Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in a Liver Transplant Recipient With Melanoma

Transplant Oncology: An Emerging Discipline of Cancer Treatment

Transplant oncology is an emerging concept of cancer treatment with a promising prospective outcome. The applications of oncology, transplant medicine, and surgery are the core of transplant oncology to improve patients' survival and quality of life. The main concept of transplant oncology is to radically cure cancer by removing the diseased organ and replacing it with a healthy one, aiming to improve the survival outcomes and quality of life of cancer patients. Subsequently, it seeks to expand the treatment options and research for hepatobiliary malignancies, which have seen significantly improved survival outcomes after the implementation of liver transplantation (LT). In the case of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the transplant setting, where the liver is the most common site of metastasis of patients who are considered to have unresectable disease, initial studies have shown improved survival for LT treatment compared to palliative therapy interventions. The indications of LT for hepatobiliary malignancies have been slowly expanded over the years beyond Milan criteria in a stepwise manner. However, the outcome improvements and overall patient survival are limited to the specifics of the setting and systematic intervention options. This review aims to illustrate the representative concepts and history of transplant oncology as an emerging discipline for the management of hepatobiliary malignancies, in addition to other emerging concepts, such as the uses of immunotherapy in a peri-transplant setting as well as the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for surveillance post-transplantation.

Immunotherapy and Liver Transplantation: A Narrative Review of Basic and Clinical Data

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved the management of patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, even making some of them potential candidates for liver transplantation. However, acute rejection has been observed after ICI therapy, challenging its safety in transplant settings. We summarize the key basic impact of immune checkpoints on HCC and liver transplantation. We analyze the available case reports and case series on the use of ICI therapy prior to and after liver transplantation. A three-month washout period is desirable between ICI therapy and liver transplantation to reduce the risk of acute rejection. Whenever possible, ICIs should be avoided after liver transplantation, and especially so early after a transplant. Globally, more robust prospective data in the field are required.

Liver transplantation immunology: Immunosuppression, rejection, and immunomodulation

Outcomes after liver transplantation have continuously improved over the past decades, but long-term survival rates are still lower than in the general population. The liver has distinct immunological functions linked to its unique anatomical configuration and to its harbouring of a large number of cells with fundamental immunological roles. The transplanted liver can modulate the immunological system of the recipient to promote tolerance, thus offering the potential for less aggressive immunosuppression. The selection and adjustment of immunosuppressive drugs should be individualised to optimally control alloreactivity while mitigating toxicities. Routine laboratory tests are not accurate enough to make a confident diagnosis of allograft rejection. Although several promising biomarkers are being investigated, none of them is sufficiently validated for routine use; hence, liver biopsy remains necessary to guide clinical decisions. Recently, there has been an exponential increase in the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors due to the unquestionable oncological benefits they provide for many patients with advanced-stage tumours. It is expected that their use will also increase in liver transplant recipients and that this might affect the incidence of allograft rejection. Currently, the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant recipients is limited and cases of severe allograft rejection have been reported. In this review, we discuss the clinical relevance of alloimmune disease, the role of minimisation/withdrawal of immunosuppression, and provide practical guidance for using checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant recipients.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Solid Tumors in the Adjuvant Setting: Current Progress, Future Directions, and Role in Transplant Oncology

The rationale for administering immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the adjuvant setting is to eradicate micro-metastases and, ultimately, prolong survival. Thus far, clinical trials have demonstrated that 1-year adjuvant courses of ICIs reduce the risk of recurrence in melanoma, urothelial cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers. Overall survival benefit has been shown in melanoma while survival data are still not mature in other malignancies. Emerging data also show the feasibility of utilizing ICIs in the peri-transplant setting for hepatobiliary malignancies. While ICIs are generally well-tolerated, the development of chronic immune-related adverse events, typically endocrinopathies or neurotoxicities, as well as delayed immune-related adverse events, warrants further scrutiny regarding the optimal duration of adjuvant therapy and requires a thorough risk-benefit determination. The advent of blood-based, dynamic biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can help detect minimal residual disease and identify the subset of patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant treatment. In addition, the characterization of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and ctDNA-adjusted blood tumor mutation burden (bTMB) has also shown promise in predicting response to immunotherapy. Until additional, prospective studies delineate the magnitude of overall survival benefit and validate the use of predictive biomarkers, a tailored, patient-centered approach to adjuvant ICIs that includes extensive patient counseling on potentially irreversible adverse effects should be routinely incorporated into clinical practice.

Immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation, can we harness the power of immune checkpoint inhibitors?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death globally and liver transplantation (LT) can serve as the best curative treatment option. However, HCC recurrence after LT remains the major obstacle to the long-term survival of recipients. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of many cancers and provided a new treatment strategy for post-LT HCC recurrence. Evidence has been accumulated with the real-world application of ICIs in patients with post-LT HCC recurrence. Notably, the use of these agents as immunity boosters in recipients treated with immunosuppressors is still controversial. In this review, we summarized the immunotherapy for post-LT HCC recurrence and conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation based on the current experience of ICIs for post-LT HCC recurrence. In addition, we further discussed the potential mechanism of ICIs and immunosuppressive agents in regulating the balance between immune immunosuppression and lasting anti-tumor immunity.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in malignancies after liver transplantation: A systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment of de novo malignancies and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in liver transplant recipients (LT) is an attractive strategy that is infrequently pursued because of the lack of strong evidence regarding their safety and efficacy. In this systematic review with pooled analysis, we aimed to assess safety and efficacy of ICI therapy following LT.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of case reports and series published until January 2022. We included 31 publications reporting a total of 52 patients treated with ICIs after LT and assessed in a pooled analysis the risk of graft rejection and the outcome of ICI therapy.

RESULTS

Acute graft rejection occurred in 15 patients (28.8%) and 7 patients (13.4% of the total cohort) died because of graft loss. Rejection was associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (17.2 months, confidence interval [CI] 12.1-22.2 vs. 3.5 months, CI 1.6-5.4, p < 0.001). Disease control rate was 44.2% (n = 23), and in these patients, OS was longer than in non-responders (26.4 months, CI 20.8-32.0 vs. 3.4 months, CI 2.1-4.7, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Observational, off-label experience suggests that treatment with ICI for advanced malignancies in LT recipients might not be discarded a priori. This notwithstanding, ICI treatment in these patients is associated with a substantial risk of graft rejection and mortality. Prospective studies are needed to provide adequate safety and efficacy figures of ICI treatment in this fragile population.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for malignant tumors in liver transplantation recipients: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Treatment for de novo or recurrent tumors of liver transplantation (LT) recipients is challenging and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) is recently well developed and could be a potentially effective option for this population. There remains limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of ICI therapy in LT recipients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed database through April 1, 2022, to identify publications reporting ICI treatment for malignant tumors in LT recipients. We summarized the allograft rejection, mortality, and tumor response of ICI treatment.

RESULTS

24 articles with 41 LT recipients were identified. The age of LT recipients ranged from 14 to 78, 76.2% were male, 56.1% had recurrent HCC, and 87.8% received anti-PD-1 therapy. Allograft rejection occurred in 31.7% of patients, death was reported in 46.3% and 6 cases died secondary to allograft rejection. Progressive disease rate of this population was 48.8% and 10 patients responded to immunotherapy. Half of recipients with positive PD-L1 staining (4/8) experienced allograft rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

ICI therapy has potential therapeutic value on malignant tumors for LT recipients, accompanied by a high rate of allograft rejection and mortality. PD-L1 expression, type of ICI, and immunosuppression agent should be taken into consideration before initiation of immunotherapy. Further studies are needed to optimize this anticancer treatment approach in these patients.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for solid organ transplant recipients: clinical updates

Transplant care continues to advance with increasing clinical experience and improvements in immunosuppressive therapy. As the population ages and long-term survival improves, transplant patient care has become more complex due to comorbidities, frailty, and the increased prevalence of cancer posttransplantation. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a standard treatment option for many cancers in non-transplant patients, but the use of ICIs in transplant patients is challenging due to the possibility of disrupting immune tolerance. However, over the past few years, ICIs have gradually started to be used in transplant patients as well. In this study, we review the current use of ICIs after all solid organ transplantation procedures (kidney, liver, heart, and lung). Increasing data suggest that the type and number of immunosuppressants may affect the risk of rejection after immunotherapy. Immunotherapy for cancer in transplant patients may be a feasible option for selected patients; however, prospective trials in specific organ transplant recipients are needed.

