Next Article in Journal
Prevalence of Germline Mutations in Cancer Predisposition Genes in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer or Suspected Related Hereditary Syndromes: Historical Prospective Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Overexpression of YEATS2 Remodels the Extracellular Matrix to Promote Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progression via the PI3K/AKT Pathway
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Dynamic Crosstalk between the Immune System and Genetics in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/cancers15061851
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Neuropsychiatric Adverse Drug Reactions with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System

by
Maria Antonietta Barbieri
1,*,
Emanuela Elisa Sorbara
1,
Giulia Russo
1,
Giuseppe Cicala
1,
Tindara Franchina
2,
Mariacarmela Santarpia
2,
Nicola Silvestris
2 and
Edoardo Spina
1
1
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy
2
Department of Human Pathology in Adulthood and Childhood Gaetano Barresi, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(6), 1851; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061851
Submission received: 23 February 2023 / Revised: 15 March 2023 / Accepted: 18 March 2023 / Published: 20 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST): Opportunity and Challenges in Diagnosis and Treatment)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare mesenchymal neoplasms arising in the gastrointestinal tract, especially in the stomach (60–65%). The development of most cases of GISTs is associated with activating mutations in the receptor tyrosine kinase genes KIT and PDGFRA. The discovery of mutations leads to the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for GISTs. Considering the recent approval of the last two TKIs and given their increased use in clinical practice, a spontaneous reporting system (SRS) database, the main tool in pharmacovigilance, takes a remarkable role in promptly characterizing the benefit/risk profile of these new drugs and consequently improve the quality of life of patients affected by GISTs.

Abstract

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are widely used in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting frequency of neuropsychiatric adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for TKIs through the analysis of European individual case safety reports (ICSRs). All ICSRs collected in EudraVigilance up to 31 December 2021 with one TKI having GISTs as an indication (imatinib (IM), sunitinib (SU), avapritinib (AVA), regorafenib (REG), and ripretinib (RIP)) were included. A disproportionality analysis was performed to assess the frequency of reporting for each TKI compared to all other TKIs. The number of analyzed ICSRs was 8512, of which 57.9% were related to IM. Neuropsychiatric ADRs were reported at least once in 1511 ICSRs (17.8%). A higher reporting probability of neuropsychiatric ADRs was shown for AVA. Most neuropsychiatric ADRs were known, except for a higher frequency of lumbar spinal cord and nerve root disorders (reporting odds ratio, ROR 4.46; confidence interval, CI 95% 1.58–12.54), olfactory nerve disorders (8.02; 2.44–26.33), and hallucinations (22.96; 8.45–62.36) for AVA. The analyses of European ICSRs largely confirmed the safety profiles of TKIs in GISTs, but some ADRs are worthy of discussion. Further studies are needed to increase the knowledge of the neuropsychiatric disorders of newly approved TKIs.

1. Introduction

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare mesenchymal neoplasms arising in the gastrointestinal tract, especially in the stomach (60–65%), representing less than 1% of all digestive tumors, and are characterized by variable malignant potential and clinical behavior [1,2]. The annual incidence of GISTs is estimated to have a variable range from 0.4 to 2 cases per 100,000 people [2]. GISTs arise from the interstitial cells of Cajal, which are pacemakers of the gastrointestinal tract responsible for intestinal contractions [3]. Moreover, the development of most cases of GISTs is associated with activating mutations in the receptor tyrosine kinase genes KIT and PDGFRA: KIT primary mutations are found in 75–80% of GISTs, mainly involving exon 11 or 9 while only rare cases affect exon 13 or 17 [4], and 10–20% of GISTs contain oncogenic mutations of PDGFRA, particularly in exons 18, 12, and 14. The D842V mutation, based on the substitution of aspartic acid to valine, is the most common exon 18 mutation. In KIT/PDGFRA wild-type GISTs, other oncogenic drivers have been identified, including mutations of NF1, BRAF, and NTRK3 fusions [1].
The discovery of mutations and the subsequent development of the first KIT tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), imatinib (IM), in 2001, revolutionized the treatment of newly diagnosed locally advanced and metastatic GIST patients, who are commonly resistant to conventional chemotherapy [5]. Modular continuous flow synthesis of IM is reported to improve its yield [6]. The positive response of IM use with a median treatment duration of 55 months [7] is quite evident in some patients with specific molecular subtypes (KIT/PDGFRA wild type and PDGFRA D842V mutant); indeed, the PDGFRA D842V mutation creates a missense mutation conferring resistance to IM with poor prognostic outcomes in GIST patients [8]. The occurrence of secondary KIT mutations in more than 90% of GIST patients led to the approval of multi type II TKIs targeting KIT and PDGFRA [1], including sunitinib (SU) in 2006 and regorafenib (REG) in 2013 [9,10]. The TKI SU has a functional 3-methyleneoxindole group which gives it immunomodulation and angiogenesis inhibition; the median treatment duration in GIST patients is of 43 months as second-line therapy [11]. Among several published syntheses for REG, reaction of amine with the isocyanate ultimately delivered REG in 83% yield [12], with a median treatment duration of 7.6 months as third-line therapy in GIST patients [11]. However, the prevalence of KIT reactivation consequent to secondary resistance KIT mutations led to the approval of ripretinib (RIP) in 2021 [13], even though the synthesis of RIP was started by Flynn et al. in 2012 [14]. RIP inhibits the pocket at the juxtamembrane domain and activates the switch in the activation loop. Its broad targeting of primary and secondary mutations improves the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with a median duration of treatment of 3.7 months [1,15]. The PDGFRA D842V mutation, reported in 5% of all GISTs, together with its uncommon secondary KIT mutation (D816V) is intrinsically resistant to all TKIs. In a Korean study, the probability of stable disease was 25% after 24 weeks of treatment with SU [16]. Moreover, there is limited evidence relating mutational status to REG response in patients with the PDGFRA D842V mutation. The approval of avapritinib (AVA), a highly selective type I TKI in 2020 proved to be a milestone in PDGFRA D842V mutant GISTs with a median treatment duration of 23 months [17,18,19]. The original synthesis of AVA was reported by Houdous in 2017 and later improved by Chinese patent applications, reducing the synthesis to three steps using L-DBTA to increase the total yield and reduce the final production cost [14].
Considering their different mechanisms of action, including the development of secondary resistance mutations, TKIs differ in their effectiveness and safety profile [20] and in some adverse events (AEs) such as skin and gastrointestinal toxicity with IM [21]; anemia, hand foot syndrome, and hypertension with SU [22]; anemia, cognitive effects, and periorbital edema with AVA [23]; hand-foot skin reaction, hepatotoxicity, and hypertension with REG [24]; myalgia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES), and weight loss with RIP [25].
Considering the recent approval of the last two TKIs and given their increased use in clinical practice, the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) database, the main tool in pharmacovigilance, plays a remarkable role in promptly characterizing the benefit/risk profile of these new drugs and consequently improving the quality of life of patients affected by GISTs. Currently, no original research on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to TKIs for the treatment of GISTs from the SRS database is available, and some questions remain to be answered, such as neurocognitive and psychiatric AEs. Premarketing studies have suggested a possible correlation between AVA and cognitive impairment [23,26], and the risk management plan of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that intracranial hemorrhage and cognitive effects are important identified risks for AVA [27]. Neuropsychiatric ADRs have a major impact on patients’ quality of life, especially those with GISTs. Some GIST patients may have a vulnerability to drug effects possibly driven by an immune-mediated process. The addition of AVA with increased penetration to the central nervous system may trigger a clinical cascade of neuropsychiatric deterioration [28]. However, no postmarketing data have evaluated neuropsychiatric AEs for TKIs. For all the above reasons, the aim of this study is to describe better ADRs and to evaluate the reporting frequency of some toxicities through the analysis of individual case safety reports (ICSRs) among TKIs approved for GISTs collected into the European SRS database with a focus on neuropsychiatric ADRs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Selection Process

This is a retrospective, observational, pharmacovigilance study performed using the EudraVigilance (EV) database, a system designed for managing and analyzing information on suspected ADRs. The EV database is divided into two modules: the EV Clinical Trial module (EVCTM), for the collection of all ICSRs related to drugs that have not yet received marketing authorization and reported by sponsors, and the EV Post-Authorization Module (EVPM), which raises the ICSRs of suspected ADRs related to drugs authorized in the European Economic Area (EEA). Since 2012, the EMA has set up a publicly accessible online system for reporting suspected ADRs that are transmitted to EV electronically by the national medicine regulatory authorities and by marketing authorization holders (MAH). Several studies have been published that performed analyses using this SRS database [29,30,31,32].
All ADR ICSRs obtained from the EV database (www.adrreports.eu, accessed on 31 May 2022) using the line-listing function and recorded starting from the drug approval date up to 31 December 2021 with at least one of the following TKIs as suspected drugs were included: IM (from 1 June 2005 to 31 December 2021), SU (from 1 October 2006 to 31 December 2021), REG (from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2021), AVA (from 1 October 2019 to 31 December 2021), and RIP (from 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2021). Before proceeding with the analysis, all premarketing ICSRs with supporting literature data were excluded. Moreover, to avoid therapeutic biases, all ICSRs having other indications and having more than one drug reported as suspected were also excluded.
All ICSRs that reported at least one neurological or psychiatric ADR were identified using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA®) System Organ Classes (SOCs) of “Nervous system disorders” or “Psychiatric disorders”. A detailed list of all High Level Terms (HLTs) and Preferred Terms (PTs) included in the analysis are reported in Supplementary Table S1.

2.2. Data Analyses

A descriptive analysis of the data obtained from EV was conducted to assess the demographic characteristics and variables related to the drugs under study. The analyses were carried out considering the demographic data of the patient (gender and age), information on the ADR (seriousness and outcome), primary source qualification, primary source country for regulatory purpose, and all available information on suspected drugs. The specific criteria regarding the seriousness of the ADRs (serious or not serious) were not available for all ICSRs, but ADRs were classified as serious if considered life-threatening or fatal, if due to hospitalization or the extension of an existing hospitalization, if due to permanent or significant disability/incapacity, if due to a congenital anomaly/congenital defect, or if classified as another important medical condition based on clinical judgment or the EV important medical event (IME) list, which is drafted by the EMA and updated every six months. The outcome of the ADRs was classified as “Recovered/Resolved”, “Recovering/Resolving”, “Recovered/Resolved with Sequelae”, “Not Recovered/Not Resolved”, “Fatal”, and “Unknown”. In the case of two or more ADRs with different results reported in a single ICSR, the result with the lowest resolution level was chosen for classification. ICSRs were classified as fatal if the outcome was “fatal”. The ADRs were analyzed according to MedDRA® classification level by SOC, which are groupings by etiology and manifestation site, HLT based upon anatomy, pathology, physiology, etiology, or function, and PT considered a distinct descriptor for a symptom or sign. Moreover, the individual ADRs were sorted into the equivalent SOC and the PTs corresponding to the same clinical condition that were grouped under a unique term after a careful clinical evaluation.
A disproportionality analysis was conducted using the reporting odds ratio (ROR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), to assess the frequency of reporting ADRs by MedDRA® SOC for each TKI compared to all other TKIs with a focus on neuropsychiatric ADRs by HLT. The reference group includes all TKIs excluding the one of interest. The ROR and the 95% CI were calculated as a measure of disproportionality when the number of these cases was equal to or greater than five. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 software for Windows (IBM Corp. SPSS Statistics). The time to onset (TTO) of neuropsychiatric ADRs was calculated only for ICSRs that reported both the duration of therapy and drug discontinuation as an action taken after the onset of the ADR. The duration of therapy, expressed in days, was retrieved from each ICSR if available. All neuropsychiatric ADRs with a higher frequency were carefully evaluated considering all PTs related to each HLT: ADRs were considered as expected for every TKI if acknowledged in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) available at the time of the study by the EMA website.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of ICSRs

A total of 72,720 TKI-related ICSRs approved for GISTs were collected in the EV database from 2005 to 2021. Of these, premarketing ICSRs with supporting literature (n = 9830) and TKI-related ICSRs with other indications (n = 53,905) were excluded. Furthermore, ICSRs with more than one drug reported as suspected (n = 473) were also excluded to avoid bias. The number of ICSRs involved in the analysis was 8512 reports (Figure 1): they were mainly related to IM (n = 4931; 57.9%), followed by SU (n = 2062; 24.2%) and AVA (n = 1112; 13.1%). A lower percentage of reports was associated with REG (2.7%) and RIP (2.1%).
The trend over the years was controversial: AVA and RIP had an exponential increase, while IM and SU had a peak in 2014 and 2015, respectively (n = 759; 15.4% and n = 390; 18.9%, respectively); REG had a constant and low number of ICSRs (Figure 2).
Of the 8512 ICSRs, 4401 (51.7%) were related to male patients and 3802 (44.7%) to adults aged 18–64 years, except for AVA and RIP, which had higher percentages of elderly patients (55.8% and 50.0%, respectively). The majority of ICSRs were provided by healthcare professionals (n = 5718; 67.2%), mostly in countries belonging to non-European Economic Areas (non-EEA) (n = 7122; 83.7%). A total of 87.5% of all ADRs (n = 7450) were reported as serious, and approximately half of them were included in the “other medically important condition” serious criteria (n = 3557; 47.7%). However, AVA was associated with a lower number of serious ADRs (SADRs) (31.2%). Full resolution or recovering of ADRs was observed in 1043 (12.3%) and 810 (9.5%) ICSRs, respectively. However, ADRs were not yet resolved in 1704 patients (20.0%), while a quarter of total ICSRs (n = 2170; 25.5%) were fatal especially in SU-related reports (50.8%) (Table 1).

3.2. Characteristics of ADRs

The most reported ADRs were related to SOC general and administration site conditions (n = 3929; 46.2%), followed by neoplasm (n = 3051; 35.8%), gastrointestinal (n = 2195; 25.8%), skin (n = 1255; 14.7%), nervous (n = 1108; 13.0%), blood (n = 1035; 12.2%), and metabolism disorders (n = 995; 11.7%). A higher frequency of general and administration site conditions was reported for SU and RIP (n = 1343; 65.1% and n = 102; 58.0%, respectively), while neoplasms, intended as neoplasm progression or occurrence of metastases in other organs were mainly shown for IM and SU (n = 2042; 41.4% and n = 848; 41.1%, respectively). Gastrointestinal, nervous, and metabolism disorders were mostly reported for AVA (n = 404; 36.3%, n = 375; 33.7%, and n = 193; 17.4%), skin disorders for REG (n = 80; 34.6%), and blood disorders for SU and IM (n = 335; 16.2% and n = 611; 12.4%, respectively). The most frequently reported ADRs by HLT are listed in Table 2.
The probability of reporting ICSRs by SOC showed a higher probability of general and administration site conditions, especially asthenic conditions, with SU (ROR, 2.79; 95% CI 2.53–3.09), RIP (1.32; 1.18–2.23), and AVA (1.21; 1.06–1.37). Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders had a higher probability of reporting for REG (3.20; 2.39–4.29), especially for the onset of PPES (n = 47) and RIP (1.50; 1.03–2.20), mainly for alopecia (n = 19). Cases belonging to musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, particularly arthralgia and musculoskeletal pain, had a higher probability for AVA (1.64; 1.33–2.04) and RIP (2.30; 1.49–3.54), while vascular disorders, especially hypertension, had a higher probability for SU (2.81; 2.36–3.35) and REG (1.70; 1.09–2.63). Considering cardiac disorders, higher reporting was noted for RIP (2.02; 1.23–3.31) and SU (1.42; 1.17–1.74), while hepatobiliary disorders were noted for REG (2.85; 1.93–4.22) and IM (1.28; 1.06–1.54).
Furthermore, AVA had a higher probability of eye disorders (3.55; 2.92–4.33), mainly characterized by lacrimation disorder and eye swelling (n = 61 and n = 58, respectively); immune system disorders (3.45; 2.23–5.35), especially seasonal allergy and hypersensitivity (n = 13 and n = 10, respectively); gastrointestinal disorders (1.79; 1.56–2.05), particularly diarrhea and nausea (n = 152 and n = 139, respectively); and metabolism disorders (1.73; 1.45–2.06), mainly decreased appetite (n = 75). Moreover, SU had a higher probability of endocrine (4.81; 3.24–7.13) disorders such as hypothyroidism (n = 38) and blood disorders (1.59; 1.38–1.83), including cases of thrombocytopenia and neutropenia (n = 169 and n = 130, respectively), IM of respiratory disorders (1.23; 1.08–1.44), mostly characterized by dyspnea and pleural effusion (n = 158 and n = 148, respectively); and RIP for infections and infestations (2.01; 1.28–3.17), especially urinary tract infection (n = 3) (see all RORs in Supplementary Table S2).

3.3. Neuropsychiatric ADRs

Neuropsychiatric ADRs were reported at least once in 1511 ICSRs (17.8%) for a total of 2162 ADRs (a mean of 1.4 neuropsychiatric ADRs for each ICSR). More than half of AVA-related reports had at least one neuropsychiatric ADR (n = 557; 50.1%). In contrast to all ICSRs, neuropsychiatric ICSRs were mainly related to elderly patients (n = 797; 52.7%) except IM; the gender difference remained (males 50.3% vs. females 46.5%). A higher percentage of neuropsychiatric ADRs were serious (n = 1097; 72.6%), but it was lower for AVA (n = 191; 34.3%), and approximately half of neuropsychiatric ADRs were not recovered/not resolved (n = 744; 49.2%), particularly for AVA (n = 428; 76.8%), while 9.1% were fatal, especially having SU as the suspected drug (n = 63; 17.6%) (Table 3).
Only 124 ICSRs reported both duration of therapy and drug discontinuation as an action taken after the onset of the ADR. The median (Q1-Q3) TTO of neuropsychiatric ADRs was higher for AVA with 91 (56–342) days and SU with 88 (28.5–235) days (Figure 3).
Considering the probability of reporting neuropsychiatric ADRs, AVA was related to a higher reporting probability compared to all other TKIs: in detail, Psychiatric disorders (ROR 6.36; CI 95% 5.15–7.84) and Nervous system disorders (4.63; 3.99–5.37). Most neuropsychiatric ADRs by HLT with a higher probability of reporting when AVA was the suspected TKI were already known as common in the SmPC except for lumbar spinal cord and nerve root disorders intended as sciatica (ROR 4.46; CI 95% 1.58–12.54), olfactory nerve disorders, including anosmia and parosmia (8.02; 2.44–26.33), and hallucinations (excl sleep-related) (22.96; 8.45–62.36). For the other TKIs, some neuropsychiatric HLTs were associated with a higher probability of reporting: central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular accidents, especially cerebral infarction, were unknown for REG (3.19; 1.59–6.38); disturbances in consciousness not elsewhere classified (NEC), including somnolence, were not reported for RIP (3.15; 1.52–6.55); and SU neuropsychiatric ADRs by HLT were already reported in the SmPC with a different frequency (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This study could be considered the first to evaluate TKI-related ADR reports approved for the treatment of GISTs through the analysis of the European SRS database. The introduction of TKIs has radically changed the management of patients with GISTs. Although some TKIs, such as IM, have been used for many years, their use is not free from the onset of AEs. The distribution of ICSRs over the years has been certainly influenced by the different timing of approval and the clinical use of TKIs [5,9,18]: the higher incidence of IM-related ADRs is linked to its first approval; however, the exponential increase of AVA in the last year could be associated with its use as first-line treatment in metastatic GISTs with PDGFRA exon 18 mutation [2]. Looking at the gender and age distribution, ICSRs were mainly related to males and adult patients, which may be due to the higher prevalence of GISTs in male adult patients [2]. Conversely, IM- and SU-related serious AEs occurred more frequently in patients aged more than 70 years (14.7%) than in younger patients (3.8%) [33]. Additionally, most ADRs were serious except for AVA, probably due to the classification of GIST progression as IME, but this was controversial with what was observed in premarketing studies: SU showed a lower percentage of SADRs (approximately 20% of patients) [34]; this percentage increased in REG- and AVA-treated patients (61.4% and 65%, respectively) [35,36]. In the evaluation of seriousness, the reporting bias of SADRs due to regulatory authority obligations and to the priority of reporting serious rather than non-serious ADRs by healthcare professionals should be considered. Furthermore, 25.5% of ICSRs were fatal, but a causal relationship with the corresponding TKI cannot be sure, especially with most attention on ADRs resulting in death by SRS policies. Although a higher percentage of SU-related ADRs resulted in death than the other TKIs, the impact of the underlying GIST progression or the occurrence of metastases on the outcome of events cannot be excluded [37]. Moreover, the late approval of REG and RIP could create a bias in fatal cases due to the few ICSRs related to the use of third-line TKI therapy.
The analysis of ICSRs confirmed known TKI-related ADRs, which frequently involved general, gastrointestinal, skin, nervous, blood, and metabolism disorders. A higher frequency of musculoskeletal disorders was shown for RIP, which requires dose modifications when arthralgia or myalgia occur [13]. A greater frequency of cardiac disorders was already reported for RIP and SU, while hypertension was reported for SU and REG, both commonly observed with agents interfering with the vascular-endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways and its receptor VEGFR-2 [38,39]. Looking at hepatobiliary disorders, REG and IM appear to have a higher risk of increased hepatic enzymes and bilirubin levels [40,41]. In accordance with the disproportionality analyses, all ADRs with a higher frequency for AVA and SU have already been reported in their SmPC as very common [9,18]. In detail, the photosensitivity reactions with AVA may share a similar mechanism to the skin toxicities of other TKIs, such as IM, for the potent inhibition of the KIT gene [42]. Blood disorders, including neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, can be induced by SU through binding to Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT-3) expressed on the surface of hematopoietic cells [43]. Moreover, long-term SU therapy could be associated with a risk of hypothyroidism, which can be managed by thyroid hormone replacement [34]. Considering IM, a higher frequency of respiratory disorders was shown possibly due to its kinase inhibition of PDGFRβ, which is expressed in pericytes and is involved in angiogenesis [44]. Conversely to the above already known ADRs, RIP had a higher frequency of infections, especially of the urinary tract: it is plausible that a decrease in white blood cell counts after RIP use could cause the patient to be at a higher risk of infections. Indeed, a phase 1 study showed 16 cases of urinary tract infections, mainly of grade 1–2, after the administration of RIP [45,46].
In addition to the above-described potential toxicities related to TKIs, evidence about neuropsychiatric ADRs deserves attention. A higher frequency of neuropsychiatric ADRs was reported for males and elderly patients with GISTs. A recent clinical study showed a higher incidence of cognitive effects in elderly patients [47], probably due to increased cognitive impairment and the dementia risk with increasing age [48]. Data on gender differences are still controversial: there seems to be a slightly higher incidence of neuropsychiatric effects in females [27] without any statistically significant difference between males and females [47]. Considering distribution by seriousness and outcome, a lower percentage of SADRs was noted for AVA, as confirmed in a previous clinical study that mainly reported grade 1/2 cognitive effects [47]. The increased reporting of unrecovered/unresolved AVA-related ADRs may be due to the median time to improvement of 16 weeks that leads to a missing follow-up of ICSRs [47]. The higher frequency of fatal ICSRs for SU was confirmed in the literature and could be related to the longer treatment duration, independent of tumor type [37]. The median TTO of neuropsychiatric ADRs was higher for AVA (approximately 13 weeks), but a slightly shorter median onset of cognitive effects (8.3 weeks) was highlighted in a previous study; this difference could be related to the cumulative dose of AVA and, therefore, to the different treatment duration [19].
The disproportionality analysis showed an increased risk of reporting a neuropsychiatric event with AVA compared to other TKIs used in GISTs. This could be due to the different mechanism of action of AVA compared to other TKIs considered type II inhibitors. Cognitive effects have generally not been reported for other TKIs except those crossing the blood–brain barrier, such as entrectinib or lorlatinib, despite not targeting PDGFRA [49]. However, AVA probably inhibits type 2 sodium channels, and allelic variants in the type 2 sodium channel have been associated with cognitive impairment [50]. Therefore, AVA-induced inhibition of both PDGFRA and the type 2 sodium channel may be involved in the development of neuropsychiatric ADRs. Moreover, considering the high selectivity of AVA, as a type I TKI, against the activation loop and the progression pattern of KIT-mutant GISTs, another hypothesis is the occurrence of secondary mutations in other regions of the kinase [1,51]. Indeed, in several premarketing studies, approximately 40% of AVA-treated patients had cognitive effects, including memory impairment, cognitive disorder, confusional state, and encephalopathy [35,47,52]. However, a possible correlation with pre-existing nervous or psychiatric comorbidities and the concomitant use of other drugs cannot be excluded. The use of TKIs with comedications is widely reported in the literature [53,54]; AVA is known to act on CYP3A, and co-administration with strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitors should be avoided because it may increase the plasma concentration, resulting in increased ADRs [53].
The analysis of AVA-related neuropsychiatric ADRs was consistent with information reported in SmPCs and the literature; however, lumbar spinal cord and nerve root disorders intended to be reported as sciatica were not reported in SmPCs and only 12 reports are available in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public dashboard [55]. In addition, evidence about olfactory disorders, such as parosmia and anosmia, is unknown. Smell disturbances were associated with other TKIs used in patients affected by GISTs: smell alterations (23%), reduced sense of smell (27%), and new unpleasant smells (20%) [56]. Furthermore, the onset of hallucinations, including visual and auditory ones, were unknown; however, the FDA multi-disciplinary review and evaluation for AVA suggests that the use of AVA could be associated with hallucinations occurring in 2.6% of patients with GISTs [57]. Another relevant ADR worthy of discussion was the higher frequency of cerebral infarction, clinically manifested as ischemic stroke, for REG; in a retrospective study, 4% of REG-treated patients had a cerebrovascular accident [11]. The neuroprotective role of VEGF is widely known, and inhibition of VEGFR by REG could be related to ischemic events [58]; indeed, the use of bevacizumab significantly increased the risk of cerebrovascular events [59]. A higher frequency of disturbances in consciousness, especially somnolence, was shown for RIP. Otherwise there is no evidence in the literature except for 16 cases reported in the FAERS public dashboard [55].

