Toxic epidermal necrolysis in a patient receiving vemurafenib for treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma

Emerging Insights into Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Induced by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor and Tumor-Targeted Therapy

Objective

Anticancer drugs have revolutionized tumor therapy, with cutaneous toxicities such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) being common immune-related adverse events. The debate over the efficacy of systemic corticosteroids in treating these conditions persists, while tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors show promise. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combination therapy involving the TNF-α inhibitor adalimumab for SJS/TEN induced by anticancer drugs.

Methods

A literature review of SJS/TEN cases induced by anticancer drugs from 1992 to 2023 was conducted, alongside an analysis of patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University during the same period. Clinical characteristics, skin healing time, mortality, and adverse events were evaluated in two treatment groups: SJS/TEN patients treated with targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies.

Results

Among the 27 patients studied (18 with SJS or SJS-TEN overlapping and 9 with TEN), combination therapy with adalimumab significantly reduced mucocutaneous reepithelization time and healing duration compared to corticosteroid monotherapy. Patients receiving adalimumab combined with corticosteroids had lower actual mortality rates than those on corticosteroid monotherapy. The combination therapy also showed a trend towards reducing standardized mortality rates based on the Score of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SCORTEN).

Conclusion

The findings suggest that adalimumab in combination with corticosteroids provides significant clinical benefits and is safer than corticosteroids alone for treating SJS/TEN induced by targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies. This study contributes valuable insights into potential treatment strategies for severe cutaneous adverse reactions to anticancer drugs, highlighting the importance of exploring alternative therapies such as TNF-α inhibitors in managing these conditions effectively.

Cutaneous adverse reactions resulting from targeted cancer therapies: histopathologic and clinical findings

Targeted cancer treatments-designed to interfere with specific molecular signals responsible for tumor survival and progression-have shown benefit over conventional chemotherapies but may lead to diverse cutaneous adverse effects. This review highlights clinically significant dermatologic toxicities and their associated histopathologic findings, resulting from various targeted cancer drugs. Case reports and series, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses are included for analysis and summarized herein. Cutaneous side effects resulting from targeted cancer therapies were reported with incidences as high as 90% for certain medications, and reactions are often predictable based on mechanism(s) of action of a given drug. Common and important reaction patterns included: acneiform eruptions, neutrophilic dermatoses, hand-foot skin reaction, secondary cutaneous malignancies, and alopecia. Clinical and histopathologic recognition of these toxicities remains impactful for patient care.

Evaluation of Delayed-Type Hypersensitivity to Antineoplastic Drugs-An Overview

Nowadays, clinical practice encounters the problem of delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) induced by several drugs. Antineoplastic treatments are among the drugs which show an elevated proportion of DHT reactions, leading to the worsening of patients' quality of life. The range of symptoms in DHT reactions can vary from mild, such as self-limiting maculopapular eruptions, to severe, such as Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. The development of these reactions supposes a negative impact, not only by limiting patients' quality of life, but also leading to economic loss due to market withdrawal of the affected drugs and high hospitalization costs. However, despite this problem, there are no available standard in vitro or in vivo methods that allow for the evaluation of the sensitizing potential of drugs in the preclinical phase. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize the skin reactions caused by the different antineoplastic families, followed by a comprehensive evaluation of the in vitro and in vivo methods used to detect DTHs and that could be suitable to test antineoplastic hypersensitivity reactions.

Epidermal necrolysis in the context of immuno-oncologic medication as well as kinase inhibitors and biologics

BACKGROUND

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis are severe, primarily drug-induced reactions of skin and mucosa. Since they differ in the extent of skin detachment but not in etiology, they are grouped together as epidermal necrolysis (EN). Due to nationwide registration, representative data are available at the German Center for the Documentation of Severe Skin Reactions (dZh). Here, an increasing number of case notifications in the context with new immuno-oncologic drugs, kinase inhibitors and biologics have been observed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 4,150 cases notifications between January 2003 and February 2019, 102 cases with exposure to these drug groups underwent systematic analysis, validation and causality assessment.

RESULTS

Two cases of EN to vemurafenib were confirmed and one case to afatinib and pembrolizumab, respectively. In 14 EN cases other drugs - predominantly allopurinol or cotrimoxazole - were the causative agent. Fourteen cases were EN-like reactions: six bullous lichenoid drug eruptions (DE) to pembrolizumab (2), obinutuzumab, nivolumab, rituximab, infliximab/nivolumab, and eight multiforme-like DE to rituximab (2), adalimumab, ramucirumab, bevacizumab, vemurafenib, sorafenib (2). Lichenoid DE were differentiated from EN through histopathology and by the protracted course of EN, multiforme-like DE by variable skin manifestations with only sparse epidermolysis or mucosal involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

A correct diagnosis is highly relevant in terms of prognosis and use of these drugs in malignoma treatment. Re-exposure is contraindicated in EN, but possible in other DE after rigorous risk-benefit evaluation.

Potentially life‑threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (Review)

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have emerged as a new frontier of cancer therapy. These agents include inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), BRAF, mitogen‑activated protein kinase kinase (also referred to as MEK), bcr‑abl, c‑KIT, platelet‑derived growth factor (PDGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Along with the evolving applications of TKIs, there has been an increased recognition of the breadth of potential cutaneous toxicities to these agents. In this review, we provide an overview of potentially life‑threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) that may occur during therapy with TKIs. These toxicities include Stevens‑Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP).

Intracellular accumulation of PD-1 molecules in circulating T lymphocytes in advanced malignant melanoma: an implication for immune evasion mechanism

BACKGROUND

The blockade of cell surface PD-1 (_(sur)PD-1) by monoclonal antibodies, represented by nivolumab, provides the strategy to treat advanced malignant melanoma (AMM). The intracellular presence of PD-1 molecules have been reported in some T cell subsets, however, their kinetic association with those expressed on the cell surface, let alone their significance in antitumor immunity has been ill-investigated.

METHODS

Intracellular PD-1 expression status in T cell subsets in AMM cases during nivolumab administration was chronologically characterized. The kinetics of PD-1 molecules within AMM-derived T cells was assessed in vitro in conjunction with their functional properties.

RESULTS

Increase in _(sur)PD-1 and intracellular PD-1 (_(int)PD-1⁺) expression was characteristic for AMM T cells. After short-term culture, virtually _(sur)PD-1^- nivolumab-treated AMM T cells restore _(sur)PD-1 expression, which could not be explained by the detachment of nivolumab from PD-1 epitopes alone. The blockade of trans-Golgi network resulted in the decrease in the extent of _(sur)PD-1 recovery, suggesting the translocation of accumulated _(int)PD-1 to the cell surface. Antigen-specific PD-1⁺ T cells significantly increased in _(int)PD-1⁺ cells after treatment. In addition, a surge in _(int)PD-1⁺CD4⁺ T cells was observed prior to the emergence of skin rash as an immune-related adverse event (irAE).

CONCLUSIONS

Accumulated _(int)PD-1 in T cells may contribute to enhanced immune evasion in AMM. Evaluation of intracellular PD-1 expression would be useful for better management of nivolumab-treated AMM patients in view of predicting treatment response and the incidence of irAE. Our findings further support the necessity of periodical administration of nivolumab for treating AMM.

Cutaneous Adverse Events of Anti-PD-1 Therapy and BRAF Inhibitors

OPINION STATEMENT

The treatment of advanced melanoma has undergone a dramatic transformation over the last decade with the advent of targeted and immunomodulatory therapies. This transition from cytotoxic chemotherapy has yielded improvements in both survival and quality of life; yet despite their therapeutic advantages, these treatments have been associated with a diverse range of cutaneous adverse events (AEs). These range from relatively benign eczematous conditions to more severe inflammatory and bullous disorders, and can include induction of second malignancies. AEs can result in serious morbidity and risk of mortality if not recognised and managed early. As a consequence of their novelty, and rapid uptake, these agents have been subject to intense scrutiny and there is a general understanding that cutaneous AEs should be anticipated in treatment plans. Dermatologists should be integrated into management teams to assist in the development of treatment protocols for anticipated common AEs and to provide expert management of more severe, rare or unusual AEs. Our experience has shown a reduction in treatment interruptions, more rapid recognition of unusual AEs and improved management pathways for patients suffering cutaneous AEs.

Severe skin toxicity with organ damage under the combination of targeted therapy following immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma

Targeted therapy combination (TTC: antiRAF+antiMEK) is known to improve metastatic melanoma survival. Few severe skin toxicities (grade ≥3) are described with first-line TTC (17% for vemurafenib+cobimetinib and none for dabrafenib+trametinib) in a phase III trial. Among our 42 patients treated by TTC between January 2014 and March 2017, 4.8% (2/42) of those treated in the first line presented severe skin rash versus 19% (8/42) of patients treated in the second line after previous immunotherapy. In particular, we observed one case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and four cases of severe drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome under TTC in patients who had received immunotherapy previously. Thus, previous immunotherapy appears to play an important role in the skin rash onset and severity induced by TTC.

