Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to oxaliplatin in patients with colorectal cancer include facial ushing, erythema, pruritis, fever, tachycardia, dyspnea, tongue swelling, rash/hives, headache, chills, weakness, vomi...Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to oxaliplatin in patients with colorectal cancer include facial ushing, erythema, pruritis, fever, tachycardia, dyspnea, tongue swelling, rash/hives, headache, chills, weakness, vomiting, burning sensations, dizziness, and edema. We report a patient with fever as the sole manifestation of initial HSR, review the literature and discuss the management of HSR. A 57-year-old female with T3N2M0 rectal adenocarcinoma received modified FOLFOX-6. She tolerated the first 8 cycles without any toxicities except grade 1 peripheral neuropathy and nausea. During 9th and 10th infusions, she developed fever to a maximum of 38.3℃ with stable hemodynamic status despite medications. During 11th infusion, she developed grade 3 HSR consisting of symptomatic bronchospasm, hypotension, nausea, vomiting, cough, and fever. On examination, she was pale, cyanotic, with a temperature of 38.8℃, BP dropped to 95/43 mm Hg, pulse of 116/min and O2 saturation of 88%-91%. She was hospitalized for management and recovered in 24 h. Fever alone is not a usual symptom of oxaliplatin HSR. It may be indicative that the patient may develop serious reactions subsequently, as did our patient who developed hypotension with the third challenge. Treatment and prevention consists of slowing the infusion rate, use of steroids and antagonists of Type 1 and 2 histamine receptor antagonists, whereas desensitization could help to provide the small number of patients who experience severe HSR with the ability to further receive an effective therapy for their colorectal cancer.展开更多
Febrile neutropenia(FN) is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. It can also be the reason for delaying or changing potentially effective treatments and generates substantial costs. It has been recogniz...Febrile neutropenia(FN) is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. It can also be the reason for delaying or changing potentially effective treatments and generates substantial costs. It has been recognized for more than 50 years that empirical administration of broad spectrum antibiotics to patients with FN was associated with much improved outcomes; that has become a paradigm of management. Increase in the incidence of microorganisms resistant to many antibiotics represents a challenge for the empirical antimicrobial treatment and is a reason why antibiotics should not be used for the prevention of neutropenia. Prevention of neutropenia is best performed with the use of granulocyte colonystimulating factors(G-CSFs). Prophylactic administration of G-CSFs significantly reduces the risk of developing FN and consequently the complications linked to that condition; moreover, the administration of G-CSF is associated with few complications, most of which are not severe. The most common reason for not using G-CSF as a prophylaxis of FN is the relatively high cost. If FN occurs, in spite of prophylaxis, empirical therapy with broad spectrum antibiotics is mandatory. However it should be adjusted to the risk of complications as established by reliable predictive instruments such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer. Patients predicted at a low level of risk of serious complications, can generally be treated with orally administered antibiotics and as out-patients. Patients with a high risk of complications should be hospitalized and treated intravenously. A short period of time between the onset of FN and beginning of empirical therapy is crucial in those patients. Persisting fever in spite of antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic patients requires a special diagnostic attention, since invasive fungal infection is a possible cause for it and might require the use of empirical antifungal therapy.展开更多
文摘Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to oxaliplatin in patients with colorectal cancer include facial ushing, erythema, pruritis, fever, tachycardia, dyspnea, tongue swelling, rash/hives, headache, chills, weakness, vomiting, burning sensations, dizziness, and edema. We report a patient with fever as the sole manifestation of initial HSR, review the literature and discuss the management of HSR. A 57-year-old female with T3N2M0 rectal adenocarcinoma received modified FOLFOX-6. She tolerated the first 8 cycles without any toxicities except grade 1 peripheral neuropathy and nausea. During 9th and 10th infusions, she developed fever to a maximum of 38.3℃ with stable hemodynamic status despite medications. During 11th infusion, she developed grade 3 HSR consisting of symptomatic bronchospasm, hypotension, nausea, vomiting, cough, and fever. On examination, she was pale, cyanotic, with a temperature of 38.8℃, BP dropped to 95/43 mm Hg, pulse of 116/min and O2 saturation of 88%-91%. She was hospitalized for management and recovered in 24 h. Fever alone is not a usual symptom of oxaliplatin HSR. It may be indicative that the patient may develop serious reactions subsequently, as did our patient who developed hypotension with the third challenge. Treatment and prevention consists of slowing the infusion rate, use of steroids and antagonists of Type 1 and 2 histamine receptor antagonists, whereas desensitization could help to provide the small number of patients who experience severe HSR with the ability to further receive an effective therapy for their colorectal cancer.
文摘Febrile neutropenia(FN) is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality. It can also be the reason for delaying or changing potentially effective treatments and generates substantial costs. It has been recognized for more than 50 years that empirical administration of broad spectrum antibiotics to patients with FN was associated with much improved outcomes; that has become a paradigm of management. Increase in the incidence of microorganisms resistant to many antibiotics represents a challenge for the empirical antimicrobial treatment and is a reason why antibiotics should not be used for the prevention of neutropenia. Prevention of neutropenia is best performed with the use of granulocyte colonystimulating factors(G-CSFs). Prophylactic administration of G-CSFs significantly reduces the risk of developing FN and consequently the complications linked to that condition; moreover, the administration of G-CSF is associated with few complications, most of which are not severe. The most common reason for not using G-CSF as a prophylaxis of FN is the relatively high cost. If FN occurs, in spite of prophylaxis, empirical therapy with broad spectrum antibiotics is mandatory. However it should be adjusted to the risk of complications as established by reliable predictive instruments such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer. Patients predicted at a low level of risk of serious complications, can generally be treated with orally administered antibiotics and as out-patients. Patients with a high risk of complications should be hospitalized and treated intravenously. A short period of time between the onset of FN and beginning of empirical therapy is crucial in those patients. Persisting fever in spite of antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic patients requires a special diagnostic attention, since invasive fungal infection is a possible cause for it and might require the use of empirical antifungal therapy.
