Abstract
Background
Molecular targeted therapy increased overall and disease-free survival in a wide range of malignancies. Although generally well tolerated compared to chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy may be associated with adverse events requiring ICU admission. Informing clinicians about clinical features of these toxic events might maintain awareness and favor early recognition, prompt diagnosis and treatment.
Methods
We performed a systematic review of published case reports of molecular targeted therapy-related life-threatening toxicity that led to ICU admission. The search used the Pubmed database using medical subject heading (Mesh) terms, including all FDA-approved molecular targeted therapy (TT), up to March 2019. No language restriction was applied. All cases reports of patients admitted to the ICU for molecular targeted therapy-related toxicity were included. Non-FDA-approved combinations of treatments or hormonal therapy were not included.
Results
Two hundred and fifty-three cases were identified. Nearly half of them (n = 102; 40.3%) were related to anti-angiogenic agents, mostly for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular complications. Other molecules responsible for adverse events were chiefly immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 85, 33.6%), EGFR inhibitors (n = 33; 13.0%), and anti-HER2 (n = 10; 4.0%). They were associated with adverse events such as respiratory or hypersensitivity events. Management and outcomes associated with these life-threatening complications are reported.
Conclusions
Based on the vast number of treated patients, only 253 cases of molecular therapy-related severe toxicity are reported in cancer patients. Symptoms and biomarkers that depict these events need to be better identified as to allow appropriate reporting and improving dose and schedule of the treatment adapted to each patient.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In cancer patients, molecular therapy-related severe toxicity can be life-threatening and require ICU management. Half the cases were reported to angiogenic agents, mostly for severe gastrointestinal and cardiovascular complications. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors, and anti-HER2 were associated to respiratory or hypersensitivity events. |
Introduction
Survival of patients with solid tumors has markedly improved over the last decade with the advent of molecular targeted therapies [1]. Compared with conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy, these targeted agents offer a more tolerable toxicity profile, thereby promising both optimized dose intensity and better quality of life. Given the rise of an effective cancer screening throughout the world, the ageing population, the improvement of overall survival of patients with solid tumors, and the better understanding of molecular and cellular pathways involved in tumor progression, an ever-increasing number of patients will be receiving single or combined molecular treatments [2, 3]. These new therapeutic drugs significantly improve progression-free survival in several types of cancer, but also generate adverse events (AEs), which vary widely in nature and severity.
The majority of these AEs are of low to moderate severity, classified as grade 1 to 2 toxicities according to the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events defined by the National Cancer Institute. Broadly reported in the literature, including in pivotal phase II and III clinical trials, they involve multiple organ systems, including the skin, gastrointestinal tract, peripheral nervous system, liver and endocrine system. These AEs are typically foreseeable and expected, as they correspond to a so-called on-target toxicity, as a result of inhibition of the targeted cellular pathway [4]. Although most AEs are well-managed in an outpatient setting, some AEs occasionally lead to severe morbidity or can even be fatal. Life-threatening, drug-related toxicities remain rarely described in clinical trials, which involve only carefully selected patients with middle-term clinical follow-up. Thus, few data are available regarding serious drug-related AEs in real-world patients who would not have been eligible for clinical trials. Recently, the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors in different settings and for different types of cancer has led to the rise of a new spectrum of immunotherapy-related adverse events (irAEs) [5,6,7], as a consequence of self-tolerance impairment through reduced cytotoxic T cell inhibition; however, the risk of life-threatening or fatal autoimmune-like AEs is unclear at this point, given the novelty of this class [8]. Therefore, data are needed on type, clinical presentation, management and outcomes of potential life-threatening AEs related to molecular targeted therapies, particularly those requiring an admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). In the years to come, intensivists will be managing an increasing number of patients treated with new single or combined targeted therapies. Consequently, clinicians should not overlook potential harmful effects of these new drugs, to allow for prompt diagnosis and initiation of specific treatments. Furthermore, identifying reliable predictive biomarkers of efficacy and toxicity is an urgent need to improve patient selection and help oncologists in treatment decision-making.
In this systematic review, we aimed to identify published cases of life-threatening AEs leading to an ICU admission following a targeted anticancer therapy in patients with solid tumors.
Search strategy
A systematic research on PubMed was performed, using the medical subject headings (MeSH) terms “drug-related adverse event” and “erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, cetuximab, panitumumab, osimertinib, rociletinib, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, TDM-1, lapatinib, neratinib, bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, axitinib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, aflibercept, ramucirumab, cabozantinib, olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, talazoparib, palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib, crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, lorlatinib, brigatinib, vemurafenib, dabrafenib, trametinib, cobimetinib, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, everolimus, temsirolimus, vismodegib, vandetanib, nintedanib”. We added a manual bibliography search of selected articles.
All case reports and case series of drug-related AEs resulting in an ICU admission in patients with solid cancer following treatment with an US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved molecular targeted therapy (Table 1S) published up to March 2019 were included, with no language restrictions. Patients admitted to a high-dependency unit (HDU) or coronary care unit (CCU) were included. We excluded pediatric cases, cases in pregnancy and those referring to non-oncological indications of molecular therapies. All above-mentioned targeted therapies were considered, whether the patient received the treatment in a clinical trial, off label or as usual care. We excluded case reports on non-FDA-approved combinations of targeted agents or hormonal therapies. For each type of targeted therapy, we also collected grade III–IV sides effects described in the randomized controlled trial (Table 1).
We collected clinical features of reported patients (age, gender, cancer localization, prior or concomitant anticancer treatments by chemotherapy, radiotherapy or corticosteroids). Characteristics of drug-related AEs by molecular therapy family (clinical presentation at ICU admission, time since treatment initiation, and diagnosis of complication), management of toxicity in ICU (required organ support, surgery, anti-infectious or immunosuppressive treatment, corticosteroids use) and outcomes were also collected.
Results
All cases
As shown in Fig. 1, 7344 case reports and series were identified, including 253 cases that were included in the present study. We identified 96 (37.9%) women and 157 (62.1%) men. Median age was 62 (23–88) years. Targeted treatments of interest were predominantly antiangiogenic agents (n = 102, 40.3%), immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 85, 33.6%), EGFR inhibitors (n = 33, 13%), or monoclonal anti-HER2 antibodies (n = 10, 4.0%) (Table 2). Reported patients presented with various types of cancer, mainly melanoma (n = 64, 25.3%), kidney (n = 46, 18.2%), lung (n = 44, 17.4%), colorectal (n = 40, 15.8%), and breast (n = 18, 7.1%) cancer. All but 17 patients presented with unresectable or metastatic tumors at ICU admission (n = 236, 93.3%), and 129 patients received targeted therapy of interest as first-line treatment (51.0%). One hundred and seventy-one (67.6%) patients received molecular therapy as monotherapy, whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy were associated with targeted therapy in 65 (25.7%) and five (1.9%) patients, respectively. Combinations of targeted molecular agents were reported in 12 (4.7%) patients.
Median time from treatment initiation to ICU admission was 1.4 (0.03–54) months. We collected cases of 50 (19.8%) digestive perforations or fistulas, three (1.2%) non-perforated colitis and/or ileitis, 58 (22.9%) cardiovascular events, 29 (11.5%) pulmonary events, 39 (15.4%) neurological events, 13 (5.1%) infectious complications, 10 (4.0%) hepatic failures, 10 (4.0%) acute renal failures, 9 (3.6%) hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions, 4 (1.6%) dermatological events, 3 (1.2%) muscular events, 3 (1.2%) severe hypothyroidism events, and 12 (4.7%) other complications (Table 2). ICU mortality was 31.6% (80 deaths). Time since treatment onset, ICU admission, and number of cases are detailed in Fig. 2.
Antiangiogenic agent: bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafenib (Table 2S)
In the 102 patients who had received an antiangiogenic agent, gastrointestinal AEs were reported in 42.2% of the cases, mainly as digestive perforations (25.5%), which represent almost one-third of life-threatening bevacizumab-related events admitted into an ICU. Eight patients (30.8%) suffering from digestive perforations died in the ICU, mostly from post-operative septic shock. Additionally, 22.5% patients experienced a cardiovascular complication, mainly toxic cardiomyopathy, including 51.7% (4/7) who died during ICU stay. Moreover, ten (9.8%) cases of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) were reported, eight cases of which occurred after bevacizumab treatment and led to three ICU deaths (30.0%). Other less frequent but relevant AEs included three (2.9%) cases of sunitinib-related severe hypothyroidism and three (2.9%) cases of sunitinib-related thrombotic microangiopathy syndrome. Median time from antiangiogenic agent initiation to ICU admission was 1.8 (0.03–54) months with a median number of received courses of three (1–34).
