4.5 Article

Skin lesions in chronic myeloid leukemia patients during dasatinib treatment

期刊

CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 7991-7996

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S217872

关键词

inhibitor tyrosine kinase; skin lesions; chronic myeloid leukemia; CD8+lymphocytes; dasatinib

类别

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana contro le Leucemie (AIL) - BARI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In our work we sought to define the prevalence rates of cutaneous events during dasatinib therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients and to investigate the clinical and pathological characteristics of these reactions. Patients and methods: In our institution, 67 CML patients were treated with dasatinib. it was given as first line treatment in 26 (39%) and subsequent treatment in 41 (61%) CML patients. Flow cytometry analysis of peripheral blood and cutaneous biopsy was done on all CML patients with dermatological lesions appearing during dasatinib treatment. Results: Among 67 CML patients, 4 (5.9%) showed skin lesions during dasatinib treatment. The cutaneous manifestations were not generalized but mainly located on the back, abdomen, thorax or leg regions. The patients did not show peripheral lymphocytosis at the time when skin lesions appeared. Overall, histological analysis showed that the skin lesions were characterized by a mild perivascular small CD8+ T lymphocytes infiltrate with minimal epidermotropism. Conclusion: The unusual T cytotoxic cutaneous infiltrate demonstrated in our CML cases could be the expression of a dasatinib-promoted lymphocyte expansion. However, the heterogeneity of the dermatologic manifestations reported in our CML patients could also be related to unknown factors specific to each CML patient. Our work highlights the finding that skin lesions may be associated with dasatinib treatment and that they should not be confused with viral or bacterial infections but rather interpreted as the clinical expression of lymphocytosis promoted by this TKI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据