Search

Background: On 30 January 2012, the US FDA approved vismodegib (Erivedge ® , Genentech, CA, USA) for the management of both metastatic and locally advanced basal cell carcinoma., Objective: Our objective was to identify evidence of hepatotoxicity with vismodegib in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in treated patients in two National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Centers., Methods: FAERS was searched for reports dated 1 January 2009 through 31 December 2015 using terms including hedgehog pathway and vismodegib and hepatic-related terms such as liver, jaundice, and hepatitis, among others. Disproportionality analyses with estimates of proportional reporting ratio and empirical Bayesian geometric mean were conducted. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, and the clinical databases at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University were searched., Results: Two cases of severe liver dysfunction were published (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] class III), and 94 reports of adverse events (AEs) were detected in FAERS, 35 of which were serious AEs. Safety notifications related to hepatotoxicity have not been issued by the manufacturer or the FDA, although vismodegib is listed in LiverTox and the European Medicines Agency website., Conclusion: We identified a detectable safety signal for hepatotoxicity for vismodegib within 4 years of FDA approval. Vismodegib should be used in patients with severe liver disease only after careful consideration, and concomitant hepatotoxic medications should be avoided. Rapid dissemination of such safety concerns is expected to result in fewer serious hepatotoxic AEs and more optimal outcomes for patients with cancer receiving vismodegib.

The incidences of life-threatening toxicities such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are inconsistently reported. The potential association of anticancer agents with SJS or TEN has not been systematically investigated. We searched the literature (Ovid: 1950 to June 2013 and PubMed: 1948 to June 2013) using terms for SJS/TEN and anticancer therapies. Primary case reports, case series, and clinical trials were included. In addition, MedWatch, the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), was searched (1968 to August 2012) for SJS/TEN reports associated with anticancer therapies. Proportional reporting ratios (PRR>2, N>3), empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM>2, N>3), and lower 95% confidence interval (EBGM0.05>2) were used as thresholds to constitute a signal of association between SJS/TEN and anticancer drugs. There were 46 SJS and 37 TEN cases associated with 18 and 22 anticancer drugs in the literature, respectively. Among cases in the FAERS, significant signals were associated with SJS for bendamustine and with TEN for bendamustine, busulfan, chlorambucil, fludarabine, lomustine, and procarbazine. Several drugs reported in the published literature to be associated with SJS/TEN were not found to have significant signals in FAERS. Proactive pharmacovigilance to detect and define safety signals serves to aid oncology practitioners in the recognition of possible, yet uncommon, serious, and/or life-threatening skin reactions.

Background: Anticancer therapies cause a wide range of dermatologic adverse events (AE). Although the frequency and severity of these events have been described, their effects on health-related quality of life (QoL) remain poorly understood, and the ones having a greater impact have not been ascertained., Objective: To assess QoL in patients on conventional versus targeted anti-cancer therapies using a dermatology-specific questionnaire., Methods: Patients (n = 283) completed the Skindex-16, a QoL questionnaire measuring the effects on three domains: symptoms, emotions, and function. Patients were grouped into two categories according to the types of oncology treatments received: (1) targeted therapies and (2) non-targeted therapies. Correlations of Skindex-16 scores with type of anti-cancer therapy, number of AEs, and specific dermatologic AEs were investigated., Results: Significant differences between patients treated with targeted versus non-targeted therapy with regards to total Skindex-16 (p = 0.02) and emotion subdomain (p = 0.02) scores were observed. Additionally, patients on targeted therapies experienced a significantly greater number of AEs (p < 0.001) compared with patients on non-targeted therapies. Patients who exhibited epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor-induced rash had higher Skindex-16 scores (p = 0.009) and higher scores in the symptom (p < 0.001), emotion (p = 0.01), and function (p = 0.001) subdomains than patients without this AE. Similar results were observed for pruritus. All p values were two sided., Conclusions: Dermatologic AEs are associated with a diminished QoL. Targeted therapies are associated with a significantly increased number of AEs and worse total and emotion Skindex-16 scores in comparison with non-targeted therapies. EGFR inhibitor rash and pruritus produced the greatest negative impact.

