Anticancer treatments and photosensitivity

Abstract

Drug‐induced photosensitivity is associated with a wide range of anticancer treatments, including conventional chemotherapeutic agents, targeted anticancer therapies, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. These dermatologic adverse events can have a major impact on the well‐being and quality of life of cancer patients, leading to dose modifications and interruption or discontinuation of anticancer treatments in severe cases. However, the heterogeneous nature of the photosensitive reactions induced by these agents, as well as the common concomitant use of other potentially photosensitizing drugs (antibiotics, voriconazole, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, etc.), can make the diagnosis and, therefore the prevention, of these adverse events particularly challenging. The aim of this review is to describe the most characteristic forms of photosensitivity observed in patients being treated with anticancer treatments, including phototoxicity and photoallergy, and other potentially photo‐induced manifestations such as UV recall, exaggerated sunburn reactions associated with treatment‐related vitiligo, drug‐induced cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and UV‐induced hyperpigmentation. We also discuss the photosensitive reactions recently reported with new‐generation targeted anticancer therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors and highlight the importance of continued surveillance to identify photosensitizing agents, and of educating patients on the need for preventive UVA/UVB photoprotective measures.

Inflammation of Actinic Keratoses Induced by Combination of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel: Two Case Reports

“…Selective inflammation of AK during chemotherapy is possibly a consequence of direct cytotoxicity of an active compound on atypical keratinocytes that accumulate ultraviolet-induced damage of deoxyribonucleic acid, but the exact mechanism of how different chemotherapeutics achieve this effect seems to be drug-dependent [ 13 ]. Alternative explanations of skin lesions (i.e., subacute lupus erythematosus, actinic lichen planus, cutaneous vasculitis, hypersensitivity drug reactions, drug-induced photosensitivity reactions, and photocontact dermatitis) were in both patients excluded on the basis of a history, typical clinical features of AK, and in the first case with the additional characteristic presence of atypical keratinocytes on histological examination [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].…”

Highlights from the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in 2022

“…As immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma and other skin cancers is currently seeing great advancements, adverse effects, such as the development of photosensitivity, are becoming increasingly important. 5 A study of 634 patients, 38% of whom had high-risk (>2 mm) melanomas, revealed the influence that diet quality had on the development of this skin cancer. The Healthy Eating Index (HEI) was adopted to assess diet quality, and it was shown that melanoma patients who had good diets in the year preceding their diagnosis were less likely to have thick (>2 mm) melanomas than those who consumed a poorquality diet.…”

“…As immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma and other skin cancers is currently seeing great advancements, adverse effects, such as the development of photosensitivity, are becoming increasingly important 5 …”

Cancer Cell Membrane-Coated Nanoparticles for Treatment of Oral Tongue Squamous Cell Carcinoma by Combining Photothermal/Photodynamic Therapy and Autophagy Inhibition

“…9 However, the drawbacks of this hydrophilicity photosensitizer such as instability in blood circulation, low cellular uptake efffciency, and weak tumor-targeting capability greatly limit its application in anticancer strategies. 10,11 Currently, the biomimetic nanoparticle modification strategy has attracted more and more attention. Various extracted types of biomembranes coated on nanocarriers through special technology can endow nanoparticles with relative biological characteristics, thus exhibiting excellent anticancer efficacy.…”

“…Indocyanine green (ICG) as an NIR fluorescent dye possesses both photosensitive and photothermal properties, which should sufficiently perform PTT and PDT effects in the treatment of OTSCC . However, the drawbacks of this hydrophilicity photosensitizer such as instability in blood circulation, low cellular uptake efffciency, and weak tumor-targeting capability greatly limit its application in anticancer strategies. , Currently, the biomimetic nanoparticle modification strategy has attracted more and more attention. Various extracted types of biomembranes coated on nanocarriers through special technology can endow nanoparticles with relative biological characteristics, thus exhibiting excellent anticancer efficacy. , Homologous tumor cells can exhibit self-recognition and agglomeration homing effects due to their similar proteins such as adhesion molecules expressed on the surface of cell membranes. − Therefore, when encapsulated within the OTSCC cell membrane vesicles, the nanoparticles will be forecasted to achieve specific recognition and efficient cellular uptake by homologous OTSCC, thus hoping to overcome the limitations of ICG mentioned above.…”