Effect of immunotherapy-infusion time of day on survival of patients with advanced cancers: a study-level meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care for numerous malignancies. Emerging evidence suggests that the time of day (ToD) of ICI administration could impact the outcomes of patients with cancer. The consistency of ToD effects on ICI efficacy awaits initial evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This meta-analysis integrates progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data from studies with a defined 'cut-off' ToD. Hazard ratios (HRs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of an earlier progression or death according to 'early' or 'late' ToD of ICIs were collected from each report and pooled.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involved 1663 patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, 83%; males/females, 67%/33%) with non-small-cell lung cancer (47%), renal cell carcinoma (24%), melanoma (20%), urothelial cancer (5%), or esophageal carcinoma (4%). Most patients received anti-programmed cell death protein 1 or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (98%), and a small proportion also received anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) (18%). ToD cut-offs were 13:00 or 14:00 (i.e. ICI median infusion time), for six studies, and 16:00 or 16:30 (i.e. reported threshold for weaker vaccination responses) for seven studies. Pooled analyses revealed that the early ToD groups had longer OS (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42-0.58; P < 0.00001) and PFS (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42-0.61; P < 0.00001) compared with the late ToD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early ToD ICI infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking. Prospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing of ICI-based cancer therapies.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Comparison of Proximal and Distal Isocenter Outcomes

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Trigeminal neuralgia is a chronic pain condition of the trigeminal nerve affecting 12 per 100,000 people. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivered by both a non-invasive stereotactic radiosurgery instrument and linear accelerators (LINAC) is a non-invasive alternative to surgical approaches. Although SRS in this setting is commonly performed, there lacks a consensus and comparative data on the optimal anatomical target with the two most common targets being the dorsal root entry zone (proximal) and retrogasserian zone (distal). This study aims to evaluate treatment outcomes in patients based on these two target locations.

MATERIALS/METHODS

This multi-center, retrospective analysis included patients treated for trigeminal neuralgia between 2017 and 2021 with GK and LINAC-based SRS who were followed for at least 1 year. All patients received a dose of 85 Gy prescribed to the isocenter, set at the dorsal root entry zone (proximal) or the retrogasserian zone (distal). Isocenter location was based on the preference of the radiation oncologist and neurosurgeon. Patient reported clinical pain relief was recorded as full, partial, or no pain relief after SRS. Among patients with full and partial pain relief duration of pain relief was recorded. Ability to achieve full or partial medication de-escalation was also recorded. Outcomes of patients in the proximal and distal target cohort were compared using time based univariate analyses using log rank hazards model.

RESULTS

We identified 86 eligible patients, of whom 54 patients (63%; median age 63, 72% female) were treated using a proximal target, and 32 (37%; median age 66, 71% female) were prescribed to a distal target. In the proximal and distal cohorts, patients experienced pain relief (either partial or full relief) at a rate of 74% and 90% and full pain relief at a rate of 46% and 31%, respectively (p = 0.011). The duration of pain relief was not significantly different amongst the two groups (p = 0.18). Partial medication de-escalation was more frequent in the distal target (75%) vs proximal (33%), while full medication de-escalation was more frequent with proximal (39%) vs distal (13%), p = 0.001.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes to the limited data evaluating the differences in outcomes between proximal and distal targeting for treatment of trigeminal neuralgia with stereotactic radiosurgery. Overall, this study confirms that both approaches achieve a high rate of response in a difficult to control disease process. Our study suggests that a distal isocenter may be associated with higher rates of any type of pain improvement while a proximal isocenter may be associated with higher rates of complete pain relief. This data is hypothesis-generating and warrants further investigation into the effectiveness/toxicity differences of two approaches.