Cutaneous toxicities of new treatments for melanoma

New drugs against advanced melanoma have emerged during last decade. Target therapy and immunotherapy have changed the management of patients with metastatic disease. Along with its generalized use, drug toxicities have appeared and the skin is the target organ of a significant part of them. This revision summarizes the most common side effects and consensus management to improve the compliance of therapies and patients' quality of life. Among the BRAF inhibitors, main cutaneous side effects are photosensitivity, plantar hyperkeratosis, and the appearance of verrucal keratosis or squamous cell carcinoma. Special attention must be paid to the development of new primary melanomas or changes on nevi during BRAF inhibitor therapy. The most common cutaneous side effects of immunotherapy are rash, pruritus, and vitiligo. It remains controversial the possible role of these toxicities as markers of response to therapy.

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions induced by targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies

With the increasing use of targeted anticancer drugs and immunotherapies, there have been a substantial number of reports concerning life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), including Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Although the potential risks and characteristics for targeted anticancer agent- and immunotherapy-induced SCAR were not well understood, these serious adverse reactions usually result in morbidity and sequela. As a treatment guideline for this devastating condition is still unavailable, prompt withdrawal of causative drugs is believed to be a priority of patient management. In this review, we outline distinct types of SCARs caused by targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies. Also, we discuss the clinical course, latency, concomitant medication, tolerability of rechallenge or alternatives, tumor response, and mortality associated with these devastating conditions. Imatinib, vemurafenib, and rituximab were the top three offending medications that most commonly caused SJS/TEN, while EGFR inhibitors were the group of drugs that most frequently induced SJS/TEN. For drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms/drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, imatinib was also the most common offending drug. Additionally, we delineated 10 SCAR cases related to innovative immunotherapies, including PD1 and CTLA4 inhibitors. There was a wide range of latency periods: 5.5–91 days (median). Only eight of 16 reported patients with SCAR showed clinical responses. Targeted anticancer drugs and immunotherapies can lead to lethal SCAR (14 deceased patients were identified as suffering from SJS/TEN). The mortality rate of TEN was high: up to 52.4%. The information compiled herein will serve as a solid foundation to formulate ideas for early recognition of SCAR and to discontinue offending drugs for better management.

Vemurafenib-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis: possible cross-reactivity with other sulfonamide compounds

Vemurafenib is a newly licensed target-directed medication. It has been proven to improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma and the BRAF(V600E) mutation; however, adverse cutaneous reactions are frequent. Few cases of life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) induced by vemurafenib have been reported. Dabrafenib, another selective BRAF inhibitor, has been licensed recently as an alternative drug with the same indications. From a molecular point of view, both vemurafenib and dabrafenib contain a sulfonamide group; cross-reactivity to sulfonamide compounds has been reported in allergic patients. We report on a patient with vemurafenib-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). In vitro analysis of lymphocyte reactivity to vemurafenib showed positive results, confirming drug causality. In addition, lymphocytes from the patient reacted to dabrafenib and to the antibiotic sulfonamide drug sulfamethoxazole. Moreover, lymphocytes from two patients with cutaneous adverse reactions to sulfamethoxazole also reacted to vemurafenib and dabrafenib in vitro. These data strongly suggest that there might be clinical cross-reactivity between BRAF inhibitors and sulfonamides in some patients. Thus, precautions should be taken to avoid sulfonamide drugs as much as possible in patients showing serious hypersensitivity reactions to vemurafenib and vice versa.

Profile of vemurafenib-induced severe skin toxicities

BACKGROUND

Vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, is commonly associated with skin toxicity. The impact of severe forms is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of permanent vemurafenib discontinuation due to grade 3-4 skin toxicity, features of these toxicities, their recurrence rate after a switch to dabrafenib and their impact on overall survival.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of 131 patients treated with vemurafenib for melanoma between November 2010 and December 2014. Data on skin toxicities, the need for vemurafenib adjustment and the impact of switching to dabrafenib were collected. Regarding survival analysis, a conditional landmark analysis was performed to correct lead-time bias.

