Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Immunology Research
Volume 2018, Article ID 5376476, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5376476
Review Article

Anticancer Drugs Induced Severe Adverse Cutaneous Drug Reactions: An Updated Review on the Risks Associated with Anticancer Targeted Therapy or Immunotherapies

1Department of Dermatology, College of Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, Linkou, Taipei, Taiwan
2Drug Hypersensitivity Clinical and Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
3School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
4Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Correspondence should be addressed to Chun-Wei Lu; moc.liamg@ul.iew.c

Received 31 August 2017; Revised 7 November 2017; Accepted 8 November 2017; Published 17 January 2018

Academic Editor: Riichiro Abe

Copyright © 2018 Chau Yee Ng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions are commonly seen in patients with anticancer drug treatment. Anticancer drugs, including chemotherapy, target therapy, and recent immunotherapy causing skin reactions ranging from mild skin rash to life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrosis (TEN) with increase morbidity and mortality while they are receiving cancer treatments, have been proposed to be a result of direct skin toxicity or drug hypersensitivity reactions (these are proposed mechanism, not definite). Differentiating SCARs from other more commonly seen reactions with a better outcome help prevent discontinuation of therapy and inappropriate use of systemic immunosuppressants for presumable allergic reactions, of which will affect the clinical outcome. In this article, we have reviewed published articles from 1950 to August 2017 for SJS/TEN associated with anticancer drugs, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. We aimed to provide an overview of SJS/TEN associated with anticancer drugs to increase clinician recognition and accelerate future studies on the pathomechanism and managements.

1. Introduction

The advancement in cancer detection and development of anticancer drug therapy has led to increased incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following anticancer drug therapy. Conventional chemotherapy and targeted or immunotherapy that are thought to be well tolerated and may cause various cutaneous adverse reactions ranging from nonlife-threatening skin toxicities such as paronychia, acneiform eruption, and alopecia to life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). These drug eruptions are thought to be immunologically mediated reactions that are termed type B adverse reaction [1]. However, the pathomechanism of SCARs reactions in anticancer drugs including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy is poorly understood and the literatures were still limited.

SJS/TEN are a spectrum of fatal mucocutaneous adverse reactions characterized by rapidly progressing purpuric atypical target-like rashes with blisters, cutaneous sloughing, and mucosal involvement. SJS and TEN are differentiated by the degree of skin detachment: SJS involves less than 10% body surface area skin detachment, TEN more than 30%, while SJS/TEN overlap involves body surface area of 10–30% [1, 2]. Despite their rare occurrence, the overall mortality was generally high in accordance with the body surface involve, ranging from 10% for SJS to approximately 50% for TEN, and can cause irreversible sequelae to the eyes, skin, and lungs [25]. Hence, increased recognition and improved management are of paramount importance, especially at early stages. Furthermore, in clinical practice, the conjectural association of anticancer drugs with SCAR event may lead to alterations in therapy, affects clinical outcome, and may cause physician and patient distress. This review aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence of anticancer drug-related SCARs to assist clinicians in early recognition and management.

To synthesize current literature, relevant English literatures were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and OVID from 1950 to August 2017 using the terms Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, cancer drug therapy, and target therapy drugs. We did not constrain our research on publication types but limited the search only in indexed, peer-reviewed journals so as to ensure quality publications. Primary case reports, case series, reports from clinical trials, or as part of postmarketing surveillance were included. Histopathologic diagnosis of SJS/TEN was not required for the inclusion criteria. Clinical course, type of anticancer drugs, and mortality were analyzed and summarized according to the respective anticancer drug classifications of chemotherapy [654] (Table 1), targeted therapy [5580] (Table 2), and immunotherapy [8187] (Table 3). Cases with multiple concomitant medications used during the same period of time and/or with questionable diagnosis were excluded.

Table 1: Anticancer chemotherapy-related severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions from the English literature (year: 1950–2017).
Table 2: Anticancer targeted therapy-related severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions from the English literature (year: 1950–2017).
Table 3: Anticancer immune therapy-related adverse drug reactions from the English literature (year: 1950–2017).

2. Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is the most widely used anticancer drug in oncology field. The administration of chemotherapy may lead to many cutaneous findings, ranging from allergic reactions to infectious complications caused by disrupted immunity. From the search of peer-review articles, a total of 60 reports of SJS/TEN associated with 23 chemotherapeutic anticancer drugs were identified [654] (Table 1). The most common drugs to cause chemotherapy-induced SJS/TEN are lenalidomide (; SJS = 12, SJS/TEN = 1, and TEN = 1), methotrexate (; SJS = 2 and TEN = 3), docetaxel (; SJS = 3 and TEN = 1), and thalidomide (; SJS = 1 and TEN = 4). Most patients were exposed to drugs either concomitantly or within 8 weeks of the anticancer agent. Although there were a few cases with exceedingly short duration of onset with questionable diagnosis [28, 31], the report descriptions and causality indicators (course of treatment, duration and timing between exposure and event, blood levels, etc.) were not consistently reported in these articles. Some articles enclose pictures that are not very suggestive of SJS/TEN but of an alternative diagnosis, including erythema multiforme, GVHD, and toxic erythema of chemotherapy. For instance, methotrexate-induced epidermal necrosis is a distinct entity that closely mimics SJS/TEN but exhibits distinct clinicopathological features from SJS/TEN [88]. Many of the reported articles did not obtain skin biopsy for pathology examination and hence, it is difficult to draw to a definitive diagnosis of SJS/TEN. Another clinical mimic of SJS/TEN associated with chemotherapy is toxic erythema of chemotherapy (TEC), characterized by painful erythematous eruptions with edema and/or blisters which involves the acral part, intertriginous areas, pressure points, and less often ears, knees, and elbows [89, 90]. TEC is a toxic phenomenon with minimal inflammatory infiltrates despite the dramatic clinical appearance, hence studies have hypothesized that the erythema is secondary to keratinocyte damage with release of cytokines leading to vasodilation [90, 91]. Most cases involve the use of either antimetabolites or alkylating agents that interferes RNA or DNA synthesis, including methotrexate, cytarabine, 5-fluorouracil, and mercaptopurine. By contrast, SJS/TEN is an immune-driven type 4 allergic reaction, where cytotoxic T lymphocytes and natural killer cells are activated. Clinical recognition and differentiation of SJS/TEN from toxic erythema are of importance because it helps prevent the inappropriate use of systemic immunosuppressants for presumed allergic reactions, precludes subsequent dosing, and affects the patient’s clinical outcome.

3. Targeted Anticancer Therapy

From the literature review, a roster of 42 reports of SJS (), SJS/TEN (), or TEN (), associated with 12 targeted anticancer drugs, were identified, including EGFR inhibitors (afatinib, cetuximab, erlotinib, gefitinib, panitumumab, and vandetanib), MKI (imatinib, regorafenib, and sorafenib), recombinant IL-2 (aldesleukin), proteasome (bortezomib), anti-CD20 (rituximab), anti-CD30 (brentuximab vedotin), and BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib) (Table 2). The most common drugs to cause SJS/TEN reported are imatinib (), EGFR inhibitors (), and vemurafenib (). The response of cancer control is hard to analyze because it was not fully mentioned in the reports. All cases were treated with immunosuppressant, including steroid, IVIG, and there was one TEN case with promising outcome after etanercept (anti-TNF α) treatment. In these reports, nine patients underwent drug rechallenge test with recurrences, confirming the notoriety of exposed targeted anticancer drugs [6772, 74, 80].

3.1. EGFR Inhibitors

EGFR inhibitors are approved as the drug for the treatment of non-small cell lung, colorectal, breast, pancreatic, head, and neck cancers with EGFR mutations [92]. The incidence of EGFR inhibitor-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) is high (36%–80%) [93], of which most were papulopustular eruptions, xerosis, paronychia, mucositis, and photosensitivity [94]. In this article, we have identified 13 cases of SJS/TEN induced by EGFR inhibitors. Though rare, SJS/TEN should be distinguished from EGFR inhibitor-related mucositis, particularly when the patient present with constitutional symptoms and widespread atypical target spots with blisters that extend beyond mucosa to the skin. Cross-reactivity between EGFR inhibitors was reported. It is hypothesized that the pathomechanism of SJS/TEN associated with EGFR inhibitors could be caused by to the irreversible inhibition of EGFR, of which hinders epidermal differentiation and reepithelialization and causing extensive erosions [95].

3.2. KIT and BCR-ABL Inhibitors

Imatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is the standard treatment in chronic myeloid leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) [96, 97]. In this article, imatinib accounts one of the most common causative targeted anticancer drug to induce SJS, with a roster of 12 cases. This must be differentiated from other more commonly seen cutaneous adverse effects of imatinib, maculopapular rashes, and facial edema [98], of which has a better prognosis and dose-dependent pharmacologic effect rather than hypersensitivity reaction [99]. For maculopapular rash/facial edema associated with imatinib, temporary discontinuation or dose reduction may be applied if the patient’s cancer is susceptible to the drug. By contrast, reintroducing the culprit drug with a dose reduction is usually not suggested [100, 101].

3.3. Multikinase Inhibitors

Multikinase inhibitors (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, and vandetanib) are small molecule inhibitors of the tyrosine kinase of the VEGF, and also differential binding capacities to other tyrosine kinases, including PDGFR, EGFR, KIT, RET, FLT-3, CSF-1R, and RAF [102]. They were approved for treatment of patients with renal cell cancer, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and hepatocellular cancer. These drugs can cause hand-foot skin reaction, hair change, maculopapular eruptions, stomatitis, genital erosions, and bleeding [103, 104], especially in patients using sorafenib. These more common cutaneous toxicities are thought to be caused by direct VEGF inhibition, which result in vessel regression, and impact on vascular repair capacities [74]. Other research has also shown that Fas/FasL interaction mediates keratinocyte death in sunitinib-induced HFSR [75]. Recently, one recent study identified SLC22A20 (OAT6) as an uptake carrier of sorafenib and subsequently sorafenib enters the keratinocyte through OAT6 and then inhibits mitogen-activated protein kinase MAP3K7 (TAK1) leading to cytotoxicity and keratinocyte injury [76]. Interestingly, erythema multiforme, a spectrum of delayed type hypersensitivity, induced by sorafenib was around 19–25% in Japanese population, which is much higher than the Caucassian population [105]. This could imply a possible genetic role in the pathogenesis of adverse drug reactions. The different incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions among different ethnicities need to be further investigated.

3.4. BRAF Inhibitors

Vemurafenib is a selective inhibitor of BRAF-kinase approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutation. Skin toxicity, such as photosensitivity and maculopapular eruptions, and secondary skin malignancy (keratoacanthoma and squamous cell carcinoma) were estimated to affect more than 90% of patients [106, 107]. One vemurafenib-TEN underwent a lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) assay to confirm the causality of vemurafenib and also show positive cross-reactivity for dabrafenib [108]. On the contrary, another case reported a successful switch from vemurafenib-induced cutaneous adverse reactions to dabrafenib [109]. Furthermore, cross-reactivity was also found between vemurafenib and sulfonamide antibiotics—sulfamethoxazole—based on LTT reports. These data suggested that there might be clinical cross-reactivity between BRAF inhibitors and sulfonamides. Predisposing factors to sulfonamide-related adverse cutaneous drug reactions could be implied in the pathomechanism studies of vemurafenib-associated SJS/TEN [108].

3.5. mTOR Inhibitors

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, such as sirolimus, everolimus, and temsirolimus, are emerging drugs, increasingly applied in oncology and in the prevention of rejection in patients receiving solid organ transplantation [110]. The most common cutaneous side effects are oral ulcers, acne-like eruptions, and morbilliform drug eruptions [111]. Oral ulcer is a very frequent (72%) adverse reaction and is often recurrent and chronic following everolimus treatment in 25% of patients. The adverse event was found to be dose dependent [112].

Severe drug eruptions of life-threatening lingual angioedema after initiation of everolimus in heart transplant recipients have also been reported in a case series. In these patients, lingual edema occurs predominantly within the first weeks after initiation of everolimus therapy and disappears without recurrences in majority patients after adequate symptomatic treatment [113].

There were otherwise no SCAR (SJS/TEN, DRESS) event being reported in the literature.

4. Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy is the latest breakthrough in anticancer drug development with immunomodulatory therapeutic antibodies, targeting inhibitory receptors expressed by T cell as CTLA-4 and PD-1. They are used to treat advance stage cancer with metastasis or unresectable tumor such as melanoma and lung cancer. In this section, older immunotherapy such as interleukin-2 was also included in Table 3. These therapeutic options are most widely used in advanced and late cancer stages. From literature reviews, we have identified one ipilimumab-SJS, two nivolumab-TEN, and four pembrolizumab-SJS. All of the patients were advanced melanoma patients, and the onset of epidermal necrolysis varies from 2.5 weeks to 3 months. In one case of pembrolizumab-associated SJS, concomitant phenytoin for epilepsy was used; hence, the exact culprit drug is hard to define. Two cases of pembrolizumab-SJS were being reported by Saw et al. [114]. Interestingly, there was a striking demarcation of epidermal detachment along the radiotherapy field aside from typical mucocutaneous findings of SJS. Such findings, although rarely, have also been reported in previous traditional culprit drugs and targeted therapy. A total of 3 cases were found with interleukin-2 immune therapy with 2 fatalities [81, 82, 87]. One of the authors suggested that IL-2 may increase patient’s susceptibility to allergy of other medication [87]. An increased expression of PD-L1 in the epidermis by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was found, and they hypothesized that the use of anti-PD-1 therapy could provoke the expression of PD-L1 of keratinocytes and permit the activated CD8+ cytotoxic T cells to target keratinocytes leading to keratinocyte apoptosis [86]. PD-1 knockout mouse often exhibits symptoms related to adverse cutaneous reactions. It has been reported in a mouse model that PD-L1 expressed on keratinocytes presenting self-antigens regulates autoreactive CD8+ T cell activity and prevents the development of cutaneous autoimmune disease [115]. Goldinger et al. had demonstrated that the gene expression analysis of TEN-like lesional skin from anti-PD-1-treated patients revealed an upregulation of major inflammatory chemokines, such as CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11, of cytotoxic mediators such as PRF1 and GZMB and proapoptotic FASLG and upregulation of PD-L1 [116]. These gene expression profiles resembling SJS/TEN suggest that PD-1/PD-L1 interaction is required to preserve epidermal integrity during inflammatory skin reactions. Interestingly, there was a case with preceding nivolumab treatment followed by vemurafenib who developed TEN [117]. The authors suggest that nivolumab predispose patients to drug hypersensitivity reactions through activation of CD8+ cells [84, 85].

