Proton pump inhibitors and response to immune check-point inhibitors: Single center study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14092-e14092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asaad Trabolsi ◽  
Megan Winter ◽  
Estelamari Rodriguez

e14092 Background: Checkpoint inhibitors (blocking antibodies to PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4) have proven effective against several tumor types. While the response is impressive in some patients, we still don’t understand all the patient factors that determine resistance to this class of medication. Studies of host factors have identified composition of the gut microbiome at baseline as a positive predictor of ICI response. Proton pump inhibitors have been reported to interfere with gut microbiome composition. In this single center, retrospective study, we studied the effect of concomitant treatment of proton pump inhibitors on response to ICIs in patients with locally advanced and metastatic cancer. Methods: A retrospective cohort of Non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma and Melanoma patients that were treated from January 2016 to May 2018 at the Mount Sinai Medical Center were included in this study. Demographics, prior systemic treatment, performance status, ICI agent, and use of PPI (with in 30 days prior to 30 days after the first dose of ICI administration) were collected. Primary objective of the study was progression free survival (PFS) by utilization of PPIs. PFS was calculated using the log-rank test and survival curve was generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Information was collected from electronic medical records. Results: Of the 97 patients that met the study criteria, 63 patients had complete data and included in the analysis. 46 patients had Non-small cell lung cancer, 13 had melanoma and 4 renal cancer. Checkpoint inhibitors most commonly prescribed included: Pembrolizumab (29 patients : 46%), Nivolumab (22 patients:35%), Nivolumab + Ipilimumab (9:14 %). 25 patients were taking PPI upon initiation of ICI treatment. In addition, 26 patients received steroids with in 30 days of treatment initiation. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between patients on PPIs and not on PPIs. The median PFS was 672 days (95% CI: 32, 1311) for PPI users and 341 days (95% CI: 123, 558) for non PPI users. P = 0.244. Conclusions: In this, single-center, retrospective study, we did not detect a significant difference in PFS between patients who used PPI at baseline and patients who did not. Limitations of this study mainly included retrospective analysis, a small sample size, single center population and heterogeneity in disease pathology. We did not collect information on other tumor and treatment related factors like PDL 1 expression, tumor mutation burden, use of antibiotics, and immunotherapy related adverse reactions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21218-e21218
Author(s):  
Leeseul Kim ◽  
Young Kwang Chae ◽  
Chan Mi Jung ◽  
Emma Yu ◽  
Alice Daeun Lee ◽  
...  

e21218 Background: Early recognition of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors(ICI) is important. Circulating proteome reflects host response to diseases and is being explored as a marker for response to immunotherapy. We previously have reported that a serum-based proteomics test, Primary Immune Response (PIR) demonstrated a trend that PIR-sensitive patients are more likely to tolerate ICI treatment longer without developing irAEs in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The VeriStrat test is another serum-based proteomic assay, which was reported to be predictive of survival outcomes for all treatment regimens and lines of therapy including ICI in NSCLC. We explored the associations between the VeriStrat test and developing irAEs in NSCLC patients treated with ICI. Methods: Data of 70 consented NSCLC patients treated with any regimens and lines of therapy including ICI were collected. Samples were grouped into either VeriStrat ‘Good’(VS-G) or VeriStrat ‘Poor’(VS-P). We analyzed the durations from the immunotherapy initiation to each episode of irAE and each irAE above grade 2 using log-rank test. IrAEs were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Results: Among the 70 patients, 18 patients (25%) experienced one or more irAEs. There was no significant difference in ‘Time to first irAE’ between VS-G and VS-P (p = 0.72, HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.29-2.32). Among 48 VS-G patients, 12(25%) had one or more irAE and 5(10%)had irAE graded over 2. Among 22 VS-P patients, 6(27%) had one or more irAE and 2(9%) had irAE graded over 2. There was no significant difference between VS-G and VS-P groups in the development of irAE and irAE graded over 2. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant association between the VeriStrat test and the development of irAEs. Further studies are warranted to investigate proper serum based proteomic assay to predict the development of irAE.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document