Literature meta-analysis about the efficacy of re-challenge with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer patients

Safety, efficacy, and survival outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitors rechallenge in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

There is little evidence on the safety, efficacy, and survival benefit of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with cancer after discontinuation due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or progressive disease (PD). Here, we performed a meta-analysis to elucidate the possible benefits of ICI rechallenge in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of irAEs were the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies involving 2026 patients were analyzed. ICI rechallenge was associated with a lower incidence of all-grade (OR, 0.05; 95%CI, 0.02-0.13, P < .05) and high-grade irAEs (OR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.21-0.64, P < .05) when compared with initial ICI treatment. Though no significant difference was observed between rechallenge and initial treatment regarding ORR (OR, 0.69; 95%CI, 0.39-1.20, P = .29) and DCR (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.51-1.40, P = 0.52), patients receiving rechallenge had improved PFS (HR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.43-0.73, P < .05) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.43-0.72, P < .05) than those who discontinued ICI therapy permanently. Subgroup analysis revealed that for patients who stopped initial ICI treatment because of irAEs, rechallenge showed similar safety and efficacy with initial treatment, while for patients who discontinued ICI treatment due to PD, rechallenge caused a significant increase in the incidence of high-grade irAEs (OR, 4.97; 95%CI, 1.98-12.5, P < .05) and a decrease in ORR (OR, 0.48; 95%CI, 0.24-0.95, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

ICI rechallenge is generally an active and feasible strategy that is associated with relative safety, similar efficacy, and improved survival outcomes. Rechallenge should be considered individually with circumspection, and randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Effectiveness and Safety of Anlotinib Combined with PD-1 Blockades in Patients with Previously Immunotherapy Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Exploratory Study

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of anlotinib plus PD-1 blockades in patients with previously immunotherapy treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

A total of 67 patients with previously immunotherapy treated advanced NSCLC who received anlotinib plus PD-1 blockades in clinical practice were screened retrospectively. All the PD-1 blockades used in this study were approved in China and consisted of sintilimab, camrelizumab, tislelizumab and pembrolizumab. Effectiveness and safety of anlotinib plus PD-1 blockades were assessed, and all patients were followed up regularly. Clinical significance between response status to previous immune-related treatment regimens and therapeutic outcomes of anlotinib plus PD-1 blockades was further explored.

Results

The best overall response among the 67 patients suggested that a partial response was observed in 16 patients, stable disease was noted in 41 patients and progressive disease was found in 10 patients, which yielded an objective response rate of 23.9% (95% CI: 14.3-35.9%) and a disease control rate of 85.1% (95% CI: 74.3-92.6%). Prognostic outcomes indicated that the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.1 months (95% CI: 2.37-9.83) and the median overall survival (OS) was 16.5 months (95% CI: 10.73-22.27). Exploratory analysis highlighted that patients who were intolerant to previous immune-related regimens (17 patients) might have a superior prognosis (median OS: 22.3 months vs 12.5 months, P=0.024). Additionally, adverse reactions with any grades during anlotinib plus PD-1 blockades administration were observed in 62 patients (92.5%), of which 31 patients (46.3%) had ≥grade 3 adverse reactions. Most common adverse reactions were fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea and hepatotoxicity.

Conclusion

Anlotinib plus PD-1 blockades demonstrated promising effectiveness and tolerable safety in patients with previously immunotherapy treated advanced NSCLC. Those who were intolerant to previous immune-related regimens might benefit significantly from treatment with anlotinib plus PD-1 blockades. This conclusion should be confirmed in future studies.

Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Rechallenge in Advanced Melanoma Patients' Responders to a First Course of ICI: A Multicenter National Retrospective Study of the French Group of Skin Cancers (Groupe de Cancérologie Cutanée, GCC)

BACKGROUND

The long-term effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge for progressive or recurrent advanced melanoma following previous disease control induced by ICI has not been thoroughly described in the literature.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter national real-life study, we enrolled patients who had been rechallenged with an ICI after achieving disease control with a first course of ICI, which was subsequently interrupted. The primary objective was to evaluate tumor response, while the secondary objectives included assessing the safety profile, identifying factors associated with tumor response, and evaluating survival outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients from 12 centers were included in the study. These patients had advanced (unresectable stage III or stage IV) melanoma that had been previously treated and controlled with a first course of ICI before undergoing rechallenge with ICI. The rechallenge treatments consisted of pembrolizumab (n = 44, 52%), nivolumab (n = 35, 41%), ipilimumab (n = 2, 2%), or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (n = 4, 5%). The best overall response rate was 54%. The best response was a complete response in 30 patients (35%), a partial response in 16 patients (19%), stable disease in 18 patients (21%) and progressive disease in 21 patients (25%). Twenty-eight adverse events (AEs) were reported in 23 patients (27%), including 18 grade 1-2 AEs in 14 patients (16%) and 10 grade 3-4 AEs in nine patients (11%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 21 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached at the time of analysis. Patients who received another systemic treatment (chemotherapy, targeted therapy or clinical trial) between the two courses of ICI had a lower response to rechallenge (p = 0.035) and shorter PFS (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Rechallenging advanced melanoma patients with ICI after previous disease control induced by these inhibitors resulted in high response rates (54%) and disease control (75%). Therefore, ICI rechallenge should be considered as a relevant therapeutic option.

Real-World Data on Pembrolizumab for Pretreated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Clinical Outcome and Relevance of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab is licensed for the treatment of pre-treated and PD-L1 positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but response is heterogeneous. In this context, the Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) has been proposed as tool to prognosticate outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the real-world efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in pre-treated NSCLC patients and the clinical utility of LIPI for patients' selection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with pre-treated NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥ 1% treated with pembrolizumab were included in this retrospective series. The LIPI was used to classify patients in 3 prognostics subgroups according to the pre-treatment dNLR (derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio) and LDH in blood. The prognostic impact of the LIPI on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated with Cox regression. The combined effect of LIPI and other relevant prognostic factors was explored with multivariate regression.

RESULTS

In total, 113 consecutive patients were included. Median (mPFS) and mOS was 4.3 (2.6-6.7) and 13.5 (10.3-17.7) months, respectively. Good-, intermediate-, and poor-LIPI was found in 54 (47.8%), 45 (39.8%), and 8 (7.1%) patients, respectively. Median PFS was 5.1 (2.8-9.1), 3.0 (2.5-6.8), and 1.4 (0.5-18.7) months, and mOS was 17.2 (12.0-26.4), 11.8 (8.4-17.1), and 3.7 (0.5-not calculable) months for good-, intermediate-, and poor-LIPI group, respectively. Patients with intermediate-LIPI and poor-LIPI had worse PFS versus good-LIPI, and statistically significant worse OS (p = 0.030 and p = 0.013, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, intermediate- versus good-LIPI (p = 0.190) was not independently associated to PFS or OS. Patients with both good-LIPI and high (≥ 50%) PD-L1 had better OS than all other subgroups defined by LIPI and PD-L1. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurred in 47 (41.6%) patients (12.4% grade ≥ 3). In a time-varying analysis, irAEs were statistically associated with longer OS (HR 0.51, 0.31-0.84; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

In our series, the outcome of pembrolizumab in pre-treated NSCLC is consistent with the registration trial. Lung Immune Prognostic Index is a readily available tool able to prognosticate outcome, also in PD-L1-high patients. The positive association between irAEs and OS might aid decision making.

Systematic review and meta-analysis efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced melanoma patients with anti-PD-1 progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

More than half of melanoma patients taking first-line anti-PD-1 therapy either express transient or no response at all. The efficacy and safety of secondary treatments for these patients are still not well established. Here, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of different melanoma FDA-approved ICI modalities used in post-anti-PD-1 refractory settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed database and the ASCO meetings library for studies on advanced melanoma patients with cancer progression on anti-PD-1 therapy and were then treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, or retreated with anti-PD-1. Primary and secondary endpoints were efficacy and toxicity, respectively. Pooled estimates for each treatment group were obtained using a random or fixed effects model according to detected heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies, of which 10 on ipilimumab, 2 on anti-PD-1 treatment, and 6 on combination therapies, were included, involving a total of 1460 patients. Twelve studies reported objective response rates (ORRs) and nine of them reported immune-related adverse events (irAEs). As for ORR, patients experienced a response that was inferior compared to the same therapy in treatment -naïve patients, with combination therapy having the best ORR of a pooled 23.08% (95% CI: 16.75% to 30.03%), followed by ipilimumab with a pooled ORR of 8.19% (95% CI: 5.78% to 10.92%). Survival data were also inferior in the ipilimumab cohort (mOS: 5.1 to 7.4 months) compared to ipilimumab in anti-PD-1 naive patients. As for grade 3/4 irAE occurrence, the ipilimumab cohort showed an estimate of 43.77% (95% CI 22.55% to 66.19%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide the best current evidence that patients who progress on anti-PD-1 can still respond to different ICI modalities (ipilimumab with or without nivolumab, and retreatment or continuation beyond progression with anti-PD-1) with tolerable grade 3/4 irAEs. However, more prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.