In spite of being uncommon, SJS/TEN are severe life-threatening cutaneous diseases that should be concerned in patients treated with anticancer drugs. The typical presentation and diagnosis often require proper drug exposure documentation, photography, and skin biopsies. Currently, there are many different classifications and models with detail and validated diagnostic criteria to assist clinical diagnosis and can help predict patients’ mortality [118, 119]. Standard reporting method is important for subsequent investigation and analysis of these rare events. In addition, diagnosis of culprit drug is often challenging, the drug notoriety scoring systems including ALDEN score, Naronjo score and in vitro test with lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) are useful tests for the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity and cross-reactivity and helped to better understand these reactions [120, 121]. Current evidence on the pathomechanism of this complication was limited. Further research is warranted to elucidate the pathophysiology as well as help clinician coping with this notorious adverse event, advancing towards personalized medicine in oncology treatment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interests.

Authors’ Contributions

Chau Yee Ng and Chun-Bing Chen contributed equally to this work.

References

  1. J. C. Roujeau, “Immune mechanisms in drug allergy,” Allergology International, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. L. E. French, J. T. Trent, and F. A. Kerdel, “Use of intravenous immunoglobulin in toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens–Johnson syndrome: our current understanding,” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 543–549, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. Mockenhaupt and E. Schopf, “Epidemiology of drug-induced severe skin reactions,” Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 236–243, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. J. Revuz, D. Penso, J. C. Roujeau et al., “Toxic epidermal necrolysis. Clinical findings and prognosis factors in 87 patients,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 123, no. 9, pp. 1160–1165, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. C. Roujeau, J. C. Guillaume, J. P. Fabre, D. Penso, M. L. Flechet, and J. P. Girre, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell syndrome). Incidence and drug etiology in France, 1981-1985,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. E. Scheulen, R. A. Hilger, C. Oberhoff et al., “Clinical phase I dose escalation and pharmacokinetic study of high-dose chemotherapy with treosulfan and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with advanced malignancies,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 4209–4216, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  7. I. Aydogdu, C. Ozcan, M. Harputluoglu, Y. Karincaoglu, O. Turhan, and A. Ozcanu, “Severe adverse skin reaction to chlorambucil in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia,” Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 468-469, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. F. Pietrantonio, L. Moriconi, F. Torino, A. Romano, and A. Gargovich, “Unusual reaction to chlorambucil: a case report,” Cancer Letters, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 109–111, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. J. M. Newman, J. M. Rindler, W. F. Bergfeld, and J. K. Brydon, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome associated with topical nitrogen mustard therapy,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 112–114, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. N. Sarma, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis overlap due to oral temozolomide and cranial radiotherapy,” American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 264–267, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. Jones, M. Kirkup, S. Guglani, and K. Hopkins, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis after PCV combination chemotherapy for relapsed B-cell lymphoma,” Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 90, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. U. Garbarini and G. P. Valassina, “Report of a case of Lyell’s syndrome during a course of treatment with Natulan,” Minerva Medica, vol. 64, no. 53, pp. 2775–2778, 1973. View at Google Scholar
  13. J. Guerrin and R. Michiels, “Syndrome de Lyell avee agranulocyte et thrombopenie au cours d’une chimiotherapie antimitotique,” Rev Med Dijon, vol. 4, pp. 523–525, 1969. View at Google Scholar
  14. A. Hiraki, K. Aoe, T. Murakami, T. Maeda, R. Eda, and H. Takeyama, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome induced by paclitaxel in a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: a case report,” Anticancer Research, vol. 24, no. 2C, pp. 1135–1137, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  15. J. G. Kattan, F. S. Farhat, G. Y. Chahine et al., “Weekly docetaxel, zoledronic acid and estramustine in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC),” Investigational New Drugs, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 75–79, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. C. Moisidis and V. Möbus, “Erythema multiforme major following docetaxel,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 271, no. 3, pp. 268–270, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. Y. Sawada, K. Sugita, R. Kabashima, M. Nakamura, and Y. Tokura, “Docetaxel-induced Stevens–Johnson syndrome with regenerating epidermis composed of atypical keratinocytes,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 1333–1335, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. S. P. Dourakis, V. A. Sevastianos, A. Alexopoulou, M. Deutsch, and N. Stavrianeas, “Treatment side effects. Case 2. Toxic, epidermal, necrolysis-like reaction associated with docetaxel chemotherapy,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 13, pp. 3030–3032, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. C. H. Ohlmann, S. Kohlmorgen, D. Sahi, U. Engelmann, and A. Heidenreich, “Lethal course after chemotherapy with docetaxel. Acute liver failure with accompanying erythema multiforme major,” Der Urologe, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1425–1427, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. C. H. Jameson and D. L. Solanki, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome associated with etoposide therapy,” Cancer Treatment Reports, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 1050-1051, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  21. L. A. Solberg Jr., M. R. Wick, and J. E. Bruckman, “Doxorubicin-enhanced skin reaction after whole-body electron-beam irradiation for leukemia cutis,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 711–715, 1980. View at Google Scholar
  22. R. J. Cuthbert, J. I. Craig, and C. A. Ludlam, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome associated with methotrexate treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” The Ulster Medical Journal, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 95–97, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  23. P. J. Moe and M. Seip, “High dose methotrexate in acute lymphocytic leukemia in childhood,” Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 265–268, 1978. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. C. H. Yang, L. J. Yang, T. H. Jaing, and H. L. Chan, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis following combination of methotrexate and trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole,” International Journal of Dermatology, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 621–623, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. H. Cakesen and A. F. Oner, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis in a girl with leukemia receiving methotrexate,” Indian Pediatrics, vol. 38, no. 4, p. 426, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  26. N. Stone, S. Sheerin, and S. Burge, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis and graft vs. host disease: a clinical spectrum but a diagnostic dilemma,” Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 260–262, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. A. Ozkan, H. Apak, T. Celkan, L. Yuksel, and I. Yildiz, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis after the use of high-dose cytosine arabinoside,” Pediatric Dermatology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 38–40, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. M. S. Figueiredo, M. Yamamoto, and J. Kerbauy, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis after the use of intermediate dose of cytosine arabinoside,” Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 53–55, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  29. M. A. Angelopoulou, C. Poziopoulos, V. A. Boussiotis, F. Kontopidou, and G. A. Pangalis, “Fludarabine monophosphate in refractory B-chronic lymphocytic leukemia: maintenance may be significant to sustain response,” Leukemia & Lymphoma, vol. 21, no. 3-4, pp. 321–324, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  30. M. S. Talamonti, P. J. Catalano, D. J. Vaughn et al., “Eastern cooperative oncology group phase I trial of protracted venous infusion fluorouracil plus weekly gemcitabine with concurrent radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced pancreas cancer: a regimen with unexpected early toxicity,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 19, pp. 3384–3389, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. K. R. Sommers, K. M. Kong, D. T. Bui, J. P. Fruehauf, and R. F. Holcombe, “Stevens–Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in a patient receiving concurrent radiation and gemcitabine,” Anti-Cancer Drugs, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 659–662, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. W. Mermershtain, A. D. Cohen, I. Lazarev, M. Grunwald, and S. Ariad, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with gemcitabine therapy in a patient with metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder,” Journal of Chemotherapy, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 510-511, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  33. M. A. N. Sendur and S. Kilickap, “Stevens–Johnson syndrome after treatment with capecitabine,” Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 202-203, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. M. S. Tallman, D. Hakimian, C. Zanzig et al., “Cladribine in the treatment of relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 983–988, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. P. Meunier, S. Castaigne, J. N. Bastie, O. Chosidow, and S. Aractingi, “Cutaneous reactions after treatment with 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine,” Acta Dermato-Venereologica, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 385-386, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  36. P. L. Amerio and A. Tulli, “Lyell’s syndrome caused by 6-mercaptopurine,” Giornale Italiano di Dermatolotia. Minerva Dermatologica, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 514–516, 1969. View at Google Scholar
  37. H. Okamoto, K. Yane, T. Yamanaka, T. Fukuda, and H. Hosoi, “The usefulness of TS-1 for the treatment of head and neck cancer,” Gan to Kagaku Ryoho, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1119–1124, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  38. C. S. Tan, R. Lim, T. C. Lim, C. W. Aw, S. W. Yeo, and S. C. Lee, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with TS-1 in a patient with gastric cancer,” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 666–668, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. J. Bosch-Barrera, M. Gaztañaga, J. Ceballos et al., “Toxic epidermal necrolysis related to pemetrexed and carboplatin with vitamin B12 and folic acid supplementation for advanced non-small cell lung cancer,” Onkologie, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 580–584, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. C. Tummino, F. Barlesi, C. Tchouhadjian et al., “Severe cutaneous toxicity after Pemetrexed as second line treatment for a refractory non small cell lung cancer,” Revue des Maladies Respiratoires, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 635–638, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. G. Giaccone, M. Risio, G. Bonardi, and A. Calciati, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome and fatal pulmonary toxicity to combination chemotherapy containing bleomycin: a case report,” Tumori, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 331–333, 1986. View at Google Scholar
  42. A. Brodsky, I. Aparici, C. Argeri, and D. Goldenberg, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome, respiratory distress and acute renal failure due to synergic bleomycin-cisplatin toxicity,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 821–823, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. Y. Umebayashi, H. Enomoto, and M. Ogasawara, “Drug eruption due to peplomycin: an unusual form of Stevens-Johnson syndrome with pustules,” The Journal of Dermatology, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 802–805, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. F. E. Eyster, C. B. Wilson, and H. I. Maibach, “Mithramycin as a possible cause of toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell’s syndrome),” California Medicine, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 42-43, 1971. View at Google Scholar
