Comparison of efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitors in patients with genitourinary cancers aged below and above 75 years.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16101-e16101
Author(s):  
Gerald Bastian Schulz ◽  
Bernadett Szabados ◽  
Annabel Spek ◽  
Michael D. Staehler ◽  
Christian Stief ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Genitourinary Cancers ◽  
Grade 3

e16101 Background: Checkpoint-inhibitors have recently been introduced in the treatment of patients with genitourinary cancers. However, the use in elderly patients is controversial due to putative age-associated changes including the dysregulation of the immune system. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients younger and older than 75 years of age. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with renal cell carcinoma and urothelial cancer treated with different immunotherapeutic agents between August 2015 and September 2018 at a high-volume single institution. Eligible patients received at least one cycle of single agent or a combination of checkpoint inhibitors as first or following treatment line. Immune-related adverse events (irAE) were graded using the NCI CTCAE v 4.0. Clinicopathological parameters including gender, cancer entity, ECOG, adverse events, comorbidities and response to treatment were stratified by age ≥ 75 vs. < 75 years and tested with a Pearson's chi-squared test. Additionally, we evaluated the impact of irAE on oncological outcome using the log-rank test. Results: 79 patients were identified, of those 27 (34.2%) were 75 years and older (15 renal cell carcinoma and 12 urothelial cancer patients) and 52 (65.8%) were younger than 75 years (39 renal cell carcinoma and 13 urothelial cancer patients). 2 complete responses were achieved in the elderly group and 6 in the younger group (p = 0.56). Disease control rate (stable disease, partial and complete response) was 48,1% in the elderly group and 53.8% in the younger group (p = 0.631). We observed a total of 30 irAEs (18 grade 1-2 and 12 grade 3-4), with an even distribution among the groups (≥75 years: 1 grade 4 AE; < 75 years: 12 grade 3-4 AEs). Except for ECOG ≥2 (p = 0.009) and ≥2 comorbidities (p < 0.001), there was no difference when groups were stratified by age. Both disease control rate and irAE did not differ between age subgroups. Occurrence of irAE showed no impact on oncological survival. Conclusions: The study demonstrates that patients over 75 years of age with renal cell and urothelial cancer treated with checkpoint-inhibitors respond with a good toxicity profile and an efficacy comparable with the younger population. irAE seem to have no impact on prognosis.

191 Association of immune related adverse events with the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A205-A206
Author(s):  
Vasilii Bushunow ◽  
Leonard Appleman ◽  
Roby Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Kaplan Meier

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are first-line therapy for tumors including metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Use of ICI is complicated by diverse immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which can add significant morbidity but are also associated with improved efficacy of therapy.1 2 Risk factors for development of irAE are still poorly understood. We hypothesized that patients with mRCC treated with ICI as first-line therapy have higher rates of developing irAE’s than patients previously treated with other therapies.MethodsWe conducted a single-institution, retrospective medical record review of patients with mRCC treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors from March 2011 through April 15, 2020. We identified therapy duration, and presence, severity, and treatment of adverse events. We defined overall survival as time elapsed from date of diagnosis until death or until completion of study. We classified severity of adverse events according to CTCAE guidelines. Statistical methods included univariate Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, and Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for subgroups.ResultsA total of 64 unique charts were reviewed. 18 patients (28%) of patients were treated with ICI as first-line therapy. 28 patients (44%) experienced immune-related adverse events with a total of 40 irAE’s identified. Most irAE were grade I-II (78%), with 7 (17%) grade III and 1 (2.4%) grade IV irAE’s. Most common sites were skin (29%), thyroid (20%) and gastrointestinal (15%). Patients with irAE had increased survival compared to those who did not have irAE (median survival not reached, vs 139 weeks, p=0.0004) (figure 1). This finding remained after excluding patients who had only experienced dermatologic irAE (median survival not reached in non-derm irAE subgroup, vs 144 weeks for dermatologic or no irAE, p=0.01) (figure 2). Patients treated with ICI as first line therapy had greater rates of developing irAE (72%) than those who had prior therapies (32%) (OR 5.4; p = 0.006). There was no association between histology type and rate of irAE.Abstract 191 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with any irAE and those without any irAEAbstract 191 Figure 2Kaplan-Meier survival plot of OS between patients with non-dermatologic irAE and those without any irAE or only dermatologic irAEConclusionsThe development of irAE’s in patients with mRCC treated with ICI is associated with longer survival. This study joins the growing body of evidence showing that presence of irAE’s is associated with increased treatment efficacy. Use of ICI as first-line therapy is associated with higher risk of irAE. Given growing use of ICI as first-line therapy, further study to predict onset and severity of irAE’s is required.AcknowledgementsHong Wang, PhD, for statistical support.Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Approval number STUDY19100386.ReferencesElias R, Yan N, Singla N, Levonyack N, Formella J, Christie A, et al. Immune-related adverse events are associated with improved outcomes in ICI-treated renal cell carcinoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(7):S645.Verzoni E, Cartenì G, Cortesi E, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of nivolumab in previously-treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma, and association between immune-related adverse events and survival: the Italian expanded access program. J Immunother Cancer 2019;7(1):99.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors after clinically significant immune-related adverse events in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Abou Alaiwi ◽  
Wanling Xie ◽  
Amin H Nassar ◽  
Shaan Dudani ◽  
Dylan Martini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Clinically Significant

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) induce a range of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with various degrees of severity. While clinical experience with ICI retreatment following clinically significant irAEs is growing, the safety and efficacy are not yet well characterized.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study identified patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with ICI who had >1 week therapy interruption for irAEs. Patients were classified into retreatment and discontinuation cohorts based on whether or not they resumed an ICI. Toxicity and clinical outcomes were assessed descriptively.ResultsOf 499 patients treated with ICIs, 80 developed irAEs warranting treatment interruption; 36 (45%) of whom were restarted on an ICI and 44 (55%) who permanently discontinued. Median time to initial irAE was similar between the retreatment and discontinuation cohorts (2.8 vs 2.7 months, p=0.59). The type and grade of irAEs were balanced across the cohorts; however, fewer retreatment patients required corticosteroids (55.6% vs 84.1%, p=0.007) and hospitalizations (33.3% vs 65.9%, p=0.007) for irAE management compared with discontinuation patients. Median treatment holiday before reinitiation was 0.9 months (0.2–31.6). After retreatment, 50% (n=18/36) experienced subsequent irAEs (12 new, 6 recurrent) with 7 (19%) grade 3 events and 13 drug interruptions. Median time to irAE recurrence after retreatment was 2.8 months (range: 0.3–13.8). Retreatment resulted in 6 (23.1%) additional responses in 26 patients whose disease had not previously responded. From first ICI initiation, median time to next therapy was 14.2 months (95% CI 8.2 to 18.9) and 9.0 months (5.3 to 25.8), and 2-year overall survival was 76% (95%CI 55% to 88%) and 66% (48% to 79%) in the retreatment and discontinuation groups, respectively.ConclusionsDespite a considerable rate of irAE recurrence with retreatment after a prior clinically significant irAE, most irAEs were low grade and controllable. Prospective studies are warranted to confirm that retreatment enhances survival outcomes that justify the safety risks.

Immune-related adverse events are associated with improved outcomes in ICI-treated renal cell carcinoma patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 645-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Elias ◽  
Flora Yan ◽  
Nirmish Singla ◽  
Nicholas Levonyack ◽  
Joseph Formella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Therapeutic Decisions ◽  
Endocrine Organs

645 Background: With the approval of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as first and second line agents for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), immune-related adverse events (irAE) are a growing concern. In this study, we present the safety profile and outcomes of 90 patients with RCC treated at two centers, including a university (UT Southwestern/Clements University Hospital) and a county hospital (UT Southwestern/Parkland). Methods: All patients with RCC treated with ICI were identified from 2013 to January 31, 2018. We examined the incidence of any treatment-related adverse events and “select” irAEs and evaluated their impact on patient outcomes and therapeutic decisions. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival (OS) and time to next therapy (TTNT) by the presence of irAEs. Results: Of 90 patients treated with ICI, 65 (72.2%) patients experienced adverse events, most commonly fatigue (37.8%), nausea (14%), and decreased appetite (12.2%). Select irAEs were seen in 38 (42.2%) with the most common irAEs involving the skin (15.6%), gastrointestinal tract (14%), endocrine organs (11%), and lungs (7.8%). There were 15 (16.7%) grade III/IV irAEs resulting in cessation of therapy for 12 (13.3%) patients. The median OS was 35.9 (95% CI: 24.3-not reached) and 26.5 months (95% CI: 10.2-28.8; p = 0.002) for patients with and without irAEs, respectively. The median TTNT was 17.8 (95% CI: 11.3-29.3) and 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.5-9.6; p = 0.002) for patients with and without irAEs, respectively. In multivariate analysis of irAE status and Heng prognostic score, irAEs were associated with improved OS, HR 0.376 (95% CI 0.179–0.792; p = 0.010) and TTNT, HR 0.482 (95% CI 0.280–0.829; p = 0.008). Conclusions: ICI in RCC is well tolerated with only 16.7% of patients experiencing an adverse event resulting in cessation of therapy. The development of an irAE correlated with both an improved median OS as well as median TTNT, a benefit that persisted after multivariate analysis including Heng prognostic scoring. These findings suggest that the development of irAEs may be an independent positive prognostic factor in patients with RCC treated with ICI.

Difference in adverse-event profiles between mTOR inhibitors, temsirolimus, and everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 461-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Nozawa ◽  
Takashi Kikuchi ◽  
Mitsutoshi Nishimoto ◽  
Yasuyuki Kobayashi ◽  
Hirotsugu Uemura
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Mtor Inhibitors ◽  
Two Agents ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Grade 3

461 Background: Everolimus and temsirolimus have proven their efficacy and are used for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). They both are rapamycin derivatives and are categorized as mTOR inhibitors. There have been few reports that examined the difference between these two agents regarding adverse events. Our objective was to investigate the difference in the safety of both agents on the basis of our clinical experience. Methods: We identified patients with mRCC who had been treated with everolimus or temsirolimus at our hospital. Treatment duration, relative dose intensity, laboratory data, and adverse events during treatment with each agent were evaluated. Results: A total of 55 patients were evaluable. 43 of those had been treated with everolimus, 22 with temsirolimus, and 10 with both agents. There was no significant difference in age and gender between the two treatment groups. Median treatment durations of the everolimus and temsirolimus groups were 2.4 months and 1.8 months, respectively. Relative dose intensities of the everolimus and temsirolimus groups were 71.6 % and 75.4 %, respectively. Anemia, hyperglycemia, stomatitis, and interstitial lung disease (ILD) were detected with higher frequency in the everolimus group. In the everolimus group, 31 % of patients developed any grade of ILD including 15 % of grade 3, whereas ILD was reported in only one patient treated with temsirolimus with no grade 3 or higher. Frequencies of adverse events of grade 3 or higher were 49 % in the everolimus group and 26 % in the temsirolimus group. Conclusions: Adverse-event profiles of everolimus and temsirolimus may differ from each other. Respiratory disorders may occur more frequently and severely in patients treated with everolimus than temsirolimus. These findings suggest the difference in the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and treatment regimen of these two agents may result in different adverse events even though they target the same molecule.

UNISON - nivolumab then ipilimumab + nivolumab in advanced non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ANZUP 1602): Part 1—Nivolumab monotherapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 325-325
Author(s):  
Craig Gedye ◽  
David William Pook ◽  
Laurence Eliot Miles Krieger ◽  
Carole A. Harris ◽  
Jeffrey C. Goh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Papillary Type

325 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are active in many cancers, but people with rare variant, non clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) have been excluded from most clinical trials in RCC. UNISON (NCT03177239) aimed to test 2 hypotheses; the activity of nivolumab in nccRCC (Part 1), and the benefit of adding ipilimumab to nivolumab, in people whose cancers progress on nivolumab (Part 2). Methods: 83 participants (pts) with advanced nccRCC with good (ECOG0/1) performance status, were enrolled including papillary type 1 (17%), papillary type 2 (28%), chromophobe (18%), Xp11 translocation (6%), hereditary leiomyomatosis renal cell carcinoma syndrome-associated renal cell carcinoma (6%), RCC unclassified (10%) and other (15%) histological subtypes. Participants took nivolumab (N) 240mg every two weeks in Part 1 in total. If they experienced progression and remained eligible they could take N (3mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (I; 1mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to 4 doses (Part 2). Pts with disease control after N or N + I could continue N for up to 1 year. UNISON was powered to distinguish a clinically-relevant improvement in objective tumor response rate (OTRR) from 15% to 30% in people taking N+I in Part 2 in pts whose cancers were refractory to single-agent first-line N. Here we report results of Part 1. Results: Pts experience of N appeared similar to previous reports, with most experiencing mild adverse events. 12 treatment related SAE occurred in 11 patients (13%). 14 pts (17%) experienced treatment delays, or permanent treatment discontinuation (10%). The median time on treatment was 5.1 months. The OTRR was 17% with 3 complete responses and 11 partial responses. The median duration of response was 21 months. Stable disease occurred in 49% of pts and disease progression in 34%. The disease control rate at 6 months was 45% (95% CI: 34%, 56%). The median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI: 3.6, 7.4). The 6 month progression-free survival (PFS) was 45% (95% CI: 34-55) and the 12 months PFS was 30% (95% CI: 21%, 40%). Conclusions: Pts with nccRCC treated with N experience similar adverse events compared to pts with other cancers. A substantial minority of people with nccRCC derive benefit, but many pts have cancers refractory to anti-PD1, similar to other reports. The activity of I and N in this PD1-refractory population is of considerable interest and will be reported at a later date. Clinical trial information: NCT03177239 .

Rechallenge of nivolumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, an ambispective multicenter study (RENIVO).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 330-330
Author(s):  
Charles Vauchier ◽  
Edouard Auclin ◽  
Philippe Barthelemy ◽  
Lucia Carril ◽  
Thomas Ryckewaert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Grade 3

330 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with another ICI or an antiangiogenic targeted therapy have been approved for frontline therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, progression disease (PD) often occurs and subsequent therapies are needed. Rechallenge of ICI may then be an option, but there is a lack of data regarding this strategy. Methods: This ambispective multicenter study included patients who received a rechallenge of Nivolumab (ICI-2) between January 2014 and September 2020, after a first-ICI therapy (ICI-1), regardless of the reason of the discontinuation. Patients could have either a non-ICI therapy or have a prolonged free-interval (≥ 12 weeks) between ICI regimens. Those with ongoing rechallenge at inclusion were followed prospectively. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best ORR. Results: 45 rechallenges were included from 16 centers. Median age was 60 years (range, 42-90), 64% were male. Most of them had clear cell histology (91%) and a Fuhrman or ISUP grade ≥ 3 (80%). Single-agent Nivolumab and Nivolumab-Ipilimumab association were used in 78% and 11% during ICI-1 and in 93% and 7% during ICI-2, respectively. Discontinuation for PD, toxicity or clinical decision occurred in 49%, 27% and 24% for ICI-1 and in 94%, 3% and 3% for ICI-2, respectively. The ORR were 51% (n = 23) at ICI-1 and 16% (n = 7) at ICI-2. One patient had a complete response during both ICI-1 and ICI-2 and two had a partial response at ICI-2 although they had PD as best ICI-1 response. After a median follow-up of 14.9 months (mo), median duration of response for ICI-2 was 5.1 mo (95% CI, 2.7-not reached [NR]). For ICI-1 and ICI-2: median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.4 mo (95% CI, 9.8-23.5) and 3.5 mo (95% CI, 2.8-9.7); median overall survival was NR (95% CI, 37.8-NR) and 24 mo (95% CI, 9.9-NR). Poor prognostic factors for PFS at ICI-2 were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) ≥ 2, presence of liver metastases, inflammatory syndrome and PFS under ICI-1 > 6 months. Grade ≥ 3 immune-related adverse events occurred in 24% (n = 11) during ICI-1 but only in 4% (n = 2) during ICI-2. There was no treatment-related death. Conclusions: Our study suggests that resumption of ICI with Nivolumab has a moderate efficacy in mRCC and acceptable tolerance. Predictive factors of response are needed to propose this strategy to selected mRCC patients. Larger prospective cohorts are needed to confirm these results. [Table: see text]

Combination of immunotherapy and tyrosine kinase inhibitor in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A real-world Indian experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16576-e16576
Author(s):  
Amit Rauthan ◽  
Poonam Patil ◽  
Nitin Yashas Murthy ◽  
SP Somashekhar ◽  
Shabber Zaveri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

e16576 Background: Immuno-oncology (IO) agents in combination with oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has become a standard first line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. Various combinations such as pembrolizumab + axitinib, avelumab + axitinib, nivolumab + cabozantinib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib have all shown better results than sunitinib. There is very limited data about this from India. Methods: This is a single center, retrospective study of mRCC patients, who received first line treatment was nivolumab or pembrolizumab with axitinib or lenvatinib. The endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AE). Results: Between Jan 2019 to Jan 2021, 22 patients were treated with IO + TKI combination. 12 patients received axitinib, and 10 lenvatinib. Age range was 35 to 78 years with 18 males and 4 females. IMDC risk stratification showed 3 favorable (13.6%), 13 intermediate (59%) and 6 poor risk (27.2%) patients. 2 patients (9%) achieved complete response(CR), 13 (59%) partial response (PR), 4 (18.2%) had stable disease and 3 (13.6%) progressed. The ORR was 68%. Median PFS was 22 months (1 month- 24 months). OS at 1 year was 92%, and median OS was not reached. Grade 3/4 immune related adverse events (AEs) were seen in 3 (14.2%) patients (1 colitis,1 pneumonitis,1 encephalitis), for whom the IO was discontinued. TKI related grade 3/4 AEs were seen in 8 patients (38%), and were managed with dose reductions. Conclusions: Combination IO + TKI is a very effective first line therapy in mRCC. An ORR of 68%, median PFS of 22 months and 1 year OS of 92% is the best we have seen in our patients. The efficacy of this combination is seen in all IMDC subgroups. The combination is well tolerated, and the TKI AEs are comfortably managed with dose reduction. IO combinations should be preferred over single agent TKIs (sunitinib or pazopanib) as first line therapy.

Pembrolizumab- and/or pazopanib-induced remitting seronegative symmetrical synovitis with pitting edema in a patient with renal cell carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 1230-1233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Onur Bas ◽  
Aral Ozbek ◽  
Denizcan Guven ◽  
Oktay Aktepe ◽  
Levent Kılıc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Angiogenesis Inhibitors ◽  
Immune System Activation ◽  
Pitting Edema

Introduction Immune checkpoint inhibitors and angiogenesis inhibitors are novel treatment options for renal cell carcinoma and widely used in clinical practice. They are related with adverse events that occur as a consequence of immune system activation and inhibition of angiogenesis. Herein, we report a rare case of inflammatory arthritis seen in a patient treated with an anti Programmed cell death-1 pembrolizumab and an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor pazopanib. Case report A 60-year-old Caucasian male presented to our clinic with inflammatory arthritis with pitting edema. He had been started on pembrolizumab therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma after enrolling in the KEYNOTE-679 study. After six cycles of treatment with pembrolizumab, metastasis had been determined in the lung. Then, the patient’s therapy was changed to pazopanib. While the patient was on pazopanib treatment, he noticed a gradual swelling of both hands. Rheumatoid factor, anti-nuclear antibody and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide were negative. Joint ultrasonography revealed acute tenosynovitis and soft tissue swelling with pitting edema, and a diagnosis of remitting seronegative symmetrical synovitis with pitting edema was made. Management and outcome: He was started on 10 mg prednisolone daily. His symptoms dramatically responded to corticosteroid. He continued to take pazopanib. Then, the patient was discharged with 10 mg prednisolone daily. Discussion Pembrolizumab- and/or pazopanib-induced remitting seronegative symmetrical synovitis with pitting edema can be among the rare rheumatic immune-related adverse events that clinicians may encounter as the immune check point inhibitors and anti-VEGF use increases. Corticosteroid therapy can relieve symptoms and cessation of therapy may not be necessary.

scholarly journals Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M Geynisman ◽  
Ella X Du ◽  
Xiaoran Yang ◽  
Selvam R Sendhil ◽  
Viviana Del Tejo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
Lower Grade ◽  
First Line ◽  
Unit Costs ◽  
Grade 3

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (NIVO + IPI, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received NIVO + IPI had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with NIVO + IPI was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document