Mechanical ventilation and vasopressors were required in 55 (53.9%) and 23 (22.5%) patients, respectively. Death in the ICU was reported as a result of AEs in 30 (29.4%) patients, from which 12, 7, and 8 patients were treated with bevacizumab, sunitinib, and sorafenib, respectively. Of note, one case of sorafenib-related fulminant hepatitis was successfully treated with emergency hepatic transplantation [9].
Immune checkpoint inhibitors: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab (Table 3S)
Eighty-five cases of irAEs requiring admission into an ICU were collected. The most common reported irAEs were perforated colitis or enterocolitis (n = 15, 17.6%), fulminant myocarditis (n = 13, 15.3%), polyradiculoneuritis (n = 11, 12.9%), pericarditis (n = 9, 10.6%), and myasthenia gravis (n = 9, 10.6%). Most of reported cases concerned the anti-CTLA4 antibody ipilimumab in monotherapy (n = 34, 40.0%). Median time from immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation to ICU admission was 1.4 (0.2–16) months with a median number of received courses of two (1–32).
Mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and plasmapheresis were required in 49 (57.6%), 23 (27.1%), and 22 (25.9%) patients, respectively. Sixty-nine (81.2%) patients received high-dose steroids, 23 (27.1%) intravenous immunoglobulins, 11 (12.9%) infliximab, and eight (9.4%) another immunosuppressive drug. ICU mortality rate after irAEs was 28.2% (n = 24). Immune-related adverse events associated with highest rate mortality the in ICU were fulminant myocarditis (7 deaths out of 13 cases, 53.8%) and neurologic events (9/23, 39.1%). Three patients presenting with ipilimumab-related perforated enterocolitis died during ICU stay from postoperative multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome [10,11,12]. One patient died from nivolumab-related acute respiratory distress syndrome, despite aggressive treatment including infliximab use [13]. Four out of ten (40.0%) patients who had received a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab died in the ICU: two patients died from fulminant myocarditis [14], of which one was infliximab-refractory, one patient from immune-related myasthenia gravis with no response to intravenous immunoglobulins [15], and one from septic shock secondary to immunosuppression induced with high-dose steroids and mycophenolate mofetil, initiated as immune-related nephritis treatment [16].
EGFR inhibitors: erlotinib, gefitinib, cetuximab (Table 4S)
Thirty-three cases of anti-EGFR-related AEs requiring an ICU management were identified, of which ten (30.3%) cases were diagnosed as interstitial lung disease and seven (21.2%) as cetuximab-related hypersensitivity. ICU admission occurred after anti-EGFR initiation with a median time of 1.0 (0.2–4.5) month, except for cetuximab, for which related infusion reactions were observed during the first injection. Three (9.1%) cases of tumor necrosis-related events were reported, in addition to one case of cetuximab-related tumor lysis syndrome. Conceivably, all three cases occurred in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.
Most patients required mechanical ventilation (78.8%) and seven (21.2%) needed vasopressor. High-dose steroids were administered in 13 (39.4%) patients. Thirteen patients (39.4%) out of 33 died during ICU hospitalization. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in four patients admitted with interstitial lung disease (40.0%), and all four died in the ICU. Two patients (28.6%) died on the day of ICU admission from cetuximab-related hypersensitivity.
Other molecular targeted therapies (Table 5S)
Ten patients were treated with trastuzumab, resulting in three (30.0%) cases of toxic cardiomyopathy with a median time from anti-HER2 initiation of 4.0 (2.3–6.0) months, corresponding to nine (3–12) received injections. There was no evidence of previous cardiac history or cardiotoxic medications. One of the three patients died in the ICU. Everolimus was administered to eight patients.
Two patients (25.0%) were admitted to the ICU for life-threatening interstitial lung disease, of which one was fatal. Strikingly, two patients developed Pneumocystis pneumonia after a median treatment time of 1.5 (1.0–2.0) months, with a favorable outcome [17]. Life-threatening AEs related to BRAF inhibitors, crizotinib, imatinib, and vandetanib are shown in Table 5S (supplementary data).
