent. A positive skin test was prospectively defined as that resulting in a wheel of at least 5 mm with a surrounding flare. We recently reported a 27% incidence of HRs in patients receiving more than seven courses of carboplatin. These patients served as historical controls for the current study.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients with recurrent ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma receiving carboplatin were skin tested. Thirteen of 47 patients (28%) manifested a positive skin test at a median of nine total courses of carboplatin (range, eight to 17 courses). This rate of skin-test positivity was not significantly different from the incidence of documented HR reported in a historical control group (P =.89), suggesting comparable populations. A negative skin test accurately predicted the absence of HR in 166 of 168 courses of chemotherapy. Only two of 47 patients (4%) experienced a HR after a negative skin test. Thus, administering carboplatin only to patients with a negative skin test may result in a significant reduction in HRs relative to historical controls (P =.002).

CONCLUSION

An easily performed skin test appears to predict patients in whom carboplatin may be safely administered. Treatment modifications based on the results of skin testing may reduce the incidence of HRs in patients receiving repeated courses of carboplatin.

Hypersensitivity reactions to intraperitoneal administration of carboplatin in ovarian cancer: the first report of a case

Hypersensitivity reactions to intravenous administration of carboplatin (CP) have been previously reported. However, hypersensitivity reaction to intraperitoneal administration of CP has not yet been reported. A 66-year-old woman diagnosed with ovarian carcinoma underwent six courses of intraperitoneal administration of carboplatin. During the seventh course of chemotherapy, delivered intraperitoneally, she developed hypersensitivity reactions with hypotension to carboplatin. Etoposide was used for the further chemotherapy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of hypersensitivity reactions to intraperitoneal administration of carboplatin.

Hypersensitivity to carboplatin in children

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions are rare but at times severe complications to cytostatic drugs.

PROCEDURE

The percentage of allergic reactions to carboplatin and their clinical features were evaluated in 185 children affected by different solid tumors and treated with etoposide-carboplatin chemotherapy. Allergic reactions that occurred during or immediately following etoposide infusion (5 cases, 2.8%) were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

Seventeen out of 185 patients (9.2%) suffered from allergic responses to carboplatin. The first of these occurred after an average of 10.1 courses (range, 1-23; median, 9). The risk calculated according to the number of courses is 2% at 6 courses, 11.3% at 12 courses, and 47% at more than 12 courses.

CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of allergic reactions to multiple courses of carboplatin should be kept in mind when developing treatment regimens that include the drug.