RESULTS

Among the 131 vemurafenib-treated patients, 26% developed grade 3-4 skin toxicity. Forty-four percent of them permanently discontinued their treatment, mainly due to rash and classic skin adverse reactions (Steven-Johnson syndrome, Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms). Conversely, photosensitivity and carcinomas rarely required treatment adjustment. Grade 3-4 rashes were associated with clinical or biological abnormalities in 94% of patients. Among the 10 patients who subsequently switched to dabrafenib, skin toxicity recurred only in one patient. Overall survival was significantly prolonged in case of severe skin toxicity emerging within the first 4 (P = 0.014) and 8 weeks (P = 0.038) on vemurafenib, with only a trend at 12 weeks (P = 0.052). Median overall survival was also prolonged in case of severe rash.

CONCLUSION

In this study, vemurafenib was continued in 56% of patients with grade 3-4 skin toxicity, which was associated with prolonged overall survival when emerging within the first 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. While developing severe skin adverse reactions permanently contraindicates vemurafenib use, other rashes should lead to retreatment attempts with dose reduction. In case of recurrence, dabrafenib seems to be an interesting option. For other skin toxicities, including photosensitivity and cutaneous carcinoma, treatment adjustment is usually not needed.

Early-Onset Vemurafenib-Induced DRESS Syndrome

Vemurafenib is a BRAF inhibitor indicated in metastatic or unresectable melanoma in patients with BRAF mutations. Vemurafenib is frequently toxic, but the toxicity is often not serious. The third case of vemurafenib-induced drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is reported herein. The case is unusual in that the onset was early, with symptoms emerging as of day 8 of treatment. Treatment of DRESS syndrome is not currently based on precise recommendations, but systemic corticosteroid therapy is effective in serious cases. Severe toxidermias under vemurafenib are exceptional; immediate discontinuation of treatment upon diagnosis is imperative. Switching from vemurafenib to dabrafenib then seems to constitute an interesting therapeutic alternative, since its efficacy is the same but with fewer cutaneous adverse reactions. This case highlights the importance of awareness of the risk of DRESS syndrome associated with vemurafenib and monitoring for warning signs from treatment initiation.

Non-rash dermatologic adverse events related to targeted therapies

OBJECTIVES

To provide background information and management strategies for non-rash dermatological adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed journal articles, professional manuals, online sources.

CONCLUSION

During the last decade, many dermatological adverse events of targeted therapy have been reported, including xerosis, skin fissures, pruritus, photosensitivity, pigmentation changes, hair and nail changes, hand-foot skin reaction, squamoproliferative lesions, Stevens-Johnsons syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Although evidenced-based treatment options are scarce, many recommendations have been described in the literature that should be considered to apply in daily practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nursing practice will be enhanced by education, assessment, and management recommendations.

[What's new in skin cancers?]

The present "what's new in oncology in 2014?" is in keeping with data reported in the past years. Indeed, metastatic melanoma still keeps the lion's share. The results of the combinations schedules with BRAF and MEK inhibitors showed an improvement in progression-free survival. Otherwise, resistance mechanisms to MAPKinase pathway inhibitors are of interest worldwide. Nevertheless, more fundamental and transversal researches are currently being investigated than validated schedules in daily clinical practice. Following anti-CTLA-4 drugs, second-generation immunotherapies, including anti-PD1 and PD-L1 molecules, confirmed their results in extended cohorts. In the setting of localized melanoma, the final results from MLST-1, Morton's study, regarding the sentinel node procedure versus observation alone, prompted a new enhancement in the sentinel node controversy. From another point of view, "what is not new in oncology in 2014?" In this area, the absence of original investigations on the primary melanoma detection in France and the absence of innovations in the adjuvant treatment of melanoma after surgery should be mentioned. While recent revolutionary drugs, i.e. targeted therapies and immunotherapies, will know advances under the resistance pressure in a near future, a revolution is still awaited in melanoma earlier stages.

Managing the skin toxicities from new melanoma drugs

Patients treated with ipilimumab or targeted inhibitors of the RAF-MEK-ERK pathway (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib) for advanced cutaneous melanoma often experience drug-related skin toxicities denoted as dermatologic adverse events (DAEs). Although rarely life-threatening, DAEs may emerge dramatically and potentially compromise oncologic therapy if not managed in a timely and effective manner. Early recognition of DAEs is critical to providing optimal skin care and prompt consultation with a dermatologist should be obtained when a diagnosis is unclear. The expanding utilization of new melanoma drugs compels physicians to maintain a watchful eye for both known and novel DAEs and to adopt a low threshold to biopsy worrisome skin findings. Numerous therapeutic options are available to manage DAEs including topical and systemic agents as well as surgical and destructive modalities. Applying such methods improves overall patient care and optimizes the effectiveness of new therapies for advanced cutaneous melanoma.