Strengths and Limitations

This could be considered the first study focusing on ADRs, especially neuropsychiatric ones, related to the use of TKIs approved for GISTs and reported in the European SRS database. The SRS is a useful and cost-effective tool that aims to better characterize drug safety profiles through the collection of ICSRs; data from the European SRS database could generate potential safety signals of undetected ADRs from the premarketing phase, including rare and serious ones. Indeed, this pharmacovigilance method overcomes several premarketing study limitations such as the limited number of enrolled patients under controlled conditions and the short follow-up time [60,61]. The increasing use of TKIs in advanced GISTs and the recent approval of the last two TKIs, AVA and RIP, make further safety investigations on these drugs necessary, especially for neuropsychiatric ADRs. Patients with GISTs have worse health-related quality of life than the general population, especially when TKIs are used as later treatment lines with more negative effects also influenced by the duration of the tumor course [62]. For this reason, avoiding the onset of ADRs that could further worsen health-related quality of life and providing information on neuropsychiatric ADRs could be useful for oncologists in patient management as shown in previous studies [63,64].
Despite its strengths, the SRS database has some intrinsic limitations, such as the underreporting phenomena, the absence of denominators (i.e., the total number of GIST patients who have undergone treatment with TKIs), and the poor quality of information listed in each ICSR (i.e., seriousness and outcome, previous/current medical conditions, additional suspected or concomitant drugs) that could potentially affect the occurrence of analyzed ADRs [65]. In contrast to other SRS database studies, the use of the EV database does not allow the detection of all ICSR information, making it impossible to compute disproportionality analyses for all ICSRs related to SOC Nervous system disorders and Psychiatric disorders [42,66,67]. Therefore, further ad hoc studies are essential to establish the real neuropsychiatric safety profile of TKIs used in GISTs. Moreover, TKIs are prescribed in advanced and metastatic GISTs; consequently, it cannot be excluded that some serious and fatal ICSRs may be due to neoplasm progression and staging, to the onset of delayed ADRs, or to some comorbidities in GIST patients treated with TKIs [68]. However, even with its limitations, ICSRs obtained from the EV database help to better characterize TKI safety profiles, which is particularly important for preventing neuropsychiatric ADRs in GIST patients.

5. Conclusions

This study confirmed the fundamental role of the SRS database in evaluating ADRs related to TKIs approved for GISTs. The analyses of European ICSRs largely confirmed safety profiles described in each SmPC in terms of frequency, which frequently involved general, gastrointestinal, skin, nervous, blood, and metabolism disorders. However, AVA had an increased reporting probability of neuropsychiatric ADRs compared to all other TKIs. The computation of ROR highlighted some ADRs not reported in the literature and worthy of discussion: a higher frequency of nerve inflammation, olfactory dysfunction, and hallucinations was shown for AVA, a small increased reporting of cerebrovascular accident was noted for REG and disturbances in consciousness were noted for RIP. Neuropsychiatric ADRs have a strong impact on patients’ quality of life, especially those with GISTs. Considering that RIP and AVA have been recently available on the market, further studies are needed to increase the knowledge of the safety profiles of newly approved TKIs for GISTs and to better characterize neuropsychiatric disorders. Physicians should pay more attention to possible predictive factors of neuropsychiatric ADRs, including already existing nervous or psychiatric comorbidities. Therefore, further real-world studies and close collaboration among pharmacologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, and oncologists are helpful to identify new undetected ADRs early and to manage these effects appropriately in GIST patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15061851/s1, Table S1: System Organ Classes, High Level Terms, and corresponding Preferred Terms included in the analysis of neuropsychiatric ADRs. Table S2: ROR of ICSRs with ADRs by SOC.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.B. and E.E.S.; methodology, M.A.B.; validation, N.S. and E.S.; formal analysis, M.A.B. and E.E.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.B., E.E.S. and G.R.; writing—review and editing, M.A.B., T.F. and M.S.; visualization, M.A.B., E.E.S., G.R., G.C., T.F., M.S., N.S. and E.S.; supervision, N.S. and E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Messina (n. 54/22 of 19 July 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: The datasets generated for this study will not be made publicly available. The European dataset in aggregated form is available online at www.adrreports.eu (accessed on 5 August 2022) while the access to the national, non-aggregated datasets require the approval of the National Authorities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Schaefer, I.-M.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Serrano, C. The GIST of Advances in Treatment of Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2022, 42, 885–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Casali, P.G.; Blay, J.Y.; Abecassis, N.; Bajpai, J.; Bauer, S.; Biagini, R.; Bielack, S.; Bonvalot, S.; Boukovinas, I.; Bovee, J.V.M.G.; et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2022, 33, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Corless, C.L.; Barnett, C.M.; Heinrich, M.C. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: Origin and molecular oncology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2011, 11, 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mazzocca, A.; Minelli, A.; Paternostro, F.; Silletta, M.; Napolitano, A.; Vincenzi, B. New molecularly targeted drugs for gist after imatinib, sunitinib and regorafenib: A narrative review. Gastrointest. Stromal Tumor 2022, 5, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Medicines Agency. Glivec®, Summary of Product Characteristics. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/glivec-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  6. Fu, W.C.; Jamison, T.F. Modular Continuous Flow Synthesis of Imatinib and Analogues. Org. Lett. 2019, 21, 6112–6116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Raut, C.P.; Espat, N.J.; Maki, R.G.; Araujo, D.M.; Trent, J.; Williams, T.F.; Purkayastha, D.D.; DeMatteo, R.P. Efficacy and Tolerability of 5-Year Adjuvant Imatinib Treatment for Patients with Resected Intermediate- or High-Risk Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, e184060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Sun, Y.; Yue, L.; Xu, P.; Hu, W. An overview of agents and treatments for PDGFRA-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 927587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. European Medicines Agency. Sutent®, Summary of Product Characteristics. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/sutent-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  10. European Medicines Agency. Stivarga®, Summary of Product Characteristics. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/stivarga-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  11. Chamberlain, F.; Farag, S.; Williams-Sharkey, C.; Collingwood, C.; Chen, L.; Mansukhani, S.; Engelmann, B.; Al-Muderis, O.; Chauhan, D.; Thway, K.; et al. Toxicity management of regorafenib in patients with gastro-intestinal stromal tumour (GIST) in a tertiary cancer centre. Clin. Sarcoma Res. 2020, 10, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Shiri, P.; Ramezanpour, S.; Amani, A.M.; Dehaen, W. A patent review on efficient strategies for the total synthesis of pazopanib, regorafenib and lenvatinib as novel anti-angiogenesis receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for cancer therapy. Mol. Divers. 2022, 26, 2981–3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. European Medicines Agency. Qinlock®, Summary of Product Characteristics. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/qinlock-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  14. Liang, X.; Yang, Q.; Wu, P.; He, C.; Yin, L.; Xu, F.; Yin, Z.; Yue, G.; Zou, Y.; Li, L.; et al. The synthesis review of the approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors for anticancer therapy in 2015–2020. Bioorg. Chem. 2021, 113, 105011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zalcberg, J.R. Ripretinib for the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2021, 14, 175628482110081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Yoon, D.H.; Ryu, M.-H.; Ryoo, B.-Y.; Beck, M.; Choi, D.R.; Cho, Y.; Lee, J.-L.; Chang, H.-M.; Kim, T.W.; Kang, Y.-K. Sunitinib as a second-line therapy for advanced GISTs after failure of imatinib: Relationship between efficacy and tumor genotype in Korean patients. Investig. New Drugs 2012, 30, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bauer, S.; George, S.; von Mehren, M.; Heinrich, M.C. Early and Next-Generation KIT/PDGFRA Kinase Inhibitors and the Future of Treatment for Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 672500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. European Medicines Agency. Ayvakit®, Summary of Product Characteristics. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/ayvakyt-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  19. Trullas-Jimeno, A.; Delgado, J.; Garcia-Ochoa, B.; Wang, I.; Sancho-Lopez, A.; Payares-Herrera, C.; Dalhus, M.L.; Strøm, B.O.; Egeland, E.J.; Enzmann, H.; et al. The EMA assessment of avapritinib in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours harbouring the PDGFRA D842V mutation. ESMO Open 2021, 6, 100159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patel, S.R.; Reichardt, P. An updated review of the treatment landscape for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer 2021, 127, 2187–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Zhang, Q.; Xu, J.; Qian, Y.; Chen, L.; Li, Q.; Xu, K.; Chen, M.; Sun, L.; He, Z.; Yang, L.; et al. Association of Imatinib Plasma Concentration and Single-nucleotide Polymorphisms with Adverse Drug Reactions in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2018, 17, 2780–2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Chang, Y.-R.; Huang, W.-K.; Wang, S.-Y.; Wu, C.-E.; Chen, J.-S.; Yeh, C.-N. A Nomogram Predicting Progression Free Survival in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Receiving Sunitinib: Incorporating Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment Parameters. Cancers 2021, 13, 2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. George, S.; Jones, R.L.; Bauer, S.; Kang, Y.-K.; Schöffski, P.; Eskens, F.; Mir, O.; Cassier, P.A.; Serrano, C.; Tap, W.D.; et al. Avapritinib in Patients With Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Following at Least Three Prior Lines of Therapy. Oncologist 2021, 26, e639–e649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nannini, M.; Rizzo, A.; Nigro, M.C.; Vincenzi, B.; Mazzocca, A.; Grignani, G.; Merlini, A.; D’Ambrosio, L.; Tolomeo, F.; Badalamenti, G.; et al. Standard versus personalized schedule of regorafenib in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A retrospective, multicenter, real-world study. ESMO Open 2021, 6, 100222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lostes-Bardaji, M.J.; García-Illescas, D.; Valverde, C.; Serrano, C. Ripretinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: The long-awaited step forward. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2021, 13, 175883592098649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. DeAngelo, D.J.; Radia, D.H.; George, T.I.; Robinson, W.A.; Quiery, A.T.; Drummond, M.W.; Bose, P.; Hexner, E.O.; Winton, E.F.; Horny, H.P.; et al. Safety and efficacy of avapritinib in advanced systemic mastocytosis: The phase 1 EXPLORER trial. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 2183–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. European Medicines Agency. Summary of Risk Management Plan for AYVAKYT (Avapritinib). Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/rmp-summary/saphnelo-epar-risk-management-plan-summary_en.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2022).