An analysis report on the application of immune checkpoint inhibitors after liver transplantation

Up to now, a variety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been proved to have good therapeutic effects in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the effects of their applications in liver transplant (LT) recipients are still unclear. In this analysis report, the clinical applications and therapeutic effects of ICIs on LT recipients with hepatic tumor recurrence or de novo carcinoma based on eight databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and CQVIP, were investigated. And the prior treatment, disease response, adverse reactions, and prognosis of patients with malignant tumors after LT and receiving ICI treatments were analyzed. After screening, a total of 28 articles with 47 recipients on the application of ICIs after LT were included. In these patients, their median age was 57 (14–71) years and the main type of tumor after LT was HCC (59.6%). The overall remission rate following ICI treatment was 29.8% (14/47) and the disease progression rate was 68.1% (32/47). Among all these patients, 31.9% (15/47) of patients had immune rejection; the median survival time was 6.5 (0.3–48) months, and the fatality rate was 61.7% (29/47). Considering that the therapeutic effect of ICIs in LT recipients with HCC recurrence or de novo carcinoma is not ideal, ICI treatment should be carefully considered for LT patients, and further research is needed.

Immunotherapy in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Pros and cons

Liver transplantation (LT) has emerged as a curative strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but contributes to a higher predisposition to HCC recurrence in the immunosuppression context, especially for tumors beyond the Milan criteria. Although immunotherapy has dramatically improved survival for immunocompetent patients and has become the standard of care for a variety of tumors, including HCC, it is mainly used outside the scope of organ transplantation owing to potentially fatal allograft rejection. Nevertheless, accumulative evidence has expanded the therapeutic paradigms of immunotherapy for HCC, from downstaging or bridging management in the pretransplant setting to the salvage or adjuvant strategy in the posttransplant setting. Generally, immunotherapy mainly includes immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell transfer (ACT) and vaccine therapy. ICIs, followed by ACT, have been most investigated in LT, with some promising results. Because of the complex tumor microenvironment and immunoreactivity when immunosuppressants are combined with immunotherapy, it is difficult to reach formulations for immunosuppressant adjustment and the optimal selection of immunotherapy as well as patients. In addition, the absence of effective biomarkers for identifying rejection and tumor response is still an unresolved barrier to successful clinical immunotherapy applications for LT. In this review, we comprehensively summarize the available evidence of immunotherapy used in LT that is specific to HCC. Moreover, we discuss clinically concerning issues regarding the concurrent goals of graft protection and antitumor response.

Immunotherapy after liver transplantation: Where are we now?

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on the safety of immunotherapy use after liver transplantation and its efficacy in treating post-liver transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence.

AIM

To assess the safety of immunotherapy after liver transplant and its efficacy in treating post-liver transplant HCC recurrence.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify patients with prior liver transplantation and subsequent immunotherapy. We reviewed the rejection rate and risk factors of rejection. In patients treated for HCC, the oncological outcomes were evaluated including objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

We identified 25 patients from 16 publications and 3 patients from our institutional database (total n = 28). The rejection rate was 32% (n = 9). Early mortality occurred in 21% (n = 6) and was mostly related to acute rejection (18%, n = 5). Patients who developed acute rejection were given immunotherapy earlier after transplantation (median 2.9 years vs 5.3 years, P = 0.02) and their graft biopsies might be more frequently programmed death ligand-1-positive (100% vs 33%, P = 0.053). Their PFS (1.0 ± 0.1 mo vs 3.5 ± 1.1 mo, P = 0.02) and OS (1.0 ± 0.1 mo vs 19.2 ± 5.5 mo, P = 0.001) compared inferiorly to patients without rejection. Among the 19 patients treated for HCC, the rejection rate was 32% (n = 6) and the overall objective response rate was 11%. The median PFS and OS were 2.5 ± 1.0 mo and 7.3 ± 2.7 mo after immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Rejection risk is the major obstacle to immunotherapy use in liver transplant recipients. Further studies on the potential risk factors of rejection are warranted.

[The use of immuno-oncologic therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma in the context of liver transplantation. An interdisciplinary benefit/risk assessment]

BACKGROUND

Multiple systemic therapy options have been recently approved for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In particular, immuno-oncology combination therapies can now achieve impressive response rates and significantly prolonged survival with good tolerability. These immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations are currently not only evaluated for the therapy of advanced HCC, but increasingly also in earlier stages in terms of peri-interventional therapy concepts and also for down-sizing to local therapies. In the context of liver transplantation (LTx), a particularly critical benefit/risk assessment must be made before the use of immunotherapeutics in the context of multimodal concepts, since the risk of a potentially lethal rejection can be significantly increased by immunotherapy.

METHODS

This review is based on a selective literature search performed between December 2020 and April 2021 in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Guidelines, expert opinions, and recommendations from professional societies were given special consideration.

RESULTS

Nearly one in five LTx in Germany are performed due to HCCs. In this context, LTx is a curative therapy option not only for the underlying liver disease but also for the malignant tumor. Individual case reports indicate that IO therapy prior to LTx may increase the risk of rejection or liver failure after subsequent liver transplantation. Since 2015, immunotherapeutics have also been widely used for tumor therapy in patients after LTx. In small case series, rejection rates of 36%, associated with rejection-related mortality of 20% of treated patients, have been described. A similar incidence of rejection has also been described following the use of immunotherapeutics in patients after other organ transplantations.

CONCLUSION

In the context of organ transplantation, IO therapy carries the risk of graft rejection, which can lead to graft loss and also patient death. However, from today's point of view, IO-based therapy can be considered in the context of organ transplantation with a careful benefit/risk assessment.

Application of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Organ Transplantation Recipients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplantation (SOT) is a treatment method for end-stage organ diseases and improve their life quality, while using long-term immunosuppressant drugs (ISD) is needed to suppress the function of the immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a class of anti-tumor drugs that kill tumors by activating the autoimmune system. The primary objective of our systematic review is to investigate the risk factors for organ rejection and the efficacy of ICIs in solid organ transplantation recipients (SOTRs).

METHODS

We searched four databases to find relevant articles up to January 2021. A total of 61 articles involving 106 SOTRs met the screening criteria and were included in our systematic review. The collected data were statistical described, and the risk factors were analyzed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients (41.5%) developed host-versus-graft response (HVGR) after ICIs. mTOR inhibitors (pre-ICIs) (p = 0.069, OR = 0.377, 95% CI 0.132-1.078) and calcineurin inhibitors (post-ICIs) (p = 0.056, OR = 0.375, 95%CI 0.137-1.025) may help reduce the incidence of HVGR. Hormones (pre-ICIs) (p = 0.026, OR = 3.150, 95%CI 1.150-8.628) and anti-metabolites (pre-ICIs) (p = 0.022, OR = 3.214, 95%CI 1.185-8.720) may adversely affect the efficacy of ICIs. Only 35.6% of patients both responded well to ICIs treatment and did not develop HVGR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review summarizes the use of ICIs in SOTRs and evaluates the efficacy of ICIs and the risk factors that induce HVGR. Through risk factor analysis, we found that mTOR inhibitors and calcineurin inhibitors may help to reduce the occurrence of HVGR; hormones and anti-metabolic drugs may have adverse effects on the efficacy of ICIs. In addition, there is a contradictory relationship between the occurrence of HVGR and the efficacy of ICIs.