  45. D. Purpora, M. J. Ahern, and N. Silverman, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis after mithramycin,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 299, no. 25, pp. 1412-1413, 1978. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  46. C. P. Castaneda, N. A. Brandenburg, R. Bwire, G. H. Burton, and J. B. Zeldis, “Erythema multiforme/Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in lenalidomide-treated patients,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 156-157, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. R. Wasch, T. Jakob, K. Technau, J. Finke, and M. Engelhardt, “Stevens–Johnson/toxic epidermal necrolysis overlap syndrome following lenalidomide treatment for multiple myeloma relapse after allogeneic transplantation,” Annals of Hematology, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 287–289, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. P. K. Boruah, S. Bolesta, and S. M. Shetty, “Possible lenalidomide-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome during treatment for multiple myeloma,” Pharmacotherapy, vol. 31, no. 9, p. 925, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. T. E. Clark, N. Edom, J. Larson, and L. J. Lindsey, “Thalomid® (Thalidomide) capsules: a review of the first 18 months of spontaneous postmarketing adverse event surveillance, including off-label prescribing,” Drug Safety, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 87–117, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  50. S. V. Rajkumar, M. A. Gertz, and T. E. Witzig, “Life-threatening toxic epidermal necrolysis with thalidomide therapy for myeloma,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 343, no. 13, pp. 972-973, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. S. B. Horowitz and A. L. Stirling, “Thalidomide-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis,” Pharmacotherapy, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1177–1180, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. W. K. Eo, S. H. Kim, S. H. Cheon et al., “Toxic epidermal necrolysis following thalidomide and dexamethasone treatment for multiple myeloma: a case report,” Annals of Hematology, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 421-422, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. M. Colagrande, M. Di Ianni, G. Coletti et al., “Toxic epidermal necrolysis in a patient with primary myelofibrosis receiving thalidomide therapy,” International Journal of Hematology, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 76–79, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. A. R. Rodriguez, “L-asparaginase and toxic epidermal necrolysis,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 355–357, 1980. View at Google Scholar
  55. Y. Honda, Y. Hattori, S. Katsura et al., “Stevens-Johnson syndrome-like erosive dermatitis possibly related to afatinib,” European Journal of Dermatology, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 413-414, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  56. J. Doesch, D. Debus, C. Meyer et al., “Afatinib-associated Stevens-Johnson syndrome in an EGFR-mutated lung cancer patient,” Lung Cancer, vol. 95, pp. 35–38, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. M. Urosevic-Maiwald, T. Harr, L. E. French, and R. Dummer, “Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis overlap in a patient receiving cetuximab and radiotherapy for head and neck cancer,” International Journal of Dermatology, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 864–867, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. W. L. Lin, W. C. Lin, J. Y. Yang et al., “Fatal toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with cetuximab in a patient with colon cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 2779-2780, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. S. S. Lee and P. Y. Chu, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis caused by cetuximab plus minocycline in head and neck cancer,” American Journal of Otolaryngology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 288–290, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. E. Liquete, S. Ali, R. Kammo et al., “Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis induced by Erlotinib (Tarceva) with superimposed Staphylococcus aureus skin infection in a pancreatic cancer patient: a case report,” Case Reports in Oncology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 253–259, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. D. M. Jackman, L. A. Cioffredi, L. Jacobs et al., “A phase I trial of high dose gefitinib for patients with leptomeningeal metastases from non-small cell lung cancer,” Oncotarget, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 4527–4536, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  62. J. J. Huang, S. X. Ma, X. Hou et al., “Toxic epidermal necrolysis related to AP (pemetrexed plus cisplatin) and gefitinib combination therapy in a patient with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer,” Chinese Journal of Cancer, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 94–98, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. J. Yoon, C. W. Oh, and C. Y. Kim, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome induced by vandetanib,” Annals of Dermatology, vol. 23, Supplement 3, pp. S343–S345, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. D. Vidal, L. Puig, A. Sureda, and A. Alomar, “Sti571-induced Stevens–Johnson syndrome,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 274-275, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. G. Severino, C. Chillotti, R. De Lisa, M. Del Zompo, and R. Ardau, “Adverse reactions during imatinib and lansoprazole treatment in gastrointestinal stromal tumors,” The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 162–164, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. K. Pavithran and M. Thomas, “Imatinib induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome: lack of recurrence following re-challenge with a lower dose,” Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 288-289, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  67. S. A. Rule, S. G. O'Brien, and L. C. Crossman, “Managing cutaneous reactions to imatinib therapy,” Blood, vol. 100, no. 9, pp. 3434-3435, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. L. T. Hsiao, H. M. Chung, J. T. Lin et al., “Stevens–Johnson syndrome after treatment with STI571: a case report,” British Journal of Haematology, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 620–622, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. H.-J. Hsieh, A. L. F. Chan, and S.