scholarly journals Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Associated Hepatotoxicity in Primary Liver Cancer Versus Other Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianyang Fu ◽  
Wang-Zhong Li ◽  
Nicole A. McGrath ◽  
Chunwei Walter Lai ◽  
Gagandeep Brar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Primary Liver Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Liver Cancers ◽  
Grade 3

BackgroundOverall risks of hepatotoxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have yet to be compared in primary liver cancers to other solid tumors.MethodsWe reviewed data from the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, and assessed the risk of hepatotoxicity associated with ICIs.ResultsA total of 117 trials were eligible for the meta‐analysis, including 7 trials with primary liver cancers. The most common hepatotoxicity was ALT elevation (incidence of all grade 5.29%, 95% CI 4.52-6.20) and AST elevation (incidence of all grade 5.88%, 95% CI 4.96-6.97). The incidence of all grade ALT and AST elevation was 6.01% and 6.84% for anti-PD‐1 (95% CI 5.04-7.18/5.69-8.25) and 3.60% and 3.72% for anti-PD-L1 (95% CI 2.72-4.76/2.82-4.94; p< 0.001/p<0.001). The incidence of ≥ grade 3 ALT and AST elevation was 1.54% and 1.48% for anti-PD‐1 (95% CI 1.19-1.58/1.07-2.04) and 1.03% and 1.08% for anti-PD-L1 (95% CI 0.71-1.51/0.80-1.45; p= 0.002/p<0.001). The incidence of all grade ALT and AST elevation was 13.3% and 14.2% in primary liver cancers (95% CI 11.1-16.0 and 9.93-20.36) vs. 4.92% and 5.38% in other solid tumors (95% CI 4.21-5.76 and 4.52-5.76 in other solid tumors; p <0.001/p<0.001).ConclusionOur study indicates that anti-PD-1 is associated with a higher risk of all‐ and high‐grade hepatotoxicity compared to anti-PD-L1, and primary liver cancers are associated with a higher risk of all‐ and high‐grade hepatotoxicity compared to other solid tumors.

The emerging use of immune checkpoint blockade in the adjuvant setting for solid tumors: a review

Immunotherapy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (16) ◽  
pp. 1409-1422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elissar Moujaess ◽  
Fady Gh Haddad ◽  
Roland Eid ◽  
Hampig Raphael Kourie
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Blockade ◽  
Adjuvant Setting ◽  
Lung Cancers ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Postoperative Setting

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has been approved in the advanced and metastatic setting for many types of solid tumors. Nonetheless, their role in the adjuvant setting is limited to the treatment of surgically resected melanoma. Ipilimumab was the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for this indication, followed by nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Many ongoing trials are evaluating these molecules in the postoperative setting, alone or in combination with other therapies. Preliminary results are promising regarding the treatment of other cutaneous tumors, lung cancers, head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, bladder cancer and renal cell carcinomas. Some data assessing their use for the adjuvant treatment of esophageal, colorectal, ovarian cancer and other solid tumors are similarly emerging.

scholarly journals Application of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Cholangiocarcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 153303382110399
Author(s):  
Fan-li Zeng ◽  
Jing-fang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Malignant Tumors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
General Term ◽  
Distal Cholangiocarcinoma ◽  
Poor Outcomes ◽  
Defective Mismatch Repair

Cholangiocarcinoma is a general term for intrahepatic and extrahepatic malignant tumors deriving in the biliary system. According to the location, it is divided into intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, hilar cholangiocarcinoma, and distal cholangiocarcinoma. Progressive cholangiocarcinoma yields poor outcomes with radiotherapy; therefore, there is an urgent need for new therapeutic breakthroughs. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy brings the treatment for cancer into a new field, with the use of drugs targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 considerably extending the survival of patients with melanoma, lung cancer, and other solid tumors. The FDA has approved the application of pembrolizumab for solid tumors with high microsatellite instability and defective mismatch repair, including cholangiocarcinoma. Moreover, the combination of ICIs with chemotherapy and radiation therapy showed good promise. The aim of the present study was to review the application of ICIs in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma and to summarize the reported individualized immunotherapy-based protocols and ongoing clinical trials for clinical reference.

Efficacy of immunotherapy in hepatocholangiocarcinoma (HCC-CC): Proof of concept.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16194-e16194
Author(s):  
Osama Diab ◽  
Maloree Khan ◽  
Saqib Abbasi ◽  
Anwaar Saeed ◽  
Anup Kasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Liver Cancers ◽  
First Line Treatment

e16194 Background: Hepatocholangiocarcinoma (HCC-CC) is a rare form of cancer with a poor prognosis. Of all primary liver cancers, the incidence of HCC-CC ranges from 0.4 to 14.2%. HCC-CC is a mixed carcinoma with findings of both hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a potent first line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma with multiple clinical trial showing effectiveness in cholangiocarcinoma. HCC-CC has limited proven treatment options as patients are generally excluded from clinical trials. In this study we reviewed outcomes of patients with HCC-CC who received immune checkpoint inhibitor in a single center. Methods: Records of patients who had a pathological confirmed HCC-CC by a subspecialized hepatic pathologist at the University of Kansas medical center were reviewed. We identified 6 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC-CC that received immune checkpoint inhibitor between February 2017 and January 2021. Baseline characteristics were obtained, as well as best response, line of therapy, and duration of response. Results: Of the six patients 4 (66%) received PD-1 inhibitor alone and 2 (34%) received combination therapy with CTLA-4 inhibitor for the treatment of HCC-CC. There were 3 (50%) females and 6 (100%) with prior hepatitis C infection. four (66%) patients had metastatic disease and 2 had locally unresectable advanced disease. Objective response rate was 83.3%. One patient achieved complete response and had a treatment holiday after receiving treatment for 2 years, and restarted immunotherapy upon relapse. Four patients had a partial response, of which two passed away after disease progression. One patient had stable disease on 2 different lines of immunotherapy then progressed. Of those who responded, one patient received immunotherapy, 3 (50%) received liver directed therapy and two received chemotherapy or Lenvatinib as first line treatment (Table). Conclusions: Immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrate potential activity in patients with HCC-CC without unexpected side effect in this unmet need high-risk population. Larger studies are needed to confirm activity and efficacy in this setting.[Table: see text]

Comparative quantitative safety profiles of PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor monotherapies: A Bayesian model-based meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15167-e15167
Author(s):  
Boris Shulgin ◽  
Alexandra Smirnova ◽  
Yuri Kosinsky ◽  
Gabriel Helmlinger ◽  
Kirill Peskov
Keyword(s):  
Bayesian Model ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Immune Mediated ◽  
Grade 3

e15167 Background: Anti-cancer therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are associated with immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs). The objective of this study was to use a Bayesian model-based meta-analysis, to compare safety profiles of PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor monotherapies. Methods: We performed an exhaustive search through PubMed and TrialTrove databases, ASCO and ESMO abstracts to identify relevant ICI safety data. A Bayesian meta-analysis (BMA) was performed for all-grade and high-grade (Grades 3-4) treatment-related AEs (trAEs) and immune-mediated AEs (imAEs). The analysis was performed for total AEs and individual AEs affecting different organs: dermatological (rash, pruritus), gastrointestinal (diarrhea, colitis), hepatic (AST, ALT), respiratory (pneumonitis), and endocrine (hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism). Software STAN along with the brms package in R software were used for the BMA. Results: A total of 145 articles were identified, covering 30,737 patients in 153 cohorts treated with anti PD-1 and anti PD-L1 monotherapies. For total all-grade and grade 3&4 trAEs, anti PD-L1 demonstrated lower AE rates vs. anti PD-1 (65% vs. 69% and 12% vs. 16%, respectively). Results were similar for total all-grade and high-grade imAEs (19% vs. 26% and 4% vs. 7%, respectively). The analysis of all-grade individual trAEs showed that anti PD-L1 exhibited lower AE rates vs. anti PD-1 for rash (8% vs. 10.5%), pruritus (9% vs. 12%), diarrhea (8.5% vs. 11%), colitis (1.0% vs. 1.6%), AST (3.0% vs. 5.5%), ALT (3.5% vs. 5.6%), pneumonitis (3.0% vs. 3.9%), hyperthyroidism (0.8% vs. 4.0%) and hypothyroidism (6.0% vs. 8.0%). For grade 3&4 trAEs, differences between anti PD-L1 and anti PD-1 were: 0.6% vs. 1.3% for diarrhea, 0.7% vs. 1.4% for colitis, and 0.9% vs 1.6% for pneumonitis. All-grade imAEs were less frequent for anti PD-L1 vs. anti PD-1 for: rash (6.5% vs. 10%), colitis (1.0% vs. 2.0%), AST (3.5% vs. 3.9%), ALT (2.9% vs. 4.0%), pneumonitis (2.0% vs. 4.0%), hyperthyroidism (2.5% vs. 4.0%) and hypothyroidism (5.5% vs. 9.0%). Similar results were obtained for grade 3&4 imAEs incidences: rash (0.5% vs. 0.9%), diarrhea (0.5% vs. 1.5%), colitis (0.5% vs. 1.1%) and pneumonitis (0.9% vs. 1.4%). Conclusions: Significant differences in trAEs and imAEs rates were shown for anti PD-L1 vs. anti PD-1 monotherapies. Anti PD-L1 demonstrated more favorable safety profiles for total and individual AE rates. Notably, AE rates for pneumonitis and colitis were twice as high for anti PD-1 vs. anti PD-L1 therapies.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor induced hepatitis: Risk factors, outcomes, and impact on survival.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14525-e14525
Author(s):  
Abdul Miah ◽  
Songzhu Zhao ◽  
Sandip H. Patel ◽  
Andrew Johns ◽  
Madison Grogan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Grade 3

e14525 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved the survival of patients with multiple cancer types, however ICI treatment is associated with a unique set of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that can affect any organ. Few studies have evaluated the risk factors and outcomes of ICI induced hepatitis (ICIH). Methods: We utilized an institutional database of patients with advanced cancers treated with ICI between 2011 and 2017 at The OSU Comprehensive Cancer Center to identify patients with ICIH. Any patient who received at least one dose of ICI alone or in combination with other systemic therapies either as part of clinical trial or standard of care were included. Clinical data were extracted through chart abstraction. irAEs were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of ICI initiation to death from any cause or the date of the last follow-up. OS with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. OS was also evaluated by occurrence of ICIH using the log-rank test. Results: We identified 1,096 patients treated with at least one dose of ICI. Most common cancers included lung (n=224, 20%) and melanoma (n=342, 31%). The most common ICIs were PD1/L1 (n=774, 71%) and CTLA-4 inhibitors (n=195, 18%). ICIH of any grade occurred in 64 (6%) patients. Overall, 46 (71%) were male and median age was 60 years. Severity of hepatitis was grade 1-2 in 30 patients (47%) (Table 1). The incidence of ≥grade 3 ICIH in the entire cohort was 3.1%. Median time to ICIH diagnosis was 63 days. ICIH occurred alone in 24 patients, and co-occurred with other irAEs in 40 patients. The most common co-occurring irAEs were pneumonitis (n=7); colitis (n=15), thyroid abnormality (n=14); and dermatitis (n=15). ICIH was more common in women (p=0.038), in patients treated with combination ICIs (p<0.001), and among patients receiving first line therapy (p=0.018). Patients who developed ICIH had significantly longer OS than patients who did not develop ICIH; there was no difference in OS between patients with ≥grade 3 ICIH vs grade 1-2 (Table). 33 out of 34 patients with ≥grade3 ICIH were treated with steroids; 3 received mycophenolate and one received infliximab. Of patients with ≥grade 3 ICIH, 11 resumed ICI therapy without recurrent ICIH. Conclusions: Female sex, combination immunotherapy, and line of therapy were associated with ICIH. Patients with ICIH had improved clinical outcomes compared to those that did not develop ICIH, even those with higher grade toxicity. Further study is needed to assist in developing risk stratification models and optimal treatment for ICIH. OS of patients with and without immune checkpoint inhibitor hepatitis.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tianni Zeng ◽  
Xiaojie Fang ◽  
Jinhua Lu ◽  
Yazhen Zhong ◽  
Xianlei Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients

Abstract Background and objective Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have shown promising prospects in colorectal cancer (CRC) immunotherapy; many clinical trials have been carried out. In this study, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICI therapies in CRC by presenting a meta-analysis of relevant studies. Methods Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies concerning the efficacy and safety of ICI in colorectal cancer. The reported odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and TRAEs ≥ 3 in the included studies were analyzed by fixed effects/random effects models. Results Three studies involving 667 patients with colorectal cancer were included in our meta-analysis. No significant difference between the immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and conventional therapies in OS (WMD = 0.73, 95% CI − 3.09, 4.54; p = 0.71), in ORR (OR = 1.54, 95% CI 0.98, 2.40; p = 0.06), and in DCR (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.36, 2.61; p = 0.95). The median PFS of the ICI therapy group was shorter than that of the conventional therapy group (WMD =  − 0.10, 95% CI − 0.18, − 0.02; p = 0.02). At the same time, we also could not find a significant difference between the immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and conventional therapies in TRAEs (OR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.11, 22.09; p = 0.74) and in TRAEs ≥ 3 (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.16, 5.65; p = 0.95). Conclusion Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies could not improve all survival endpoints to advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Whether immune checkpoint inhibitors should be the first choice of therapies for colorectal cancer patients with undetermined microsatellite status or not able to determine microsatellite status needs more related studies to prove.

First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma – A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis

Kidney Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Jason Shpilsky ◽  
Paul J. Catalano ◽  
David F. McDermott
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background: Combination or multi-agent therapy including immune checkpoint inhibitors has shifted the landscape of the treatment of advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. There are several approved immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combinations featuring antibodies against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor or its ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined with other immune checkpoint inhibitors, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), or other agents active in renal cell carcinoma. Objective: This study aims to compile the evidence of available first-line combination therapies compared to sunitinib monotherapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted according to the PRISMA statement to identify all randomized Phase III clinical trial data in previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma featuring an immune checkpoint inhibitor combination compared against sunitinib. A two-stage selection process was utilized to determine eligible studies. Of a total of 124 studies and 94 additional abstracts, 6 studies were considered for final analysis. These studies were evaluated for progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), Grade III or higher adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response rate (CRR). Results: 6 studies with 5,121 patients met our search criteria. For OS, ICI combination therapy was favored over sunitinib with an estimated combined hazard ratio of 0.74 (0.67–0.81 95% CI). For PFS, ICI combination therapy was favored over sunitinib with an estimated combined hazard ratio of 0.65 (0.52–0.82, 95% CI). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab had the longest duration of response and less incidence of grade III or higher adverse events compared to the combination of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with TKI. The combination of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 with TKI had higher rates of overall response and longer PFS than the combination of nivolumab/ipilimumab. Conclusions: This meta-analysis supports the recommendation of immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy over sunitinib monotherapy for previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma by virtue of improved PFS and OS. The choice of which ICI combination therapy to use may be guided by patient-specific characteristics including IMDC risk status, adverse effect profile, and need for early response.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document