Skin Cancers and Lung Transplant

It is well known that solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) have a 65- to 100-fold increase in the risk of developing skin cancer, namely, nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) such as cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC). In addition, these patients are also at increased risk for development of melanoma as well as other less common cutaneous malignancies (Merkel's cell carcinoma, Kaposi's sarcoma). SOTRs with NMSC (namely cSCC) are also at significantly increased risk of poor clinical outcomes including local recurrence, nodal and distant metastasis, and disease-specific death relative to patients who are not immunosuppressed. Increased surveillance and monitoring in patients at risk of aggressive disease and poor outcomes who are on immunosuppression is essential in patients with lung transplants given the high degree of immunosuppression. Increased awareness of risks, treatments, and management allows for improved outcomes in these patients. This article will provide an overview of the risk factors for the development of cutaneous malignancies in organ transplant recipients as well as a detailed discussion of various immunosuppressant and prophylactic medications used in this patient population that contribute to the risk of developing cutaneous malignancies, with an emphasis on NMSC (cSCC and BCC) in lung transplant recipients. Finally, this article includes a discussion on the clinical and dermatologic management of this high-risk immunosuppressed population including a review of topical and systemic agents for field therapy of actinic damage and chemoprevention of keratinocyte carcinomas. In addition, indications for additional treatment and preventive measures such as adjuvant radiation treatment after surgical management of cutaneous malignancies and potential modification of immunosuppressive medication regimens are discussed.

Transplant Oncology in Primary and Metastatic Liver Tumors: Principles, Evidence, and Opportunities

Transplant oncology defines any application of transplant medicine and surgery aimed at improving cancer patients' survival and/or quality of life. In practice, liver transplantation for selected hepato-biliary cancers is the only solid organ transplant with demonstrated efficacy in curing cancer. Four are the proposed future contributions of transplant oncology in hepato-biliary cancer (4-e). (1) evolutionary approach to cancer care that includes liver transplantation; (2) elucidation of self and non-self recognition systems, by linking tumor and transplant immunology; (3) exploration of innovative endpoints both in clinical and experimental settings taking advantage from the access to the entire liver explant; (4) extension of surgical limitation in the multidisciplinary approach to hepato-biliary oncology. The aim of this review is to define the principles of transplant oncology that may be applied to hepato-biliary cancer treatment and research, attempting to balance current evidences with future opportunities.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Transplantation-A Case Series and Comprehensive Review of Current Knowledge

Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and deaths in solid organ transplant recipients. In immunocompetent patients, cancer prognosis has been dramatically improved with the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), as programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors, that increase antitumor immune responses. ICI has been developed outside of the scope of transplantation because of the theoretical risk of graft rejection, which has later been confirmed by the publication of several cases and small series. The use of ICI became unavoidable for treating advanced cancers including in organ transplant patients, but their management in this setting remains highly challenging, as to date no strategy to adapt the immunosuppression and to prevent graft rejection has been defined. In this article, we report a monocentric series of 5 solid organ transplant recipients treated with ICI and provide a comprehensive review of current knowledge of ICI management in the setting of solid organ transplantation. Strategies warranted to increase knowledge through collecting more exhaustive data are also discussed.

Immuno-oncology for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Present and the Future

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a highly prevalent and lethal cancer that many therapeutics are being tested for this disease. It has the potential to be a highly immune-responsive tumor given its inflammatory origins. The first immunotherapies were anti-programmed death-1 monotherapies, which improved response rates and survival. Novel immunotherapy combinations and immunotherapy show promise in frontline treatment. The novel antibody therapy combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may be practice changing. Although these landmark studies seem to offer new treatment options, the role of immunotherapy in the liver transplant setting is uncertain until the safety of this approach is defined.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in the organ transplant recipient

One in twenty solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) will develop a highly morbid or fatal cutaneous carcinoma after transplantation. The majority of these cases develop on the head and neck and may require intervention on the part of dermatology, dermatologic surgery, otolaryngology, transplant medicine, radiation oncology, and medical oncology. In this review, we discuss the problem of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) in SOTRs as well as the prognostic factors and management strategies to care for this population.

The Safety and Efficacy of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Transplant Recipients: A Case Series and Systematic Review of Literature

Limited data exist on safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) among organ transplant recipients. The objective of this study was to report a case series of two patients with renal transplant who received treatment with an ICI and to conduct a pooled analysis of published cases to describe the safety and efficacy of ICIs in organ transplant patients. A systematic search in the Google Scholar and PubMed databases was carried out to include all the published cases of organ transplant patients who received treatment with ICIs including programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1, or cytotoxic lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitors since their inscription to January 31, 2019. In the present series of two cases with renal allografts who received pembrolizumab, one patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the skin experienced complete response (CR), whereas another patient with melanoma had a mixed response. Both patients experienced allograft rejection, but graft was salvaged. The pooled analysis of 64 patients published in literature showed that overall allograft rejection rate is 41% in organ transplant recipients following ICI therapy. The graft rejection rate was 44% (17/39) for renal, 39% (7/19) for liver, and 20% (1/5) for cardiac allografts. The highest risk was seen among patients who were treated with PD-1 inhibitors, 20/42 (48%)-13/24 (54%) on nivolumab and 7/18 (39%) on pembrolizumab. The risk was lowest with ipilimumab, 23% (3/13). The overall response rate (CR + partial response [PR]) was 20% with ipilimumab, 26% with nivolumab, and 53% with pembrolizumab, whereas disease control rate (CR + PR + stable disease) was 35% with ipilimumab, 37% with nivolumab, and 53% with pembrolizumab. None of the variables including age, gender, type of cancer, type of allograft, type of immunosuppression, time since transplantation to initiation of ICI, and prior history of rejection were significantly associated with the transplant rejection on univariate analysis. The efficacy of ICI among patients with organ transplant appears promising, warranting testing in prospective clinical trials. The risk of rejection and allograft loss is considerable; therefore, the risk and alternative form of therapies should be thoroughly discussed with the transplant patients prior to initiating ICI therapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Transplant recipients are at higher risk of developing cancers. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to improve the outcome in more than one cancer type, transplant recipients were excluded from these trials. Most of the data on the safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in transplant patients are based upon case series and case reports. The pooled data from these reports suggest that anti-programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors have reasonable safety and efficacy among organ transplant patients, which warrants testing in clinical trials.

Systematic Review of the Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Among Kidney Transplant Patients

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplant (Ktx) recipients are excluded from clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors among Ktx patients.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database from inception through April 2019. We included studies that reported outcomes of Ktx recipients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment. Outcomes of interest were allograft rejection and/or allograft failure.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles with a total of 44 Ktx patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor were identified. Of 44 Ktx patients, 18 were reported to have acute rejection. Median time from immune checkpoint inhibitors to acute rejection diagnosis was 24 (interquartile range, 10-60) days. Reported types of acute allograft rejection were cellular rejection (33%), mixed cellular and antibody-mediated rejection (17%), and unspecified type (50%). Fifteen (83%) had allograft failure and 8 (44%) died. Three patients had a partial remission (17%), 1 patient achieved cancer response (6%), and 5 patients had stable disease (28%).

CONCLUSION

The findings of our study raise awareness of the increased risk for acute allograft rejection/failure following immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment among Ktx patients, in particular with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors. Future large-scale clinical studies are required to appraise the pathogenesis and plan optimal balanced therapy that helps sustain graft tolerance.

Liver graft rejection following immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment: a review

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in a variety of solid tumors; nonetheless, they have not been well investigated and are still recognized as a relative contraindication for patients with a liver transplantation (LT) history, since ICIs treatment might potentially lead to graft rejection. The program death-1 (PD-1) and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) pathways are implicated in the tolerance of transplanted organ, as well as blockade of the pathways, which contribute to eliminating tumors and may inadvertently lead to peripheral transplant rejection. Currently, no guidelines are available regarding the treatment for ICIs patients with a prior LT history. Therefore, this study was carried out to review the recent studies, attempting to introduce the ICIs-related graft rejection after LT from various aspects. We believed that ICIs could be given for the well-informed patients receiving LT and developed recurrence in a controlled setting. Typically, these patients should be treated according to a clinical care path or a prospective clinical trial, so as obtain a persistent anti-tumor immune response in the meantime of avoiding graft rejection, adjust the immunosuppression, reduce the possibility of graft loss following rejection, and have the opportunity to develop biomarkers for tumor response and transplant rejection.

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer in solid organ transplantation recipients: an institutional experience and a systematic review of the literature

Background

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer, but their use remains limited by off-target inflammatory and immune-related adverse events. Solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients have been excluded from clinical trials owing to concerns about alloimmunity, organ rejection, and immunosuppressive therapy. Thus, we conducted a retrospective study and literature review to evaluate the safety of CPIs in patients with cancer and prior SOT.

Methods

Data were collected from the medical records of patients with cancer and prior SOT who received CPIs at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 1, 2004, through March 31, 2018. Additionally, we systematically reviewed five databases through April 2018 to identify studies reporting CPIs to treat cancer in SOT recipients. We evaluated the safety of CPIs in terms of alloimmunity, immune-related adverse events, and mortality. We also evaluated tumor response to CPIs.

Results

Thirty-nine patients with allograft transplantation were identified. The median age was 63 years (range 14–79 years), 74% were male, 62% had metastatic melanoma, 77% received anti-PD-1 agents, and 59% had prior renal transplantation, 28% hepatic transplantation, and 13% cardiac transplantation. Median time to CPI initiation after SOT was 9 years (range 0.92–32 years). Allograft rejection occurred in 41% of patients (11/23 renal, 4/11 hepatic, and 1/5 cardiac transplantations), at similar rates for anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy. The median time to rejection was 21 days (95% confidence interval 19.3–22.8 days). There were no associations between time since SOT and frequency, timing, or type of rejection. Overall, 31% of patients permanently discontinued CPIs because of allograft rejection. Graft loss occurred in 81%, and death was reported in 46%. Of the 12 patients with transplantation biopsies, nine (75%) had acute rejection, and five of these rejections were T cell-mediated. In melanoma patients, 36% responded to CPIs.

Conclusions

SOT recipients had a high allograft rejection rate that was observed shortly after CPI initiation, with high mortality rates. Further studies are needed to optimize the anticancer treatment approach in these patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0585-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pilot evaluation of PD-1 inhibition in metastatic cancer patients with a history of liver transplantation: the Mayo Clinic experience

Background

Patients with solid organ transplants (SOTs) have been excluded from programmed death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitor clinical trials due to concern for allograft rejection. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy remains controversial in transplant patients.

Methods

A retrospective pilot evaluation was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in patients with liver transplantation (LT). The primary endpoint was the rate of allograft rejection. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Translational objectives included evaluation of tumor PD-L1, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and allograft PD-L1 expression.

Results

Seven metastatic cancer patients with a history of LT who received PD-1 inhibitor therapy were included [hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), n=5; melanoma, n=2]. Rejection was observed in 2 of 7 patients. When rejection occurs it appears to be an early event with a median time to rejection of 24 days in our cohort. One patient achieved a complete response (CR), 3 patients had progressive disease (PD) and 3 patients discontinued therapy prior to restaging assessments. Two of five patients with available tissue had PD-L1 expression in the allograft and both developed rejection. One of five evaluable patients had abundant TILs. Two of five evaluable patients had PD-L1 tumor staining. The single patient with both abundant TILs and PD-L1 staining obtained a response. The median OS and PFS were 1.1 (0.3-21.1) and 1.8 (0.7-21.1) months, respectively.

Conclusions

In this pilot evaluation both preliminary efficacy (1 of 4) and allograft rejection (2 of 7) were exhibited in evaluable patients. Larger, prospective trials are needed to elucidate optimal patient selection.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of malignancies in transplant recipients

Cancer immunotherapy, an area of active research, has thus far yielded several exciting breakthroughs in cancer treatment strategies. So far, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been the most promising method of cancer immunotherapy. CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1 are the immune checkpoint molecules against which monoclonal antibodies act against and revolutionised the treatment of several malignancies. However, it is still unclear whether using these monoclonal antibodies in patients with malignancy and a history of transplant is as beneficial as in patients without a history of transplantation. The reason being, with the therapeutic benefit, also comes the inherent disadvantage of transplant rejection because of the activation of T-cells against donor antigens. So, transplant-related complications limit the usage of the checkpoint blockade therapy to treat malignancies. Here, we review the data published in this context and suggest optimal approaches to using the currently available repertoire of immunotherapies.

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in patients with solid organ transplant, HIV or hepatitis B/C infection

BACKGROUND

Anti-programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunotherapy is now routinely used to treat several cancers. Clinical trials have excluded several populations, including patients with solid organ transplant, HIV infection and hepatitis B/C infection. We examined the safety outcomes of these populations treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment in a multicentre retrospective study.

METHODS

Patients from 16 centres with advanced cancer and solid organ transplant, HIV infection or hepatitis B/C infection were included. Demographic, tumour, treatment, toxicity and outcome data were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included for analysis, with a median age of 60 years, and the majority of patients diagnosed with melanoma (72%). Among six patients with solid organ transplants, two graft rejections occurred, with one resulting in death, whereas two patients achieved partial responses. There were four responses in 12 patients with HIV infection. In 14 patients with hepatitis B, there were three responses, and similarly, there were three responses in 14 patients with hepatitis C. There was no unexpected toxicity in any viral infection group or an increase in viral load.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HIV or hepatitis B/C infections treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy may respond to treatment without increased toxicity. Given the risk of graft rejection in solid organ transplant patients and also the potential for response, the role of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy needs to be carefully considered.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors to treat cancers in specific immunocompromised populations: a critical review

INTRODUCTION

Because of their efficacy against numerous cancers, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4, and anti-programmed cell death monoclonal antibodies are being used ever more often in oncology. However, some patients were excluded from clinical trials because of their comorbidities despite their potentially higher cancer frequencies, as is the case for immunocompromised patients. Areas covered: We analyzed reported preclinical and clinical information and evaluated the risk/benefit ratio for four immunocompromised populations: people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHs), solid-organ transplant recipients, recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell allografts, and patients with autoimmune diseases. Expert commentary: Information available in the literature is fragmentary and scarce, making it difficult to evaluate the risk/benefit ratio. It can, nonetheless, be noted that ICI use in PLHs seems possible. For solid-organ transplant recipients, the risk for the graft seems elevated. For the other two populations, it is difficult to conclude at this time.

Liver Allograft Failure After Nivolumab Treatment-A Case Report With Systematic Literature Research

Background

Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is a potential curative treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, treatment options for recurrent HCC after OLT are limited. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab, an inhibitor of programmed cell death protein 1, have been successfully used for metastatic HCC but data on safety of nivolumab following solid organ transplantation are limited.

Methods

We report a 53-year-old woman with HCC who was treated with OLT. After 2 years, HCC recurred. Initial treatment with sorafenib was discontinued due to side effects and disease progression. Progressive HCC in the lung and lymph nodes was subsequently treated with nivolumab. One week after the first nivolumab dose, rapid progressive liver dysfunction was noted. Liver biopsy revealed severe cellular graft rejection prompting treatment with intravenous steroids and tacrolimus. Liver function continued to decline, leading to severe coagulopathy. The patient succumbed to intracranial hemorrhage.

Results

A systematic PubMed search revealed 29 cases treated with a checkpoint inhibitor following solid organ transplantation. Loss of graft was described in 4 (36%) of 11 cases with OLT and in 7 (54%) of 13 cases after kidney transplantation. However, cases with favorable outcome were also described. Eighteen cases with adverse events were identified upon searching the World Health Organization database VigiBase, including 2 cases with fatal outcome in liver transplant recipients due to graft loss.

Conclusion

Experience with checkpoint inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients is limited. Published cases so far suggest severe risks for graft loss as high as 36% to 54%.

Cancer immunotherapy in a neglected population: The current use and future of T-cell-mediated checkpoint inhibitors in organ transplant patients

Although the indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors continue to grow, organ transplant recipients with advanced malignancies have been largely excluded from clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of these therapies given their need for chronic immunosuppression and the risk of allograft rejection. With the rapid growth of transplant medicine and the increased risk of malignancy associated with chronic immunosuppression, it is critical that we systematically analyze the available data describing immune checkpoint blockade in the organ transplant population. Herein we provide a current and comprehensive review of cases in which immune checkpoint blockade was used on organ transplant recipients. Furthermore, we discuss the differences in efficacy and risk of allograft rejection between CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors and make recommendations based on the limited available clinical data. We also discuss the future of immune checkpoint blockade in this subpopulation and explore the emerging data of promising combination therapies with mTOR, BRAF/MEK, and BTK/ITK inhibitors. Further clinical experience and larger clinical trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors, whether as monotherapies or combinatorial therapies, will help develop regimens that optimize anti-tumor response and minimize the risk of allograft rejection in organ transplant patients.