Discussion
Molecular targeted therapies, mainly immune checkpoint inhibitors, have drastically modified the therapeutic paradigm in solid oncology. In the years to come, an increasing number of patients with solid tumors will be treated with new drugs. While many AEs have been well-described in clinical trials, others remain unknown, due either to their sporadicity or their late onset during follow-up. Therefore, it is of clinical importance to collect data about drug-related AEs, including life-threatening complications during patient follow-up.
Our search yielded 253 cases of life-threatening drug-related AEs requiring an admission into an ICU in patients presenting with solid tumors. Almost half of these cases were related to use of antiangiogenic agents, involved in 26 (25.5%) reported cases of digestive perforation with a 30.8% mortality rate in the ICU. Of these, three cases (11.5%) were attributed to necrosis of metastatic digestive lesions. As reported in Table 1, digestive perforations were already described in 1–6% of patients in clinical trials assessing bevacizumab in several types of cancer [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. In addition, we collected 23 (22.5%) cases of antiangiogenic-related cardiovascular issues, of which seven (30.4%) were lethal. Although the molecular mechanisms through which VEGF inhibitor use leads to cardiotoxicity remain unclear, it is suggested that patients with proteinuria and hypertension immediately after beginning antiangiogenic therapy are at increased risk for later cardiac AEs [27]. These findings pinpoint the importance of cardiovascular assessment before and during treatment with angiogenesis inhibitors, particularly for multi-targeted small molecules such as sunitinib and sorafenib [28].
The most significant reported immunotherapy-related serious toxicity was colitis or ileitis (n = 18, 21.2%), which is consistent with immunotherapy clinical trial results [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Surprisingly, only one case of life-threatening perforated enterocolitis due to ipilimumab and nivolumab combination was reported in literature [38], although the latter further increased the risk of autoimmune-like issues in clinical trials [30, 31]. Conceivably, the novelty of immunotherapies explains the small number and the heterogeneity of published cases we report. As recently reported by Wang et al., irAEs associated with the highest rate of mortality in the ICU in our cohort were fulminant myocarditis and neurologic events. However, analysis of the pharmacovigilance database indicates that fatal irAEs remain uncommon, occurring at a rate of 0.3–1.3% [39].
ICU mortality in our review was 31.6%. Although the paucity and variability regarding case reporting do not allow us to generalize this result, this figure is consistent with some previous studies focusing on survival of solid cancer patients admitted to the ICU [40]. Taken together, all these data emphasize the need for a careful selection of patients who are candidates for a targeted molecular therapy. An exhaustive and personalized evaluation of toxicity risk before treatment initiation is warranted. In particular, an autoimmune work-up aiming to rule out a subclinical systemic disease should be consistently undertaken. As recently shown by Johnson et al., patients with underlying pre-existing autoimmunity disease should not be de facto ineligible for immunotherapy, but would imperatively require thorough monitoring during and after treatment [41]. Critical care specialists and oncologists should be aware of warning symptoms for a prompt diagnosis of drug-related AEs, which might be resolved early with a dose reduction or transient discontinuation of treatment. Furthermore, although management of steroid-refractory irAEs with immunomodulatory medications such as infliximab, mycophenolate mofetil, or tacrolimus may be efficient in some cases [42,43,44,45], prospective trials assessing different treatment modalities are needed. Here, we report a published case of ipilimumab-related hepatitis refractory to mycophenolate mofetil but which resolved with use of T cell depleting antibody anti-thymocyte globulin [46]. Ultimately, more data are needed regarding optimal dose and administration schedule of ipilimumab to curtail the risk of autoimmune-like or immune-related toxicity [8], given the possible dose-toxicity relationship [37, 47].
There are several limitations inherent to this review. First of all, the small number of reported cases and their retrospective nature hamper assessment of molecular treatment imputability, particularly in the case of therapeutic combinations including chemotherapy and other drugs. Moreover, administered doses of targeted molecules are not always mentioned. Secondly, patients with life-threatening anticancer drug-related AEs may have declined, or were denied for ICU referral and were not included in this review. Furthermore, we could not differentiate ICU patients from HDU patients in some reported cases. Last, another important bias of this review lies in the reporting of only published cases (Fig. 1S). However, hierarchy in terms of proportions is maintained between AEs with respect to those described in pivotal clinical trials for each drug (Table 1), suggesting that our review may be representative of real-world patients, although widely underestimating the absolute number of serious drug-related AEs.