  28. Drom, C.; Schenheit, K.; Matzke, M.; Obeidat, A.Z.; Molinaro, J.; Charlson, J.; Knight, J.M. Abrupt onset of severe parkinsonism in a patient with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor receiving treatment with avapritinib: A case report. Brain Behav. Immun.—Health 2023, 27, 100570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Rastogi, S.; Kalaiselvan, V.; Bin Jardan, Y.A.; Zameer, S.; Sarwat, M. Comparative Study of Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Filgrastim and Pegfilgrastim Using the EudraVigilance Database. Biology 2022, 11, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rafaniello, C.; Ferrajolo, C.; Sullo, M.G.; Gaio, M.; Zinzi, A.; Scavone, C.; Gargano, F.; Coscioni, E.; Rossi, F.; Capuano, A. Cardiac events potentially associated to remdesivir: An analysis from the european spontaneous adverse event reporting system. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. di Mauro, G.; Zinzi, A.; Scavone, C.; Mascolo, A.; Gaio, M.; Sportiello, L.; Ferrajolo, C.; Rafaniello, C.; Rossi, F.; Capuano, A. PCSK9 Inhibitors and Neurocognitive Adverse Drug Reactions: Analysis of Individual Case Safety Reports from the Eudravigilance Database. Drug Saf. 2021, 44, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mascolo, A.; Scavone, C.; Ferrajolo, C.; Rafaniello, C.; Danesi, R.; Del Re, M.; Russo, A.; Coscioni, E.; Rossi, F.; Alfano, R.; et al. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Cardiotoxicity: An Analysis of Spontaneous Reports in Eudravigilance. Drug Saf. 2021, 44, 957–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rutkowski, P.; Bylina, E.; Lugowska, I.; Teterycz, P.; Klimczak, A.; Streb, J.; Czarnecka, A.M.; Osuch, C. Treatment outcomes in older patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2018, 9, 520–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Demetri, G.D.; van Oosterom, A.T.; Garrett, C.R.; Blackstein, M.E.; Shah, M.H.; Verweij, J.; McArthur, G.; Judson, I.R.; Heinrich, M.C.; Morgan, J.A.; et al. Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after failure of imatinib: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006, 368, 1329–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Demetri, G.D.; Reichardt, P.; Kang, Y.; Blay, J.; Rutkowski, P.; Gelderblom, H.; Hohenberger, P.; Leahy, M.; von Mehren, M.; Joensuu, H.; et al. Efficacy and safety of regorafenib for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID): An international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013, 381, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Heinrich, M.C.; Jones, R.L.; von Mehren, M.; Schöffski, P.; Serrano, C.; Kang, Y.-K.; Cassier, P.A.; Mir, O.; Eskens, F.; Tap, W.D.; et al. Avapritinib in advanced PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumour (NAVIGATOR): A multicentre, open-label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 935–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhao, B.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, J. Risk of fatal adverse events in cancer patients treated with sunitinib. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2019, 137, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hamnvik, O.-P.R.; Choueiri, T.K.; Turchin, A.; McKay, R.R.; Goyal, L.; Davis, M.; Kaymakcalan, M.D.; Williams, J.S. Clinical risk factors for the development of hypertension in patients treated with inhibitors of the VEGF signaling pathway. Cancer 2015, 121, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Kim, J.J.; Vaziri, S.A.J.; Rini, B.I.; Elson, P.; Garcia, J.A.; Wirka, R.; Dreicer, R.; Ganapathi, M.K.; Ganapathi, R. Association of VEGF and VEGFR2 single nucleotide polymorphisms with hypertension and clinical outcome in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients treated with sunitinib. Cancer 2012, 118, 1946–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Zhao, B.; Zhao, H. Incidence and risk of regorafenib-induced hepatotoxicity. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 84102–84111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Seidel, C.; Fenner, M.; Länger, F.; Bantel, H.; Ganser, A.; Grünwald, V. Imatinib-induced liver cirrhosis in a patient with advanced gastrointestinal stroma tumor (GIST). BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Venkatakrishnan, A.; Chu, B.; Aggarwal, P. Photosensitivity From Avapritinib: Pharamacovigilance Analysis. JMIR Dermatology 2022, 5, e39229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rautiola, J.; Donskov, F.; Peltola, K.; Joensuu, H.; Bono, P. Sunitinib-induced hypertension, neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia as predictors of good prognosis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2016, 117, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Banka, R.; Udwadia, Z. Imatinib-induced pleural effusion: A case report. J. Postgrad. Med. 2017, 63, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. BC Cancer Agency. BC Cancer Drug Manual Ripretinib. Available online: http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/drug-database-site/DrugIndex/Ripretinib_handout.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2023).
  46. Chi, P.; Janku, F.; Heinrich, M.; Ganjoo, K.; Gelderblom, H.; Gordon, M.; Jones, R.; Razak, A.; Trent, J.; von Mehren, M.; et al. Abstract C077: Updated results of phase 1 study of ripretinib (DCC-2618), a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA inhibitor, in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) by line of therapy (NCT02571036). Mol. Cancer Ther. 2019, 18, C077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Joseph, C.P.; Abaricia, S.N.; Angelis, M.A.; Polson, K.; Jones, R.L.; Kang, Y.-K.; Riedel, R.F.; Schöffski, P.; Serrano, C.; Trent, J.; et al. Optimal Avapritinib Treatment Strategies for Patients with Metastatic or Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors. Oncologist 2021, 26, e622–e631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Harada, C.N.; Natelson Love, M.C.; Triebel, K.L. Normal Cognitive Aging. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2013, 29, 737–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Jones, R.L.; Serrano, C.; von Mehren, M.; George, S.; Heinrich, M.C.; Kang, Y.-K.; Schöffski, P.; Cassier, P.A.; Mir, O.; Chawla, S.P.; et al. Avapritinib in unresectable or metastatic PDGFRA D842V-mutant gastrointestinal stromal tumours: Long-term efficacy and safety data from the NAVIGATOR phase I trial. Eur. J. Cancer 2021, 145, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Schwarz, N.; Bast, T.; Gaily, E.; Golla, G.; Gorman, K.M.; Griffiths, L.R.; Hahn, A.; Hukin, J.; King, M.; Korff, C.; et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of SCN2A-associated episodic ataxia. Eur. J. Paediatr. Neurol. 2019, 23, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Serrano, C.; George, S. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Decade. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 5078–5085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Li, J.; Zhang, X.; Deng, Y.; Wu, X.; Zheng, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Cai, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Tao, K.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Avapritinib in Treating Unresectable or Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Phase I/II, Open-Label, Multicenter Study. Oncologist 2023, 28, 187-e114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yu, J.; Wang, Y.; Ragueneau-Majlessi, I. Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interactions with Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020: Mechanistic Understanding and Clinical Recommendations. Drug Metab. Dispos. 2022, 50, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ozdemir, N.; Toptas, S.; Sendur, M.A.N.; Yazici, O.; Öksüzoğlu, B.; Silay, K.; Zengin, N. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI): Awareness of drug-drug interaction. Ann. Oncol. 2017, 28, v399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Public Dashboard. Available online: https://fis.fda.gov/sense/app/95239e26-e0be-42d9-a960-9a5f7f1c25ee/sheet/7a47a261-d58b-4203-a8aa-6d3021737452/state/analysis (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  56. van Elst, J.M.; IJzerman, N.S.; Mathijssen, R.H.J.; Steeghs, N.; Reyners, A.K.L.; de Haan, J.J. Taste, smell and mouthfeel disturbances in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Support. Care Cancer 2022, 30, 2307–2315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Food and Drug Administration. Multi-Disciplinary Review and Evaluation NDA 212608 AYVAKIT (Avapritinib). Available online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2020/212608Orig1s000MultidisciplineR.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2023).
  58. Chen, B.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, S.; Li, X.; Dong, J.; Chen, W.; Tao, S.; Yang, W.; Zhang, Y. The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in ischemic stroke. Pharmazie 2021, 76, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zuo, P.-Y.; Chen, X.-L.; Liu, Y.-W.; Xiao, C.-L.; Liu, C.-Y. Increased Risk of Cerebrovascular Events in Patients with Cancer Treated with Bevacizumab: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Strom, B.L.; Kimmel, S.E.; Hennessy, S. Pharmacoepidemiology, 6th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; ISBN 9781119413417. [Google Scholar]
  61. Raschi, E.; Moretti, U.; Salvo, F.; Pariente, A.; Cosimo Antonazzo, I.; De Ponti, F.; Poluzzi, E. Evolving Roles of Spontaneous Reporting Systems to Assess and Monitor Drug Safety. In Pharmacovigilance; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Eichler, M.; Pink, D.; Menge, F.; Jakob, J.; Hentschel, L.; Richter, S.; Hohenberger, P.; Kasper, B.; Andreou, D.; Singer, S.; et al. Quality of life of GIST patients with and without current tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment: Cross-sectional results of a German multicentre observational study (PROSa). Eur. J. Cancer Care 2021, 30, e13484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Barbieri, M.A.; Sorbara, E.E.; Cicala, G.; Santoro, V.; Cutroneo, P.M.; Franchina, T.; Santarpia, M.; Silvestris, N.; Spina, E. Safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors used in non-small-cell lung cancer: An analysis from the Italian pharmacovigilance database. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 1005626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Barbieri, M.A.; Sorbara, E.E.; Cicala, G.; Santoro, V.; Cutroneo, P.M.; Franchina, T.; Spina, E. Adverse Drug Reactions with HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Treatment: An Analysis from the Italian Pharmacovigilance Database. Drugs—Real World Outcomes 2022, 9, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Pal, S.N.; Duncombe, C.; Falzon, D.; Olsson, S. WHO strategy for collecting safety data in public health programmes: Complementing spontaneous reporting systems. Drug Saf. 2013, 36, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Barbieri, M.A.; Cicala, G.; Cutroneo, P.M.; Mocciaro, E.; Sottosanti, L.; Freni, F.; Galletti, F.; Arcoraci, V.; Spina, E. Ototoxic Adverse Drug Reactions: A Disproportionality Analysis Using the Italian Spontaneous Reporting Database. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 10, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Liu, Y.; Chen, C.; Rong, C.; He, X.; Chen, L. Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Associated Cardiotoxicity: A Recent Five-Year Pharmacovigilance Study. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 13, 858279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Huang, J.; Meng, L.; Yang, B.; Sun, S.; Luo, Z.; Chen, H. Safety Profile of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: A Disproportionality Analysis of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Cancers 15 01851 g001 550
Figure 1. ICSR selection process. Abbreviations: EV = EudraVigilance; GIST = gastrointestinal stromal tumor; ICSRs = individual case safety reports; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Figure 1. ICSR selection process. Abbreviations: EV = EudraVigilance; GIST = gastrointestinal stromal tumor; ICSRs = individual case safety reports; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Cancers 15 01851 g001
Cancers 15 01851 g002 550
Figure 2. Trend over the years of TKI-related ICSRs with a GIST indication reported in EV database. Abbreviations: EV = EudraVigilance; GIST = gastrointestinal stromal tumor; ICSR = individual case safety report; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Figure 2. Trend over the years of TKI-related ICSRs with a GIST indication reported in EV database. Abbreviations: EV = EudraVigilance; GIST = gastrointestinal stromal tumor; ICSR = individual case safety report; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Cancers 15 01851 g002
Cancers 15 01851 g003 550
Figure 3. Time to onset of neuropsychiatric ADRs. Data are reported as box plots with the box drawn from Q1 to Q3 and the horizontal line drawn in the middle to denote the median. Abbreviations: AVA = avapritinib; IM = imatinib; REG = regorafenib; RIP = ripretinib; SU = sunitinib.
Figure 3. Time to onset of neuropsychiatric ADRs. Data are reported as box plots with the box drawn from Q1 to Q3 and the horizontal line drawn in the middle to denote the median. Abbreviations: AVA = avapritinib; IM = imatinib; REG = regorafenib; RIP = ripretinib; SU = sunitinib.
Cancers 15 01851 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of TKI-related ICSRs approved for GIST collected into EV.
Table 1. Characteristics of TKI-related ICSRs approved for GIST collected into EV.
Characteristic, n (%)AVA
(n = 1112)		IM
(n = 4931)		REG
(n = 231)		RIP
(n = 176)		SU
(n = 2062)		Total
(n = 8512)
Age Group
 Infant1 (0.1)2 (<0.1) 3 (<0.1)
 Child1 (0.1)2 (<0.1) 3 (<0.1)
 Adolescent 7 (0.1) 2 (0.1)9 (0.1)
 Adult480 (43.2)2027 (41.1)111 (48.1)85 (48.3)1099 (53.3)3802 (44.7)
 Elderly621 (55.8)1783 (36.2)82 (35.5)88 (50.0)785 (38.1)3359 (39.5)
 Not Specified9 (0.8)1110 (22.5)38 (16.5)3 (1.7)176 (8.5)1336 (15.7)
Patient Sex
 Female511 (46.0)1871 (37.9)88 (38.1)73 (41.5)780 (37.8)3323 (39.0)
 Male593 (53.3)2373 (48.1)121 (52.4)102 (58.0)1212 (58.8)4401 (51.7)
 Not Specified8 (0.7)687 (13.9)22 (9.5)1 (0.6)70 (3.4)788 (9.3)
Primary Source Qualification
 Healthcare Professional91 (8.2)4280 (86.8)214 (92.6)173 (98.3)960 (46.6)5718 (67.2)
 Non-Healthcare Professional1021 (91.8)637 (12.9)17 (7.4)3 (1.7)1102 (53.4)2780 (32.7)
 Not Specified 14 (0.3) 14 (0.2)
Primary Source Country for Regulatory Purposes
 European Economic Area5 (0.4)1082 (21.9)83 (35.9) 220 (10.7)1390 (16.3)
 Non-European Economic Area1107 (99.6)3849 (78.1)148 (64.1)176 (100.0)1842 (89.3)7122 (83.7)
Serious347 (31.2)4719 (95.7)196 (84.8)176 (100.0)2012 (97.6)7450 (87.5)
Type of seriousness
 Caused/Prolonged Hospitalization129 (37.2)829 (17.6)57 (29.1)90 (51.1)386 (19.2)1491 (20.0)
 Congenital Anomaly 1 (<0.1) 1 (<0.1)
 Disabling2 (0.6)84 (1.8)4 (2.0) 12 (0.6)102 (1.4)
 Life Threatening2 (0.6)88 (1.9)7 (3.6) 32 (1.6)129 (1.7)
 Other Medically Important Condition174 (50.1)2694 (57.1)101 (51.5)54 (30.7)534 (26.5)3557 (47.7)
 Results in Death40 (11.5)1023 (21.7)27 (13.8)32 (18.2)1048 (52.1)2170 (29.1)
Outcome
 Recovered/resolved105 (9.4)670 (13.6)49 (21.2)15 (8.5)204 (9.9)1043 (12.3)
 Recovering/resolving29 (2.6)582 (11.8)30 (13.0)16 (9.1)153 (7.4)810 (9.5)
 Recovered/resolved with sequelae 36 (0.7)1 (0.4) 12 (0.6)49 (0.6)
 Not recovered/not resolved674 (60.6)697 (14.1)48 (20.8)14 (8.0)271 (13.1)1704 (20.0)
 Fatal40 (3.6)1023 (20.7)27 (11.7)32 (18.2)1048 (50.8)2170 (25.5)
 Unknown264 (23.7)1923 (39.0)76 (32.9)99 (56.3)374 (18.1)2736 (32.1)
AVA = avapritinib; EV = EudraVigilance; GIST = gastrointestinal stromal tumor; ICSR = individual case safety report; IM = imatinib; REG = regorafenib; RIP = ripretinib; SU = sunitinib; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Table
Table 2. Distribution of main ADRs by MedDRA SOC and the top three HLTs within each SOC.
Table 2. Distribution of main ADRs by MedDRA SOC and the top three HLTs within each SOC.
System Organ Class, n (%)AVA
(n = 1112)		IM
(n = 4931)		REG
(n = 231)		RIP
(n = 176)		SU
(n = 2062)		Total
(n = 8512)
General disorders and administration site conditions559 (50.3)1847 (37.5)78 (33.8)102 (58.0)1343 (65.1)3929 (46.2)
 General signs and symptoms NEC157 (14.1)292 (5.9)7 (3.0)31 (17.6)786 (38.1)1273 (15.0)
 Asthenic conditions282 (25.4)350 (7.1)37 (16.0)33 (18.8)237 (11.5)939 (11.0)
 Death and sudden death32 (2.9)481 (9.8)7 (3.0)24 (13.6)321 (15.6)865 (10.2)
Neoplasm benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)71 (6.4)2042 (41.4)57 (24.7)33 (18.8)848 (41.1)3051 (35.8)
 Gastrointestinal neoplasms malignant NEC 1077 (21.8)46 (19.9) 682 (33.1)1805 (21.2)
 Neoplasms malignant site unspecified NEC12 (1.1)1482 (30.1) 6 (3.4)14 (0.7)1514 (17.8)
 Neoplasms unspecified malignancy and site unspecified NEC44 (4.0)506 (10.3) 11 (6.3)110 (5.3)671 (7.9)
Gastrointestinal disorders404 (36.3)1139 (23.1)42 (18.2)46 (26.1)564 (27.4)2195 (25.8)
 Nausea and vomiting symptoms168 (15.1)439 (8.9)4 (1.7)18 (10.2)143 (6.9)772 (9.1)
 Diarrhoea (excl infective)152 (13.7)249 (5.0)18 (7.8)13 (7.4)189 (9.2)621 (7.3)
 Gastrointestinal and abdominal pains (excl oral and throat)60 (5.4)234 (4.7)6 (2.6)14 (8.0)79 (3.8)393 (4.6)
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders170 (15.3)659 (13.4)80 (34.6)36 (20.5)310 (15.0)1255 (14.7)
 Rashes, eruptions and exanthems NEC55 (4.9)342 (6.9)22 (9.5)9 (5.1)46 (2.2)474 (5.6)
 Dermal and epidermal conditions NEC41 (3.7)127 (2.6)7 (3.0)5 (2.8)117 (5.7)297 (3.5)
 Dermatitis ascribed to specific agent4 (0.4)44 (0.9)51 (22.1)7 (4.0)116 (5.6)222 (2.6)
Nervous system disorders 375 (33.7)391 (7.9)26 (11.3)30 (17.0)286 (13.9)1108 (13.0)
 Sensory abnormalities NEC55 (4.9)46 (0.9)1 (0.4) 102 (4.5)204 (2.4)
 Neurological signs and symptoms NEC75 (6.7)72 (1.5) 8 (4.5)44 (2.1)199 (2.3)
 Headaches NEC51 (4.6)46 (0.9)1 (0.4)6 (3.4)45 (2.2)149 (1.8)
 Memory loss (excl dementia)126 (11.3)13 (0.3) 10 (0.5)149 (1.8)
Blood and lymphatic system disorders73 (6.6)611 (12.4)12 (5.2)4 (2.3)335 (16.2)1035 (12.2)
 Anaemias NEC28 (2.5)207 (4.2)2 (0.9)3 (1.7)60 (2.9)300 (3.5)
 Thrombocytopenias11 (1.0)88 (1.8)5 (2.2)1 (0.6)171 (8.3)276 (3.2)
 Leukopenias NEC31 (2.8)127 (2.6)2 (0.9) 81 (3.9)241 (2.8)
Metabolism and nutrition disorders193 (17.4)488 (9.9)26 (11.3)14 (8.0)274 (13.3)995 (11.7)
 Appetite disorders81 (4.3)137 (2.8)19 (8.2)6 (3.4)127 (6.2)370 (4.3)
 General nutritional disorders NEC54 (3.3)123 (2.5)4 (1.7)7 (4.0)96 (4.7)284 (3.3)
 Metabolic disorders NEC5 (1.3)93 (1.9) 9 (0.4)107 (1.3)
ADR = adverse drug reaction; AVA = avapritinib; excl = excluding; HLT = High Level Term; incl = including; IM = imatinib; MedDRA® = Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities®; NEC = not elsewhere classified, which is a standard abbreviation used to denote groupings of miscellaneous terms that do not readily fit into other hierarchical classifications within a particular SOC; REG = regorafenib; RIP = ripretinib; SU = sunitinib.
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of TKI-related neuropsychiatric ICSRs.
Table 3. Characteristics of TKI-related neuropsychiatric ICSRs.
Characteristic, n (%)AVA
(n = 557)		IM
(n = 528)		REG
(n = 30)		RIP
(n = 39)		SU
(n = 357)		Total
(n = 1511)
Age Group
 Adolescent 1 (1.2) 2 (0.6)3 (0.2)
 Adult187 (33.6)242 (45.8)10 (33.3)17 (43.6)161 (45.1)617 (40.8)
 Elderly365 (65.5)220 (41.7)14 (46.7)21 (53.8)177 (49.6)797 (52.7)
 Not Specified5 (0.9)65 (12.3)6 (20.0)1 (2.6)17 (4.8)94 (6.2)
Patient Sex
 Female265 (47.6)245 (46.4)6 (20.0)14 (35.9)173 (48.5)703 (46.5)
 Male287 (51.5)247 (46.8)23 (76.7)25 (64.1)178 (49.9)760 (50.3)
 Not Specified5 (0.9)36 (6.8)1 (3.3) 6 (1.7)48 (3.2)
Primary Source Qualification
 Healthcare Professional33 (5.9)398 (75.4)28 (93.3)39 (100)217 (60.8)715 (47.3)
 Non-Healthcare Professional524 (94.1)127 (24.1)2 (6.7) 140 (39.2)793 (52.5)
 Not Specified 3 (0.6) 3 (0.2)
Primary Source Country for Regulatory Purposes
 European Economic Area5 (0.9)159 (30.1)14 (46.7) 40 (11.2)218 (14.4)
 Non-European Economic Area552 (99.1)369 (69.9)16 (53.3)39 (100)317 (88.8)1293 (85.6)
Serious191 (34.3)489 (92.6)29 (96.7)39 (100)349 (97.8)1097 (72.6)
Type of seriousness
 Caused/Prolonged Hospitalization68 (35.6)146 (29.9)7 (24.1)20 (51.3)140 (40.1)381 (34.7)
 Disabling2 (1.0)25 (5.1)1 (3.4) 3 (0.9)31 (2.8)
 Life Threatening1 (0.5)16 (3.3)2 (6.9) 8 (2.3)27 (2.5)
 Other Medically Important Condition117 (61.3)238 (48.7)13 (44.8)17 (43.6)135 (38.7)520 (47.4)
 Results in Death3 (1.6)64 (13.1)6 (20.7)2 (5.1)63 (18.1)138 (12.6)
Outcome
 Recovered/resolved 8 (1.5)1 (3.3) 4 (1.1)13 (0.9)
 Recovering/resolving14 (2.5)80 (15.2)1 (3.3)6 (15.4)45 (12.6)146 (9.7)
 Recovered/resolved with sequelae24 (4.3)69 (13.1)10 (33.3)3 (7.7)38 (10.6)144 (9.5)
 Not recovered/not resolved428 (76.8)168 (31.8)4 (13.3)7 (17.9)137 (38.4)744 (49.2)
 Fatal3 (0.5)64 (12.1)6 (20.0)2 (5.1)63 (17.6)138 (9.1)
 Unknown88 (15.8)138 (26.1)8 (26.7)21 (53.8)69 (19.3)324 (21.4)
AVA = avapritinib; ICSR = individual case safety report; IM = imatinib; REG = regorafenib; RIP = ripretinib; SU = sunitinib; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
Table
Table 4. ROR of ICSRs with ADRs belonging to the SOC “Nervous system disorders” or “Psychiatric disorders” by High Level Term for the comparison of TKIs.
Table 4. ROR of ICSRs with ADRs belonging to the SOC “Nervous system disorders” or “Psychiatric disorders” by High Level Term for the comparison of TKIs.
AVA
(n = 1112)		IM
(n = 4931)		REG
(n = 231)		RIP
(n = 176)		SU
(n = 2062)		Total
(n = 1511)
nROR (95% CI)SmPCnROR (95% CI)nROR (95% CI)SmPCnROR (95% CI)SmPCnROR (95% CI)SmPC
Nervous system disorders
 Central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular accidents2NC 510.59 (0.41–0.86)93.19 (1.59–6.38)NR4NC 472.26 (1.55–3.29)UN113
 Coordination and balance disturbances3312.54 (7.04–22.35)C60.10 (0.04–0.22)0- 0- 120.96 (0.50–1.84) 51
 Cortical dysfuntion NEC3316.14 (8.61–30.25)C60.11 (0.04–0.25)0- 0- 80.64 (0.30–1.37) 47
 Dementia (excl Alzheimer’s type)1310.93 (4.52–26.43)C60.29 (0.11–0.75)0- 0- 2NC 21
 Disturbances in consciousness NEC312.07 (1.38–3.11)C650.70 (0.50–0.99)2NC 83.15 (1.52–6.55)NR260.76 (0.50–1.18) 132
 Encephalopathies NEC2NC 2NC4NC 0- 103.92 (1.55–9.96)R18
 Headaches NEC513.58 (2.54–5.05)C460.32 (0.22–0.45)1NC 62.02 (0.88–4.64) 451.36 (0.96–1.94) 149
 Lumbar spinal cord and nerve root disorders64.46 (1.58–12.54)NR70.63 (0.23–1.750- 0- 2NC 15
 Memory loss (excl dementia)12640.99 (26.15–64.24)C130.07 (0.04–0.12)0- 0- 100.22 (0.12–0.42) 149
 Mental impairment (excl dementia and memory loss)7226.89 (16.16–44.77)C120.11 (0.06–0.20)2NC 0- 50.18 (0.07–0.44) 91
 Narcolepsy and hypersomnia620.07 (4.05–99.55)C0-0- 0- 2NC 8
 Nervous system disorders NEC711.71 (3.42–40.08)C2NC1NC 0- 1NC 11
 Neurological signs and symptoms NEC754.24 (3.16–5.69)C720.40 (0.30–0.54)0- 82.03 (0.98–4.19) 440.89 (0.63–1.24) 199
 Olfactory nerve disorders68.02 (2.44–26.33)NR50.60 (0.18–1.98)0- 0- 00.00 11
 Paraesthesias and dysaesthesias241.92 (1.22–3.04)C430.48 (0.32–0.70)2NC 3NC 361.57 (1.05–2.36)C108
 Sensory abnormalities NEC552.53 (1.85–3.47)C460.20 (0.15–0.28)1NC 0- 1023.24 (2.45–4.28)VC204
 Speech and language abnormalities2610.40 (5.62–19.22)C90.19 (0.09–0.40)3NC 1NC 4NC 43
 Transient cerebrovascular events1NC 50.28 (0.10–0.78)2NC 0- 103.92 (1.55–9.96)UN18
 Tremor (excl congenital)74.68 (1.78–12.32)C70.51 (0.19–1.33)0NC 1NC 2NC 17
Psychiatric disorders
 Anxiety symptoms4010.19 (6.23–16.67)C160.23 (0.13–0.40)2NC 1NC 80.42 (0.20–0.88) 67
 Behavior and socialization disturbances3NC 3NC1NC 0- 0- 7
 Confusion and disorientation398.37 (5.22–13.42)C170.23 (0.13–0.39)1NC 1NC 130.70 (0.38–1.28) 71
 Disturbances in initiating and maintaining sleep6512.70 (8.41–19.18)C230.21 (0.13–0.34)1NC 3NC 90.30 (0.15–0.60) 101
 Eating disorders NEC3NC 90.33 (0.15–0.72)0- 1NC 163.87 (1.86–8.06)VC29
 Emotional and mood disturbances NEC73.90 (1.53–9.93)C90.65 (0.27–1.61)0- 0- 3NC 19
 Hallucinations (excl sleep-related)1722.96 (8.45–62.36)NR4NC0- 0- 1NC 22
 Mood alterations with depressive symptoms126.72 (3.01–14.99)C60.24 (0.10–0.61)0- 1NC 50.82 (0.31–2.21) 24
 Thinking disturbances5NC 0-0. 0- 2NC 7
Significant RORs are in bold type. NC = not calculated because there were fewer than five reports or there were reports only for one drug; ADR = adverse drug reaction; AVA = avapritinib; C = common; CI = confidence interval; excl = excluding; HLT = High Level Term; ICSR = individual case safety report; IM = imatinib; NEC = not elsewhere classified, which is a standard abbreviation used to denote groupings of miscellaneous terms that do not readily fit into other hierarchical classifications within a particular HLT; NR = not reported; R = rare; REG = regorafenib; ROR = reporting odds ratio; RIP = ripretinib; SmPC = Summary of Product Characteristics; SU = sunitinib; SOC = System Organ Class; TKI = tyrosine kinase inhibitors; UN = uncommon; VC = very common.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barbieri, M.A.; Sorbara, E.E.; Russo, G.; Cicala, G.; Franchina, T.; Santarpia, M.; Silvestris, N.; Spina, E. Neuropsychiatric Adverse Drug Reactions with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System. Cancers 2023, 15, 1851. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061851

AMA Style

Barbieri MA, Sorbara EE, Russo G, Cicala G, Franchina T, Santarpia M, Silvestris N, Spina E. Neuropsychiatric Adverse Drug Reactions with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System. Cancers. 2023; 15(6):1851. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061851

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barbieri, Maria Antonietta, Emanuela Elisa Sorbara, Giulia Russo, Giuseppe Cicala, Tindara Franchina, Mariacarmela Santarpia, Nicola Silvestris, and Edoardo Spina. 2023. "Neuropsychiatric Adverse Drug Reactions with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System" Cancers 15, no. 6: 1851. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061851

APA Style

Barbieri, M. A., Sorbara, E. E., Russo, G., Cicala, G., Franchina, T., Santarpia, M., Silvestris, N., & Spina, E. (2023). Neuropsychiatric Adverse Drug Reactions with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: An Analysis from the European Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting System. Cancers, 15(6), 1851. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061851

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop