1
|
Etesami I, Kalantari Y, Tavakolpour S, Mahmoudi H, Daneshpazhooh M. Drug-induced cutaneous pseudolymphoma: A systematic review of the literature. Australas J Dermatol 2023; 64:41-49. [PMID: 36331821 DOI: 10.1111/ajd.13951] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2021] [Revised: 10/07/2022] [Accepted: 10/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Drug-induced cutaneous pseudolymphoma (CPL) is a common form of pseudolymphoma and there are numerous drugs associated with it. In this study, we performed a systematic review of the literature by searching PubMed/Medline and Embase databases to determine the most common drugs responsible for CPL and to define the demographic, clinical, histopathological and immunopathological characteristics of patients (updated on 30 December 2020). From 883 initially found articles, 56 studies (89 reported cases) were included. The mean age of patients was 54.4 ± 17.7 (ranging 8-86) years, and 46 (51.7%) were men. The median time interval between drug intake and CPL occurrence was 120 days (range 1-7300 days). The shortest median time interval between taking the drug and the onset of the disease was observed among patients taking antidepressants (60 days) (range 7-540) and the longest median time interval was observed in individuals using immunomodulators (300 days) (range 3-7300). The most-reported drug categories causing CPL were anti-hypertensives (17.9%), anticonvulsants (14.6%), monoclonal antibodies (13.4%) and antidepressants (11.2%). Moreover, the most common drugs were phenytoin (6.7%), amlodipine (5.6%), fluoxetine (5.6%) and carbamazepine (4.4%). Histopathological evaluation of 76 cases revealed 62 (81.5%) reports of T-cell infiltrations. Furthermore, positive reports of CD4 (94.0%), CD8 (93.0%) and CD30 (87.5%) were noted. The lowest prevalence of CD30-positive reports was observed among monoclonal antibodies. In conclusion, anti-hypertensives, anti-convulsants, monoclonal antibodies and anti-depressants are the most common drugs responsible for CPL. It mostly presents in middle-aged patients with almost no gender difference as pruritic papules, nodules and plaques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ifa Etesami
- Department of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Yasamin Kalantari
- Department of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran.,Autoimmune Bullous Diseases Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Soheil Tavakolpour
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Hamidreza Mahmoudi
- Department of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Maryam Daneshpazhooh
- Department of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Seervai RNH, Cho WC, Chu EY, Marques-Piubelli ML, Ledesma DA, Richards K, Heberton MM, Nelson KC, Nagarajan P, Torres-Cabala CA, Prieto VG, Curry JL. Diverse landscape of dermatologic toxicities from small-molecule inhibitor cancer therapy. J Cutan Pathol 2021; 49:61-81. [PMID: 34622477 DOI: 10.1111/cup.14145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Revised: 08/29/2021] [Accepted: 10/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Advances in molecular biology and genetics have contributed to breakthrough treatments directed at specific pathways associated with the development of cancer. Small-molecule inhibitors (Nibs) aimed at a variety of cellular pathways have been efficacious; however, they are associated with significant dermatologic toxicities. METHODS We conducted a comprehensive review of dermatologic toxicities associated with Nibs categorized into the following five groups: (a) mitogen-activated protein kinase; (b) growth factor/multi-tyrosine kinase; (c) cell division/DNA repair; (d) signaling associated with myeloproliferative neoplasms; and (e) other signaling pathways. Prospective phase I, II, or III clinical trials, retrospective literature reviews, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and case reviews/reports were included for analysis. RESULTS Dermatologic toxicities reviewed were associated with every class of Nibs and ranged from mild to severe or life-threatening adverse skin reactions. Inflammatory reactions manifesting as maculopapular, papulopustular/acneiform, and eczematous lesions were frequent types of dermatologic toxicities seen with Nibs. Squamous cell carcinoma with keratoacanthoma-like features was associated with a subset of Nibs. Substantial overlap in dermatologic toxicities was found between Nibs. CONCLUSIONS Dermatologic toxicities from Nibs are diverse and may overlap between classes of Nibs. Recognition of the various types of toxicities from Nibs is critical for patient care in the era of "oncodermatology/dermatopathology."
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Riyad N H Seervai
- Medical Scientist Training Program, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Dermatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Woo Cheal Cho
- Department of Pathology, Section of Dermatopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Emily Y Chu
- Department of Dermatology, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Mario L Marques-Piubelli
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Debora A Ledesma
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kristen Richards
- Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Meghan M Heberton
- Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kelly C Nelson
- Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Priyadharsini Nagarajan
- Department of Pathology, Section of Dermatopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Carlos A Torres-Cabala
- Department of Pathology, Section of Dermatopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Victor G Prieto
- Department of Pathology, Section of Dermatopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Dermatology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jonathan L Curry
- Department of Pathology, Section of Dermatopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|