Introduction/Background In the treatment of gynecological tumors, taxanes currently represent the main chemotherapeutic drugs to be used in clinical practice. A minority of patients experience allergic reactions limiting the possibilities for oncological treatment (1–10%). Several desensitization protocols were proposed to overcome the hypersensitivity and guarantee the appropriate treatment to the patients. We reviewed retrospectively the safety and efficacy of a rapid desensitization protocol in patients with gynecological cancers. Methodology We reported data of patients who experienced hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel occurring during or shortly (≤48 hours) from 2018 to 2020. The patients had premedication three days before the infusion with desensitization protocol (three solutions 1/100, 1/10 and 1/1 undiluted paclitaxel: 3 bags/12 steps). Results 80 patients experienced reaction to taxol: 61 ovarian cancer (76.25%), 12 endometrial cancer (15%), 3 cervical cancer (3.75%) and 4 synchronous ovarian/endometrial cancer (5%) with advanced stage at diagnosis in 62% of cases. Thirteen patients (16.25%) reported a personal history of drug allergy and seven patients (8.75%) of autoimmune diseases. More than 50% of the reactions recorded are moderate and severe in a median time of 11.24 minutes from the beginning of infusion (3–60). Most patients reacted on the first infusion (68%). The number of cycles before the hypersensitivity reaction is 1.64 (1–12 cycles). All patients performed skin tests (ST) after a median time of 18.5 days from reaction (2–90). 65% of patients underwent treatment based on desensitization protocol: 286 cycles were performed in all cohorts and only in sixteen cases we reported a reaction to paclitaxel despite premedication and desensitization schedule. In three patients with a positive ST a desensitization schedule was administered but only one completed therapy without further reactions. Conclusion Desensitization programs could manage hypersensitivity reactions to taxanes without limiting the possibilities of access to a primary standard of care in gynecological cancers. Disclosures The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carbone et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: