Barbee Meagan S, Owonikoko Taofeek K, Harvey R Donald
Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Emory Healthcare, and Mercer University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 1364 Clifton Road NE, B712, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2014 Jan;6(1):16-20. doi: 10.1177/1758834013510546.
Several classes of antineoplastic agents are universally referred to as vesicants with ample supporting literature. However, the literature surrounding the taxanes is controversial. While the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards and the Chemotherapy and Biotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice identify the risks of extravasation and the parameters surrounding the infusion of known vesicants, recommend administration sites for known agents, and recommend antidotes for particular extravasation cases, they fail to provide specific recommendations for the administration of individual taxanes, or a classification system for antineoplastic agents as vesicants, irritants, or inert compounds. There is also a lack of prescribing information regarding such recommendations. The lack of a formal classification system further complicates the accurate delineation of vesicant antineoplastic agents and subsequent appropriate intravenous administration and extravasation management. There are several factors that make the classification of taxanes as vesicants or irritants challenging. Comprehensive preclinical data describing potential mechanisms of tissue damage or vesicant-like properties are lacking. Furthermore, most case reports of taxane extravasation fail to include the parameters surrounding administration, such as the concentration of medication and duration of infusion, making it difficult to set parameters for vesicant potential. Subsequently, many practitioners default to central venous administration of taxanes without evidence that such administration minimizes the risk of extravasation or improves outcomes thereof. Here, we review briefly the data surrounding taxane extravasation and potential vesicant or irritant properties, classify the taxanes, and propose a spectrum for antineoplastic agent potential to cause tissue injury that warrants clinical intervention if extravasation occurs.
几类抗肿瘤药物被普遍称为发泡剂,有大量文献支持这一说法。然而,关于紫杉烷类药物的文献存在争议。美国临床肿瘤学会和肿瘤护理学会的化疗给药安全标准以及化疗和生物治疗指南与实践建议,虽明确了外渗风险以及已知发泡剂输注的相关参数,推荐了已知药物的给药部位,并针对特定外渗情况推荐了解毒药,但它们未针对个别紫杉烷类药物的给药提供具体建议,也未提供抗肿瘤药物作为发泡剂、刺激剂或惰性化合物的分类系统。此外,关于此类建议的处方信息也很缺乏。缺乏正式的分类系统进一步使准确界定发泡性抗肿瘤药物以及后续适当的静脉给药和外渗处理变得复杂。有几个因素使得将紫杉烷类药物分类为发泡剂或刺激剂具有挑战性。描述组织损伤潜在机制或类似发泡剂特性的全面临床前数据缺乏。此外,大多数紫杉烷类药物外渗的病例报告未包括给药相关参数,如药物浓度和输注持续时间,这使得难以设定发泡剂潜力的参数。随后,许多从业者在没有证据表明这种给药方式能将外渗风险降至最低或改善其结果的情况下,默认采用中心静脉给药紫杉烷类药物。在此,我们简要回顾围绕紫杉烷类药物外渗及潜在发泡剂或刺激剂特性的数据,对紫杉烷类药物进行分类,并提出一个抗肿瘤药物导致组织损伤潜力的范围,如果发生外渗,这种损伤需要临床干预。