Childhood cancer is a devastating reality that affects families across the globe. Each year, an estimated 400,000 children and adolescents aged 0–19 years develop cancer worldwide . In the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region specifically, approximately 36,000 children are diagnosed with cancer annually, with over 70% not surviving in 2022—a stark contrast to high-income countries where more than 80% of children with cancer are cured .
The good news is that childhood cancer is highly curable with early diagnosis and proper treatment. However, the journey of a child with cancer involves not only fighting the disease itself but also navigating the complex landscape of treatment-related adverse effects—a critical concern from a pharmacovigilance standpoint.
This article provides a comprehensive medical overview of childhood cancer, with special emphasis on drug-induced adverse reactions, including the rarely discussed topic of therapy-related secondary cancers, and their management from a pharmacovigilance perspective.
Section 1: Understanding Childhood Cancer
1.1 What is Childhood Cancer?
Cancer occurs when genetic changes in single cells cause them to multiply uncontrollably, forming masses (tumours) that can invade other parts of the body and cause harm if left untreated . Unlike adult cancers, most childhood cancers do not have known environmental or lifestyle causes. Current data suggest that approximately 10% of children with cancer have a genetic predisposition due to inherited factors .
1.2 Most Common Types of Childhood Cancer
| Cancer Type | Typical Age Group | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Leukaemia (most common: ~30% of cases) | All ages, peak 2–5 years | Cancer of blood-forming tissues; affects bone marrow |
| Brain and spinal cord tumours | All ages | Second most common; symptoms depend on location |
| Lymphomas | Older children and adolescents | Affects lymph nodes and immune system |
| Neuroblastoma | Infants and young children | Develops from immature nerve cells; often in adrenal glands |
| Wilms tumour | 3–4 years | Kidney cancer |
| Retinoblastoma | Under 3 years | Eye cancer; may be hereditary |
Section 2: Early Warning Signs—Spot the Cancer Signs, Save Your Child
Early diagnosis is critical. When identified early, cancer is more likely to respond to effective treatment, resulting in greater survival probability, less suffering, and often less expensive and less intensive treatment .
2.1 General Warning Signs Requiring Immediate Medical Attention
| Sign/Symptom | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| Unexplained weight loss or fever | Persistent fever without clear infection; unintentional weight loss |
| Lumps or swellings | Painless lumps in neck, armpit, groin, abdomen, or elsewhere |
| Pallor, bruising, or bleeding | Pale skin, easy bruising, unusual bleeding (nose, gums) |
| Persistent fatigue or headache | Ongoing tiredness; headache that doesn’t resolve, especially morning headache |
| General bone pain | Unexplained bone or joint pain, limping |
2.2 Leukaemia: Specific Signs
Leukaemia, the most common childhood cancer, presents with:
- Fever and frequent infections
- Extreme tiredness or weakness
- Easy bruising or bleeding
- Bone or joint pain
2.3 Brain and Spinal Cord Tumours: Specific Signs
- Persistent headaches (often worse in morning)
- Developmental delays
- Rapid increase in head circumference in infants
2.4 Retinoblastoma (Eye Cancer): Specific Signs
- White glow in pupil in photos (leukocoria)—most common sign
- Lazy eye (strabismus)—second most common sign, where one eye turns inward or outward when the child looks straight forward
Section 3: Drug-Induced Cancer in Children—The Secondary Malignancy Challenge
From a pharmacovigilance perspective, one of the most serious concerns in pediatric oncology is therapy-related secondary cancers—malignancies that develop as a direct consequence of cancer treatment itself.
3.1 Mechanisms of Therapy-Related Secondary Cancers
| Mechanism | Description | Responsible Agents |
|---|---|---|
| DNA damage | Chemotherapy agents cause DNA breaks and mutations that may lead to new cancers years later | Alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, busulfan); platinum compounds (cisplatin, carboplatin) |
| Topoisomerase II inhibition | Interfere with DNA unwinding, causing chromosomal translocations | Etoposide, teniposide, doxorubicin |
| Radiation-induced | Ionising radiation damages DNA in normal tissues within radiation field | Radiotherapy |
| Immune suppression | Long-term immunosuppression impairs immune surveillance | Immunosuppressants used post-transplant |
3.2 Types of Secondary Cancers
| Secondary Cancer | Most Common Associations | Typical Latency Period |
|---|---|---|
| Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (t-AML) | Alkylating agents, topoisomerase II inhibitors | 2–10 years (peak 5–7 years) |
| Myelodysplastic Syndrome (t-MDS) | Alkylating agents | 3–10 years |
| Secondary solid tumours | Radiation therapy; certain chemotherapies | 10–20+ years |
| Bone tumours (osteosarcoma) | Retinoblastoma treatment (genetic predisposition + radiation) | Variable |
3.3 Drugs Associated with Secondary Cancer Risk
| Drug Class | Examples | Secondary Cancer Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Alkylating agents | Cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, busulfan, melphalan, procarbazine | Dose-dependent risk of t-AML/t-MDS |
| Topoisomerase II inhibitors | Etoposide, teniposide, doxorubicin, daunorubicin | t-AML with characteristic 11q23 translocations; shorter latency (1–3 years) |
| Platinum compounds | Cisplatin, carboplatin | Secondary leukaemia; solid tumours |
| Antimetabolites | 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate | Lower risk; may potentiate other agents |
| Radiosensitizers | Various | Enhance radiation-induced damage |
Critical Pharmacovigilance Point: The risk of secondary malignancies must be weighed against the life-saving benefits of primary cancer treatment. This is not about avoiding effective therapy but about:
- Using the lowest effective cumulative doses
- Long-term surveillance of survivors
- Reporting cases to pharmacovigilance databases
Section 4: Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) in Childhood Cancer Treatment
Children are particularly vulnerable to ADRs due to their developing organs, smaller body size, and larger body surface area relative to weight, which can lead to drug accumulation . Chemotherapy-related ADRs have become a non-negligible factor affecting cancer remission .
4.1 Common Chemotherapy-Induced ADRs by System
4.2 Recent Research Findings on ADRs in Paediatric Oncology
- A 2024 study of paediatric cancer patients found that 37% of patients receiving chemotherapy experienced adverse events during and after treatment, with leukopenia (20%), lymphopenia (17.5%), and neutropenia (13.8%) being most common .
- A systematic review revealed high variability in study design and results, emphasising the need for methodological standards and preventability assessment .
- Most suspected severe ADRs were caused by daunorubicin and methotrexate, while severe neurotoxicity and pulmonary toxicity were due to vincristine, methotrexate, and cyclophosphamide .
Section 5: Management of Drug-Induced Adverse Reactions
5.1 General Principles of ADR Management
| Step | Action | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Identification | Recognise the ADR | Monitor for signs/symptoms; distinguish from disease progression |
| 2. Assessment | Determine causality and severity | Use standardised tools (e.g., CTCAE, Liverpool Causality Assessment Tool) |
| 3. Documentation | Record in medical record and ADR database | Essential for pharmacovigilance |
| 4. Reporting | Report to national pharmacovigilance centre | Critical for signal detection |
| 5. Intervention | Manage the reaction | Dose adjustment, supportive care, or discontinuation |
| 6. Prevention | Prevent recurrence | Pre-emptive measures; avoid re-exposure |
5.2 Specific Management Strategies
| ADR Type | Management Approach |
|---|---|
| Myelosuppression | Growth factors (G-CSF for neutropenia); transfusions (RBCs, platelets); antimicrobial prophylaxis; dose delay/reduction |
| Nausea/vomiting | Antiemetics (5-HT3 antagonists, NK1 antagonists); dexamethasone |
| Mucositis | Oral care protocols; topical anaesthetics; pain management; nutritional support |
| Cardiotoxicity | Monitoring (echocardiogram); cardioprotectants (dexrazoxane); dose limitation |
| Nephrotoxicity | Hydration; avoidance of nephrotoxins; dose adjustment based on renal function |
| Neurotoxicity | Dose reduction/discontinuation; symptomatic treatment (e.g., gabapentin for neuropathy) |
| Hypersensitivity | Premedication; desensitisation protocols; alternative agents |
5.3 The Role of Clinical Pharmacists
Recent evidence demonstrates that clinical pharmacists play a vital role in:
- Reviewing anticancer regimens
- Dose calculations
- Managing drug-related problems
- Monitoring adverse drug reactions
A 2025 interventional study from Turkey found that clinical pharmacist interventions reduced drug-related problems by 56.3% (p < 0.001), with 100% of pharmacist recommendations accepted by physicians. The most common interventions were drug dose changes (35.3%), changes in instructions for use (27.4%), drug changes (11.77%), and drug pauses/discontinuations (11.77%) .
Section 6: Pharmacovigilance in Paediatric Oncology—Advanced Approaches
6.1 The Emerging Role of Pharmacogenomics
Pharmacogenomics (PGx)—using genetic information to guide drug prescribing—represents the future of personalised medicine in paediatric oncology .
Key Genes and Drug Interactions in Paediatric Oncology
The MARVEL-PIC Trial
The Minimising Adverse Drug Reactions and Verifying Economic Legitimacy-Pharmacogenomics Implementation in Children (MARVEL-PIC) study is a landmark Australian randomised controlled trial assessing whether pre-emptive PGx testing in children with new cancer diagnoses or undergoing HSCT reduces ADRs .
Key features:
- 440 patients randomised to standard care vs. extended PGx testing
- Testing covers 27 commonly used drugs in cancer treatment and supportive care
- Primary outcome: reduction in clinically relevant ADRs
- If successful, this approach could revolutionise paediatric oncology prescribing
6.2 The Importance of ADR Reporting
Healthcare professionals play a critical role in pharmacovigilance by reporting suspected ADRs to national centres (Medsafe, FDA, MHRA, etc.). Each report contributes to the global understanding of drug safety and may help identify signals that protect future patients.
6.3 Long-Term Follow-Up of Childhood Cancer Survivors
Survivors require ongoing monitoring for:
- Late effects of treatment (cardiac, endocrine, neurocognitive)
- Secondary malignancies
- Psychosocial support
A German pilot project demonstrated that nurse-led outpatient care for paediatric haematology-oncology patients is feasible and patient-centred, with 4,005 home visits performed safely over 3 years. This model may improve quality of life and reduce hospital burden .
Section 7: Prevention Strategies
7.1 Primary Prevention
While most childhood cancers cannot be prevented, some risk factors can be addressed:
7.2 Secondary Prevention (Early Detection)
Early diagnosis saves lives. The “Spot the Cancer Signs” campaign emphasises:
| For Families | For Healthcare Providers |
|---|---|
| Know the warning signs | Maintain high index of suspicion |
| Seek immediate medical attention for concerning symptoms | Perform thorough clinical evaluation |
| Complete treatment if diagnosed | Ensure timely referral to specialised centres |
7.3 Tertiary Prevention (Managing Treatment Effects)
Section 8: The Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer
In 2018, WHO launched the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC) with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, aiming to achieve at least 60% survival for all children with cancer by 2030—approximately doubling the current cure rate and saving an additional 1 million lives .
8.1 Focus Countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region
Seven countries/territories have joined the GICC:
8.2 Key Interventions
8.3 The CureAll Framework
The CureAll framework supports implementation through:
- Assessing current capacity
- Setting priorities
- Generating investment cases
- Developing evidence-based standards
- Monitoring progress
Section 9: The Risk-Benefit Calculus in Paediatric Oncology
From a pharmacovigilance perspective, every treatment decision in paediatric oncology involves weighing potential benefits against risks—including the risk of secondary cancers.
9.1 Guiding Principles
| Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| Benefit must substantially outweigh risk | Life-saving potential justifies significant acute toxicity |
| Risk is dose-dependent | Use lowest effective cumulative doses |
| Some risks are manageable | Many ADRs can be prevented or mitigated |
| Long-term surveillance is essential | Monitor for late effects including secondary cancers |
| Informed consent is critical | Families must understand potential risks, including secondary malignancies |
9.2 Example: Etoposide for Childhood Leukaemia
| Consideration | Details |
|---|---|
| Benefit | Essential component of curative regimens for certain leukaemias |
| Risk | Dose-dependent risk of t-AML (typically 2–5% within 5–10 years) |
| Analysis | For most children, curative benefit outweighs secondary cancer risk, but justifies: |
| – Limiting cumulative dose when possible | |
| – Long-term haematological monitoring | |
| – Prompt evaluation of any new cytopenias |
9.3 Example: Cisplatin for Osteosarcoma
A recent case report highlighted life-threatening cisplatin-induced myelosuppression in a 10-year-old with osteosarcoma following a cumulative dose of 720 mg/m²—exceeding the paediatric safety threshold of 400 mg/m². The patient’s CYP3A5*1/*1 genotype prolonged cisplatin half-life to 8.2 hours, contributing to toxicity. Targeted interventions (G-CSF, romiplostim, meropenem) led to haematological recovery within 14 days .
Key lessons:
- Adhere to cumulative dose limits
- Consider pharmacogenomic testing
- Monitor closely for toxicity
- Intervene promptly
Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility
Childhood cancer is a battle fought on multiple fronts—against the disease itself, against treatment-related toxicities, and against the long-term consequences of life-saving therapy. From a pharmacovigilance standpoint, our responsibilities include:
| Stakeholder | Role |
|---|---|
| Healthcare Providers | Recognise early signs; prescribe safely; monitor for ADRs; report suspected reactions |
| Clinical Pharmacists | Optimise dosing; identify drug-related problems; implement PGx testing |
| Pharmacovigilance Centres | Collect and analyse ADR reports; detect signals; communicate risks |
| Regulators (EMA, FDA, Medsafe) | Provide guidance; evaluate safety data; take action when needed |
| Researchers | Study ADR mechanisms; develop safer protocols; validate PGx approaches |
| Families | Know warning signs; adhere to treatment; report concerns; participate in follow-up |
| Policy Makers | Support childhood cancer programmes; ensure medicine access; strengthen health systems |
The ultimate goal: Not to eliminate all risk—which is impossible—but to understand it, communicate it clearly, manage it effectively, and continuously improve so that every child with cancer has the best possible chance of not just survival, but a healthy, fulfilling life after cancer.
As the WHO reminds us: “Spot the cancer signs. Save your child.” Early detection, expert treatment, vigilant monitoring, and comprehensive pharmacovigilance together form the safety net that protects our most vulnerable patients.
References
- Yan H, Wang P, Yang F, et al. Anticancer therapy-induced adverse drug reactions in children and preventive and control measures. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1329220.
- Amaro-Hosey K, DanéS I, Agustí A. Adverse drug reactions in pediatric oncohematology: a systematic review. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:777498.
- World Health Organization. Childhood cancer [Fact sheet]. 2025 Feb 3. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer-in-children
- World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Childhood cancer control: pushing for progress in WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region. 2024 Mar 11. Available from: https://www.emro.who.int/media/news/childhood-cancer-control-pushing-for-progress-in-who-eastern-mediterranean-region.html
- Toenne R, et al. [Nursing and medical delegable measures for children and adolescents with cancer as outpatient outreach care – The pilot project KIK HomeCare]. Klin Padiatr. 2025;237(3):153-160.
- Özkanlı ÖF, et al. Reducing drug-related problems in hospitalized pediatric cancer patients through clinical pharmacist interventions: An interventional study from Turkey. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2025 Sep 30. Online ahead of print.
- Dai C, et al. Case Report: Life-threatening cisplatin-induced myelosuppression in pediatric osteosarcoma: molecular mechanisms, pharmacogenomic profiling, and targeted clinical management. Front Pharmacol. 2025;16:1668180.
- MARVEL-PIC Study Group. Minimising Adverse Drug Reactions and Verifying Economic Legitimacy-Pharmacogenomics Implementation in Children (MARVEL-PIC): protocol for a national randomised controlled trial of pharmacogenomics implementation. BMJ Open. 2024;14(5):e085115.
- Steliarova-Foucher E, Colombet M, Ries LAG, et al. International incidence of childhood cancer, 2001-10: a population-based registry study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):719-731. [cited in WHO fact sheet]
- Lam CG, Howard SC, Bouffet E, Pritchard-Jones K. Science and health for all children with cancer. Science. 2019;363(6432):1182-1186. [cited in WHO fact sheet]
- Zhang J, Walsh MF, Wu G, et al. Germline Mutations in Predisposition Genes in Pediatric Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(24):2336-2346. [cited in WHO fact sheet]