Purpose: To determine the relationship between boxed warnings issuance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the proportional reporting rates of the associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for multiple myeloma (MM) drugs., Methods: We compiled a list of all FDA approved MM drugs and identified their associated ADR boxed warnings, through FDA's website and physician desk reference. Drugs that were issued boxed warnings after their market launch were included in the analysis, i.e., melphalan, thalidomide, vincristine, carmustine and doxorubicin. For each drug/ADR boxed warning combination, we retrieved all reported cases from the FAERS and calculated their Empiric Bayes Geometric Means (EBGMs), in pre- and post-boxed warning periods. Chi-square tests were performed to compare serious adverse drug events before and after boxed warnings for all drug/ADR combinations., Results: A total of 10 drug/ADR boxed warning combinations were identified, of which EBGM signals increased for six combinations after a boxed warning was issued. Reports of serious adverse drug events also increased significantly (p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Boxed warnings were associated with increased FAERS reporting, indicating increased awareness of ADRs for MM drugs. Proactive pharmacovigilance programs, such as the FDA's Mini-Sentinel Project, may improve timeliness of detection of rare ADRs.

Objective: To report the financial impact of diagnosing and treating the dermatologic toxicities (dTs) that develop in patients receiving targeted anticancer therapies., Design: Single-center retrospective and prospective medical record data extraction., Setting: Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois., Patients: One hundred thirty-two adults who presented between November 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008, and who were diagnosed as having 1 primary cancer type and were treated with 1 molecularly targeted agent., Main Outcome Measure: Standard billable costs to the patient for dT-related medications, clinic visits, laboratory and diagnostic testing, and therapeutic procedures., Results: The 132 patients had a median of 3 clinic visits for dT management with a median cost of $1920 per patient. Sorafenib was associated with the most costly overall median cost per patient ($2509 per patient), and imatinib was associated with the least costly overall median cost per patient ($1263 per patient). Among the 7 targeted drugs and all 10 dTs, the most costly dT (measured by cost of treatment with medications) was hand/foot skin reaction, associated with sorafenib therapy (median cost, $968 per patient) (P < .001). The second most costly dT was panitumumab-associated acneiform eruption (median cost, $933 per patient) (P < .001)., Conclusion: The cost of diagnosis and treatment of dTs associated with targeted agents contributes to the overall economic burden of cancer care. Efforts toward the prevention of dTs may be important for decreasing the financial burden in oncology.

Purpose: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been recently associated with hip fractures. We present a case series of breast cancer survivors and a systematic review of bone health care in breast cancer., Experimental Design: We completed clinical assessments and bone density testing (BMD) of hip fractures from January 2005 to December 2008. Prefracture and 12-month functional status was obtained. Systematic review included case reports and review of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FDA AERS) from January 1998 to December 2008 (search terms: breast cancer, bone loss, osteopenia, osteoporosis, malignancy, cancer treatment, menopause, adriamycin, cytoxan, tamoxifen, and AIs)., Results: Median age was 53.5 years; five women had osteopenia, one osteoporosis. Five cases were ER (+), and received surgery, XRT chemotherapy, and anastrozole. Functional decline was noted at 12 months, with difficulty in performing heavy housekeeping, climbing stairs, and shopping. The FDA AERS database included 228 cases of fractures associated with breast cancer therapy; 77/228 (29.4%) were hip or femur fractures. Among mid-life women under the age of 64 years there were 78 fractures; 15/228 (19%) were hip and femur fractures. AIs were the most common drug class associated with fractures (n = 149, 65%)., Conclusions: Cancer treatment induced bone loss results in hip fractures among mid-life women with breast cancer. Hip fractures occur at younger ages and higher BMD than expected for patients in this age group without breast cancer. Hip fractures result in considerable functional decline. Greater awareness of this adverse drug effect is needed., (©2011 AACR.)

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors frequently result in dermatologic toxicities, including rash, xerosis, pruritus, and paronychia. Although the frequency and severity of these events have been described, their effect on health-related quality of life (QoL) remains poorly understood. By using a dermatology-specific questionnaire, the authors examined the effect of these toxicities on QoL., Methods: Patients completed the Skindex-16, a questionnaire that measures the effects on 3 domains of QoL: symptoms, emotions, and functioning. The severity of dermatologic toxicities was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0 (NCI-CTCAE). Correlations of dermatology QoL scores with NCI-CTCAE grade, skin phototype (SPT), sex, age, type of EGFR inhibitor, and cancer type were investigated., Results: Concordant with greater severity of rash grade, there was an increase in median scores for symptoms (P=.0006), emotions (P<.0001), function (P=.001), and overall score (P<.0001). There was an inverse correlation between age and emotions (r=-0.26; P=.03) and overall score (r=-0.25; P=.04). There was a significant difference between patients aged50 years with regard to symptoms (P=.02), emotions (P=.03), functioning (P=.04), and overall score (P=.02). There were no significant differences between QoL and SPT, sex, treatment type, or cancer type (P>.05)., Conclusions: Toxicities, including rash, xerosis, paronychia, and pruritus, adversely affected QoL, and rash was associated with a QoL greater decrease. Younger patients reported lower overall QoL than older patients who had the same toxicities. The current results support using the NCI-CTCAE as a correlative tool for measuring the effects of rash on dermatology-specific QoL., (Copyright (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Accurate grading of dermatologic adverse events (AE) due to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (EGFRIs) is necessary for drug toxicity determinations, interagent comparisons, and supportive care trials. The most widely used severity grading scale, the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (NCI-CTCAE v4.0), was not designed specifically for this class of agents and may result in underreporting and poor grading of distinctive adverse events. We believe a class-specific grading scale is needed to help standardize assessment and improve reporting of EGFRI-associated dermatologic AEs., Methods: The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Skin Toxicity Study Group conducted an international multidisciplinary meeting that included 20 clinicians and researchers from academic centers and government agencies. Experts from different disciplines presented current information specific to EGFRI-induced dermatologic toxicities: grading scale development, pharmacovigilance safety reporting, health-related quality of life, patient reporting, and pharmacology. Group discussions, literature reviews, and professional expertise established the theoretical foundation for the proposed grading scale., Results: A new grading system is proposed for the most common events associated with EGFRI-induced dermatologic AEs: papulopustular reaction or acneiform rash, nail changes, erythema, pruritus, xerosis, hair changes, telangiectasias, hyperpigmentation, mucositis, flushing, radiation dermatitis, hyposalivation, and taste changes. The proposed scale maintains consistency with the grading principles and language of the existing CTCAE version 4.0 and MedDRA terminology and includes relevant patient-reported health-related quality of life factors., Conclusions: A grading scale specific to EGFR inhibitor dermatologic AEs is presented for formal integration into future versions of CTCAE and for validation in clinical trial settings. The study group designed this scale to detect and report EGFRI-related toxicities with greater sensitivity, specificity, and range than the scales currently used. This scale should serve as a foundation for efforts to perform objective interdrug comparisons and assessments of supportive care treatment strategies more effectively than with current methods.

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs) have demonstrated improved overall survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer; however, their use is associated with dermatologic reactions of varying severity. The similar spectrum of events observed with monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors suggests such toxicities are a class effect. While such reactions do not necessarily require any alteration in EGFRI treatment, being best addressed through symptomatic treatment, there is limited evidence on which to base such therapies. In October 2006, at an international and interdisciplinary EGFRI dermatologic toxicity forum, the underlying mechanisms of these toxicities were discussed and commonly used therapeutic interventions were evaluated. Our aim was to reach a current consensus on management strategies. A three-tiered, EGFRI-focused toxicity grading system is suggested for the purposes of therapeutic decision making, and as a framework on which to build a stepwise approach to intervention. This approach to successful management is specifically tailored to accurately categorize dermatologic toxicity associated with EGFRIs, and can be easily applied by all health care professionals. The goal is to maximize quality of life in patients who are being treated with these agents--many of whom will be on these drugs for several months or even years.

Objectives: We undertook the review of all available cases of hypersensitivity reactions after placement of a drug-eluting stent (DES) and classified potential causes. Background: Six months after the approval of the first DES, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported 50 hypersensitivity reactions after stent placement but later concluded these were due to concomitantly prescribed medications such as clopidogrel. Nevertheless, the FDA continued to receive reports of hypersensitivity. Methods: Reports available from April 2003 through December 2004 for hypersensitivity-like reactions associated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (CYPHER, Cordis Corp., Miami Lakes, Florida) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS, Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) were reviewed. Sources of reports included the FDA’s adverse-device-event database, the published literature, and investigators from the Research on Adverse Drug/Device events And Reports (RADAR) project. Causality was assessed using standardized World Health Organization criteria. Results: Of 5,783 reports identified for the DES in the FDA database, 262 unique events included hypersensitivity symptoms. Of these reports, 2 were certainly and 39 unlikely caused by clopidogrel and 1 was certainly, 9 probably, and 13 unlikely caused by the DES. From all sources, we identified 17 distinct cases that were probably or certainly caused by the stent, of which 9 had symptoms that lasted longer than four weeks. Four autopsies confirmed intrastent eosinophilic inflammation, thrombosis, and lack of intimal healing. Conclusions: The FDA reports and autopsy findings suggest that DES may be a cause of systemic and intrastent hypersensitivity reactions that, in some cases, have been associated with late thrombosis and death. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]