Adjuvant ipilimumab in stage III melanoma: New landscape, new questions

Identification of the PROMs used to assess ICI toxicities and HRQoL in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment in cancer care and their suitability: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the clinical identification of immunotherapy toxicities is a complex intervention. There has been very little work evaluating the clinical utility and generalisability of PROMs used after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment to date. We reviewed evidence on the use of PROMs assessing toxicities and health-related quality of life in patients treated with ICIs.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library were searched (January 2008 - October 2024). Quantitative studies reporting the use of PROMs to identify, assess and manage toxicities at any timepoint and HRQoL associated with ICI treatment in adult patients with cancer were included. A narrative synthesis describes the key characteristics of the PROMs identified.

RESULTS

43 studies were included; 12 on melanoma/skin, 12 on lung and 19 on other cancers. Study designs included 20 randomised controlled trials, 14 cohort studies, six cross-sectional studies and three non-randomised interventional trials. The lack of ICI-specific PROMs was highlighted, particularly as the PROMs used lacked sufficient sensitivity for ICI treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There is need for an ICI-specific PROM for effective assessment of toxicities and a tailored PROM for assessment of HRQoL. Some suggested key domains by certain studies for ICI-specific PROMs include: (a) ICI-specific items (e.g. certain USD-I and PRO-CTCAE items) to capture symptoms associated with ICI treatments such as rash, myalgia, (b) role, psychological, emotional and social functioning domains within HRQoL assessments and (c) additional patient-reported toxicities not included in existing PROMs. Findings emphasize the importance of using a disease-specific PROM that is applicable, acceptable and sufficiently sensitive to identify toxicities and HRQoL issues across all stages.

Immunotherapy for Cancer: Common Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Pancreatic Side Effects and Their Management

Cancer cells can block the activation of T lymphocytes by deploying inhibitory signals to cell surface receptors that downregulate the immune response. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are monoclonal antibodies that regulate the immune response by acting on these receptors. The use of ICI has been successful for cancer types that do not respond well to conventional chemotherapy, showing clinical benefit in various advanced and metastatic cancers and supporting the promise of cancer immunotherapy. However, in some cases, these treatments are associated with immune-related adverse events, many of which affect the digestive system. The treatment of immune-related adverse events depends on the affected organ and the severity of symptoms. Here, we review the commonly used US FDA-approved ICI and briefly outline their mechanism of action. We also describe the resulting collateral effects on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, and pancreas and discuss their management and prognosis.

Intestinal Microbiota: The Driving Force behind Advances in Cancer Immunotherapy

In recent years, cancer immunotherapy has become a breakthrough method to solve solid tumors. It uses immune checkpoint inhibitors to interfere with tumor immune escape to coordinate anti-tumor therapy. However, immunotherapy has an individualized response rate. Moreover, immune-related adverse events and drug resistance are still urgent issues that need to be resolved, which may be attributed to the immune imbalance caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors. Microbiome research has fully revealed the metabolic-immune interaction relationship between the microbiome and the host. Surprisingly, sequencing technology further proved that intestinal microbiota could effectively intervene in tumor immunotherapy and reduce the incidence of adverse events. Therefore, cancer immunotherapy under the intervention of intestinal microbiota has innovatively broadened the anti-tumor landscape and is expected to become an active strategy to enhance individualized responses.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor related myasthenia gravis: single center experience and systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare but life-threatening adverse event of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Given the limited evidence, data from a large cohort of patients is needed to aid in recognition and management of this fatal complication.

METHODS

We reviewed our institutional databases to identify patients who had cancer and MG in the setting of ICI. We systematically reviewed the literature through August 2018 to identify all similar reported patients. We collected data on clinical and diagnostic features, management, and outcomes of these cases.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were identified. Median age was 73 years; 42 (65%) were males, 31 (48%) had metastatic melanoma, and 13 (20%) had a preexisting MG before ICI initiation. Most patients received anti-PD-1 (82%). Sixty-three patients (97%) developed ICI-related MG (new onset or disease flare) after a median of 4 weeks (1 to 16 weeks) of ICI initiation. Twenty-four patients (37%) experienced concurrent myositis, and respiratory failure occurred in 29 (45%). ICI was discontinued in 61 patients (97%). Death was reported in 24 patients (38%); 15 (23%) due to MG complication. A better outcome was observed in patients who received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or plasmapheresis (PLEX) as first-line therapy than in those who received steroids alone (95% vs 63% improvement of MG symptoms, p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

MG is a life-threatening adverse event of acute onset and rapid progression after ICI initiation. Early use of IVIG or PLEX, regardless of initial symptoms severity, may lead to better outcomes than steroids alone. Our data suggest the need to reassess the current recommendations for management of ICI-related MG until prospective longitudinal studies are conducted to establish the ideal management approach for these patients.

Current management of regional lymph nodes in patients with melanoma

The publication of recent randomized trials has prompted a significant shift in both our understanding and the management of patients with melanoma. Here, the current management of the regional lymph nodes in patients with melanoma is discussed. This review focuses on selection for sentinel lymph node biopsy, management of the positive sentinel node, management of the clinically positive node, and the controversy over the therapeutic value of early nodal intervention.

Comparative genomics reveals that loss of lunatic fringe (LFNG) promotes melanoma metastasis

Metastasis is the leading cause of death in patients with advanced melanoma, yet the somatic alterations that aid tumour cell dissemination and colonisation are poorly understood. Here, we deploy comparative genomics to identify and validate clinically relevant drivers of melanoma metastasis. To do this, we identified a set of 976 genes whose expression level was associated with a poor outcome in patients from two large melanoma cohorts. Next, we characterised the genomes and transcriptomes of mouse melanoma cell lines defined as weakly metastatic, and their highly metastatic derivatives. By comparing expression data between species, we identified lunatic fringe (LFNG), among 28 genes whose expression level is predictive of poor prognosis and whose altered expression is associated with a prometastatic phenotype in mouse melanoma cells. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of Lfng dramatically enhanced the capability of weakly metastatic melanoma cells to metastasise in vivo, a phenotype that could be rescued with the Lfng cDNA. Notably, genomic alterations disrupting LFNG are found exclusively in human metastatic melanomas sequenced as part of The Cancer Genome Atlas. Using comparative genomics, we show that LFNG expression plays a functional role in regulating melanoma metastasis.

The 2017 complete overhaul of adjuvant therapies for high-risk melanoma and its consequences for staging and management of melanoma patients

The spectacular outcomes of the phase III trials regarding nivolumab versus ipilimumab in fully resected stage IIIB/C-IV and of the combination of dabrafenib (D) plus trametinib (T) in BRAF-mutant stage III patients demonstrate that effective treatments in advanced melanoma are also highly effective in the adjuvant setting. In 2016, an overall survival benefit with adjuvant high-dose ipilimumab was demonstrated, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 1325 comparing pembrolizumab versus placebo will complete the picture in the early 2018. Toxicity profiles are in line with the experience in advanced melanoma, i.e. favourable for the anti-PD1 agents and for D + T and problematic for ipilimumab. The 2017 outcomes are practice changing and put an end to the use of interferon (IFN) and ipilimumab. In countries with only access to IFN, its use can be restricted to patients with ulcerated melanoma, based on the individual patient data meta-analysis recently published. Because of the results of the Melanoma Sentinel Lymph node Trial-2 (MSLT-2) trial, completion lymph node dissection (CLND) will decrease sharply, leading to a lack of optimal prognostic information. Prognosis in sentinel node-positive stage IIIA/B patients is extremely heterogeneous with 5-year survival rates varying from 90% to 40% and depends mostly on the number of positive nodes identified by CLND. This information is crucial for clinical decision-making. How to guarantee optimal staging information needs to be discussed urgently. Further improvements of adjuvant therapies will have to address all these questions as well as the exploration of neoadjuvant use of active drugs and combination approaches. Important paradigm shifts in the management of high-risk melanoma patients are upon us.

Two novel atypical PKC inhibitors; ACPD and DNDA effectively mitigate cell proliferation and epithelial to mesenchymal transition of metastatic melanoma while inducing apoptosis

Atypical protein kinase Cs (aPKC) are involved in cell cycle progression, tumorigenesis, cell survival and migration in many cancers. We believe that aPKCs play an important role in cell motility of melanoma by regulating cell signaling pathways and inducing epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). We have investigated the effects of two novel aPKC inhibitors; 2-acetyl-1,3-cyclopentanedione (ACPD) and 3,4-diaminonaphthalene-2,7-disulfonic acid (DNDA) on cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration and invasion of two malignant melanoma cell lines compared to normal melanocytes. Molecular docking data suggested that both inhibitors specifically bind to protein kinase C-zeta (PKC-ζ) and PKC-iota (PKC-ι) and kinase activity assays were carried out to confirm these observations. Both inhibitors decreased the levels of total and phosphorylated PKC-ζ and PKC-ι. Increased levels of E-cadherin, RhoA, PTEN and decreased levels of phosphorylated vimentin, total vimentin, CD44, β-catenin and phosphorylated AKT in inhibitor treated cells. This suggests that inhibition of both PKC-ζ and PKC-ι using ACPD and DNDA downregulates EMT and induces apoptosis in melanoma cells. We also carried out PKC-ι and PKC-ζ directed siRNA treatments to prove the above observations. Immunoprecipitation data suggested an association between PKC-ι and vimentin and PKC-ι siRNA treatments confirmed that PKC-ι activates vimentin by phosphorylation. These results further suggested that PKC-ι is involved in signaling pathways which upregulate EMT and which can be effectively suppressed using ACPD and DNDA. Our results summarize that melanoma cells proliferate via aPKC/AKT/NF-κB mediated pathway while inducing the EMT via PKC-ι/Par6/RhoA pathway. Overall, results show that aPKCs are essential for melanoma progression and metastasis, suggesting that ACPD and DNDA can be effectively used as potential therapeutic drugs for melanoma by inhibiting aPKCs.

Cancer immunotherapy: Opportunities and challenges in the rapidly evolving clinical landscape

Cancer immunotherapy is now established as a powerful way to treat cancer. The recent clinical success of immune checkpoint blockade (antagonists of CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1) highlights both the universal power of treating the immune system across tumour types and the unique features of cancer immunotherapy. Immune-related adverse events, atypical clinical response patterns, durable responses, and clear overall survival benefit distinguish cancer immunotherapy from cytotoxic cancer therapy. Combination immunotherapies that transform non-responders to responders are under rapid development. Current challenges facing the field include incorporating immunotherapy into adjuvant and neoadjuvant cancer therapy, refining dose, schedule and duration of treatment and developing novel surrogate endpoints that accurately capture overall survival benefit early in treatment. As the field rapidly evolves, we must prioritise the development of biomarkers to guide the use of immunotherapies in the most appropriate patients. Immunotherapy is already transforming cancer from a death sentence to a chronic disease for some patients. By making smart, evidence-based decisions in developing next generation immunotherapies, cancer should become an imminently treatable, curable and even preventable disease.