Immunologic and tumor responses of pegilodecakin with 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Background Treatment options for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are limited and checkpoint blockade inhibitors have been disappointing in this disease. Pegilodecakin has demonstrated single agent anti-tumor activity in immune-sensitive tumors. Phase 1 and preclinical data indicate synergy of pegilodecakin with 5-FU and platins. We assessed the safety and activity of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX in patients with PDAC. Methods IVY (NCT02009449) was an open-label phase 1b trial in the United States. Here we report on all enrolled patients from cohort C. Heavily pretreated patients were treated with pegilodecakin (self-administered subcutaneously daily at 2.5, 5, or 10 µg/kg) + 5-flurouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), dosed per manufacturers prescribing information, until tumor progression. Eligible patients had measurable disease per immune-related response criteria (irRC), were ≥ 18 years of age, and had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were evaluated for primary(safety) and secondary (tumor response per irRC) endpoints. Results From 5 August 2014-12 July 2016, 39 patients enrolled in cohort C. All patients were evaluable for safety. In this advanced population, regimen had manageable toxicities with no immune-related adverse events (irAEs) greater than grade 1. The most common grade 3/4/5 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (21[53.8%] of 39) and anemia (17[43.6%] of 39). In evaluable PDAC patients, the best overall response of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX was 3(14%) with CRs in 2(9%) patients. Conclusions Pegilodecakin+FOLFOX had an acceptable tolerability profile in PDAC, with no substantial irAEs seen, and promising efficacy with the combination yielding a 2-year OS of 24% (95% CI 10-42). These data led to the phase 3 study with pegilodecakin+FOLFOX as second-line therapy of PDAC (SEQUOIA).

High levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes showed better clinical outcomes in FOLFOX-treated gastric cancer patients.

Background: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and postoperative chemotherapeutics interact in the tumor micro-environment. This interaction has not been well investigated in gastric cancer. Materials & methods: A total of 129 patients were divided into high or low TILs based on the median number of positive CD3+ and FoxP3+ T cells, which was assessed by immunocytochemistry. Results: Cox regression analysis showed that the stage III disease with shorter overall survival was significant. The analysis showed that high numbers of CD3+ or FoxP3+ T cells have better clinical outcomes in FOLFOX-treated patients. Conclusion: High CD3+ and FoxP3+ T-cell infiltration was associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with gastric cancer treated with FOLFOX, suggesting TILs incorporated into algorithms to improve the therapeutic efficacy of optimal chemotherapy.

The effects of prolonged infusion on reducing oxaliplatin hypersensitivity reactions

No disponible

Bio-inspired polymer envelopes around adenoviral vectors to reduce immunogenicity and improve in vivo kinetics.

Adenoviral vectors have attracted substantial interest for systemic tumor gene therapy, but further work is needed to reduce their immunogenicity and alter their biodistribution before they can be used in the clinic. Here we describe a bio-inspired, cleavable PEGylated ß-cyclodextrin-polyethyleneimine conjugate (CDPCP) that spontaneously coats adenovirus in solution. This cleavable PEG coating reduces the innate and adaptive immunogenicity of adenovirus particles, as well as improves their biodistribution away from the liver and into the tumor. Insertion of a matrix metalloproteinase substrate sequence into the conjugate allows PEG cleavage at the tumor site, simultaneously reducing liver biodistribution and increasing transgene expression in tumors, thereby avoiding the "PEG dilemma". Cationic ß-cyclodextrin-PEI not only provides electrostatic attraction to promote envelope attachment to the viral capsid, but it also improves vector internalization and transduction after PEG cleavage. These results suggest that CDPCP may help expand the use of adenoviral vectors in cancer gene therapy. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: The synthesized ß-cyclodextrin-PEI-MMP-cleavable-PEG polymer (CDPCP), held great potential for gene therapy when applied for adenovirus coating. The ß-cyclodextrin-PEI provided a powerful electrostatic attraction to attach the whole polymer onto the viral capsid, while the MMPs-cleavable PEG reduced innate and adaptive immunogenicity and improved the biodistribution of adenovirus vectors due to the tumor-specific enzyme triggered PEG cleavage. More importantly, an ingenious cooperation between the two components could solve the PEG dilemma. The CDPCP/Ad complexes exhibited a comprehensive and valued profile to be a candidate vector for future tumor gene therapy, we believe the current investigation on this kind of biomaterial may be of particular interest to the readership of Acta biomaterialia.

Risk-stratification protocol for carboplatin and oxaliplatin hypersensitivity: repeat skin testing to identify drug allergy.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to platinum-based chemotherapies are increasingly being recognized. The authors developed a novel risk-stratification protocol that was used successfully in a small number of patients with carboplatin-induced HSRs. OBJECTIVE: To describe the utility of this protocol in a large number of patients with carboplatin- or oxaliplatin-induced HSRs. METHODS: A 5-year retrospective review of patients referred to Massachusetts General Hospital with carboplatin- or oxaliplatin-induced HSR was performed. Patients were managed using a risk-stratification protocol using 3 repeat skin tests (STs) with intervening desensitizations. If the repeat ST result remained negative 3 times, patients received subsequent infusions without desensitization. RESULTS: From 2008 to 2012, 142 patients (92 treated with carboplatin, 50 treated with oxaliplatin) completed 574 desensitizations. Most patients were women (84.5%, mean ± SD 58.1 ± 9.3 years). Patients with carboplatin-induced HSRs were classified as having positive (n = 32, 34.8%), negative (n = 38, 41.3%), or converted (n = 22, 23.9%) ST reactions when the initial negative ST reaction converted to positive at repeat ST. Of those with oxaliplatin-induced HSRs, 22 (44%) had positive, 25 (50%) had negative, and 3 (6%) had converted ST reactions. Of the patients with negative ST reactions, 17 with carboplatin-induced HSRs and 16 with oxaliplatin-induced HSRs safely completed 59 and 95 outpatient infusions, respectively, without desensitizations. For carboplatin and oxaliplatin, ST conversion was associated with an interval of at least 6 months from the HSR to the initial ST (carboplatin, P = .002; oxaliplatin, P = .045). CONCLUSION: This risk-stratification protocol for presumed carboplatin- and oxaliplatin-induced HSRs safely identifies false-negative ST reactions and nonallergic patients who can receive infusions without desensitizations. This leads to fewer unnecessary desensitizations and improved patient care.

Immunosuppressive plasma cells impede T-cell-dependent immunogenic chemotherapy.

Cancer-associated genetic alterations induce expression of tumour antigens that can activate CD8(+) cytotoxic T cells (CTLs), but the microenvironment of established tumours promotes immune tolerance through poorly understood mechanisms. Recently developed therapeutics that overcome tolerogenic mechanisms activate tumour-directed CTLs and are effective in some human cancers. Immune mechanisms also affect treatment outcome, and certain chemotherapeutic drugs stimulate cancer-specific immune responses by inducing immunogenic cell death and other effector mechanisms. Our previous studies revealed that B cells recruited by the chemokine CXCL13 into prostate cancer tumours promote the progression of castrate-resistant prostate cancer by producing lymphotoxin, which activates an IκB kinase α (IKKα)-BMI1 module in prostate cancer stem cells. Because castrate-resistant prostate cancer is refractory to most therapies, we examined B cell involvement in the acquisition of chemotherapy resistance. Here we focus on oxaliplatin, an immunogenic chemotherapeutic agent that is effective in aggressive prostate cancer. We show that mouse B cells modulate the response to low-dose oxaliplatin, which promotes tumour-directed CTL activation by inducing immunogenic cell death. Three different mouse prostate cancer models were refractory to oxaliplatin unless genetically or pharmacologically depleted of B cells. The crucial immunosuppressive B cells are plasmocytes that express IgA, interleukin (IL)-10 and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), the appearance of which depends on TGFß receptor signalling. Elimination of these cells, which also infiltrate human-therapy-resistant prostate cancer, allows CTL-dependent eradication of oxaliplatin-treated tumours.

Desensitization with oxaliplatin in patients intolerant of carboplatin desensitization.

INTRODUCTION: The tolerance and efficacy of oxaliplatin desensitization in patients who were intolerant of carboplatin desensitization were determined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Gynecologic Oncology patients who received carboplatin or oxaliplatin from December 2007 until August 2014. The number of treatments and number of patients of carboplatin standard infusions, carboplatin desensitizations, and oxaliplatin desensitizations were determined. RESULTS: Carboplatin infusions (2294) were administered to 281 patients. Twenty-eight (10%) of these patients developed carboplatin hypersensitivity and were treated with 205 carboplatin desensitizations. Nine (29%) patients were subsequently treated with 61 oxaliplatin desensitizations due to intolerance of carboplatin desensitization. Nine of the 10 patients tolerated this infusion well. Four of 9 evaluable patients had an objective response, 2 complete and 2 partial. CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin desensitization seems well tolerated and effective in most patients who are intolerant of carboplatin desensitization.

Oxaliplatin hypersensitivity: evaluation, implications of skin testing, and desensitization.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin hypersensitivity (OXS) presents a challenge in the treatment of oxaliplatin-sensitive malignancies. OBJECTIVE: To analyze patient characteristics of patients with OXS, skin test results, and desensitization outcomes to optimize management. METHODS: Over 5 years, 48 patients with OXS were referred to the allergy/immunology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. Their clinical reaction patterns were analyzed. Immediate hypersensitivity skin testing was used for risk stratification, and drug desensitizations were performed by using 3 related continuous intravenous protocols that were chosen based on clinical history, skin test reactivity, and the patients' previous desensitization outcomes. RESULTS: OXS occurred in both sexes, with mostly gastrointestinal-related tumors. Hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) onset had occurred during any course of therapy (course nos. 1-28), with a median onset at course no. 8. HSR to oxaliplatin was similar to those observed with cisplatin and carboplatin, including cutaneous, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, neurologic symptoms, including tingling, and systemic symptoms, including fever and chills, occurred more often in patients with OXS. Unique to OXS, 2 patients developed drug-induced thrombocytopenia; 1 patients also developed drug-induced hemolytic anemia. Skin testing was positive for the majority of patients with OXS (27/46 [59%]) and correlated with a greater likelihood of developing an HSR during subsequent desensitizations. We safely performed 200 desensitizations in 48 patients with OXS. CONCLUSION: OXS is common with much similarity to other platin agents but also have distinct differences in the onset of hypersensitivity, sex, tumor type, drug-induced hemolytic anemia, and drug-induced thrombocytopenia. Skin testing was helpful for risk stratification. All of the desensitizations were completed successfully.

Treatment outcomes of rapid desensitisation protocols for chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies following hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies are common and may limit further therapeutic options. Drug desensitisation aims to induce a temporary clinical unresponsiveness to drug antigens so the causative drugs of HSR can continue to be administered. Rapid desensitisation using standardised protocols has been conducted by the Department of Immunology at The Canberra Hospital for patients who developed HSR to chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies. AIMS: This retrospective audit reviewed the safety and efficacy of the desensitisation protocols used for patients across the Capital Region Cancer Service (CRCS). METHODS: Patients across the CRCS who received rapid desensitisation were identified through a search of archived correspondence. Clinical files and pharmacy records were analysed to determine protocol safety and efficacy. RESULTS: From June 2006 to July 2013, 13 patients underwent rapid desensitisations to oxaliplatin, carboplatin, docetaxel or rituximab. A total of 25 desensitisations was conducted with 21 (84%) achieving full target dose without inducing recurrent HSR. As a result, nine patients were successfully desensitised and continued to receive treatment without any further HSR. Desensitisation was aborted in three patients because of recurrence of HSR, which was not of a greater severity than the initial HSR. After successful desensitisation, seven patients were able to resume the regular protocols without requiring additional supervision. CONCLUSION: Rapid desensitisation to various chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies with standardised protocols used across CRCS is safe and effective; it provides a feasible treatment option enabling continuation of effective regimens in the setting of HSR.

Hypersensitivity and desensitization to antineoplastic agents: outcomes of 189 procedures with a new short protocol and novel diagnostic tools assessment.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization to antineoplastic agents is becoming a standard of care. Efforts to establish and improve these techniques are being made at many institutions. Our aims are to evaluate a new rapid desensitization protocol designed to be shorter (approximately 4 h) and safer (reducing hazardous drugs exposure risks) and to assess the oxaliplatin-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a novel diagnostic tool. METHODS: Prospective, observational, longitudinal study with patients who, for a 1-year period, suffered reactions to antineoplastic agents and were referred to the Desensitization Program at Ramon y Cajal University Hospital (RCUH). Patients were included or excluded as desensitization candidates after anamnesis, skin testing, risk assessment, and graded challenge. Specific IgE was determined in oxaliplatin-reactive patients. Candidate patients were desensitized using the new RCUH rapid desensitization protocol. RESULTS: Of 189 intravenous rapid desensitizations, 188 were successfully accomplished in the 23 patients who met inclusion criteria for desensitization (of 58 referred patients). No breakthrough reactions occurred in 94% of desensitizations, and most breakthrough reactions were mild. In 10 oxaliplatin-reactive patients, 38 desensitizations were successfully accomplished. Sensitivity for oxaliplatin-specific IgE was 38% (0.35UI/l cutoff point) and 54% (0.10UI/l cutoff point); specificity was 100% for both cutoff points. CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of a Desensitization Program, managed by drug desensitization experts, this new protocol has proven an effective therapeutic tool for hypersensitivity to several antineoplastic agents (oxaliplatin, carboplatin, paclitaxel, docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab); moreover, it improves safety handling of hazardous drugs. We report the first large series of oxaliplatin desensitizations. Oxaliplatin-specific IgE determination could be helpful.

Carboplatin-, oxaliplatin-, and cisplatin-specific IgE: cross-reactivity and value in the diagnosis of carboplatin and oxaliplatin allergy.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to platins is based on the characterization of the reaction and the results of skin testing. Platins can be irritants when used in skin testing; therefore, in vitro testing may offer an alternative diagnostic tool. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sensitivity and specificity of platin specific IgE (sIgE) in patients with HSRs and in controls. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with immediate HSR to platins were included (carboplatin, 12; oxaliplatin, 12): 19 women and 5 men (mean age, 61 years). The control group included 17 patients exposed to platin and with no HSR. Skin testing was performed on 22 patients. Carboplatin sIgE and oxaliplatin sIgE were measured in 24 patients and 17 controls; carboplatin sIgE was measured in 21 patients. RESULTS: Skin test results were positive in 22 patients (carboplatin, 12/12; oxaliplatin, 10/12). Seven of 12 patients sensitive to carboplatin (59%) had positive carboplatin sIgE, 2 also had positive cisplatin sIgE, and all had negative oxaliplatin sIgE; 9 of 12 patients sensitive to oxaliplatin (75%) had positive sIgE to oxaliplatin, 8 of 12 (67%) also had positive carboplatin and cisplatin sIgE, to which they had not been exposed. All 5 carboplatin controls had negative sIgE; 3 oxaliplatin controls (25%) had positive carboplatin sIgE, and 2 had positive oxaliplatin sIgE. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin sIgE is very specific but less sensitive. In contrast, oxaliplatin sIgE had higher sensitivity but lower specificity. Analysis of our data suggests that oxaliplatin exposure was more immunogenic. This could be clinically relevant because patients sensitized to carboplatin may be able to tolerate oxaliplatin, but patients sensitized to oxaliplatin may be at risk when exposed to carboplatin and cisplatin.

Review of hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents.

OBJECTIVE: To review the characteristics and management of hypersensitivity reactions caused by antineoplastic agents. METHOD: We conducted a search in the Pubmed and EMBASE databases for the last 10 years. RESULTS: Almost all chemotherapeutic agents have the potential to cause hypersensitivity reactions, but some groups have been associated with increased risk, such as platinum compounds, taxanes, asparaginase, monoclonal antibodies and epipodophyllotoxins. The clinical manifestations of these reactions are variable and unpredictable, including symptoms affecting the skin and the pulmonary, cardiac and gastrointestinal systems. The mechanism associated with their development is not yet fully understood. Diagnosis is based on patients' signs and symptoms and skin testing. The management of patients who suffer a hypersensitivity reaction to a chemotherapeutic agent varies with the severity of the reaction, the need to continue treatment, and the availability of alternative therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a progressive increase in the use of chemotherapeutic agents an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions is to be expected. Desensitisation protocols are a noteworthy alternative that make it possible to re-initiate patients' therapy with the causative agent of the hypersensitivity reaction. Their use should be assessed individually, weighing risks and benefits.

Infections of Blastocystis hominis and microsporidia in cancer patients: are they opportunistic?

Chemotherapy can cause immunosuppression, which may trigger latent intestinal parasitic infections in stools to emerge. This study investigated whether intestinal parasites can emerge as opportunistic infections in breast and colorectal cancer patients (n=46 and n=15, respectively) undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Breast cancer patients were receiving a 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (FEC) regimen (6 chemotherapy cycles), and colorectal cancer patients were receiving either an oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (FOLFOX) regimen (12 cycles) or a 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (Mayo) regimen (6 cycles). Patients had Blastocystis hominis and microsporidia infections that were only present during the intermediate chemotherapy cycles. Thus, cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy should be screened repeatedly for intestinal parasites, namely B. hominis and microsporidia, as they may reduce the efficacy of chemotherapy treatments.

Desensitization regimens for drug allergy: state of the art in the 21st century.

Adverse reactions to drugs are increasingly being recognized as important contributions to disease in their own right as well as impediments to the best treatment of various conditions, including infectious, autoimmune, and neoplastic maladies. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) is an effective mechanism for safely administering important medications while minimizing or entirely circumventing such adverse reactions in sensitized patients. We reviewed the literature on RDD in the last 10 years, including our experience from the Brigham and Women's Hospital Desensitization Program with hundreds of patients desensitized to a broad variety of drugs. RDD in our programme has been uniformly successful in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, chemotherapeutics, and monoclonal antibodies. Any reactions that occur during desensitization are generally much less severe than the initial hypersensitivity reaction to the drug, and patients have received the full dose of the desired medication 99.9% of the time out of (796) desensitizations. To date, there have been no fatalities. RDD is a safe and highly effective method for treating sensitized patients with the optimal pharmacologic agents. Its use should be expanded, but because patient safety is paramount, protocols must be created, reviewed, and overseen by allergist-immunologists with special training and experience in modern techniques of desensitization.

Antibodies to oxaliplatin, a chemotherapeutic, are found in plasma of healthy blood donors.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin is one of the platinum chemotherapeutics that includes cisplatin and carboplatin. Antibodies to all three drugs have caused immune hemolytic anemia (IHA). In an investigation of oxaliplatin-induced IHA, the negative plasma control agglutinated oxaliplatin-coated red blood cells (RBCs). Previous preparations of this control had not agglutinated oxaliplatin- or cisplatin-coated RBCs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Drug-coated RBCs, prepared by incubating 1/10th volume of RBCs with 1 mg/mL drug in phosphate-buffered saline for 1 hour at 37°C, were incubated with plasma from random blood donors and patients. Plasma was treated with dithiothreitol to determine the immunoglobulin class. Hapten inhibition was performed by incubating plasma with solutions of oxaliplatin or cisplatin. RESULTS: Nineteen of 121 (16%) donors' plasma samples agglutinated oxaliplatin-coated RBCs; 7 of 102 (7%) donors' plasma samples agglutinated cisplatin-coated RBCs. Two of 50 (4%) patients' samples agglutinated oxaliplatin-coated RBCs. The agglutinin was immunoglobulin M and inhibited by oxaliplatin and cisplatin. CONCLUSION: An agglutinin reactive with oxaliplatin-coated RBCs was found in 16% of donors' and 4% of patients' samples. Inhibition by oxaliplatin and cisplatin indicates the antibody may be directed to platinum. The presence of this antibody in healthy individuals may be related to the increasing environmental presence of platinum in air and soil as a byproduct of automobile catalytic converters and pharmaceuticals in our water and food chain. This antibody in individuals without IHA suggests that testing untreated and enzyme-treated RBCs in the presence of a solution of drug may be the best method to investigate IHA caused by drugs in the platinum family.

Diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity reactions related to common cancer chemotherapy agents.

OBJECTIVES: To review clinical hypersensitivity reactions related to common cancer chemotherapy agents and to discuss potential management strategies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed searches were performed for articles published from 1970 to 2008 regarding hypersensitivity to cancer chemotherapy and related agents using the keywords hypersensitivity, allergy, chemotherapy, platinums, taxanes, asparaginase, epipodophyllotoxins, and procarbazine. Retrieved articles were surveyed for additional citations. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were reviewed for relevance to the subject matter, and the most pertinent articles were included in this review. RESULTS: Hypersensitivity reactions are commonly associated with the use of certain cancer chemotherapy drugs, including platinums, taxanes, asparaginase, procarbazine, and epipodophyllotoxins. Platinum agents (cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin) are associated with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, and skin testing may be indicated. Taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel)-related reactions are generally non-IgE mediated, and premedication with corticosteroids and antihistamines is usually effective. Asparaginase has a high rate of hypersensitivity reactions that are likely IgE mediated or related to complement activation. Skin testing has been recommended but has not been validated for asparaginase. Procarbazine reactions can be IgE mediated but are also associated with a type III reaction manifested by pulmonary toxicity and cutaneous reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions related to epipodophyllotoxins may involve both immunologic and nonimmunologic factors that may be avoided with a slow infusion and premedication. CONCLUSION: With the increasing use of cancer chemotherapy agents, hypersensitivity reactions are commonly encountered. Knowledge of the presentations of these reactions and management options give the treating physician the means to make an informed decision of how best to proceed.

Positive direct and indirect antiglobulin tests associated with oxaliplatin can be due to drug antibody and/or drug-induced nonimmunologic protein adsorption.

BACKGROUND: Two patients were suspected of having immune hemolytic anemia (IHA) due to oxaliplatin. A related drug, cisplatin, is known to cause nonimmunologic protein adsorption (NIPA). Studies were performed to determine the presence of oxaliplatin-dependent antibodies in addition to oxaliplatin-induced NIPA. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Sera and eluates from the two patients were tested against red blood cells (RBCs) treated with oxaliplatin, cisplatin, and carboplatin (another platinum drug). Sera were also tested against untreated RBCs in the presence of the same drugs. Testing with pooled normal sera and anti-human albumin was used to demonstrate the presence of NIPA. Oxaliplatin-treated RBCs sensitized with the patients' sera and pooled normal sera were tested by a monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) to determine potential clinical significance. RESULTS: Both patients had high-titer antibodies to oxaliplatin in their sera that reacted with oxaliplatin-treated RBCs and with untreated RBCs in the presence of oxaliplatin. RBCs treated with oxaliplatin, cisplatin, and carboplatin all demonstrated NIPA (pooled normal sera and anti-human albumin were reactive to low titers). NIPA was also detected in tests with untreated RBCs in the presence of oxaliplatin and cisplatin. Lower-titer reactivity of both patients' sera with cisplatin may have been due to NIPA and/or cross-reactivity of anti-oxaliplatin with cisplatin. MMAs were weakly positive due to NIPA and more strongly positive due to oxaliplatin antibodies. CONCLUSION: Two patients with IHA were demonstrated to have oxaliplatin-dependent antibodies. Oxaliplatin was also shown to cause NIPA. The drug-dependent antibody and/or the drug-induced NIPA could have contributed to the patients' hemolytic anemia.