Cemiplimab‐rwlc in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a real‐life experience in a French Dermatology Department

Author(s):  
T. Guillaume ◽  
E. Puzenat ◽  
D. Popescu ◽  
F. Aubin ◽  
C. Nardin
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21524-e21524
Author(s):  
Michele Guida ◽  
Annarita Fanizzi ◽  
Davide Quaresmini ◽  
Annalisa Nardone ◽  
Andrea Armenio ◽  
...  

e21524 Background: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most common skin cancer. Although representing less than 5% of all CSCCs, advanced stages are difficult to treat. Cemiplimab, an antiPD-1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved immunotherapy in the US and EU for patients with locally advanced (laCSCC) or metastatic (mCSCC) CSCC. Phase I-II studies showed high antitumor activity and good tolerability, but few data are still available regarding cemiplimab in real life experience in non-selected patients. Methods: We recruited 30 consecutive patients with laCSCC (25 pts) and mCSCC (5 pts) treated with cemiplimab from August 2019 to November 2020 at our Institution. Median age was 81 years (range 36-95); 24 males; median ECOG PS 1 (range 0-2). Five patients had an immunosuppressive condition including 3 patients with stable hematologic malignancies and two patients on immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation and Crohn’s disease, respectively. The majority of patients had comorbidities (median 3). Cemiplimab was administered at the flat dose of 350 mg i.v. every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. In all patients we evaluated clinical outcomes, toxicity, and associations between clinical outcomes and peripheral blood parameters. Results: We reported 23 responses (ORR 76.7%) with CR in 5 patients (16.7%). One patient had SD for 5 months. The global DCR was 80%. The median duration of response and PFS was not reached at a median follow-up of 6 months. We observed a higher ORR in head and neck primary tumours (87% vs. 42.9% of others, p = 0.016) and in patients with haemoglobin level > 12 g/dL (87.5% vs. 64.3%). No significative difference in ORR was observed with respect to the median age (81.3% in >81 years vs. 71.4% in < 81 years). Among the 5 patients with immunosuppressive status, a response was obtained in 4 patients (80%), including 1 CR. Nine patients died, 7 for PD and 2 for causes unrelated to the disease. Twenty patients (67.7%) still have an ongoing response. The treatment was well tolerated by the majority of patients. The most common adverse events were fatigue in 7 patients (23.3%) and skin toxicity in 10 patients (33.3%) including pruritus in 6 patients, rash in 3 patients, bullous erythema in 1 patient. Only 3 (10%) patients experienced severe (grade 3/4) toxicity. Three responder patients interrupted treatment (2 for toxicity after 7 and 9 cycles, and one for pre-existing dementia) but maintaining their response. Conclusions: In our real-life experience cemiplimab showed high antitumor activity with acceptable safety profile similar to those in selected patients of trials. Moreover, its antitumor activity resulted not impaired in very elderly patients or in those with immunocompromized status.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. S737
Author(s):  
C. Hober ◽  
L. Fredeau ◽  
A. Pham Ledard ◽  
M. Boubaya ◽  
F. Herms ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabino Strippoli ◽  
Annarita Fanizzi ◽  
Davide Quaresmini ◽  
Annalisa Nardone ◽  
Andrea Armenio ◽  
...  

BackgroundCutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most common skin cancer whose incidence is growing parallel to the lengthening of the average lifespan. Cemiplimab, an antiPD-1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved immunotherapy for patients with locally advanced CSCC (laCSCC) or metastatic CSCC (mCSCC) thanks to phase I and II studies showing high antitumor activity and good tolerability. Nevertheless, at present, very few data are available regarding cemiplimab in real-life experience and in frail, elderly, and immunosuppressed patients as well as regarding biomarkers able to predict response so as to guide therapeutic choices.Patients and MethodsWe built a retroprospective cohort study including 30 non-selected patients with laCSCC (25) and mCSCC (five) treated with cemiplimab from August 2019 to November 2020. Clinical outcomes, toxicity profile, and correlations with disease, patients, and peripheral blood parameters are explored.ResultsThe median age was 81 years (range, 36–95), with 24 males and five patients having an immunosuppressive condition, while the frailty prevalence was 83% based on index derived from age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. We reported 23 responses (76.7%) with nine complete responses (30%). A statistically significant higher response rate was observed in head and neck primary tumors and in patients with hemoglobin level &gt;12 g/dl. No difference was observed with respect to frailty, median age, sex, and body mass index. The baseline low neuthophil/lymphocyte ratio and low platelet/lymphocyte ratio resulted to be also correlated with a better response. Moreover, lymphocyte, neutrophil, and monocyte behaviors had an opposite trend in responders and non-responders. An overall response was reported in four of five immunosuppressed patients. Seventeen patients (57.6%) have an ongoing response and are still alive. Six responders had interrupted treatment (two for toxicity and four for personal choice) but maintained their response. The treatment was well tolerated by the majority of patients. The most common adverse events were fatigue in seven patients (23.3%) and skin toxicity in 10 patients (33.3%), including pruritus in six patients, rash in three patients, and bullous erythema in one patient.ConclusionsIn our real-life experience, cemiplimab showed a high antitumor activity with acceptable safety profile similar to those in trials with selected patients. Moreover, its antitumor activity resulted to be not impaired in very elderly patients and in those with immunocompromised status.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. viii462 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Peyrade ◽  
M. Kogay ◽  
J. Viotti ◽  
P. Combemale ◽  
C. Dutriaux ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-335
Author(s):  
Reika FUKUCHI ◽  
Sayaka KUWATSUKA ◽  
Yukie SATO ◽  
Yutaka KUWATSUKA ◽  
Atsushi UTANI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document