Safety of extended interval dosing immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multicenter cohort study

Organ-specific immune-related adverse events and prognosis in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Patients who developed immune-related adverse events (irAEs) could benefit more from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) than those who did not develop irAEs. This study was designed to assess whether the occurrence of irAEs or their characteristics are correlated with survival in advanced patients treated with ICIs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study enrolled a panel of cancer patients who received ICIs at a single institute. Kaplan‒Meier curves were generated to describe progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with irAEs or specific irAE characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients were enrolled, 83 (34.9%) of whom developed at least one irAE. Overall, irAE development was associated with prolonged OS (not reached vs. 17.8 months, P < 0.001), PFS (8.7 vs. 4.8 months, P = 0.003), and an improved objective response rate (24.1% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.005). Furthermore, only skin or endocrine toxicities were associated with improved OS and PFS. On the basis of the results from organ-specific irAEs, the first development of skin or endocrine toxicities as protective irAEs rather than other irAEs was an independent indicator for predicting OS (P < 0.001) and PFS (P < 0.001). A protective irAE burden score based on organ-specific irAEs was further developed to show the significant protective effect of total irAEs on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Not all irAEs are associated with prolonged survival. The identification of organ-specific irAEs is useful for stratifying patients who actually respond to and benefit from ICIs across different cancer types.

Impact of steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents on tumor outcome in the context of cancer immunotherapy with highlight on melanoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

The impact of steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents (SSIAs) for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) on tumor outcome is not well-known. This systematic review evaluates tumor outcomes for corticosteroid (CS) monotherapy versus CS with SSIA (CS-SSIA) for irAE treatment with a focus on melanoma.

Methods

Search was conducted through 1/5/23 using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. We included case series, retrospective/prospective observational studies and interventional clinical trials. Individual-level data was analyzed using KM curves and Cox regression for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Time to SSIA was treated as a time-varying exposure using landmark analysis (landmark timepoint=3 months after irAE) to account for immortal time bias. For group-level data, meta-analysis compared the use of SSIA to No SSIA for irAEs.

Results

Of twenty-two publications with individual-level data, 147 patients with any cancer (57 CS, 90 CS-SSIA) and 65 with melanoma (18 CS, 47 CS-SSIA) underwent landmark analysis. Twenty-two publications underwent group-level evaluation and four were included in the meta-analysis. CS-SSIA versus CS showed higher risk of all-cause mortality and progression (HR 2.75, 95%CI: 1.44-5.27, p<0.01 and HR 1.75, 95%CI: 1.07-2.85, p=0.03, respectively). Melanoma showed worse OS and PFS for CS-SSIA versus CS (HR 5.68, 95%CI: 1.31-24.67, p=0.02 and HR 2.68, 95%CI: 1.12-6.40, p=0.03, respectively). In the meta-analysis of group-level data (n=2558), we found worse OS and PFS for CS-SSIA versus No SSIA (HR 1.58, 95%CI: 1.25; 2.01, p<0.01 and 1.70, 95%CI: 1.25-2.33, p<0.01). Tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi) were the most common SSIA. In the melanoma cohort, TNFi had worse OS and PFS versus CS (HR 6.46, 95%CI: 1.43-29.19, p = 0.02 and HR 7.49, 95%CI: 2.29-24.48, p<0.01, respectively). TNFi versus Other SSIAs showed a trend toward worse OS and worse PFS (HR 6.96, 95%CI: 0.90-53.65, p=0.06 and HR 21.5, 95%CI: 2.63-175.8, p<0.01, respectively). Meta-analysis showed a concern for TNFi compared to Other SSIA (HR 1.56, 95%CI: 1.17-2.09, p<0.01 respectively).

Conclusions

While our results raise concern about the effects of CS-SSIA and TNFi for irAE therapy on tumor outcomes, prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to definitively assess the effect of SSIAs on tumor outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of immunotherapy using a double-dose regimen in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results of IDEE study

Background

Pembrolizumab 400 mg every six weeks (Q6W) and nivolumab 480 mg every four weeks (Q4W) are used since 2020 and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This recommendation relied on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models. The objective of the IDEE (Immunothérapie Double dose Etendue: Experience bretonne) study is to determine the safety and efficacy of this treatment regimen in real life conditions.

Methods

We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicentric study including 117 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received pembrolizumab Q6W or nivolumab Q4W between March 2020 and March 2021.

Results

The median age was 67 years, 68% were men with predominantly lung adenocarcinoma. The median time to double-dose regimen failure (TDDF) was 9.2 months. The survival rate at 12 months was 79%. TDDF was not influenced by sex, line of treatment, pathologic subtypes or anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody. There was no correlation between TDDF and duration of prior exposition to immunotherapy before switching. Sixty-eight patients experienced double-dose treatment failure, 28% because of toxicity including five definitive discontinuations. Five grade ≥3 immune-adverse events were reported included two cases of pneumonitis, all responding to corticosteroid therapy.

Conclusions

Our multicentric cohort supports the feasibility of pembrolizumab Q6W and nivolumab Q4W for patients with advanced NSCLC. There is no warning signal regarding safety neither efficacy in our real-life data.

A real-world study on the safety profile of extended-interval dosing of immune checkpoint inhibitors for melanoma: a single-center analysis in Japan

Background

Anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies are the mainstay for the treatment of unresectable or high-risk melanoma. However, real-world data on the safety profile of their extended-interval doses (EDs) are limited, particularly in Asian patients with melanoma.

Materials and methods

In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed the risks of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among 71 Japanese patients (36 males; mean age, 65.0 years) who received anti-PD-1 monotherapy for melanoma at our institute. Patients who were administered ipilimumab prior to anti-PD-1 monotherapy were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups: canonical-interval dose (CD) group (n = 50, body weight-based dosing or 240 mg Q2W for nivolumab and body weight-based dosing or 200 mg Q3W for pembrolizumab), ED group (n = 14, 480 mg Q4W for nivolumab and 400 mg Q6W for pembrolizumab), and dose-switch (DS) group (n = 7, upfront CD followed by ED).

Results

The CD group received nivolumab more frequently in the metastatic setting. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups, including in sex, age, primary tumor site, tumor subtype, and follow-up period. irAEs occurred in 36.6% (26 patients) of all patients (32.0% of the CD group, 35.7% of the ED group, and 71.4% of the DS group), while severe (grade ≥ 3) irAEs occurred in only two patients, both of whom were in the CD group. Most of the irAEs occurred during the first 6 months of anti-PD-1 therapy and, interestingly, all of the irAEs in the DS group occurred before the switch (during the CD). There was no significant difference among the three groups in the probability of irAE estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Conclusion

These findings may highlight the safety of ED of anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the treatment of Asian patients with melanoma.

Coronavirus disease 2019 and lung cancer: where are we?

Oncology patients are more susceptible to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to hospital contact and an immunological system that can be compromised by antineoplastic therapy and supportive treatments. Certain similarities have been described in the physiopathology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lung cancer (LC) that may explain the higher probability of these patients of developing a more serious disease with more frequent hospitalizations and even death, especially with the addition of smoking, cardiovascular and respiratory comorbidities, old age and corticosteroids use. Pre-existing lesions and cancer therapies change the normal architecture of the lungs, so diagnostic scales such as COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) are of vital importance for a correct diagnosis and patient homogenization, with a high inter-observer correlation. Moreover, anticancer treatments have required an adaptation to reduce the number of visits to the hospital [hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT), larger intervals between chemotherapy cycles, delay in follow-up tests, among others]. In a way, this has also caused a delay in the diagnosis of new cancers. On the other hand, vaccination has had a positive impact on the mortality of these patients, who maintain a similar seroprevalence to the rest of the population, with a similar impact in mortality.

Treatment-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with angiogenesis inhibitors in advanced lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with angiogenesis inhibitors have been used to treat advanced lung cancer. Their associated treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) are currently considered acceptable; however, no conclusion has been reached. We aimed to summarize the trAEs caused by ICIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors in patients with advanced lung cancer.

METHODS

Pulled studies met the following criteria: patients with advanced lung cancer who received treatment involving ICIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors (with or without chemotherapy) in interventional or observational studies. Results included the type and number of trAEs or immune-related adverse events (irAEs), treatment-associated discontinuation and mortality, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS).

PROSPERO

CRD42022337656.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 32 trials involving 2313 patients who had 7768 any-grade trAEs and 1078 grade ≥3 trAEs. The pooled incidences were 87.33% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.49-93.65; I2 = 94.04%) for any-grade trAEs, and 38.63% (95% CI: 28.28-49.50; I2 = 95.61%) for grade ≥3 trAEs. There were 132 kinds of any-grade trAEs involving 18 systems, and 99 kinds of grade ≥3 trAEs involving 16 systems. For all trAEs, we observed significant differences in the line of therapy, trial design, therapy combination, and types of angiogenesis inhibitors (all P < 0.05). The rate of trAEs increased with dosage and frequency of medication. Pooled incidences of discontinuation and mortality were 10.64% and 0.81%, respectively. Nearly 647 patients experienced irAEs, including 636 any-grade irAEs and 154 grade ≥3 irAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the incidence of trAEs caused by ICIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors is generally acceptable. These trAEs have a wide spectrum nearly covering the full range of adverse events. Grade ≥3 trAEs are more closely associated with angiogenesis inhibitors than any grade. However, treatment-associated mortality remains concerning.