1
|
Mitrea DA, Froicu EM, Prenen H, Gambacorta MA, Span PN, Poortmans P. Combining immunotherapy and radiation therapy in gastrointestinal cancers: A review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024; 199:104381. [PMID: 38735504 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2023] [Revised: 04/28/2024] [Accepted: 05/02/2024] [Indexed: 05/14/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE With a significant global impact, treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers still presents with challenges, despite current multimodality approaches in advanced stages. Clinical trials are expanding for checkpoint inhibition (ICI) combined with radiation therapy (RT). This review intends to offer a comprehensive image of the current data regarding the effectiveness of this association, and to reflect on possible directions to further optimize the results. RESULTS Several early phase studies demonstrated encouraging potential. However, translating preclinical outcomes to clinical settings proves challenging, especially in immunologically "cold" environments. GI cancers exhibit heterogeneity, requiring tailored approaches based on disease stage and patient characteristics. Current results, though promising, lack the power of evidence to influence the general practice. CONCLUSIONS Finding biomarkers for identifying or converting resistant cancers is essential for maximizing responses, moreover in this context strategic RT parameters need to be carefully considered. Our review emphasizes the significance of having a thorough grasp of how immunology, tumour biology, and treatment settings interact in order to propose novel research avenues and efficient GI cancer therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana A Mitrea
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, 33 Av. de Valombrose, Nice 06100, France.
| | - Eliza M Froicu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, "Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania
| | - Hans Prenen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium
| | - Maria A Gambacorta
- Department of Radiation Oncology Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli", Rome, Italy
| | - Paul N Span
- Radiotherapy & OncoImmunology Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Iridium Netwerk, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium; University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yip R, Arnolda G, Lamprell K, Nic Giolla Easpaig B, Chittajallu R, Delaney G, Olver I, Liauw W, Braithwaite J. Experience of patients considering or using checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment: a systematic review of qualitative research. J Immunother Cancer 2024; 12:e007555. [PMID: 38212121 PMCID: PMC10806553 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-007555] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Increasing numbers of patients with cancer are considering or undergoing immunotherapy, however, little is known about patients' perspectives on this treatment. We undertook a systematic review for use by clinicians and researchers, consolidating published qualitative research studies on patient experience of checkpoint inhibitor therapy. A search of Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was carried out for publications in English to 30 June 2022. Publications were selected if they reported a qualitative study of patient experience with checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer, either by patients or their families or carers. Quality was appraised using the Johanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standard was followed. We identified 17 eligible studies published between 2017 and 2022, 9 using mixed methods, and 8 solely using qualitative methods. Most studies reported on the experiences of patients with advanced stage melanoma and were using the earliest approved checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy. Studies met most formal quality criteria but varied in the extent of their qualitative explorations of data; some mixed methods studies had limited reporting of qualitative results. Through thematic synthesis, we categorized study findings into four domains: (1) treatment decision-making; (2) success with immunotherapy; (3) treatment-related adverse events (AEs); and (4) quality of life on immunotherapy. Our review identified several areas with potential for improving the care system. These include, for example: routinely linking patients to peers who have experienced this therapy; improving the capacity of patients and carers to identify and report AEs faster; and supporting patients and carers to live with changed circumstances after successful treatment. Most studies focused on patients who had successful treatment, effectively excluding those who do not respond or who discontinue due to serious side effects; future research targets are suggested.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raphael Yip
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Medicine, North Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Gaston Arnolda
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Klay Lamprell
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- School of Nursing, Charles Darwin University Faculty of Health, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
| | - Renuka Chittajallu
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Medical Oncology, Riverina Cancer Care Centre, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia
- Medical Oncology, GenesisCare, Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Geoff Delaney
- South-Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Radiation Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ian Olver
- School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Winston Liauw
- St George Cancer Centre, Saint George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia
- St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Macquarie University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation (CHRIS), Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cremolini C, Vitale E, Rastaldo R, Giachino C. Advanced Nanotechnology for Enhancing Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy. NANOMATERIALS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2021; 11:661. [PMID: 33800368 PMCID: PMC7998763 DOI: 10.3390/nano11030661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Revised: 02/28/2021] [Accepted: 03/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Immune checkpoint receptor signaling pathways constitute a prominent class of "immune synapse," a cell-to-cell connection that represses T-lymphocyte effector functions. As a possible evolutionary countermeasure against autoimmunity, this strategy is aimed at lowering potential injury to uninfected cells in infected tissues and at minimizing systemic inflammation. Nevertheless, tumors can make use of these strategies to escape immune recognition, and consequently, such mechanisms represent chances for immunotherapy intervention. Recent years have witnessed the advance of pharmaceutical nanotechnology, or nanomedicine, as a possible strategy to ameliorate immunotherapy technical weaknesses thanks to its intrinsic biophysical properties and multifunctional modifying capability. To improve the long-lasting response rate of checkpoint blockade therapy, nanotechnology has been employed at first for the delivery of single checkpoint inhibitors. Further, while therapy via single immune checkpoint blockade determines resistance and a restricted period of response, strong interest has been raised to efficiently deliver immunomodulators targeting different inhibitory pathways or both inhibitory and costimulatory pathways. In this review, the partially explored promise in implementation of nanotechnology to improve the success of immune checkpoint therapy and solve the limitations of single immune checkpoint inhibitors is debated. We first present the fundamental elements of the immune checkpoint pathways and then outline recent promising results of immune checkpoint blockade therapy in combination with nanotechnology delivery systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chiara Cremolini
- Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy;
| | - Emanuela Vitale
- Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, 10043 Orbassano, Italy; (E.V.); (C.G.)
| | - Raffaella Rastaldo
- Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, 10043 Orbassano, Italy; (E.V.); (C.G.)
| | - Claudia Giachino
- Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, 10043 Orbassano, Italy; (E.V.); (C.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Heudel P, Chabaud S, Perol D, Flechon A, Fayette J, Combemale P, Tredan O, Desseigne F, de la Fouchardiere C, Boyle H, Perol M, Bachelot T, Cassier P, Avrillon V, Terret C, Michallet AS, Neidhardt-Berard EM, Nicolas-Virelizier E, Dufresne A, Belhabri A, Brahmi M, Lebras L, Nicolini F, Sarabi M, Rey P, Bonneville-Levard A, Rochefort P, Provensal AM, Eberst L, Assaad S, Swalduz A, Saintigny P, Toussaint P, Guillermin Y, Castets M, Coutzac C, Meeus P, Dupré A, Durand T, Crochet H, Fervers B, Gomez F, Rivoire M, Gregoire V, Claude L, Chassagne-Clement C, Pilleul F, Mognetti T, Russias B, Soubirou JL, Lasset C, Chvetzoff G, Mehlen P, Beaupère S, Zrounba P, Ray-Coquard I, Blay JY. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment of a first cancer is associated with a decreased incidence of second primary cancer. ESMO Open 2021; 6:100044. [PMID: 33516148 PMCID: PMC7844579 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2020.100044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2020] [Revised: 12/20/2020] [Accepted: 12/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Second primary cancers (SPCs) are diagnosed in over 5% of patients after a first primary cancer (FPC). We explore here the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) given for an FPC on the risk of SPC in different age groups, cancer types and treatments. Patients and methods The files of the 46 829 patients diagnosed with an FPC in the Centre Léon Bérard from 2013 to 2018 were analyzed. Structured data were extracted and electronic patient records were screened using a natural language processing tool, with validation using manual screening of 2818 files of patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the incidence of SPC according to patient characteristics and treatment were conducted. Results Among the 46 829 patients, 1830 (3.9%) had a diagnosis of SPC with a median interval of 11.1 months (range 0-78 months); 18 128 (38.7%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy (CC) and 1163 (2.5%) received ICIs for the treatment of the FPC in this period. SPCs were observed in 7/1163 (0.6%) patients who had received ICIs for their FPC versus 437/16 997 (2.6%) patients receiving CC and no ICIs for the FPC versus 1386/28 669 (4.8%) for patients receiving neither CC nor ICIs for the FPC. This reduction was observed at all ages and for all histotypes analyzed. Treatment with ICIs and/or CC for the FPC are associated with a reduced risk of SPC in multivariate analysis. Conclusion Immunotherapy with ICIs alone and in combination with CC was found to be associated with a reduced incidence of SPC for all ages and cancer types. From 2013 to 2018, 3.9% of the 46 829 patients diagnosed with a first cancer presented with an SPC. Treatment of the first cancer with ICIs was associated with a major reduction of SPC. CC given for an FPC was also associated with a lower magnitude of reduction of SPC. There were no SPC in cancer patients treated with ICIs in the localized phase of their first cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Heudel
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | - D Perol
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | | | | | - O Tredan
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | | | | | - H Boyle
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - M Perol
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - T Bachelot
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | | | | | - C Terret
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | | | | | - A Dufresne
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | | | - M Brahmi
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | - L Lebras
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - F Nicolini
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | - M Sarabi
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | - P Rey
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | | | | | - L Eberst
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - S Assaad
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | - P Saintigny
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | | | | | - M Castets
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | - C Coutzac
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France
| | - P Meeus
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - A Dupré
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - T Durand
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | | | - F Gomez
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - M Rivoire
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | | | - L Claude
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | | | - F Pilleul
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | | | | | | | - C Lasset
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | | | - P Mehlen
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - S Beaupère
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Unicancer, Paris, France
| | | | - I Ray-Coquard
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - J-Y Blay
- Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; Cancer Research Center of Lyon (CRCL), Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France; Unicancer, Paris, France.
| |
Collapse
|