Cisplatin Ototoxicity in Children

Cisplatin is a highly effective chemotherapy medicine used in the treatment of many childhood cancers. Like all medications, cisplatin has many side effects and as always the treatment of cancer in children is a balance between the risks of the medications used and their potential benefits. While many side effects of cisplatin chemotherapy are reversible, one major side effect is permanent and irreversible hearing loss (ototoxicity) in both ears which may worsen with time. The severity of cisplatin-related ototoxicity is associated with age and the cumulative dose received: the younger the child and the higher the total dose, the more severe the hearing loss may be. The spectrum of hearing loss varies from mild to moderate high tone hearing loss, to profound loss across the hearing range and permanent deafness. In addition to hearing loss, some children, especially adolescents, also experience tinnitus and vertigo. Cisplatin ototoxicity is one of most important of the many long-term effects experienced by children who are cured of their cancer. The burden of this toxicity may be compounded by other long-term health issues that emerge with time. This chapter will focus on cisplatin-induced hearing loss, its mechanisms, its health impact on the young person and ways to mitigate or reduce the severity of ototoxicity. This chapter has been written by a multi-disciplinary team including paediatric oncologists, audiologists, a psychologist, a health scientist and a parent of a child growing up with high frequency hearing loss

Accelerating drug development for neuroblastoma - New Drug Development Strategy: an Innovative Therapies for Children with Cancer, European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents and International Society of Paediatric Oncology Europe Neuroblastoma project

Introduction: Neuroblastoma, the commonest paediatric extra-cranial tumour, remains a leading cause of death from cancer in children. There is an urgent need to develop new drugs to improve cure rates and reduce long-term toxicity and to incorporate molecularly targeted therapies into treatment. Many potential drugs are becoming available, but have to be prioritised for clinical trials due to the relatively small numbers of patients. Areas covered: The current drug development model has been slow, associated with significant attrition, and few new drugs have been developed for neuroblastoma. The Neuroblastoma New Drug Development Strategy (NDDS) has: 1) established a group with expertise in drug development; 2) prioritised targets and drugs according to tumour biology (target expression, dependency, pre-clinical data; potential combinations; biomarkers), identifying as priority targets ALK, MEK, CDK4/6, MDM2, MYCN (druggable by BET bromodomain, aurora kinase, mTORC1/2) BIRC5 and checkpoint kinase 1; 3) promoted clinical trials with target-prioritised drugs. Drugs showing activity can be rapidly transitioned via parallel randomised trials into front-line studies. Expert opinion: The Neuroblastoma NDDS is based on the premise that optimal drug development is reliant on knowledge of tumour biology and prioritisation. This approach will accelerate neuroblastoma drug development and other poor prognosis childhood malignancies

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients