Clinical difference between discontinuation and retreatment with nivolumab after immune-related adverse events in patients with lung cancer

Retreatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the New Scenario of Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The advent of immunotherapy has transformed the treatment paradigm for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the past few years, several studies have investigated the potential role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in resectable and unresectable locally advanced disease, achieving remarkable results that led to their approval in clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence on immunotherapy rechallenge after recurrence, with the majority of available knowledge coming from retrospective studies which involve heavily pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC. The recent introduction in the curative setting and the potential regulatory restrictions raise questions about the optimal choice of first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with systemic relapse. The role of immunotherapy readministration in this new scenario needs to be clarified, as well as the identification of patients for whom it is more appropriate, including clinical characteristics, duration of response, switching to other ICIs, reasons for discontinuation and immune-related toxicity. Here, we review literature on rechallenge with immunotherapy, including efficacy, safety profile and potential predictive factors of response.

Rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a promising therapeutic strategy. The situation for ICI rechallenge can be divided into three categories: adverse events (AEs); resistance to ICIs, and rechallenge becomes compulsive because of tumor relapse while the patients had completed a 2 year course of immunotherapy. However, these categories are still controversial and should be explored further. Through voting at the 6th Straits Summit Forum on Lung Cancer, in this study we summarize the consensus of 147 experts in ICI rechallenges. A total of 97.74% experts agreed to rechallenge; 48.87% experts rechallenge with the original drug, and the others rechallenge with a different drug; 40.3% agreed to rechallenge directly after progression; 88.06% experts agreed to ICI rechallenge with a combination regimen; and factors such as previous performance status score, PD-1 expression, and age should also be considered. Understanding the the clinical studies in ICI rechallenge could bring us one step closer to understanding the consensus. In patients with advanced NSCLC who have suffered recurrent or distant metastasis after immunotherapy, the option of rechallenge with ICIs is a promising treatment option.

Survival Among Veterans Receiving Steroids for Immune-Related Adverse Events After Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

Importance

Systemic steroids are commonly used to manage immune-related adverse events (irAEs), but it remains unclear whether they may undermine immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy outcomes. Few studies have assessed the impact of steroid timing and its association with continuation or cessation of ICI therapy.

Objective

To characterize how systemic steroids and steroid timing for irAEs are associated with survival in patients receiving ICI therapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter retrospective cohort study encompassed veterans receiving ICI for cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. Data analysis was conducted September 8, 2023.

Exposures

Identifiable primary diagnosis of cancer. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts: those receiving no steroids, systemic steroids for irAEs, and steroids for non-irAE-associated reasons. All eligible patients received 1 or more doses of an ICI (atezolizumab, avelumab, cemiplimab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab). Eligible patients in the steroid group received at least 1 dose (intravenous, intramuscular, or oral) of dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, prednisone, or prednisolone. Steroid use at baseline for palliation or infusion prophylaxis or delivered as a single dose was deemed to be non-irAE associated. All other patterns of steroid use were assumed to be for irAEs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was overall survival, with a 5-year follow-up after ICI initiation. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed with pairwise log-rank tests to determine significance. Risk was modeled with Cox proportional hazard regression.

Results

The cohort consisted of 20 163 veterans receiving ICI therapy including 12 221 patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [8.0] years; 11 830 male patients [96.8%]; 9394 White patients [76.9%]) who received systemic steroids during ICI treatment and 7942 patients (mean [SD] age, 70.3 [8.5] years; 7747 male patients [97.5%]; 6085 White patients [76.6%]) who did not. Patients with an irAE diagnosis had significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with those without (median [IQR] OS, 17.4 [6.6 to 48.5] months vs 10.5 [3.5 to 36.8] months; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.84; P < .001). For patients with irAEs, systemic steroids for irAEs were associated with significantly improved survival compared with those who received steroids for non-irAE-related reasons or no steroid treatment (median [IQR] OS, 21.3 [9.3 to 58.2] months vs 13.6 [5.5 to 33.7] months vs 15.8 [4.9 to not reached] months; P <.001). However, among those who received steroids for irAEs, early steroid use (<2 months after ICI initiation) was associated with reduced relative survival benefit vs later steroid use, regardless of ICI continuation or cessation following steroid initiation (median [IQR] OS after ICI cessation 4.4 [1.9 to 19.5] months vs 16.0 [8.0 to 42.2] months; median [IQR] OS after ICI continuation, 16.0 [7.1 to not reached] months vs 29.2 [16.5 to 53.5] months; P <.001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that steroids for irAE management may not abrogate irAE-associated survival benefits. However, early steroid administration within 2 months of ICI initiation is associated with shorter survival despite continuation of ICI therapy.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to explore the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Studies that enrolled NSCLC patients treated with two lines of ICIs were included using four databases. The initial line (1L-) and subsequent lines (2L-) of ICIs were defined as 1L-ICI and 2L-ICI, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies involving 2100 patients were included. The pooled objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and median overall survival (mOS) for 2L-ICIs were 10%, 50%, 3.0 months, and 13.1 months, respectively. The 2L-ICI discontinuation rates caused by toxicities ranged from 0% to 23.5%. Original data were extracted from six studies, covering 89 patients. Patients in whom 1L-ICIs were discontinued following clinical decision (the mPFS of 2L-ICIs was not reach) achieved a more prolonged mPFS of 2L-ICIs than those due to toxicity (5.2 months) and progressive disease (2.1 months) (p < 0.0001). Patients' 1L-PFS for more than 2-years had preferable 2L-ORR (35.0% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.03), 2L-DCR (85.0% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.007), and 2L-mPFS (12.4 vs. 3.0 months, p < 0.0001) than those less than 1-year. Patients administered the same drugs achieved a significantly prolonged mPFS compared with the remaining patients (5.4 vs. 2.3 months, p = 0.0004), and those who did not accept antitumor treatments during the intervals of two lines of ICIs achieved a prolonged mPFS compared to those patients who did accept treatments (7.6 vs. 1.9 months, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ICI rechallenge is a useful therapeutic strategy for NSCLC patients, especially suitable for those who achieve long-term tumor remission for more than 2-years under 1L-ICIs.

The Effectiveness of Cancer Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Retreatment and Rechallenge-A Systematic Review

Despite a great success of immunotherapy in cancer treatment, a great number of patients will become resistant. This review summarizes recent reports on immune checkpoint inhibitor retreatment or rechallenge in order to overcome primary resistance. The systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. In total, 31 articles were included with a total of 812 patients. There were 16 retreatment studies and 13 rechallenge studies. We identified 15 studies in which at least one parameter (overall response rate or disease control rate) improved or was stable at secondary treatment. Interval treatment, primary response to and the cause of cessation for the first immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be promising predictors of secondary response. However, high heterogeneity of investigated cohorts and lack of reporting guidelines are limiting factors for current in-depth analysis.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge Safety and Efficacy in Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients After Immune-Related Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Despite their anti-tumor efficacy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are associated with a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Grade ≥ 2 irAEs require ICI discontinuation. The decision to resume ICI treatment often remains challenging.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 1051 adult patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ICIs at a single institution between January 2015 and December 2020, and identified 99 (9.4%) patients with grade≥2 irAEs necessitating treatment interruption. Forty patients underwent retreatment (rechallenged group), while 59 discontinued the treatment (discontinued group).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 groups were similar. Initial irAEs were less severe in the rechallenged group. After rechallenging, 24 of 40 (60%) patients had recurrence of the same or de-novo irAEs. Twenty (50%) developed second grade≥ 2 irAEs. No grade 4 irAE or irAE-related death occurred after rechallenging. Using multivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.57-2.15, P = .77) or progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.45-1.71, P = .69) were noted between the 2 groups, while the best objective response prior to the initial irAEs was the only variable affecting OS and PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Rechallenge was associated with a relative high risk of second grade≥ 2 irAEs. The risk was less if the initial irAEs were resolved. No differences were seen in survival outcomes of patients who had ICI rechallenge and those who did not. Permanent ICI discontinuation is an appropriate strategy after grade≥ 2 irAEs, especially severe irAEs.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge After Prior Immune Toxicity

OPINION STATEMENT

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become an essential part of treatment for many cancer types. These monoclonal antibodies remove a critical negative regulatory signal that allows the immune system to recognize and destroy malignant cells that were previously undetectable. Unfortunately, their use has ushered in a whole new form of drug toxicity whereby the immune system attacks normal tissues in the body, referred to hereafter as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). irAEs are common and can result in treatment discontinuation, hospitalization, and death. When alternative modes of treatment are limited, or considered less efficacious, there may be a desire to resume treatment with ICIs after an irAE. Rechallenge with ICIs carries with it a heightened risk of subsequent toxicity, but with careful consideration and appropriate patient selection, this can be considered a reasonable approach.

Efficacy, prognosis and safety analysis of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor rechallenge in advanced lung cancer patients: a cohort study

Background

The rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is now an optional strategy for patients who discontinued ICI due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or disease progression. However, little data is available for the prognosis and prognostic factors of patients receiving ICI rechallenge treatment in advanced lung cancer patients. Our study aimed to explore the efficacy, prognosis and safety of patients who received anti-programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitor rechallenge.

Methods

In our retrospective cohort study, data of advanced lung cancer patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and discontinued due to irAEs or disease progression were collected from December 2016 to August 2021. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups: rechallenge group (R group) and non-rechallenge group (NR group). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and safety data were analyzed. Cox model and subgroup analysis were analyzed according to baseline characteristics, ICI type, the reason for discontinuing ICI, etc. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), evaluation was performed routinely every 6–8 weeks after initiating treatment with the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. The last follow-up in the study was on September 20, 2021.

Results

Eighty-one patients who met our inclusion criteria were enrolled. In the whole cohort, the R group achieved better OS than the NR group [hazard ratio (HR) =0.176; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.065–0.477; P=0.001). In the irAEs group, the survival analyses showed a trend toward improved OS in the rechallenge subgroup (HR =0.287; 95% CI: 0.081–1.025; P=0.055), and a promising DCR of 75% after an ICI rechallenge. Additionally, the exploration of safety outcomes indicated an acceptable recurrence rate (22.5%) of irAEs and an early onset of irAEs after an ICI rechallenge. In the disease progression group, the rechallenge subgroup did not improve OS (HR =0.214; 95% CI: 0.027–1.695; P=0.144), and the DCR of the rechallenge subgroup was 40% after ICI rechallenge.

Conclusions

ICI rechallenge might be an attractive option for patients who discontinue treatment due to irAEs. For patients with disease progression, further research should be conducted. The recurrence of irAEs and their early onset during the second round of ICI should be considered.

Rapid Unmasking of Immune-related Adverse Events After Discontinuation of Chemotherapy in Chemo-immunotherapy Regimens

Pembrolizumab is an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), which restores T-cell-mediated antitumor immune activity and therefore enhances the body's immune response to cancer cells. Due to the nature of this therapy, immune-related adverse events (irAE) can manifest in nearly every organ system. Chemo-immunotherapy regimens are now considered first-line treatment for several cancers, with recent literature suggesting there are higher rates of certain irAEs with ICI monotherapy when compared with chemo-immunotherapy combinations. In certain regimens chemo-immunotherapy induction is followed by ICI maintenance monotherapy, and data regarding irAE incidence in this transition period are very limited. We report 3 cases of patients on pembrolizumab in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy who developed an irAE shortly following discontinuation of a chemotherapy agent. Cases were identified in the Rheumatology in Immuno-Oncology clinic at the University of Alberta and clinical data were extracted by retrospective chart review after obtaining written consent from individual patients. These findings demonstrate that chemotherapy may suppress irAEs in patients using ICIs, and that when chemotherapy agents in combined regimens are discontinued, irAEs can be "unmasked" within the following 6 weeks. Clinicians should be aware of this risk and monitor for irAE development during this critical time period. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this has not been previously reported in the literature.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge and Resumption: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The reintroduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after disease progression (rechallenge) or immune-related adverse events (irAEs) recovering (resumption) raises questions in terms of efficacy and safety.

RECENT FINDINGS

Here, we reviewed literature data about ICIs rechallenge/resumption in cancer patients along with their clinical characteristics to explore those factors associated with better outcomes. Heterogenous results were pointed out across rechallenge studies with an overall response rate between 0 and 54%, and a progression free survival ranged from 1.5 to 12.9 months and an overall survival between 6.5 and 23.8 months. Better outcomes have been recorded in patients with good ECOG PS, longer duration of initial ICI, discontinuation reason of initial ICI other than progression, and those who received ICI sequence other than the switch between anti-PD1 and anti-PDL1. Studies about ICI resumption highlighted that certain types of irAEs were more likely to relapse at retreatment. These results suggest that ICI rechallenge/resumption can be an interesting strategy for selected patients.

Heterogeneous outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors rechallenge in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in NSCLC remain uncertain. This study estimated the safety and efficacy of ICI rechallenge and compared rechallenge benefit among different reasons of initial ICI discontinuation in NSCLC.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies on NSCLC retreated with ICI. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS) at initial ICI and rechallenge were analyzed.

Results

A total of 15 studies including 442 patients between 2018 and 2022 were eligible for meta-analysis. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 irAE was lower in rechallenge than initial ICI (8.6% versus 17.8%, p < 0.001). Patients rechallenged with ICI had lower ORR and DCR than initial ICI (13.2% versus 42.4%, p < 0.001; 51.1% versus 74.0%, p < 0.001). The ORR and DCR to ICI rechallenge were both higher in patients who experienced disease progression after stopping ICI or irAE than patients with disease progression during ICI treatment (ORR: 46.2% versus 20% versus 11.4%, p = 0.003; DCR: 84.6% versus 90.0% versus 55.0%, p = 0.002). In addition, 34.7% of 69 patients with individual response to ICI and PFS experienced the same or better response to ICI rechallenge in comparison with initial ICI, although PFS in initial ICI was longer than that in ICI rechallenge (median: 8.90 versus 3.67 mo, hazard ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.33–0.59).

Conclusions

ICI rechallenge had less severe toxicity than initial ICI treatment. Patients undergoing disease progression after ICI cessation or ICI discontinuation owing to irAE are more likely to benefit from ICI rechallenge in NSCLC.

Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Resumption after Interruption for Immune-Related Adverse Events, a Narrative Review

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care for several types of cancer due to their superiority in terms of survival benefits in first- and second-line treatments compared to conventional therapies, and they present a better safety profile (lower absolute number of grade 1-5 adverse events), especially if used in monotherapy. However, the pattern of ICI-related adverse events is totally different, as they are characterized by the development of specific immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that are unique in terms of the organs involved, onset patterns, and severity. The decision to resume ICI treatment after its interruption due to irAEs is challenged by the need for tumor control versus the risk of occurrence of the same or different irAEs. Studies that specifically assess this point remain scarce, heterogenous and mostly based on small samples of patients or focused only on the recurrence rate of the same irAE after ICI resumption. Moreover, patients with grade ≥3 irAEs were excluded from many of these studies. Herein, we provide a narrative review on the field of safety of ICI resumption after interruption due to irAE(s).

Safety and Efficacy of the Rechallenge of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors After Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Little evidence exists on the safety and efficacy of the rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with cancer.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane for articles on ICI rechallenge after irAEs for systemic review and meta-analysis. The outcomes included the incidence and associated factors for safety and objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) for efficacy.

Results

A total of 789 ICI rechallenge cases from 18 cohort studies, 5 case series studies, and 54 case reports were included. The pooled incidence of all-grade and high-grade irAEs after rechallenge in patients with cancer was 34.2% and 11.7%, respectively. Compared with initial ICI treatment, rechallenge showed a higher incidence for all-grade irAEs (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.15–6.74; p < 0.0001), but similar incidence for high-grade irAEs (p > 0.05). Types of initial irAEs (pneumonitis and global irAEs) and cancer (non-small cell lung cancer and multiple cancer) recapitulated these findings. Gastrointestinal irAEs and time interval between initial irAEs and ICI rechallenge were associated with higher recurrence of high-grade irAEs (p < 0.05), whereas initial anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies were associated with a lower recurrence (p < 0.05). Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies rechallenge was associated with a lower all-grade irAE recurrence (p < 0.05). The pooled ORR and DCR after rechallenge were 43.1% and 71.9%, respectively, showing no significant difference compared with initial ICI treatment (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

ICI rechallenge after irAEs showed lower safety and similar efficacy outcomes compared with initial ICI treatment.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020191405.

Clinical outcomes of NSCLC patients experiencing early immune-related adverse events to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors leading to treatment discontinuation

BACKGROUND

The prognostic relevance of early immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) upon immunotherapy is not fully understood.

METHODS

The Leading to Treatment Discontinuation cohort included 24 patients experiencing severe irAEs after one of two administrations of single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting for metastatic NSCLC between November 2015 and June 2019. The control cohort was composed of 526 patients treated with single anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in any line setting with no severe irAE reported. The primary end points were median progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, risk of progression of disease and risk of death. The correlation of clinic pathological features with early severe irAEs represented the secondary end point.

RESULTS

Median PFS was 9.3 and 8.4 months, median OS was 12.0 months and 14.2 months at a median follow-up of 18.1 and 22.6 months in the LTD cohort and in the control cohort, respectively. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 17.2-78.8) in the LTD cohort and 32.7% (95% CI 27.8-38.2) in the control cohort. The risk of disease progression was higher in the LTD cohort (HR 2.52 [95% 1.10-5.78], P = .0288).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no survival benefit in LTD cohort compared to the control cohort. However, early and severe irAEs might underly an immune anti-tumor activation. We identified a significant association with first-line immune checkpoints inhibitors treatment and good PS. Further studies on risk prediction and management of serious and early irAEs in NSCLC patients are needed.

Rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) rechallenge in cancer patients is not defined. When ICIs are discontinued due to treatment completion or toxicity, another course of ICIs is feasible in clinical practice, but the amount of data is still quite limited to draw definitive conclusions. Here we report the results of a meta-analysis evaluating efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for studies reporting efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge. Pooled analysis of response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 49 studies were included in qualitative and quantitative pooled analysis Overall response rate, mPFS and mOS were 21.8 % (range 0-70 %), 4.9 months (range 0-19.1 months) and 15.6 months (range 5.1-39 months), respectively. Incidence of any grade and grade 3-4 adverse events were 52.2 % (range 4-100 %) and 21.5 % (range 0-97.8 %), respectively. In the subgroup of patients who had previously discontinued ICI because of disease progression ORR, mPFS and mOS were 15.2 %, 2.9 and 7.9 months. Patients who had previously discontinued ICI because of toxicity achieved an ORR of 44 % and a mPFS of 13.2 months with the rechallenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that rechallenge ICI is an active and feasible strategy, and it could be considered on an individual basis. However, this analysis is based on non-randomized studies. Prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of rechallenge after disease progression or adverse events.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Selected Immune-Related Adverse Events Among Patients with Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Background

With increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) among patients with cancer, there is substantial interest in understanding clinical and economic outcomes and management of immune‐related adverse events (irAEs).

Patients, Materials, and Methods

A retrospective study was conducted using Premier Healthcare Database, a U.S. national hospital discharge database, from March 1, 2015, through December 31, 2017. The database comprises more than 880 million inpatient and hospital‐based outpatient encounters, with more than 200 million unique patients reported by 966 hospitals. Patients with four solid tumors known to benefit from ICI therapy were included. The list of irAEs assessed was defined a priori per American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines for irAE management. Baseline irAE‐related inpatient and outpatient visits were defined as the first inpatient or hospital‐based outpatient visit with discharge diagnosis of any irAE of interest following confirmed ICI usage within 90 days prior to the baseline visit. Patients were followed for 90 days after baseline irAE‐related inpatient discharge date or outpatient visit date to assess irAE‐related inpatient admissions, all‐cause in‐hospital mortality, ICI reinitiation, and to determine costs and health care resource utilization.

Results

Records from 673,957 patients with four tumor types were reviewed for ICI therapy. Of 13,030 patients receiving ICIs, approximately 40% experienced at least one irAE, with a total of 10,121 irAEs occurring within 90 days of the ICI visit. The most frequent (>1,000 events) irAEs were anemia, impaired ventricular function with heart failure and vasculitis, thrombocytopenia, thyroid conditions, and peripheral edema. As might be expected, compared with those with baseline irAE‐related outpatient visits, patients with baseline irAE‐related inpatient visits had a significantly higher percentage of irAE‐related inpatient admissions (23% vs. 14%) and all‐cause in‐hospital mortality (22% vs. 6%) and lower reinitiation of ICI therapy (31% vs. 71%). Baseline irAE‐related inpatient visits had significantly higher mean costs ($29,477 vs. $5,718) with longer hospital stays (12.6 vs. 7.8 days).

Conclusion

Findings from a U.S. national hospital discharge database suggest that irAEs in patients treated with ICIs are common, occur in multiples and with greater frequency in those with pre‐existing comorbidities. Those with inpatient admissions have poorer outcomes.

Implications for Practice

The present work addressed the knowledge gap in understanding real‐world outcomes of immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Patients who experienced irAEs had significantly higher baseline comorbidities and were more likely to have immune‐related or immune‐compromised comorbid conditions. Patients with baseline irAE‐related hospitalizations were more likely to be rehospitalized and to experience in‐hospital mortality and less likely to reinitiate ICI treatment. Real‐world patients are more diverse than clinical trials, and clinicians should consider both the efficacy and safety profile of ICI treatments, especially for patients with comorbidity conditions. Close monitoring is needed after patients have experienced an irAE.

This large real‐world evidence study assessed the prevalence of immune‐related adverse events among patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors and associated clinical and economic outcomes

Molecular and Clinical Features of Hospital Admissions in Patients with Thoracic Malignancies on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Lung cancer patients undergoing systemic treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can lead to severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may warrant immediate hospitalization. Patients with thoracic malignancies hospitalized at City of Hope while undergoing treatment with ICIs were identified. Pathology and available next-generation sequencing (NGS) data, including the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and clinical information, including hospitalizations, invasive procedures, and the occurrence of irAEs, were collected. Unpaired T-tests, Chi-square/Fisher's exact test, and logistic regression were used to analyze our cohort. The overall survival (OS) was calculated and compared using univariate and multivariate COX models. Ninety patients with stage IV lung cancer were admitted after ICI treatment. Of those patients, 28 (31.1%) had documented irAEs. Genomic analyses showed an enrichment of LRP1B mutations (n = 5/6 vs. n = 7/26, 83.3% vs. 26.9%; odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI): 13.5 (1.7-166.1); p < 0.05) and MLL3 mutations (n = 4/6, 66.7% vs. n = 5/26, 19.2%; OR (95% CI): 8.4 (1.3-49.3), p < 0.05) in patients with irAE occurrences. Patients with somatic genomic alterations (GAs) in MET (median OS of 2.7 vs. 7.2 months; HR (95% CI): 3.1 (0.57-17.1); p < 0.05) or FANCA (median OS of 3.0 vs. 12.4 months; HR (95% CI): 3.1 (0.70-13.8); p < 0.05) demonstrated a significantly shorter OS. Patients with irAEs showed a trend toward improved OS (median OS 16.4 vs. 6.8 months, p = 0.19) compared to hospitalized patients without documented irAEs. Lung cancer patients who required treatment discontinuance or interruption due to irAEs (n = 19) had significantly longer OS (median OS 18.5 vs. 6.2 months; HR (95% CI): 0.47 (0.28-0.79); p < 0.05). Our results showed a significant survival benefit in lung cancer patients hospitalized due to irAEs that necessitated a treatment interruption. Patients with positive somatic GAs in MET and FANCA were associated with significantly worse OS compared to patients with negative GAs.

Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy toxicity and overall survival among older adults with advanced cancer

OBJECTIVES

Despite growing evidence that checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy (IO) toxicity is associated with improved treatment response, the relationship between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and overall survival (OS) among older adults [age ≥ 70 years (y)] remains unknown. The study goal was to determine differences in OS based on age and ≥ grade 3 (G3) irAEs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 673 patients with advanced cancer. Patients who received ≥1 dose of IO at our institution from 2011 to 2018 were eligible. The primary outcome was OS from the start of first line of IO treatment, compared between four patient groups stratified by age and ≥ G3 irAEs with adjustment for patient characteristics using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Among all 673 patients, 35.4% were ≥ 70y, 39.8% had melanoma, and 45.6% received single-agent nivolumab. Incidence and types of ≥G3 irAEs did not differ by age. Median OS was significantly longer for all patients with ≥G3 irAEs (unadjusted 21.7 vs. 11.9 months, P = 0.007). There was no difference in OS among patients ≥70y with ≥G3 irAEs (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61-1.47, P = 0.79) in the multivariable analysis. Patients <70y with ≥G3 irAEs had significantly increased OS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52, P < 0.001). Younger patients, but not older adults, with high-grade irAEs experience strong survival benefit. This difference may be due to the toll of irAEs themselves or the effects of treatments for irAEs, such as corticosteroids. Factors impacting OS of older adults after irAEs must be determined and optimized.

Association Between Immune-Related Adverse Events and the Prognosis of Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer Treated with Nivolumab

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the association between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and the efficacy and survival outcomes of nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

OBJECTIVE

The present study examined the association between irAEs and the prognosis of patients with AGC treated with nivolumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From July 2017 to November 2020, patients who had been diagnosed with advanced unresected gastric cancer and treated with nivolumab at our institution were included in this analysis. We compared the clinical and survival outcomes between the irAE and non-irAE groups. We also evaluated the factors associated with better survival in patients treated with nivolumab.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients were included in the present study, and irAEs were observed in 13 (25%). Among the patients with measurable lesions (n = 29), the disease control rates were significantly higher in the irAE group than in the non-irAE group (88 vs. 24%; P = 0.0033). At the 8- and 12-week landmark analyses, the median overall survival (OS) in the irAE group was significantly longer than that in the non-irAE group, whereas the median progression-free survival was comparable between the groups. A multivariate analysis by Cox proportional hazard regression at the 8-week landmark revealed that the development of irAEs (hazard ratio 0.18; 95% confidence interval 0.0099-0.86) alone was positively associated with a longer OS.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of irAEs might be associated with survival outcomes with nivolumab treatment in patients with AGC.

Safety of Immunotherapy Rechallenge After Immune-related Adverse Events in Patients With Advanced Cancer

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the safety profile of continuing or rechallenging patients with advanced cancer who developed grade≥2 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) on immunotherapy-based regimens. Our study had 25, 20, and 40 patients (N=85) in the Treatment Continuation (TCG), Non-Rechallenge (NRG), and Rechallenge Groups (RG), respectively. Subsequent irAEs recurrence were more common in RG than TCG and NRG (78% vs. 56% vs. 25%, P<0.001). The same subsequent irAEs recurrences occurred on 42% of RG, 4% of TCG, and 15% of NRG (P<0.001). On the RG, there was a nonstatistical trend of shortening interval time between time from treatment rechallenge to subsequent irAEs when compared with time from first treatment to initial grade≥2 irAEs (5.86 vs. 8.86 wk, P=0.114). Patients who had cardiac irAEs were not rechallenged. Several high-risk features were identified to prognosticate risk of irAEs recurrences upon treatment rechallenge, including age 65 years and above (P=0.007), programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors (P<0.001), grade 3 irAEs (P=0.003), pneumonitis type (P=0.048), any systemic corticosteroid use (P=0.001)/high-dose systemic corticosteroid use (P=0.007)/prolonged ≥4-week corticosteroid use (P=0.001) for irAEs management, and early development of irAEs (P=0.003). Our study concluded that it was relatively safe to continue or rechallenge patients with advanced cancers on immunotherapy-based regimens postdevelopment of certain grade≥2 irAEs, except for cardiac, neurological, or any grade 4 irAEs. Subsequent irAEs were common, no more severe, involved the same organ sites, and occurred more quickly than the original irAE. Close monitoring of all potential irAEs is required when rechallenging a patient on immunotherapy, especially for patients with high-risk features.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Related Pneumonitis

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are novel agents that have been proved efficacious in a variety of cancer types, but they are associated with a unique set of organ-specific, immune-related adverse events. Among them, immune-related pneumonitis requires special attention because it is difficult to diagnose and potentially lethal. Accumulating real-world epidemiological data suggest that immune-related pneumonitis is more frequent than previously reported. Its diagnosis requires exclusion of other causes and assessment of radiographic features on high-resolution CT of the chest. Management of immune-related pneumonitis is based on the use of immunosuppressants. Future research should be focused on finding predictive biomarkers for immune-related pneumonitis as well as optimizing its management.

Outcome and risk factor of immune-related adverse events and pneumonitis in patients with advanced or postoperative recurrent non-small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases have been excluded in clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, and it is unknown whether the same degree of response can be expected as that in patients without pre-existing respiratory diseases and if they are associated with increased risk for various immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and ICI pneumonitis. This study aimed to evaluate predictive factors of clinical response, prognostic factors, risk factors of irAEs, and ICI pneumonitis in NSCLC patients with or without pre-existing respiratory diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 180 NSCLC patients who received ICI monotherapy of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients had pre-existing respiratory diseases, including 20 with pre-existing idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs). A total of 85 patients experienced irAEs, of which ICI pneumonitis was the most frequent adverse event, occurring in 27 patients. Of the three patients who died from irAEs, all from ICI pneumonitis, two had pulmonary emphysema and one had pre-existing IIP. In multivariate analyses, irAEs were associated with objective response rate (ORR) and favorable OS, and IIPs were associated with increased risk for ICI pneumonitis. However, IIPs were not associated with low ORR or poor OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-existing IIPs were a risk factor for ICI pneumonitis. However, this study showed that ICI therapy can be offered to patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases with the expectation of the same degree of response as that in patients without pre-existing respiratory diseases.

KEY POINTS

Significant findings of the study: Pre-existing IIPs were a risk factor for ICI pneumonitis, but objective response rate and prognosis of patients with IIPs were similar to those of other patients.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

In patients with pre-existing IIPs, ICI pneumonitis should be noted. However, ICI therapy can be offered to patients with pre-existing respiratory diseases with the expectation of the same degree of response as that in patients without pre-existing respiratory diseases.

Outcomes following immunotherapy re-challenge after immune-related adverse event: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Given the inconclusive evidence behind the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors re-challenge, herein, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize available data. Results/methodology: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database, and ASCO and ESMO were searched for studies published from conception to March 2020. Pooled incidence of recurrent immune-related adverse events (irAEs), objective response rates, and odds ratios for irAEs at initial versus re-treatment were calculated. Overall, 437 patients (ten studies) were included. Incidence of any grade, grade 3/4, and steroid-requiring recurrent irAEs were 47%, 13.2%, and 26% respectively. Objective response rate in previous non-responders was 12.5% (5.8–24.8%). Odds ratio for severe irAEs was 0.28 (0.11–0.72) and steroid-requiring irAEs 0.19 (0.06–0.56). Discussion/conclusion: This analysis suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors re-challenge is safe and potentially efficacious.

Successful Treatment of Non-small-cell Lung Cancer with Atezolizumab Following Tubulointerstitial Nephritis Due to Pembrolizumab

We herein report a 75-year-old man with non-small-cell lung cancer who developed tubulointerstitial nephritis due to pembrolizumab administration. He was successfully treated with atezolizumab following steroid administration. He was initially diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma (T1bN3M1b, stage IV), with a programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of 25-49%. Although the tumor responded well to pembrolizumab, the drug was discontinued because of the diagnosis of tubulointerstitial nephritis on a renal biopsy. Tubulointerstitial nephritis was treated with 30 mg prednisolone, the dose of which was tapered to and maintained at 5 mg. Following lung cancer progression, atezolizumab was administered, and the tumor responded again. Its efficacy has been sustained for >15 months without recurrence of tubulointerstitial nephritis.

Safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors after clinically significant immune-related adverse events in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) induce a range of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with various degrees of severity. While clinical experience with ICI retreatment following clinically significant irAEs is growing, the safety and efficacy are not yet well characterized.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study identified patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with ICI who had >1 week therapy interruption for irAEs. Patients were classified into retreatment and discontinuation cohorts based on whether or not they resumed an ICI. Toxicity and clinical outcomes were assessed descriptively.

RESULTS

Of 499 patients treated with ICIs, 80 developed irAEs warranting treatment interruption; 36 (45%) of whom were restarted on an ICI and 44 (55%) who permanently discontinued. Median time to initial irAE was similar between the retreatment and discontinuation cohorts (2.8 vs 2.7 months, p=0.59). The type and grade of irAEs were balanced across the cohorts; however, fewer retreatment patients required corticosteroids (55.6% vs 84.1%, p=0.007) and hospitalizations (33.3% vs 65.9%, p=0.007) for irAE management compared with discontinuation patients. Median treatment holiday before reinitiation was 0.9 months (0.2-31.6). After retreatment, 50% (n=18/36) experienced subsequent irAEs (12 new, 6 recurrent) with 7 (19%) grade 3 events and 13 drug interruptions. Median time to irAE recurrence after retreatment was 2.8 months (range: 0.3-13.8). Retreatment resulted in 6 (23.1%) additional responses in 26 patients whose disease had not previously responded. From first ICI initiation, median time to next therapy was 14.2 months (95% CI 8.2 to 18.9) and 9.0 months (5.3 to 25.8), and 2-year overall survival was 76% (95%CI 55% to 88%) and 66% (48% to 79%) in the retreatment and discontinuation groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable rate of irAE recurrence with retreatment after a prior clinically significant irAE, most irAEs were low grade and controllable. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm that retreatment enhances survival outcomes that justify the safety risks.