While immune checkpoint inhibitors are disrupting the management of patients with cancer, anecdotal occurrences of rapid progression (i.e., hyperprogressive disease or HPD) under these agents have ...been described, suggesting potentially deleterious effects of these drugs. The prevalence, the natural history, and the predictive factors of HPD in patients with cancer treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1 remain unknown.
Medical records from all patients (
= 218) prospectively treated in Gustave Roussy by anti-PD-1/PD-L1 within phase I clinical trials were analyzed. The tumor growth rate (TGR) prior ("REFERENCE"; REF) and upon ("EXPERIMENTAL"; EXP) anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy was compared to identify patients with accelerated tumor growth. Associations between TGR, clinicopathologic characteristics, and overall survival (OS) were computed.
HPD was defined as a RECIST progression at the first evaluation and as a ≥2-fold increase of the TGR between the REF and the EXP periods. Of 131 evaluable patients, 12 patients (9%) were considered as having HPD. HPD was not associated with higher tumor burden at baseline, nor with any specific tumor type. At progression, patients with HPD had a lower rate of new lesions than patients with disease progression without HPD (
< 0.05). HPD is associated with a higher age (
< 0.05) and a worse outcome (overall survival). Interestingly, REF TGR (before treatment) was inversely correlated with response to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 (
< 0.05) therapy.
A novel aggressive pattern of hyperprogression exists in a fraction of patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1. This observation raises some concerns about treating elderly patients (>65 years old) with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and suggests further study of this phenomenon.
.
Display omitted
•Acute hepatitis resulting from treatment of metastatic cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors is rare.•Immune-mediated hepatitis diagnosis requires exclusion of all causes of ...hepatitis.•Liver histology is paramount for the diagnosis and severity evaluation of liver damage.•Management should be based on biological and histological severity of liver injury.•Immune-mediated hepatitis does not require the systematic use of corticosteroids.
Immunotherapy for metastatic cancer can be complicated by the onset of hepatic immune-related adverse events (IRAEs). This study compared hepatic IRAEs associated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).
Among 536 patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA-4 immunotherapies, 19 (3.5%) were referred to the liver unit for grade ≥3 hepatitis. Of these patients, nine had received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and seven had received anti-CTLA-4 mAbs, in monotherapy or in combination with anti-PD-1. Liver investigations were undertaken in these 16 patients, including viral assays, autoimmune tests and liver biopsy, histological review, and immunostaining of liver specimens.
In the 16 patients included in this study, median age was 63 (range 33-84) years, and nine (56%) were female. Time between therapy initiation and hepatitis was five (range, 1–49) weeks and median number of immunotherapy injections was two (range, 1–36). No patients developed hepatic failure. Histology related to anti-CTLA-4 mAbs demonstrated granulomatous hepatitis including fibrin ring granulomas and central vein endotheliitis. Histology related to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs was characterised by lobular hepatitis. The management of hepatic IRAEs was tailored according to the severity of both the biology and histology of liver injury: six patients improved spontaneously; seven received oral corticosteroids at 0.5–1 mg/kg/day; two were maintained on 0.2 mg/kg/day corticosteroids; and one patient required pulses and 2.5 mg/kg/day of corticosteroids, and the addition of a second immunosuppressive drug. In three patients, immunotherapy was reintroduced without recurrence of liver dysfunction.
Acute hepatitis resulting from immunotherapy for metastatic cancer is rare (3.5%) and, in most cases, not severe. Histological assessment can distinguish between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAb toxicity. The severity of liver injury is helpful for tailoring patient management, which does not require systematic corticosteroid administration.
Immunotherapy for metastatic cancer can be complicated by immune-related adverse events in the liver. In patients receiving immunotherapy for metastatic cancer who develop immune-mediated hepatitis, liver biopsy is helpful for the diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of liver injury. This study demonstrates the need for patient-oriented management, which could eventually avoid unnecessary systemic corticosteroid treatment.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZRSKP
The considerable progress made in the field of cancer treatment has led to a dramatic improvement in the prognosis of patients with cancer. However, toxicities resulting from these treatments ...represent a cost that can be harmful to short- and long-term outcomes. Adverse events affecting the cardiovascular system are one of the greatest challenges in the overall management of patients with cancer, as they can compromise the success of the optimal treatment against the tumor. Such adverse events are associated not only with older chemotherapy drugs such as anthracyclines but also with many targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Recognizing this concern, several American and European governing societies in oncology and cardiology have published guidelines on the cardiovascular monitoring of patients receiving potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapies, as well as on the management of cardiovascular toxicities. However, the low level of evidence supporting these guidelines has led to numerous discrepancies, leaving clinicians without a consensus strategy to apply. A cardio-oncology expert panel from the French Working Group of Cardio-Oncology has undertaken an ambitious effort to analyze and harmonize the most recent American and European guidelines to propose roadmaps and decision algorithms that would be easy for clinicians to use in their daily practice. In this statement, the experts addressed the cardiovascular monitoring strategies for the cancer drugs associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular toxicities, as well as the management of such toxicities.
Anti-PD-(L)1 can provide overall survival (OS) benefits over conventional treatments for patients with many different cancer types. However, the long-term outcome of cancer patients responding to ...these therapies remains unknown. This study is an exploratory study that aimed to describe the long-term survival of patients responding to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy across multiple cancer types.
Data from patients treated with an anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy in a phase I trial at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively analyzed over a period of 5 years. All cancer types (
= 19) were included. Clinical and biological factors associated with response, long-term survival, and secondary refractory disease were studied.
Among 262 eligible patients, the overall objective response rate was 29%. The median progression-free survival of responder patients (RP) at 3 months was 30 months, and the median OS of RP was not reached after a median follow-up of 34 months. In RPs, 3- and 5-year OS percentages were 84% and 64%, respectively. No death occurred in the 21 complete responders (CR) during the overall follow-up. However, many partial responders (PR) showed subsequent tumor relapses to treatment. Long responders (response ≥2 years) represented 11.8% of the overall population. These findings should be validated in further prospective studies.
There are currently no differences in therapeutic strategies between CRs and PRs to anti-PD-(L)1. We found a striking difference in OS between these two types of responses. Our results are in favor of evaluating patient stratification strategies and intensification of treatments when tumor lesions of a partial responder to immunotherapy stop improving.
.
Background
New patterns of progression under immune-oncology (IO) antibodies (mAb) have been described such as pseudoprogression. Except for melanoma, variations between studies reveal difficulties ...to establish their prevalence.
Methods
This retrospective study enrolled patients participating in IO phase I trials at Gustave Roussy cancer center for solid tumors excluding melanoma. Radiological assessment according to iRECIST was correlated with prospectively registered patient characteristics and outcomes. Pseudoprogression (PsPD) was defined as RECIST-defined progression followed by stabilization or decrease at the next imaging, and dissociated response (DisR) as concomitant decrease in some tumor lesions and increase in others at a same timepoint.
Results
Among 360 patients included, 74% received IO mAb combination: 45% with another IO mAb, 20% with targeted therapy and 10% with radiotherapy. The overall response rate was 19.7%. PsPD were observed in 10 (2.8%) patients and DisR in 12 (3.3%) patients. Atypical responses (AR), including PsPD and DisR, were not associated with any patient’s baseline characteristics. Compare with typical responder patients, patients experiencing AR presented a shorter iPFS (HR 0.34;
p
< 0.001) and OS (HR 0.27;
p
= 0.026). Among the 203 patients who progressed in 12 weeks, 80 (39.4%) patients were treated beyond progression. PD was confirmed in 80% of cases, while 10% of patients presented a response.
Conclusion
Pseudoprogression and dissociated response are uncommon patterns of progression. Their prevalence should be balanced with the rate of real progressing patients treated beyond progression. Prognosis or on-treatment biomarkers are needed to identify early patients who will benefit from immunotherapy.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FZAB, GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) represents a valid therapeutic option in older patients for several solid cancer types. However, most of the data concerning efficacy and adverse ...events of ICB available are derived from younger and fitter patients. Reliable biomarkers are needed to better select the population that will benefit from ICB especially in older patients who may be at a higher risk of developing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with a greater impact on their quality of life. The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) is a score that combines pretreatment dNLR (neutrophils/leukocytes − neutrophils) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and is correlated with outcomes in patients treated with ICB in non-small-cell lung cancer. We aimed to assess the impact of LIPI in ICB outcomes in a dedicated cohort of older patients. The primary objective was to study the prognostic role of LIPI score in patients aged 70 years or above in a real-life population treated with anti-programmed death-(ligand)1 (anti PD-(L)1). dNLR and LDH were collected in a prospective cohort of patients aged 70 years or above treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors with metastatic disease between June 2014 and October 2017 at Gustave Roussy. LIPI categorizes the population into three different prognostic groups: good (dNLR ≤ 3 and LDH ≤ ULN—upper normal limit), intermediate (dNLR > 3 or LDH > ULN), and poor (dNLR > 3 and LDH > ULN). Anti PD-(L)1 benefit was analyzed according to overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) using RECIST v1.1. criteria. In the 191 older patients treated, most of them (95%) were ICB-naïve, and 160 (84%) had an ECOG performance status of 0−1 with a median age at ICB treatment of 77 (range, 70−93). The most common tumor types were melanoma (66%) and non-small-cell lung cancer (15%). The median follow-up duration was 18.8 months (95% CI 14.7−24.2). LIPI classified the population into three different groups: 38 (23%) patients had a good LIPI score, 84 (51%) had an intermediate LIPI score, and 43 (26%) had a poor LIPI score. The median OS was 20.7 months 95% CI, 12.6−not reached compared to 11.2 months 95% CI, 8.41−22.2 and 4.7 months 95% CI, 2.2−11.3 in patients with a good, intermediate, and poor LIPI score, respectively (p = 0.0003). The median PFS was 9.2 months 95% CI, 6.2−18.1 in the good LIPI group, 7.2 months 95% CI, 5.4−13 in the intermediate LIPI group, and 3.9 months 95% CI, 2.3−8.2 in the poor LIPI group (p = 0.09). The rate of early death (OS < 3 months) was 37% in the poor LIPI group compared to 5% in the good LIPI group (<0.001). Poor LIPI score was associated with a poorer outcome in older patients treated with anti PD-(L)1. LIPI is a simple and accessible worldwide tool that can serve as a prognostic factor and can be useful for stratification benefit from ICB.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Immunotherapy has dramatically changed the treatment landscape for several tumor types. However, the impact of previous radiotherapy (RT) on response to immunotherapy is still unknown. We report the ...case of a 58-year-old female diagnosed with a squamous anal cell carcinoma previously treated with RT and having a dissociated response to anti-PD1 agent. An extensive analysis of the immune contexture performed on the tissue collected from both previously RT-treated and RT-untreated lesions confirmed differences on immune microenvironment, highlighting the potential impact of radiotherapy on the immune response.
Immune-checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells are revolutionizing oncology and haematology practice. With these and other immunotherapies, however, systemic biodistribution ...raises safety issues, potentially requiring the use of suboptimal doses or even precluding their clinical development. Delivering or attracting immune cells or immunomodulatory factors directly to the tumour and/or draining lymph nodes might overcome these problems. Hence, intratumoural delivery and tumour tissue-targeted compounds are attractive options to increase the in situ bioavailability and, thus, the efficacy of immunotherapies. In mouse models, intratumoural administration of immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies, pattern recognition receptor agonists, genetically engineered viruses, bacteria, cytokines or immune cells can exert powerful effects not only against the injected tumours but also often against uninjected lesions (abscopal or anenestic effects). Alternatively, or additionally, biotechnology strategies are being used to achieve higher functional concentrations of immune mediators in tumour tissues, either by targeting locally overexpressed moieties or engineering 'unmaskable' agents to be activated by elements enriched within tumour tissues. Clinical trials evaluating these strategies are ongoing, but their development faces issues relating to the administration methodology, pharmacokinetic parameters, pharmacodynamic end points, and immunobiological and clinical response assessments. Herein, we discuss these approaches in the context of their historical development and describe the current landscape of intratumoural or tumour tissue-targeted immunotherapies.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK, ZAGLJ
Objective: To evaluate the incidence of the abscopal response (AR) in patients with metastatic melanoma requiring palliative radiotherapy (RT). Patients and methods: Patients treated for metastatic ...melanoma between January 1998 and February 2020 in four oncology departments were screened. Patients with progression under immune checkpoint inhibitors or without ongoing systemic treatment, and requiring palliative RT were considered. The AR was defined as an objective response according to RECIST and/or iRECIST for at least one non-irradiated metastasis at distance (≥10 cm) from the irradiated lesion. Primary endpoint was the rate of AR. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC) of the irradiated lesion, and toxicity as assessed by CTCAE v5. Results: Over the period considered, 118 patients were included and analyzed. Fifteen patients (12.7%) had an AR. With a median follow-up of 7.7 months (range, 0.2−242.2), median OS and PFS after RT were significantly longer in patients with an AR compared to those without: 28 vs. 6.6 months (p < 0.01) and not reached vs. 3.2 months, respectively. No grade ≥2 toxicity was reported. Patients who developed an AR were more likely to be treated with immunotherapy (93.3% vs. 55.9%, p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, they had a higher number of irradiated metastases treated concomitantly (HR = 16.9, p < 0.01) and a higher rate of mild infections during RT (HR = 403.5, p < 0.01). Conclusions: AR in metastatic melanoma seems to be highly prognostic of overall survival, although it is a rare phenomenon. It may be promoted by multiple concomitant treatments with RT and immunotherapy and by acute inflammatory events such as infection.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background
PD(L)1 antibodies (anti‐PD(L)‐1) have been a major breakthrough in several types of cancer. Novel patterns of response and progression have been described with anti‐PD(L)‐1. We aimed at ...characterizing pseudoprogression (PSPD) among patients with various solid tumor types treated by anti‐PD(L)‐1.
Methods
All consecutive patients (pts) enrolled in phase 1 trials with advanced solid tumors and lymphomas treated in phase I clinical trials evaluating monotherapy by anti‐PD(L)‐1 at Gustave Roussy were analyzed. We aimed to assess prevalence and outcome of PSPD across tumor types. We also intended to describe potential clinical and pathological factors associated with PSPD.
Results
A total of 169 patients treated with anti‐PD(L)‐1 were included in the study. Most frequent tumor types included melanoma (n = 57) and non‐small cell lung cancer (n = 19). At first tumor evaluation 77 patients (46%) presented with immune unconfirmed progressive disease. Six patients (8%) experienced PSPD: 2 patients with partial response; 4 patients with stable disease. Increase in target lesions in the first CT‐scan was more frequently associated to PSPD (67% vs 33%; P = .04). Patients with a PSPD had a superior survival when compared to patients progressing (median OS: 10.7 months vs 8.7 months; P = .07).
Conclusions
A small subset of PSPD patients may experience response after an initial progression. Assessment of the current strategy for immune‐related response evaluations may require further attention.
PD(L)1 antibodies (anti‐PD(L)‐1) have been a major breakthrough in several types of cancer. Novel patterns of response and progression have been described with these therapies. We aimed at characterizing pseudoprogression (PSPD) among patients with various solid tumor types treated by anti‐PD(L)‐1
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