We believe that this review provides substantial information on the management and outcomes of patients presenting with life-threatening anticancer drug-related AEs. Our findings advocate for a thoughtful selection of patients likely to benefit from molecular targeted therapy and improved clinical and biological monitoring during and after treatment initiation. Further studies should identify optimal therapeutic doses and schedules to adopt and determine predictive biomarkers for adverse events, primarily those related to immune checkpoint inhibitors [48], in order to enhance the risk/benefit profile for each individual.
Abbreviations
- ICU:
-
Intensive care unit
- AEs:
-
Adverse events
- irAEs:
-
Immunotherapy-related adverse events
- HDU:
-
High-dependency unit
- CCU:
-
Coronary care unit
- EGFR:
-
Epidermal growth factor receptor
References
Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V et al (2018) Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet Lond Engl 391:1023–1075
Li F, Zhao C, Wang L (2014) Molecular-targeted agents combination therapy for cancer: developments and potentials. Int J Cancer 134:1257–1269
Ott PA, Hodi FS, Kaufman HL et al (2017) Combination immunotherapy: a road map. J Immunother Cancer 5:16
Widakowich C, de Castro G, de Azambuja E et al (2007) Review: side effects of approved molecular targeted therapies in solid cancers. Oncologist 12:1443–1455
Abdel-Wahab N, Shah M, Suarez-Almazor ME (2016) Adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with cancer: a systematic review of case reports. PLoS One 11:e0160221
Bertrand A, Kostine M, Barnetche T et al (2015) Immune related adverse events associated with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 13:211
Chen TW, Razak AR, Bedard PL et al (2015) A systematic review of immune-related adverse event reporting in clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 26:1824–1829
Voskens CJ, Goldinger SM, Loquai C et al (2013) The price of tumor control: an analysis of rare side effects of anti-CTLA-4 therapy in metastatic melanoma from the ipilimumab network. PLoS One 8:e53745
Rao J, Feng M, Qian X et al (2013) Liver transplantation treating the patient with hepatic failure associated with sorafenib treatment: report of a case. Hepatogastroenterology 60:1317–1319
Dilling P, Walczak J, Pikiel P, Kruszewski WJ (2014) Multiple colon perforation as a fatal complication during treatment of metastatic melanoma with ipilimumab—case report. Pol Przegl Chir 86:94–96
Mitchell KA, Kluger H, Sznol M, Hartman DJ (2013) Ipilimumab-induced perforating colitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 47:781–785
Shah R, Witt D, Asif T, Mir FF (2017) Ipilimumab as a cause of severe pan-colitis and colonic perforation. Cureus 9:e1182
Nishino M, Sholl LM, Hodi FS et al (2015) Anti-PD-1-related pneumonitis during cancer immunotherapy. N Engl J Med 373:288–290
Johnson DB, Balko JM, Compton ML et al (2016) Fulminant myocarditis with combination immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med 375:1749–1755
Loochtan AI, Nickolich MS, Hobson-Webb LD (2015) Myasthenia gravis associated with ipilimumab and nivolumab in the treatment of small cell lung cancer. Muscle Nerve 52:307–308
Murakami N, Borges TJ, Yamashita M, Riella LV (2016) Erratum: severe acute interstitial nephritis after combination immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapy for metastatic melanoma. Clin Kidney J 9:649
Loron M-C, Grange S, Guerrot D et al (2015) Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in everolimus-treated renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 33:e45–47
Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC et al (2006) Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2542–2550
Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P et al (2009) Phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either placebo or bevacizumab as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: AVAil. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 27:1227–1234
Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W et al (2004) Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2335–2342
Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ et al (2007) Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 25:1539–1544
Loupakis F, Cremolini C, Masi G et al (2014) Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 371:1609–1618
Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J et al (2007) Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 357:2666–2676
Perren TJ, Swart AM, Pfisterer J et al (2011) A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 365:2484–2496
Tewari KS, Sill MW, Long HJ et al (2014) Improved survival with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 370:734–743
Chinot OL, Wick W, Mason W et al (2014) Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 370:709–722
Moslehi JJ (2016) Cardiovascular toxic effects of targeted cancer therapies. N Engl J Med 375:1457–1467
Schmidinger M, Zielinski CC, Vogl UM et al (2008) Cardiac toxicity of sunitinib and sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 26:5204–5212
Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF et al (2010) Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 363:711–723
Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al (2015) Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 373:23–34
Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC et al (2015) Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 372:2006–2017
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV et al (2015) Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N Engl J Med 372:2521–2532
Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al (2015) Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 372:320–330
Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P et al (2015) Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 373:123–135
Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L et al (2015) Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 373:1627–1639
De Velasco G, Je Y, Bossé D et al (2017) Comprehensive meta-analysis of key immune-related adverse events from CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer patients. Cancer Immunol Res 5(4):312–318
Eggermont AMM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob J-J et al (2016) Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med 375:1845–1855
Mohamed AA, Richards CJ, Boyle K, Faust G (2018) Severe inflammatory ileitis resulting in ileal perforation in association with combination immune checkpoint blockade for metastatic malignant melanoma. BMJ Case Rep bcr-2018-224913
Wang DY, Salem J-E, Cohen JV et al (2018) fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 4:1721–1728
Puxty K, McLoone P, Quasim T et al (2014) Survival in solid cancer patients following intensive care unit admission. Intensive Care Med 40:1409–1428
Johnson DB, Sullivan RJ, Menzies AM (2017) Immune checkpoint inhibitors in challenging populations. Cancer 123(11):1904–1911. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30642
Spain L, Diem S, Larkin J (2016) Management of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Treat Rev 44:51–60
Weber JS, Kähler KC, Hauschild A (2012) Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 30:2691–2697
Dadu R, Zobniw C, Diab A (2016) Managing adverse events with immune checkpoint agents. Cancer J Sudbury Mass 22:121–129
Haanen JBAG, Carbonnel F, Robert C et al (2018) Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 29:iv264–iv266
Chmiel KD, Suan D, Liddle C et al (2011) Resolution of severe ipilimumab-induced hepatitis after antithymocyte globulin therapy. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 29:e237–240
Wolchok JD, Neyns B, Linette G et al (2010) Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose-ranging study. Lancet Oncol 11:155–164
Bakacs T, Mehrishi JN, Szabó M, Moss RW (2012) Interesting possibilities to improve the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab (Yervoy). Pharmacol Res 66:192–197
Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Tomczak P et al (2007) Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 356:115–124
Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM et al (2007) Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 356:125–134
Kim ES, Hirsh V, Mok T et al (2008) Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial. Lancet Lond. Engl. 372:1809–1818
Mok T, Wu YL, Thongprasert S et al (2009) Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 361:947–957
Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K et al (2010) Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med 362:2380–2388
Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T et al (2005) Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 353:123–132
Seto T, Kato T, Nishio M et al (2014) Erlotinib alone or with bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (JO25567): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 15:1236–1244
Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S et al (2004) Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351:337–345
Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS et al (2007) Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357:2040–2048
Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Hitre E et al (2009) Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 360:1408–1417
Vermorken JB, Mesia R, Rivera F et al (2008) Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 359:1116–1127
Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J et al (2006) Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 354:567–578
Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S et al (2001) Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 344:783–792
Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B et al (2005) Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1659–1672
Baselga J, Cortés J, Kim SB et al (2012) Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:109–119
Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A et al (2010) Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond Engl 376:687–697
Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Oudard S et al (2008) Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Lancet Lond Engl 372:449–456
Yao JC, Shah MH, Ito T et al (2011) Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med 364:514–523
Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M et al (2012) Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:520–529
Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C et al (2011) Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 364:2507–2516
Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dréno B et al (2014) Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 371:1867–1876
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
Authors declare no conflict of interest in relation with this publication.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Fig.
1S: Number of published cases by type of targeted therapy over time (JPEG 30 kb)
Table
1S: Oncological licensed indications of reported molecular therapies in adult patients throughout United States and Europe in 2018 (DOCX 132 kb)
Table
2S: Adverse events related to antiangiogenic agents use (DOCX 21 kb)
Table
3S: Immune-related adverse events (DOCX 22 kb)
Table
4S: Anti-EGFR-related adverse events (DOCX 14 kb)
Table
5S: Adverse events related to other molecular targeted therapies (DOCX 15 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Assoun, S., Lemiale, V. & Azoulay, E. Molecular targeted therapy-related life-threatening toxicity in patients with malignancies. A systematic review of published cases. Intensive Care Med 45, 988–997 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05650-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05650-w