-J. Lin, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome induced by combination of imatinib and allopurinol,” Chemotherapy, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 197–199, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. M. Mahapatra, P. Mishra, and R. Kumar, “Imatinib-induced Stevens–Johnson syndrome: recurrence after re-challenge with a lower dose,” Annals of Hematology, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 537-538, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. P. Jha, D. Himanshu, N. Jain, and A. K. Singh, “Imatinib-induced Stevens-Johnsons syndrome,” BMJ Case Reports, vol. 2013, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. M. Schaich, K. Schakel, T. Illmer, G. Ehninger, and M. Bornhauser, “Severe epidermal necrolysis after treatment with imatinib and consecutive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation,” Annals of Hematology, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 303-304, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  73. M. K. Choi, H. Y. Woo, J. Heo et al., “Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with sorafenib and tosufloxacin in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma,” Annals of Dermatology, vol. 23, Supplement 3, pp. S404–S407, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. B. Blanchet, B. Billemont, S. Barete et al., “Toxicity of sorafenib: clinical and molecular aspects,” Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 275–287, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. C. N. Yeh, W. H. Chung, S. C. Su et al., “Fas/Fas ligand mediates keratinocyte death in sunitinib-induced hand-foot skin reaction,” The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 134, no. 11, pp. 2768–2775, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. E. I. Zimmerman, A. A. Gibson, S. Hu et al., “Multikinase inhibitors induce cutaneous toxicity through OAT6-mediated uptake and MAP3K7-driven cell death,” Cancer Research, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 117–126, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. B. Fang, Y. Song, J. Ma, and R. C. Zhao, “Severe epidermal necrolysis after bortezomib treatment for multiple myeloma,” Acta Haematologica, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 65–67, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. B. M. Tijink, J. Buter, R. de Bree et al., “A phase I dose escalation study with anti-CD44v6 bivatuzumab mertansine in patients with incurable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or esophagus,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 12, no. 20, pp. 6064–6072, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. S. Lowndes, A. Darby, G. Mead, and A. Lister, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome after treatment with rituximab,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1948–1950, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. D. R. Minor, R. Rodvien, and M. Kashani-Sabet, “Successful desensitization in a case of Stevens–Johnson syndrome due to vemurafenib,” Melanoma Research, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 410-411, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. A. A. Segura Huerta, P. Tordera, A. C. Cercos, A. L. Yuste, P. Lopez-Tendero, and G. Reynes, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with interleukin-2,” The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, vol. 36, no. 7-8, pp. 1171–1174, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  82. J. S. Wiener, J. A. Tucker Jr., and P. J. Walther, “Interleukin-2-induced dermatotoxicity resembling toxic epidermal necrolysis,” Southern Medical Journal, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 656–659, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  83. E. Dika, G. M. Ravaioli, and P. A. Fanti, “Cutaneous adverse effects during ipilimumab treatment for metastatic melanoma: a prospective study,” European Journal of Dermatology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 266–270, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  84. K. L. Vivar, M. Deschaine, J. Messina et al., “Epidermal programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression in TEN associated with nivolumab therapy,” Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 381–384, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  85. N. Nayar, K. Briscoe, and P. Fernandez Penas, “Toxic epidermal necrolysis–like reaction with severe satellite cell necrosis associated with nivolumab in a patient with ipilimumab refractory metastatic melanoma,” Journal of Immunotherapy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 149–152, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. E. Liniker, A. M. Menzies, B. Y. Kong et al., “Activity and safety of radiotherapy with anti-PD-1 drug therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma,” OncoImmunology, vol. 5, no. 9, article e1214788, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. K. Polder, C. Wang, M. Duvic et al., “Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with denileukin diftitox (DAB389IL-2) administration in a patient with follicular large cell lymphoma,” Leukemia & Lymphoma, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1807–1811, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. T. J. Chen, W. H. Chung, and C. B. Chen, “Methotrexate-induced epidermal necrosis: a case series of 24 patients,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 247–255.e2, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  89. L. E. Levine, M. M. Medenica, A. L. Lorincz, K. Soltani, B. Raab, and A. Ma, “Distinctive acral erythema occurring during therapy for severe myelogenous leukemia,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 102–104, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. J. L. Bolognia, D. L. Cooper, and E. J. Glusac, “Toxic erythema of chemotherapy: a useful clinical term,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 524–529, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. T. D. Horn, “Antineoplastic chemotherapy, sweat, and the skin,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 133, no. 7, pp. 905-906, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  92. P. Seshacharyulu, M. P. Ponnusamy, D. Haridas, M. Jain, A. K. Ganti, and S. K. Batra, “Targeting the EGFR signaling pathway in cancer therapy,” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. M. E. Lacouture, M. J. Anadkat, R. J. Bensadoun et al., “Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EGFR inhibitor-associated dermatologic toxicities,” Support Care Cancer, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1079–1095, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. J. B. Macdonald, B. Macdonald, L. E. Golitz, P. LoRusso, and A. Sekulic, “Cutaneous adverse effects of targeted therapies: part I: inhibitors of the cellular membrane,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 203–218, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. A. M. Wnorowski, A. de Souza, A. Chachoua, and D. E. Cohen, “The management of EGFR inhibitor adverse events: a case series and treatment paradigm,” International Journal of Dermatology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 223–232, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. B. J. Druker, F. Guilhot, S. G. O'Brien et al., “Five-year follow-up of patients receiving imatinib for chronic myeloid leukemia,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 355, no. 23, pp. 