American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 146, Issue 6 , Pages 802-812.e1, December 2008

Long-term Risk of Malignancy Among Patients Treated With Immunosuppressive Agents for Ocular Inflammation: A Critical Assessment of the Evidence

  • John H. Kempen

      Affiliations

    • Ocular Inflammation Service, Scheie Eye Institute, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • Corresponding Author InformationInquiries to John H. Kempen, Center for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market St., Suite 700, Philadelphia, PA 19104
    • ,
  • Sapna Gangaputra

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • ,
  • Ebenezer Daniel

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • ,
  • Grace A. Levy-Clarke

      Affiliations

    • St Luke's Cataract and Laser Institute, Tarpon Springs, Florida
    • Laboratory of Immunology, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
    • ,
  • Robert B. Nussenblatt

      Affiliations

    • Laboratory of Immunology, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
    • ,
  • James T. Rosenbaum

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
    • Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
    • ,
  • Eric B. Suhler

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
    • Portland Veterans' Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon
    • ,
  • Jennifer E. Thorne

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • ,
  • C. Stephen Foster

      Affiliations

    • Massachusetts Eye Research and Surgery Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts
    • Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
    • ,
  • Douglas A. Jabs

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Department of Ophthalmology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York
    • ,
  • Kathy J. Helzlsouer

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Center for Prevention and Research at Mercy, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland

Accepted 29 April 2008. published online 06 June 2008.

Article Outline

Purpose

To critically assess potentially carcinogenic effects of immunosuppressive therapy in the ocular inflammation setting.

Design

Focused evidence assessment.

Methods

Relevant publications were identified by MEDLINE and EMBASE queries and reference list searches.

Results

Extrapolation from transplant, rheumatology, skin disease, and inflammatory bowel disease cohorts to the ocular inflammation setting suggest that: 1) alkylating agents increase hematologic malignancy risk and cyclophosphamide increases bladder cancer risk, but less so with ≤18 months' duration of therapy and hydration, respectively; 2) calcineurin inhibitors and azathioprine probably do not increase total cancer risk to a detectable degree, except perhaps some other risk factors (uncommon in ocular inflammation patients) might interact with the former to raise risk; 3) tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors may accelerate diagnosis of cancer in the first six to 12 months, but probably do not increase long-term cancer risk; and 4) changes in risk with methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and daclizumab appear negligible, although nontransplant data are limited for the latter agents. Immunosuppression in general may increase skin cancer risk in a sun exposure–dependent manner.

Conclusion

Use of alkylating agents for a limited duration seems justifiable for severe, vision-threatening disease, but otherwise cancer risk may be a relevant constraint on use of this approach. Antimetabolites, daclizumab, TNF inhibitors, and calcineurin inhibitors probably do not increase cancer risk to a degree that outweighs the expected benefits of therapy. Monitoring for skin cancer may be useful for highly sun-exposed patients. Data from ocular inflammation patients are needed to confirm the conclusions made in this analysis by extrapolation.

 

Management of ocular inflammatory diseases was revolutionized in the 1950s when the benefits of corticosteroid therapy were first reported.1 Unfortunately, in many of the most severe cases—where long-term use of moderate to high doses of systemic corticosteroids would be required to prevent vision loss—use of corticosteroids is constrained by substantial toxicity. The need for less-toxic, effective anti-inflammatory treatment inspired the use of immunosuppressive drugs for ocular inflammatory diseases, beginning in the late 1970s. This approach uses similar principles and agents to those that have been applied in the rheumatology and organ transplantation settings for many years, fields from which we derive much of our knowledge about the potential side effects of these agents.

Use of immunosuppressive therapy for inflammatory eye diseases has been advocated by an expert panel2 in three settings: as corticosteroid-sparing therapy when disease can be controlled with oral corticosteroids, but expected toxicity is high at the dose required; for inflammation recalcitrant to oral corticosteroids; and for management of specific diseases expected to fare poorly with lower levels of therapy. The immunosuppressive agents most commonly used for treatment of ocular inflammation include the antimetabolites azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF); the T-cell inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus; and the alkylating agents chlorambucil and cyclophosphamide. “Biologics”—including monoclonal antibodies directed at components of the immunologic system, soluble receptors, and cytokines such as alpha interferon—also have been used to treat ocular inflammation in recent years. Thus far, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab, and the interleukin 2 (IL-2) inhibitor daclizumab are most commonly used. Use of alkylating agents has been associated with a high rate of medication-free disease remission, whereas medication-free remission is not a typical feature when ocular inflammatory disease is treated with antimetabolites, T-cell inhibitors, TNF inhibitors, or daclizumab.

Each of these immunosuppressive agents has potential toxicities in the short run, which in most instances can be overcome if recognized early using a program of surveillance for known potential side effects.2 For most patients, an effective regimen that is tolerable over the intermediate to long-term can be identified and implemented.

Although general consensus exists in the ophthalmology community regarding the effectiveness of immunosuppression for severe ocular inflammatory diseases, an important unresolved concern is whether some of these agents may increase the risk of cancer—and therefore mortality. The extent of risk of cancer or of death from cancer with such treatment has a large influence on the risk-benefit analysis considered prior to using these medications. Uncertainty regarding possible risks has led to substantial variability in clinical practices. The primary goal of this Perspective is to synthesize the available information on the putative long-term risks of malignancy with immunosuppressive therapy—primarily available from nonocular disease cohorts—and to apply it to the eye disease setting.

Back to Article Outline

Potential Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis Related to Immunosuppression 

Potential mechanisms by which immunosuppressants could promote cancer include: 1) interruption of immune surveillance for and destruction of malignant cells; 2) increased susceptibility to infection with oncogenic agents; 3) pharmacologic effects on DNA (alkylating agents) or DNA metabolism (antimetabolites); and 4) specific effects on the immune system, which could increase (or decrease) the chances of a transformed cell surviving and proliferating. Because carcinogenesis often requires several years, longer than the duration of follow-up in most clinical trials, evaluation of data on complications of immunosuppression requires making inferences primarily from observational data. Established methods of inference for this setting are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Factors Relevant to Causal Inference Regarding the Risk of Mortality and Malignancy in the Setting of Immunosuppressive Therapy Given for Eye Diseasesa
Factor Suggesting CausalityExplanationSupportive Observation(s)Alternative Explanations of the Supportive Observation(s)
Strength of associationA stronger association of the putative risk factor (“exposure”) with disease is more likely to reflect a causal relationship than a weaker associationLarge risk ratiosStrong confounding or bias
ConsistencyA real effect, particularly one that is of wide generalizability, often will be observed consistently across many different circumstancesThe association is observed in different populations under different circumstancesRepetition of a bias in study design or the same patterns of confounding across several studies
TemporalityA cause must precede an effectExposure precedes the purported effectNot applicable
Biologic gradientThe effect of exposure increases with increased exposureDose-response effectsStrong relationship of dose with a strong confounder
Biologic plausibilityA reasonable biological explanation of the association can be madeA conclusion of causality is consistent with plausible theories of pathogenesisExisting theories of pathogenesis are erroneous or are incorrectly applied to the circumstance in question
Experimental evidenceAn experiment appropriately designed to test the relationship between exposure and disease is likely to affirm or refute the hypothesis of causationClinical trial/experiment randomizing to exposure or no exposure finds increased riskRandom error

aAdapted from Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 1965;16:1667–1670.

Back to Article Outline

Malignancies Related to Immunosuppression in General 

Skin and Mucosal Cancers 

The posttransplantation literature is replete with reports describing the occurrence of nonmelanoma skin cancers in immunosuppressed patients, particularly solid organ transplant recipients. In contrast to the general population, squamous cell carcinoma of the skin occurs more commonly than basal cell carcinoma among transplant patients, with both occurring at substantially elevated rates. The increase in skin cancer risk is reported to be 100-fold or greater for squamous cell carcinoma,3, 4 approximately 10-fold for basal cell carcinoma,4 and several-fold for mucosal cancers.3 Solar-induced mutations,5 presumably amplified by immunosuppression-induced reduction in tumor surveillance, play an important role. Primarily sun-exposed skin and mucosa are affected, and the risk of squamous carcinoma is several-fold higher closer to the equator. Increased susceptibility or altered response to viral infection also appears to be an important contributor. Human papillomavirus (HPV) genomes, predominantly viral subtypes associated with a high risk of cervical cancer, are present in the majority of squamous cell carcinomas of the skin in immunosuppressed transplant patients.6 Significantly increased risk of squamous cell cancers of the skin with increasing duration of immunosuppression has been observed,7 providing a dose-response relationship between immunosuppression and the risk of skin cancer.

In the rheumatology literature, reports of increased squamous cell carcinoma risk also exist, but the extent of increased risk does not appear to be as dramatic as that reported in transplant patients, and several studies have found no increased risk. The difference in the extent of risk is likely related to the uniquely high risk of cancer among transplant patients, discussed below.

Few reports of regression of skin cancer following cessation of immunosuppression exist. The clinical behavior of these skin cancers is more aggressive than among nonimmunosuppressed patients, although successful treatment is usually possible with early detection.

Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder 

Excess risk of lymphoid proliferations and malignancies (posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder [PTLD]) following months to several years of chronic immunosuppression was first recognized in the late 1960s. PTLD is linked to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection in 80% to 90% of cases; the role of EBV in pathogenesis is reviewed elsewhere.8 Non-Hodgkin lymphomas, which can be either monoclonal or polyclonal, are included in the spectrum of disease. PTLD typically is the second most common neoplastic condition occurring in transplant cohorts, after skin cancers. While both primary infection and reactivation of latent infection have been reported to underlie this condition, primary infection is associated with a more than 10-fold higher risk.9 Even though several considerations suggest the development of PTLD is related to deficiency of T-cell function, cases of lymphomas that reverse with cessation of immunosuppressive therapy have been reported with nearly all of the agents under consideration in this Perspective.

Over time, it has been recognized that cessation or reduction of immunosuppressive therapy absent any other intervention is followed by regression of the tumors in a substantial number of transplant patients with PTLD,10 but perhaps not the majority.9, 11 While lesions that have become monoclonal have a poorer prognosis,12 even some of these can regress with reduced use of immunosuppression.9, 10 Inspection of the reports suggests that the proportion developing PTLD during several years' follow-up is probably in the 1% to 2% range. Because approximately 30% of cases in transplant recipients have PTLD involvement in the transplanted organ itself 9 and theories of pathogenesis give substantial importance to chronic antigenic stimulation by the transplanted graft,13 patients with local ocular inflammation treated with immunosuppression probably have substantially lower risk of PTLD-like conditions.

Therapy for PTLD has been discussed elsewhere.9 Treatments that have been used or suggested—when simple reduction of immunosuppression fails—include surgical resection and/or radiation; antiviral therapy with ganciclovir or acyclovir; infusion of anti–B-cell monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab; interferon alpha; and standard chemotherapy (reserved for a third-line approach).

Solid Tumors 

Solid tumors probably do not occur with higher frequency with immunosuppression than in the general population.14 However, higher-than-expected rates of recurrence of prior tumors following transplantation/immunosuppression have been reported, leading to a recommendation for a two-year waiting period between cancer treatment and transplantation with its required use of immunosuppression.15 Not all agree with this recommendation, and the clinician must take into account the potential risks of postponing immunosuppressive therapy in making such a decision. However, a higher threshold for using immunosuppression probably is warranted in patients recently diagnosed with cancer.

Back to Article Outline

Risk of Malignancy Associated with Particular Immunosuppressive Agents 

Alkylating Agents 

Among the immunosuppressive agents used in ocular inflammation, the most clear-cut evidence for increased risk of malignancy is with alkylating agent therapy (Table 2).

TABLE 2. Summary of Evidence Regarding the Risk of Cancer Associated With Specific Immunosuppressants Used for Treatment of Ocular Inflammationa
Agent ClassSpecific AgentLikely Impact on Cancer in Ocular Inflammation PatientsQuality of Clinical Data Regarding Possible Carcinogenic Effects
Evidence Suggests a Direct Effect Increasing Cancer Risk to a Clinically Important DegreeEvidence Suggests Drug May Interact to Increase Cancer Risk in (Rare) High-Risk PatientsPossible Antineoplastic Biological EffectsBiologically Plausible Mechanism for CarcinogenesisAdequate Amount of Person-Time ObservedGeneralizability (Extent of Available Data from Nontransplant, Noncancer Cohorts)Consistency of Reported ObservationsStrength of AssociationDose-Response Relationship
Alkylating AgentsCyclophosphamideYesYes−++++++++++++++++++++++
ChlorambucilYesYes−++++++++++++++−
T-cell inhibitorsCyclosporineNoYes−++++++++++++
TacrolimusNoYes−+++++++++−
AntimetabolitesAzathioprineNoInconclusive−++++++++++++
MethotrexateNoNo−++++++++++++N/AN/A
Mycophenolate mofetilNoNoYes++++++++N/AN/A
BiologicsTumor necrosis factor inhibitorsInconclusiveNo−+++++++++++−
DaclizumabNoNoYes+++N/AN/AN/A

aA higher number of +'s refers to a higher level of the attribute specified; − indicates no or trivial evidence exists; N/A indicates not applicable or no association.

Cyclophosphamide treatment of patients with cancer and rheumatoid arthritis has been associated with substantially increased rates of bladder cancer (as much as 30-fold),16, 17, 18, 19 leukemia,20, 21 lymphoma,19 and skin malignancies,17, 22 with some (but not all) studies finding an increase in total malignancies.22, 23 Bladder cancer risk was observed to be dose or duration dependent in several studies.17, 22, 23, 24 For example, a study of 6,171 two-year survivors of non-Hodgkin lymphoma found a statistically nonsignificant 2.4-fold increase in the risk of bladder cancer observed with cumulative doses of less than 20 grams, and significantly increased 6.0- and 14.5-fold increases in risk associated with cumulative dosages of 20 to 49 grams and 50 or more grams respectively.24 An ocular inflammation patient receiving 150 mg/day for one year would receive a cumulative dose of cyclophosphamide exceeding 50 grams. A rodent model also has been developed in which cyclophosphamide causes bladder cancer.25

An increased risk of malignancy with cyclophosphamide therapy may not be evident until four or more years following treatment.17, 19, 26 One study projected that the risk of bladder cancer was 5% at 10 years and 16% at 15 years.27 Several studies remark on an increased risk of bladder cancer among smokers, suggesting risk may be especially high in this group of patients. Patients receiving oral cyclophosphamide should be well hydrated, to flush the metabolite acrolein—a primary cause of the cystitis that occurs with this drug—out of the bladder. Cystitis in turn is associated with a substantially increased risk of bladder cancer.27 For this reason, medical oncologists frequently provide intravenous hydration along with pulses of cyclophosphamide, an approach that is recommended in the eye disease setting. Some have used mesna for prophylaxis, but a randomized clinical trial suggests hydration is as effective as mesna.28

Limited data from autoimmune diseases and even transplant cohorts are available for chlorambucil, which is used primarily for medical oncology applications. One small study of rheumatoid arthritis patients found that eight of 39 patients developed cutaneous malignancy (P = .03), often multiple and recurrent.29 Chlorambucil treatment for patients with neoplastic diseases has been associated with a substantially higher rate of secondary hematologic malignancies.30, 31, 32 Leukemia may be more frequent with chlorambucil than with cyclophosphamide. It is noteworthy that most nonbladder cancers observed with these agents typically are of the kinds seen with immunosuppression in general, rather than a broad spectrum of cancers such as might be expected if induction of mutation is the prevailing oncogenic mechanism.

T-Cell Inhibitors 

The literature on T-cell inhibitors—particularly the calcineurin inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus—suggests carcinogenic effects among transplant patients but does not support the same conclusion in other cohorts. Several studies have proposed specific immune mechanisms whereby cyclosporine specifically might promote carcinogenesis.33, 34, 35 While two studies have suggested that cyclosporine may have genotoxic effects,36, 37 most have thought that cyclosporine does not affect DNA to an important degree.38

Numerous reports of increased risk of neoplasia (especially skin cancers and PTLD) exist for transplant patients treated with cyclosporine, but given the near-universal use of cyclosporine in the transplant setting, it is difficult to separate the effect of cyclosporine and that of the transplant. However, a dose-dependent pattern in which the risk of malignancy was significantly lower with lower than with higher doses of cyclosporine has been reported in two studies.39, 40 Also, in a renal transplant cohort, the risk of neoplasia (mostly skin cancers, PTLD, and gastrointestinal cancers) was more than 50% lower when azathioprine had been used instead of cyclosporine; furthermore, patients who changed from azathioprine- to cyclosporine-based regimes subsequently had higher cancer risk.40

Limited information is available from inflammatory disease cohorts about cyclosporine and cancer risk, but the available evidence seems to differ from the observations in transplant cohorts. In a cohort study of several hundred rheumatoid arthritis patients—some taking part in randomized trials and some not—cyclosporine (<5 mg/kg/day for relatively short periods in most patients) was not associated with increased malignancy or mortality risk.41 Patients with psoriasis treated with cyclosporine have been observed to have an increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin that increased with duration of cyclosporine therapy, and also an increased risk of leukemia (only occurring in the short duration of therapy group, a nonconsistent observation), but not lymphoma. However, 95% of all nonmelanoma skin cancers in this group occurred following treatment with psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA),42 suggesting that the effect of cyclosporine may have been indirect—increasing the risk of PUVA therapy—rather than direct.

Data regarding tacrolimus are less extensive and mostly involve comparisons to cyclosporine in transplant cohorts. Four reports have suggested an increased risk of PTLD with tacrolimus compared with cyclosporine.43, 44, 45, 46 One study comparing the risk of skin cancer in transplant cohorts found lower rates with tacrolimus-based than with cyclosporine-based immunosuppression,47 and another found lower overall cancer (mostly skin cancer) incidence with tacrolimus,48 whereas a third found no difference in total cancer risk.49

Although it is not commonly used in ocular inflammation thus far, it is worth noting that sirolimus has been reported to exert biological effects expected to inhibit immunosuppression-induced neoplasia.50, 51, 52 Transplant cohort data suggest 50% or lower risk of neoplasms when sirolimus is used along with cyclosporine50 or when it is used to allow withdrawal of cyclosporine.53

Antimetabolites 

Although many papers have been written about potential carcinogenesis with antimetabolite immunosuppressive therapy, the evidence in favor thereof is not strong, particularly outside the transplant literature.

Azathioprine 

Most studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis or inflammatory bowel disease receiving either conventional54, 55, 56, 57 or high58 doses of azathioprine have observed no significant difference in the risk of malignancy. A case-control study evaluating azathioprine exposure in multiple sclerosis patients with and without cancer also found no association.59 A review of the risk of PTLD-like conditions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine found that several hospital-based reports reported an increased risk, but that a large population-based report—which should be methodologically superior—did not.60

In contrast to inflammatory disease cohorts, azathioprine-treated transplant patients probably do have an increased risk of malignancies compared to the general population. The incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin subsequent to azathioprine-corticosteroid treatment for renal transplant has been reported as 37-fold higher (95% CI, 4.4 to 132) than in the general population,61 and several transplant cohorts among whom azathioprine was frequently used have reported substantially increased risk of lymphoid malignancies. This discrepancy from nontransplant patients presumably reflects the unique transplant-immunosuppression interaction described below. As mentioned previously, azathioprine-based transplant immunosuppression regimens may be associated with a lower risk of cancer compared to cyclosporine-based regimens.43

Methotrexate 

Among the older immunosuppressants, methotrexate has the least evidence in favor of an increased malignancy risk. Lack of increased cancer risk has been demonstrated in several cohorts with a variety of diseases.62, 63, 64, 65, 66 The main cluster of reports that might reflect a real (but very small) increase in malignancy risk describe a PTLD-like condition. Among hundreds of thousands or millions of rheumatoid arthritis patients who had taken methotrexate by 1997, 23 cases of lymphomas—some reversible with discontinuation of methotrexate—had been reported in the literature.67 However, an outstanding large observational study following 19,591 patients over 89,710 person-years found no significant increased risk of lymphoma with methotrexate among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (standardized incidence rate = 1.1, 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0).68

Mycophenolate Mofetil 

The literature on cancer risk with MMF, as a newer drug, is less extensive than that for the agents previously discussed, but it is favorable—even though MMF is typically used in transplantation. Observational studies of MMF have found significantly and substantially reduced risk of PTLD,13, 43 improved survival of those who did develop PTLD,43 and lower risk of malignancy in general69, 70 with respect to alternative regimens (including cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and azathioprine). A meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing MMF to azathioprine in renal transplantation found no difference in the risk of overall malignancies or skin malignancies.71 On theoretical grounds, MMF has potentially beneficial effects vis-à-vis the risk of malignancy.72, 73, 74

Biologics 

Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors 

The available evidence regarding cancer risk with TNF inhibitors derives primarily from rheumatic disease and inflammatory bowel disease cohorts, rather than transplant cohorts, and hence is probably less biased vis-à-vis the ocular inflammation setting than the agents for which primarily transplant data are available. Clinical data have been mixed regarding possibly increased risk of malignancy.

Evidence in favor of an increased risk of cancer derives primarily from two reports based on clinical trials data, with relatively short follow-up vis-à-vis the time needed for the process of carcinogenesis, but with the superior design characteristic of randomized assignment of therapy. A meta-analysis of 5,014 patients with rheumatoid arthritis randomized to either anti-TNF antibody therapy (adalimumab or infliximab) or placebo found an increased risk of malignancies with the TNF inhibitors (pooled OR for malignancy = 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.8).75, 76 Although it was noted by a correspondent that a meta-analysis that compared cancer rates to those in the general population found no significant difference,77 the meta-analysts' response that patients meeting screening criteria for clinical trials may have a better prognosis than the general population and that as-randomized comparisons are the optimal approach for ascertaining treatment effects in clinical trials has epidemiological merit. The second report is from a randomized controlled trial evaluating etanercept vs placebo in addition to conventional therapy (including alkylating agents) for Wegener granulomatosis, in which an excess occurrence of solid tumors was observed (standardized incidence ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.80),78 suggesting a possible adverse interaction between alkylating agent and anti-TNF therapies.

In contrast, seven large, excellent observational studies of tens of thousands of patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed for many years have found no increased overall cancer risk (including solid tumors) with anti-TNF agents, with risk ratios close to one in every case.68, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 One of these studies observed a decrease in total mortality of rheumatoid arthritis patients with anti-TNF therapy (relative risk [RR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.93),82 and another study found no increased risk of cancer fatalities.86 An eighth study of rheumatoid arthritis patients observed a nonsignificant trend toward an increase in lymphoma (an excess of 26 cases per 10,000 person-years; adjusted RR, 4.9; 95% CI, 0.9 to 26.2), but no increase in total cancer risk.87 One of the studies finding no increase in overall cancer risk (odds ratio [OR], 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.2) did observe a higher risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8),85 the only statistically significant result among scores of comparisons in these papers. Data from a Crohn disease cohort also found no increased risk of neoplasia with anti-TNF agents (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.46 to 3.84).88

Daclizumab 

Clinical data evaluating the risk of malignancies with daclizumab are sparse, but one excellent meta-analysis of trial results found no increase in the risk of malignancy with daclizumab for renal transplantation (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.36).89 Mechanistically, there is some suggestion daclizumab actually may be an effective a treatment for T-cell leukemia (particularly if tagged with a radioactive moiety), on the basis that the diseased T cells in patients with several lymphoid malignancies express the IL-2 receptor alpha subunit, whereas few normal cells express it.90

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

The main limitation of this perspective is the lack of data available from ocular inflammatory disease cohorts. The only such study available evaluated the risk of malignancy among 543 patients followed for a median of 1.34 years.91 While it is reassuring that this study found no increase in cancer risk with the immunosuppressive agents used, only a several-fold difference in risk could have been detected with the available study power, and carcinogenic effects occurring after two years would have been missed. Further study of eye disease cohorts with sufficient follow-up time to evaluate the risk of cancer and its impact on survival is clearly needed. Health utility studies evaluating ocular inflammation patients' perspectives on how cancer or other adverse events compare to blindness also may help inform decision making, particularly regarding the decision of whether to use alkylating agents. Studies of the potential benefits of immunosuppression, such as possible reductions in the risk of cardiovascular disease given the inflammatory aspect of atherosclerosis,92 also would be valuable; the potential benefits of immunosuppressive therapy are too frequently overlooked. Finally, studies evaluating mortality risk in eye disease patients treated with immunosuppressants, which is the ultimate concern, are few, and would be of great value in interpreting the potential adverse effects of these treatments.

Because of limited data from eye disease cohorts, our analysis relies on reports from systemic inflammatory disease and transplant cohorts. Transplant patients in particular have an extremely high risk of malignancy, which does not appear to be entirely explained by the intensity of immunosuppression used in the transplant setting, probably arising from chronic antigenic stimulation by the graft or other factors.13 Immunosuppression may interact with other cancer risk factors among transplant patients to multiply risk in a manner that probably does not occur—or occurs rarely—in patients with inflammatory eye disease. Results from systemic autoimmune disease cohorts also may reflect a higher intrinsic risk of malignancy than may pertain to eye disease cohorts, but to a lesser degree than transplant cohorts. For instance, rheumatoid arthritis itself also is associated with an approximate two-fold increased risk of lymphoma, apart from any anti-inflammatory treatment.68, 93 Therefore, the risks observed in these cohorts—particularly the transplant cohorts—probably overestimate the risk of inflammatory eye disease patients. Furthermore, lower risk may pertain in the eye disease setting because a lower intensity of immunosuppression often is used in eye diseases than in systemic inflammatory disorders.2 Finally, publication bias is likely to lead to disproportionately high reporting of malignancies in patients receiving immunosuppressive agents in the literature. Because in most cases these biases would tend to reduce further an already-low estimate of malignancy risk, our evaluation of the malignancy risk associated with immunosuppressive agents used in ophthalmology provides conclusions that are mostly reassuring.

It is unclear whether the conclusions we have reached, derived nearly entirely from adult research, are generalizable to children. In general, because children have a low risk of cancer, any carcinogenic effects that may exist are likely to translate into even smaller increases in absolute risk in the pediatric population than in the adult population. Nevertheless, pediatric eye disease data would be needed to confirm this argument. Likewise, it is difficult to evaluate whether the risk of cancer among patients who have underlying systemic diseases associated with their ocular inflammation might be higher than those who appear to have isolated ocular inflammation without data providing a direct comparison.

This analysis suggests some useful applications of other fields' observations to the eye disease setting. The general observations about an increased risk of skin cancers in patients receiving immunosuppression may warrant regular use of dermatologic examination in patients who are receiving chronic immunosuppressive therapy for eye diseases, particularly for patients who have received a high degree of solar irradiation in their lifetime, and have light-colored skin. Counseling to avoid excessive sun exposure and smoking might be helpful. Cyclophosphamide should perhaps be avoided when possible for smokers. It remains to be seen whether vaccination against high-risk HPV subtypes94 will be valuable to prevent HPV-associated squamous cell carcinoma. The potential reversibility of lymphomas in the setting of immunosuppression should be recognized when the occasional patient develops a PTLD-like lesion during immunosuppression. Based on the apparent ability of EBV to cause PTLD and observations of increased severity of PTLD in the setting of primary infection with EBV,9 infectious mononucleosis may provide an indication for temporary interruption of immunosuppressive therapy in the eye disease setting. Finally, it may be appropriate to avoid initiation of immunosuppressive therapy, if possible, in the early years following apparently successful treatment of cancer, because of concerns that immunosuppression may promote relapse. When such treatment is of high importance, use of immunosuppressive agents that seem to have less impact in populations at elevated risk for cancer—such as methotrexate, MMF, or daclizumab—may be prudent.

Evidence from the available literature about cancer risk in patients receiving the immunosuppressants most commonly used for ocular inflammation does not indicate a level of concern sufficient to make any of the agents contraindicated (Table 2). The available evidence suggests a clinically important increase in the risk of cancer with alkylating agent therapy, which probably is applicable to the eye disease setting to at least some extent. However, with appropriate precautions such as limiting the cumulative dose (perhaps by substituting an antimetabolite after 12 to 18 months when necessary) and using hydration (for cyclophosphamide), the risk of cancer probably is not sufficient to outweigh the benefit of such therapy if it is needed to control severe, vision-threatening disease and to induce long-term, medication-free remission in a high proportion of such cases. A risk-benefit analysis that incorporated the severe impact of blindness would likely support the use of these agents in appropriate settings. However, they should be used with caution in vision-threatening situations where alternative immunosuppressive agents are unlikely to succeed or have failed.

Evidence for increased cancer risk is much more limited for calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, and TNF inhibitors. It is likely that there is no or little increase in the absolute risk of cancer with these agents in an inflammatory eye disease setting. For cyclosporine, there exists persuasive evidence of an increased risk of cancer in transplant patients, less convincing evidence of increased risk among psoriasis patients mostly treated with PUVA, and no evidence of increased risk among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Data are limited to evaluate whether tacrolimus and cyclosporine qualitatively differ, although they do not appear to in the transplant setting. Calcineurin inhibitors may have permissive effects for cancer in a subset of patients with strong risk factors (such as the presence of a transplant or PUVA therapy); however, such patients are likely to be even more rare in an eye disease setting than the rheumatoid arthritis setting, suggesting little if any increase in cancer risk for such patients. However, more data on risk from nontransplant cohorts would be particularly helpful for calcineurin inhibitors, because our conclusions rest on a small number of nontransplant studies. The available data regarding sirolimus suggest it would have appeal as an immunosuppressive agent for eye diseases if evidence emerges suggesting it is effective.

For azathioprine, cancer risk in the transplant setting also is supported, but may be less than with calcineurin inhibitors. However, the lack of increased cancer risk in several rheumatologic cohorts suggests that eye disease patients are likewise unlikely to have increased cancer risk with azathioprine.

The observation in randomized trials of an increased risk of cancer within six months of initiating TNF inhibitor treatment,75 combined with the consistent absence of any observed effect on cancer risk in numerous large, high-quality observational studies with several years of follow-up, suggest that TNF inhibitors may allow preexisting cancers to progress faster, but probably not induce cancer. The largest observational study of these agents reported a trend toward increased cancer risk at an early stage of follow-up,95 which after increased follow-up converged to 1.0,68 which seems to support this theory.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

In summary, the use of calcineurin inhibitors, azathioprine, and TNF inhibitors in the eye disease setting can be viewed as warranted in situations with a moderate or greater risk of vision loss, or where alternative treatments such as corticosteroids are likely to have adverse systemic effects. The risk of cancer with these treatments is probably unaffected or increased to a degree that is less important than the potential benefits of therapy.

Methotrexate, MMF, and daclizumab have the least evidence to suggest carcinogenicity among the agents used for inflammatory eye disease. The evidence supporting noncarcinogenicity for methotrexate—other than exceptionally rare cases of PTLD-like conditions—is particularly extensive. Given that the drug has been suggested to reduce cardiovascular mortality among rheumatoid arthritis patients,96 there does not seem to be a good reason to hesitate in using this agent for ocular inflammation based on the available evidence. The evidence supporting an absence of carcinogenic effects for MMF and daclizumab is less ideal in its extent and/or generalizability, but there are theoretical reasons to expect that these agents would be less likely to induce cancer than other immunosuppressants, and a rationale exists that they might even prevent cancer. Furthermore, available data suggest less carcinogenic effects with MMF than with calcineurin inhibitors in the transplant setting—which may or may not be relevant in the eye disease setting. Based on the presently available information, cancer risk does not appear to have any important role in decision making regarding the use of methotrexate, MMF, and daclizumab for inflammatory eye diseases.

Back to Article Outline

 

This study is supported by the National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland Grant EY014943 (Dr Kempen) and by the Paul and Evanina Mackall Foundation, New York, New York, and Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York. Dr Kempen is Bethesda, Maryland, Research to Prevent Blindness James S. Adams Special Scholar Award recipient. Dr Thorne is a Research to Prevent Blindness Harrington Special Scholar Award recipient. Drs Jabs and Rosenbaum are Research to Prevent Blindness Senior Scientific Investigator Award recipients. Dr Levy-Clarke was previously and Dr Nussenblatt continues to be supported by intramural funds of the National Eye Institute. Cyclophosphamide; Bristol-Myers Squibb, generics: No disclosures. Chlorambucil; GlaxoSmithKline, generics: No disclosures. Cyclosporine; Novartis, Abbott, generics: Dr Rosenbaum reports having received ≤$10,000 for consulting fees or paid advisory boards for both Novartis and Abbott Laboratories, and having a research grant pending from Abbott Laboratories; Dr Suhler reports having received a research grant from Abbott Laboratories; Dr Jabs reports having received ≤$10,000 for consulting fees or paid advisory boards for Novartis. Tacrolimus; Astellus Pharma US: No disclosures. Sirolimus; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals: No disclosures. Azathioprine; aalPharma, Inc, Prometheus Laboratories, generics: No disclosures. Methotrexate; DAVA Pharmaceuticals; Barr Laboratories, generics: No disclosures. Mycophenolate; Roche Laboratories: No disclosures. Adalimumab; Abbott Laboratories: Dr Rosenbaum reports having received ≤$10,000 for consulting fees or paid advisory boards for, and having a research grant pending from, Abbott Laboratories; Dr Suhler reports having received a research grant from Abbott. Infliximab; Centocor, Inc: Drs Rosenbaum and Suhler report having received a research grant from Centocor. Dr Foster reports having received fees of ≤$10,000 for speaking at the invitation of Centocor. Etancercept; Amgen, Inc; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals: Dr Rosenbaum reports equity ownership/stock options >$10,000 in Amgen. Daclizumab; Roche Laboratories: No disclosures. Involved in conception and design (J.H.K., S.G., E.D., G.A.L.-C., R.B.N., J.T.R., E.B.S., J.E.T., C.S.F., D.A.J., K.J.H.); analysis and interpretation and writing of the article (J.H.K.); critical review of the article (J.H.K, S.G., E.D., G.A.L.-C., R.B.N., J.T.R., E.B.S., J.E.T., C.S.F., D.A.J., K.J.H.); final approval of the article (J.H.K., S.G., E.D., G.A.L.-C., R.B.N., J.T.R., E.B.S., J.E.T., C.S.F., D.A.J., K.J.H.); data collection (J.H.K., S.G., E.D.); provision of resources (J.H.K., S.G., E.D., G.A.L.-C., R.B.N., J.T.R., E.B.S., J.E.T., C.S.F., D.A.J., K.J.H.); statistical expertise (J.H.K.); obtaining funding (J.H.K.); literature search (J.H.K., S.G., E.D.); and administrative, technical, or logistic support (J.H.K, S.G., E.D., G.A.L.-C., R.B.N., J.T.R., E.B.S., J.E.T., C.S.F., D.A.J., K.J.H.).

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Gordon DM. Prednisone and prednisolone in ocular disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 1956;41:593–600
  2. Jabs DA, Rosenbaum JT, Foster CS, et al. Guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive drugs in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders: recommendations of an expert panel. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:492–513
  3. Lindelof B, Sigurgeirsson B, Gabel H, Stern RS. Incidence of skin cancer in 5,356 patients following organ transplantation. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143:513–519
  4. Hartevelt MM, Bavinck JN, Kootte AM, Vermeer BJ, Vandenbroucke JP. Incidence of skin cancer after renal transplantation in The Netherlands. Transplantation. 1990;49:506–509
  5. McGregor JM, Berkhout RJ, Rozycka M, et al. p53 mutations implicate sunlight in post-transplant skin cancer irrespective of human papillomavirus status. Oncogene. 1997;15:1737–1740
  6. Iftner A, Klug SJ, Garbe C, et al. The prevalence of human papillomavirus genotypes in nonmelanoma skin cancers of nonimmunosuppressed individuals identifies high-risk genital types as possible risk factors. Cancer Res. 2003;63:7515–7519
  7. Blohme I, Larko O. Skin lesions in renal transplant patients after 10 to 23 years of immunosuppressive therapy. Acta Derm Venereol. 1990;70:491–494
  8. Snow AL, Martinez OM. Epstein-Barr virus: evasive maneuvers in the development of PTLD. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:271–277
  9. Preiksaitis JK, Keay S. Diagnosis and management of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder in solid-organ transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:S38–S46
  10. Starzl TE, Nalesnik MA, Porter KA, et al. Reversibility of lymphomas and lymphoproliferative lesions developing under cyclosporin-steroid therapy. Lancet. 1984;323:583–587
  11. Salloum E, Cooper DL, Howe G, et al. Spontaneous regression of lymphoproliferative disorders in patients treated with methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis and other rheumatic diseases. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1943–1949
  12. Swinnen LJ, Mullen GM, Carr TJ, Costanzo MR, Fisher RI. Aggressive treatment for postcardiac transplant lymphoproliferation. Blood. 1995;86:3333–3340
  13. Birkeland SA, Hamilton-Dutoit S. Is posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) caused by any specific immunosuppressive drug or by the transplantation per se?. Transplantation. 2003;76:984–988
  14. Hunt SA. Malignancy in organ transplantation: heart. Transplant Proc. 2002;34:1874–1876
  15. Penn I. The effect of immunosuppression on pre-existing cancers. Transplantation. 1993;55:742–747
  16. Pedersen-Bjergaard J, Ersboll J, Hansen VL, et al. Carcinoma of the urinary bladder after treatment with cyclophosphamide for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1028–1032
  17. Radis CD, Kahl LE, Baker GL, et al. Effects of cyclophosphamide on the development of malignancy and on long-term survival of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (A 20-year follow-up study). Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:1120–1127
  18. Fairchild WV, Spence CR, Solomon HD, Gangai MP. The incidence of bladder cancer after cyclophosphamide therapy. J Urol. 1979;122:163–164
  19. Hoffman GS, Kerr GS, Leavitt RY, et al. Wegener granulomatosis: an analysis of 158 patients. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:488–498
  20. Puri HC, Campbell RA. Cyclophosphamide and malignancy. Lancet. 1977;309:1306
  21. Tucker MA, Meadows AT, Boice JD, et al. Leukemia after therapy with alkylating agents for childhood cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1987;78:459–464
  22. Baker GL, Kahl LE, Zee BC, Stolzer BL, Agarwal AK, Medsger TA. Malignancy following treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with cyclophosphamide (Long-term case-control follow-up study). Am J Med. 1987;83:1–9
  23. Baltus JA, Boersma JW, Hartman AP, Vandenbroucke JP. The occurrence of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with cyclophosphamide: a controlled retrospective follow-up. Ann Rheum Dis. 1983;42:368–373
  24. Travis LB, Curtis RE, Glimelius B, et al. Bladder and kidney cancer following cyclophosphamide therapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:524–530
  25. Schmahl D, Habs M, Tacchi AM. Prevention of tumor formation in the bladder by sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulfonate (mesna) (Experimental studies and clinical consequences). Urologe A. 1984;23:291–296
  26. Chabner BA. Second neoplasm—a complication of cancer chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1977;297:213–215
  27. Talar-Williams C, Hijazi YM, Walther MM, et al. Cyclophosphamide-induced cystitis and bladder cancer in patients with Wegener granulomatosis. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:477–484
  28. Shepherd JD, Pringle LE, Barnett MJ, Klingemann HG, Reece DE, Phillips GL. Mesna versus hyperhydration for the prevention of cyclophosphamide-induced hemorrhagic cystitis in bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:2016–2020
  29. Patapanian H, Graham S, Sambrook PN, et al. The oncogenicity of chlorambucil in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1988;27:44–47
  30. Lerner HJ. Acute myelogenous leukemia in patients receiving chlorambucil as long-term adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep. 1978;62:1135–1138
  31. Boivin JF, Hutchison GB, Zauber AG, et al. Incidence of second cancers in patients treated for Hodgkin's disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:732–741
  32. Berk PD, Goldberg JD, Silverstein MN, et al. Increased incidence of acute leukemia in polycythemia vera associated with chlorambucil therapy. N Engl J Med. 1981;304:441–447
  33. Hojo M, Morimoto T, Maluccio M, et al. Cyclosporine induces cancer progression by a cell-autonomous mechanism. Nature. 1999;397:530–534
  34. York LJ, Qualtiere LF. Cyclosporin abrogates virus-specific T-cell control of EBV-induced B-cell lymphoproliferation. Viral Immunol. 1990;3:127–136
  35. Birkeland SA, Bendtzen K, Moller B, Hamilton-Dutoit S, Andersen HK. Interleukin-10 and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder after kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 1999;67:876–881
  36. Palanduz S, Sever MS, Ozturk S, et al. Genotoxic potential of cyclosporin A in patients with renal transplantation. Cell Biol Toxicol. 1999;15:13–17
  37. Yuzawa K, Kondo I, Fukao K, Iwasaki Y, Hamaguchi H. Mutagenicity of cyclosporine (Induction of sister chromatid exchange in human cells). Transplantation. 1986;42:61–63
  38. Zwanenburg TS, Suter W, Matter BE. Absence of genotoxic potential for cyclosporine in experimental systems. Transplant Proc. 1988;20:931–933
  39. Dantal J, Hourmant M, Cantarovich D, et al. Effect of long-term immunosuppression in kidney-graft recipients on cancer incidence: randomised comparison of two cyclosporin regimens. Lancet. 1998;351:623–628
  40. McGeown MG, Douglas JF, Middleton D. One thousand renal transplants at Belfast City Hospital: post-graft neoplasia 1968–1999, comparing azathioprine only with cyclosporin-based regimes in a single center. Clin Transpl. 2000;193–202
  41. Van den Borne BE, Landewe RB, Houkes I, et al. No increased risk of malignancies and mortality in cyclosporin A–treated patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1998;41:1930–1937
  42. Paul CF, Ho VC, McGeown C, et al. Risk of malignancies in psoriasis patients treated with cyclosporine: a 5-year cohort study. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;120:211–216
  43. Caillard S, Dharnidharka V, Agodoa L, Bohen E, Abbott K. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders after renal transplantation in the United States in era of modern immunosuppression. Transplantation. 2005;80:1233–1243
  44. Opelz G, Dohler B. Lymphomas after solid organ transplantation: a collaborative transplant study report. Am J Transplant. 2004;4:222–230
  45. Dharnidharka VR, Sullivan EK, Stablein DM, Tejani AH, Harmon WE. Risk factors for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) in pediatric kidney transplantation: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS). Transplantation. 2001;71:1065–1068
  46. Younes BS, McDiarmid SV, Martin MG, et al. The effect of immunosuppression on posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease in pediatric liver transplant patients. Transplantation. 2000;70:94–99
  47. Mithoefer AB, Supran S, Freeman RB. Risk factors associated with the development of skin cancer after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2002;8:939–944
  48. Frezza EE, Fung JJ, van Thiel DH. Non-lymphoid cancer after liver transplantation. Hepatogastroenterology. 1997;44:1172–1181
  49. Jonas S, Rayes N, Neumann U, et al. De novo malignancies after liver transplantation using tacrolimus-based protocols or cyclosporine-based quadruple immunosuppression with an interleukin-2 receptor antibody or antithymocyte globulin. Cancer. 1997;80:1141–1150
  50. Yakupoglu YK, Buell JF, Woodle S, Kahan BD. Individualization of immunosuppressive therapy. III. Sirolimus associated with a reduced incidence of malignancy. Transplant Proc. 2006;38:358–361
  51. Huang S, Houghton PJ. Inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin as novel antitumor agents: from bench to clinic. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2002;3:295–304
  52. Brenneisen P, Wenk J, Wlaschek M, Krieg T, Scharffetter-Kochanek K. Activation of p70 ribosomal protein S6 kinase is an essential step in the DNA damage-dependent signaling pathway responsible for the ultraviolet B-mediated increase in interstitial collagenase (MMP-1) and stromelysin-1 (MMP-3) protein levels in human dermal fibroblasts. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:4336–4344
  53. Mathew T, Kreis H, Friend P. Two-year incidence of malignancy in sirolimus-treated renal transplant recipients: results from five multicenter studies. Clin Transplant. 2004;18:446–449
  54. Connell WR, Kamm MA, Dickson M, Balkwill AM, Ritchie JK, Lennard-Jones JE. Long-term neoplasia risk after azathioprine treatment in inflammatory bowel disease. Lancet. 1994;343:1249–1252
  55. Singh G, Fries JF, Spitz P, Williams CA. Toxic effects of azathioprine in rheumatoid arthritis (A national post-marketing perspective). Arthritis Rheum. 1989;32:837–843
  56. Castor CW, Bull FE. Review of United States data on neoplasms in rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med. 1985;78:33–38
  57. Fraser AG, Orchard TR, Robinson EM, Jewell DP. Long-term risk of malignancy after treatment of inflammatory bowel disease with azathioprine. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2002;16:1225–1232
  58. Hazleman BL. The comparative incidence of malignant disease in rheumatoid arthritics exposed to different treatment regimens. Ann Rheum Dis. 1982;41:12–17
  59. Confavreux C, Saddier P, Grimaud J, Moreau T, Adeleine P, Aimard G. Risk of cancer from azathioprine therapy in multiple sclerosis: a case-control study. Neurology. 1996;46:1607–1612
  60. Kwon JH, Farrell RJ. The risk of lymphoma in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease with immunosuppressive agents. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2005;56:169–178
  61. Jensen P, Moller B, Hansen S. Skin cancer in kidney and heart transplant recipients and different long-term immunosuppressive therapy regimens. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42:307
  62. Bailin PL, Tindall JP, Roenigk HH, Hogan MD. Is methotrexate therapy for psoriasis carcinogenic? (A modified retrospective-prospective analysis). JAMA. 1975;232:359–362
  63. Nyfors A, Jensen H. Frequency of malignant neoplasms in 248 long-term methotrexate-treated psoriatics (A preliminary study). Dermatologica. 1983;167:260–261
  64. Rustin GJ, Newlands ES, Lutz JM, et al. Combination but not single-agent methotrexate chemotherapy for gestational trophoblastic tumors increases the incidence of second tumors. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2769–2773
  65. Alarcon GS, Tracy IC, Strand GM, Singh K, Macaluso M. Survival and drug discontinuation analyses in a large cohort of methotrexate treated rheumatoid arthritis patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995;54:708–712
  66. Tishler M, Caspi D, Yaron M. Long-term experience with low-dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int. 1993;13:103–106
  67. Georgescu L, Quinn GC, Schwartzman S, Paget SA. Lymphoma in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: association with the disease state or methotrexate treatment. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1997;26:794–804
  68. Wolfe F, Michaud K. The effect of methotrexate and anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy on the risk of lymphoma in rheumatoid arthritis in 19,562 patients during 89,710 person-years of observation. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:1433–1439
  69. O'Neill JO, Edwards LB, Taylor DO. Mycophenolate mofetil and risk of developing malignancy after orthotopic heart transplantation: analysis of the transplant registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:1186–1191
  70. David KM, Morris JA, Steffen BJ, Chi-Burris KS, Gotz VP, Gordon RD. Mycophenolate mofetil vs. azathioprine is associated with decreased acute rejection, late acute rejection, and risk for cardiovascular death in renal transplant recipients with pre-transplant diabetes. Clin Transplant. 2005;19:279–285
  71. Wang K, Zhang H, Li Y, et al. Safety of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in renal transplantation: a systematic review. Transplant Proc. 2004;36:2068–2070
  72. Leckel K, Beecken WD, Jonas D, et al. The immunosuppressive drug mycophenolate mofetil impairs the adhesion capacity of gastrointestinal tumour cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 2003;134:238–245
  73. Engl T, Makarevic J, Relja B, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil modulates adhesion receptors of the beta1 integrin family on tumor cells: impact on tumor recurrence and malignancy. BMC Cancer. 2005;5:4
  74. Vegso G, Sebestyen A, Paku S, et al. Antiproliferative and apoptotic effects of mycophenolic acid in human B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Leuk Res. 2007;31:1003–1008
  75. Bongartz T, Sutton AJ, Sweeting MJ, Buchan I, Matteson EL, Montori V. Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295:2275–2285
  76. Bongartz T, Matteson EL, Montori VM, Sutton AJ, Sweeting M, Buchan I. Author reply: Anti-TNF Antibody Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis and the Risk of Serious Infections and Malignancies. JAMA. 2006;296:2203–2204
  77. Okada SK, Siegel JN. Risk of serious infections and malignancies with anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA. 2006;296:2201–2202
  78. Stone JH, Holbrook JT, Marriott MA, et al. Solid malignancies among patients in the Wegener's Granulomatosis Etanercept Trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:1608–1618
  79. Setoguchi S, Solomon DH, Weinblatt ME, et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonist use and cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2757–2764
  80. Fleischmann RM, Tesser J, Schiff MH, et al. Safety of extended treatment with anakinra in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:1006–1012
  81. Lebwohl M, Blum R, Berkowitz E, et al. No evidence for increased risk of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving etanercept for up to 5 years. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141:861–864
  82. Jacobsson LT, Turesson C, Nilsson JA, et al. Treatment with TNF blockers and mortality risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:670–675
  83. Askling J, Fored CM, Brandt L, et al. Risks of solid cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and after treatment with tumour necrosis factor antagonists. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:1421–1426
  84. Askling J, Fored CM, Baecklund E, et al. Haematopoietic malignancies in rheumatoid arthritis: lymphoma risk and characteristics after exposure to tumour necrosis factor antagonists. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:1414–1420
  85. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of malignancy: analyses from a large US observational study. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56:2886–2895
  86. Carmona L, Descalzo MA, Perez-Pampin E, et al. All-cause and cause-specific mortality in rheumatoid arthritis are not greater than expected when treated with tumour necrosis factor antagonists. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:880–885
  87. Geborek P, Bladstrom A, Turesson C, et al. Tumour necrosis factor blockers do not increase overall tumour risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but may be associated with an increased risk of lymphomas. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:699–703
  88. Biancone L, Orlando A, Kohn A, et al. Infliximab and newly diagnosed neoplasia in Crohn's disease: a multicentre matched pair study. Gut. 2006;55:228–233
  89. Webster AC, Playford EG, Higgins G, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for renal transplant recipients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Transplantation. 2004;77:166–176
  90. Waldmann TA. Daclizumab (anti-Tac, Zenapax) in the treatment of leukemia/lymphoma. Oncogene. 2007;26:3699–3703
  91. Lane L, Tamesis R, Rodriguez A, et al. Systemic immunosuppressive therapy and the occurrence of malignancy in patients with ocular inflammatory disease. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1530–1535
  92. Ross R. Atherosclerosis—an inflammatory disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:115–126
  93. Beauparlant P, Papp K, Haraoui B. The incidence of cancer associated with the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1999;29:148–158
  94. Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler CM, et al. Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16 and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial. Lancet. 2006;367:1247–1255
  95. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Lymphoma in rheumatoid arthritis: the effect of methotrexate and anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy in 18,572 patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:1740–1751
  96. Choi HK, Hernan MA, Seeger JD, Robins JM, Wolfe F. Methotrexate and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective study. Lancet. 2002;359:1173–1177
biography

John H. Kempen, MD, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Ophthalmology and Epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and Director of both the Ocular Inflammation Service and Ophthalmic Epidemiology. His research centers on the effects of treatment for patients with ocular inflammatory and infectious diseases. Dr Kempen serves as Chairman of the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases (SITE) Cohort Study, and as Vice-Chairman of the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial.

PII: S0002-9394(08)00337-1

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.04.035

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 146, Issue 6 , Pages 802-812.e1, December 2008

Article Tools