scholarly journals Treatment-related adverse events as surrogate to response rate to immune checkpoint blockade

Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (37) ◽  
pp. e22153
Author(s):  
Yanyun Shen ◽  
Yunfeng Chen ◽  
Duoqin Wang ◽  
Zhidong Zhu
2021 ◽  
pp. jim-2021-001806
Author(s):  
Hannah Elizabeth Green ◽  
Jorge Nieva

The advent of checkpoint blockade-based immunotherapy is rapidly changing the management of lung cancer. Whereas past anticancer drugs’ primary toxicity was hematologic, the newer agents have primarily autoimmune toxicity. Thus, it is no longer enough for oncology practitioners to be skilled only in hematology. They must also understand management of autoimmune conditions, leveraging the skills of the rheumatologist, endocrinologist and gastroenterologist in the process. Herein we describe the mechanism of action and toxicities associated with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with lung cancer and provide a framework for management of adverse events.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3084-3084 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianca Santomasso ◽  
Aya Haggiagi ◽  
Rachna Malani ◽  
Colleen Anne Maher ◽  
Jenessa N. Holder ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Kushal Naha ◽  
Lakshmi Manogna Chintalacheruvu ◽  
Donald C. Doll ◽  
Sowjanya Naha

84 Background: Immune checkpoint blockade is known to be associated with various dermatologic adverse events. However, these adverse effects have not been studied in a systematic manner. This is especially relevant considering the rapidly increasing number of immune checkpoint inhibitors that are now available. Methods: We searched for eligible studies in PubMed and Google scholar. We reviewed randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors - PD1 inhibitors, PDL1 inhibitors and CTLA4 inhibitors and for dermatologic adverse effects. A total of 47 randomized controlled trials involving 11875 patients met eligibility criteria for our study. Results: Incidence rate of all grade dermatologic adverse effects was 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.4-41.7%). Most common adverse effects included pruritus (17.3%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.6-18.1%), undifferentiated rash (15.1%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4-15.9%), vitiligo (3.6%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2-3.9%), maculopapular rash (2.3%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.6%), stomatitis (0.7%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.92%) and dry skin (0.7%) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.8%). Less common adverse events include palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia, pemphigoid skin reactions, lichen planus and hyperhidrosis. Grade 3 and higher adverse effects were seen in 1.3% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.6%). Conclusions: A wide range of dermatologic adverse effects can be seen with immune checkpoint blockade. While the majority of these events are of grade 1-2, they can occasionally be severe and even life threatening. Patients receiving immune checkpoint blockade should be closely monitored for dermatologic adverse effects.


iScience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 101580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weilei Hu ◽  
Guosheng Wang ◽  
Yian Wang ◽  
Matthew J. Riese ◽  
Ming You

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS454-TPS454
Author(s):  
Ilenia Pellicciotta ◽  
Emily Linda Alouani ◽  
Alexander Raufi ◽  
Samuel M Pan ◽  
Jianhua Hu ◽  
...  

TPS454 Background: Pancreas adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer projected to be the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2030 for which improved treatment options are desperately needed. Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) for PDAC has failed as monotherapy in early phase clinical trials likely due to a highly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. The CXCR4/CXCL12 axis is a key immune evasion mechanism thought to deter CD8+ T-cells (CTLs) from infiltrating the tumor. We performed a large seven arm survival and biopsy/necropsy study in KPC mice (KrasLSL.G12D/+;p53R172H/+;Pdx1Cretg/+) where we demonstrate that addition of gemcitabine to CXCR4 inhibition in combination with ICB, enhanced tumor stabilization and neoplastic cell death, and improved survival by 50 percent. Multiplex immunofluorescence indicated an increased CTL to regulatory T-cell ratio and clustering of CTLs around neoplastic cells. Presented here is a trial-in progress that will evaluate combination of a CXCR4 inhibitor, ICB, and chemotherapy in treatment naïve patients with PDAC. Methods: This is a multicenter, single arm, open-label phase 2 study of combination motixafortide 1.25mg/kg SC monotherapy for 5 days during priming followed by twice weekly, cemiplimab 350mg IV once every 21 days, gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 IV with nab-paclitaxel 125mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic PDAC who have not received prior therapy will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is overall response rate by 16 weeks. A response rate greater than 45% by 16 weeks is considered promising, whereas a response rate of less than 23% is considered not promising. We will use a Simon optimal 2-stage design, where we will enroll 10 patients in the first stage. If 3 or more patients meet the endpoint in the first stage, the study will be expanded to a total of 40 patients. If a total of 14 or more patients achieve CR or PR by 16 weeks, the agent will be considered promising and worthy of further study. Secondary endpoints include safety, mPFS, disease control rate (DCR), and mOS. Correlative aims include analyses of pre- and on-treatment biopsies with quantitative multiplex immunofluorescence, RNA-sequencing, and generation of patient derived organoids for association with clinical benefit and to determine mechanisms of action/resistance. An interim analysis will be performed at the conclusion of the stage I portion of the study. Clinical trial information: NCT04543071.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Lo Preiato ◽  
Stefania Salvagni ◽  
Caterina Gianni ◽  
Danilo Ribichini ◽  
Nicola Bianchi ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 70-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Sznol ◽  
Michael A. Postow ◽  
Marianne J. Davies ◽  
Anna C. Pavlick ◽  
Elizabeth R. Plimack ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document