2408–2417, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. P. G. Casali, A. Le Cesne, A. P. Velasco et al., “Imatinib failure-free survival (IFS) in patients with localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) treated with adjuvant imatinib (IM): the EORTC/AGITG/FSG/GEIS/ISG randomized controlled phase III trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  98. L. Valeyrie, S. Bastuji-Garin, J. Revuz et al., “Adverse cutaneous reactions to imatinib (STI571) in Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias: a prospective study of 54 patients,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 201–206, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. M. Brouard and J. H. Saurat, “Cutaneous reactions to STI571,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 345, no. 8, pp. 618-619, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. K. D. White, W. H. Chung, S. I. Hung, S. Mallal, and E. J. Phillips, “Evolving models of the immunopathogenesis of T cell–mediated drug allergy: the role of host, pathogens, and drug response,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 136, no. 2, pp. 219–234, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  101. T. A. Duong, L. Valeyrie-Allanore, P. Wolkenstein, and O. Chosidow, “Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to drugs,” Lancet, vol. 390, no. 10106, pp. 1996–2011, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  102. K. J. Gotink and H. M. W. Verheul, “Anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors: what is their mechanism of action?” Angiogenesis, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. R. S. Ishak, S. A. Aad, A. Kyei, and F. S. Farhat, “Cutaneous manifestations of anti-angiogenic therapy in oncology: review with focus on VEGF inhibitors,” Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 152–164, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. B. Billemont, S. Barete, and O. Rixe, “Scrotal cutaneous side effects of sunitinib,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 359, no. 9, pp. 975-976, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. M. Ikeda, T. Fujita, Y. Amoh, S. Mii, K. Matsumoto, and M. Iwamura, “Stevens-Johnson syndrome induced by sorafenib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 482-483, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. M. E. Lacouture, M. Duvic, A. Hauschild et al., “Analysis of dermatologic events in vemurafenib-treated patients with melanoma,” The Oncologist, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 314–322, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. M. Arenbergerova, A. Fialova, P. Arenberger et al., “Severe diclofenac photoallergy in a patient treated with vemurafenib,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 713–715, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. T. Bellon, V. Lerma, O. Gonzalez-Valle, C. González Herrada, and F. J. de Abajo, “Vemurafenib-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis: possible cross-reactivity with other sulfonamide compounds,” The British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 621–624, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. G. Jeudy, S. Dalac-Rat, B. Bonniaud et al., “Successful switch to dabrafenib after vemurafenib-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 172, no. 5, pp. 1454-1455, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. M. E. Peterson, “Management of adverse events in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treated with everolimus: observations from a phase III clinical trial,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 2341–2349, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. C. Ferté, A. Paci, M. Zizi et al., “Natural history, management and pharmacokinetics of everolimus-induced-oral ulcers: insights into compliance issues,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 47, no. 15, pp. 2249–2255, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. F. Martins, M. A. de Oliveira, Q. Wang et al., “A review of oral toxicity associated with mTOR inhibitor therapy in cancer patients,” Oral Oncology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 293–298, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  113. U. Fuchs, A. Zittermann, H. K. Berthold et al., “Immunosuppressive therapy with everolimus can be associated with potentially life-threatening lingual angioedema,” Transplantation, vol. 79, no. 8, pp. 981–983, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. S. Saw, H. Y. Lee, and Q. S. Ng, “Pembrolizumab-induced Stevens–Johnson syndrome in non-melanoma patients,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 81, pp. 237–239, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  115. N. Okiyama and S. I. Katz, “Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) regulates the effector function of CD8 T cells via PD-L1 expressed on target keratinocytes,” Journal of Autoimmunity, vol. 53, pp. 1–9, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  116. S. M. Goldinger, P. Stieger, B. Meier et al., “Cytotoxic cutaneous adverse drug reactions during anti-PD-1 therapy,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 22, no. 16, pp. 4023–4029, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  117. D. B. Johnson, E. K. Wallender, D. N. Cohen et al., “Severe cutaneous and neurologic toxicity in melanoma patients during vemurafenib administration following anti-PD-1 therapy,” Cancer Immunology Research, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 373–377, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  118. (RegiSCAR), “Patients were diagnosed with SJS, SJS/TEN overlap or TEN according to the classification proposed by the European registry of severe cutaneous adverse reactions,” 9 SJS.
  119. S. Bastuji-Garin, N. Fouchard, M. Bertocchi, J. C. Roujeau, J. Revuz, and P. Wolkenstein, “SCORTEN: a severity-of-illness score for toxic epidermal necrolysis,” The Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 149–153, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  120. B. Sassolas, C. Haddad, M. Mockenhaupt et al., “ALDEN, an algorithm for assessment of drug causality in Stevens–Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: comparison with case–control analysis,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 60–68, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. W. J. Pichler and J. Tilch, “The lymphocyte transformation test in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity,” Allergy, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 809–820, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  122. F. Pantano, M. Silletta, A. Iovieno et al., “Stevens–Johnson syndrome associated with reduced tear production complicating the use of cetuximab and panitumumab,” International Journal of Colorectal Disease, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 1247-1248, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus