Introduction. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been approved for front-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, progressive disease often occurs and subsequent therapies are needed. ICI rechallenge may be an option, but there is a lack of data regarding efficacy and prognostic factors. We assessed efficacy of ICI rechallenge and factors associated with better outcomes. Patients and Methods. This ambispective multicenter study included 45 mRCC patients rechallenged with nivolumab ± ipilimumab between 2014 and 2020. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR) for ICI rechallenge (ICI-2). Factors associated with ICI-2 progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated with multivariate Cox models. Results. ORR was 51% (n = 23) at first ICI therapy (ICI-1) and 16% (n = 7) for ICI-2. Median PFS was 11.4 months (95% CI, 9.8–23.5) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.8–9.7), and median overall survival was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 37.8–NR) and 24 months (95% CI, 9.9–NR) for ICI-1 and ICI-2, respectively. Factors associated with poorer ICI-2 PFS were a high number of metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, use of an intervening treatment between ICI regimens, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, and poor International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at ICI-2 start. Conversely, ICI-1 PFS >6 months was associated with better ICI-2 PFS. In multivariate analysis, there were only statistical trends toward better ICI-2 PFS in patients with ICI-1 PFS >6 months ( p = 0.07 ) and toward poorer ICI-2 PFS in patients who received a treatment between ICI regimens ( p = 0.07 ). Conclusion. Rechallenge with nivolumab-based ICI has some efficacy in mRCC. We identified various prognostic factors in univariate analysis but only statistical trends in multivariate analysis. Our findings bring new evidence on ICI rechallenge and preliminary but unique data that may help clinicians to select patients who will benefit from this strategy.
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been a major advance in treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1 blockade enhances immune function, mediating anti-tumor activity, yet causing immune-related adverse events (irAEs). We investigated the prognostic role of Grade 3–4 irAEs on overall survival (OS). Methods: This observational study recruited advanced NSCLC patients who received ICIs at Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital and in a community hospital, Saint-Joseph Foundation (Paris), between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2019. Immunotherapy as a single-agent or double-drug combination was applied in the first and later lines. Univariable and multivariable analyses were instrumental in evaluating the prognostic impact of irAEs. Results: Overall, 201 consecutive ICI-treated patients were enrolled. High-grade irAEs (Grades 3–4) occurred in 36 patients (17.9%), including 11 (30.5%) cases of pneumonitis, 8 (22.2%) of colitis, 4 (11.1%) hepatic, 3 (8.3%) dermatological, 2 (5.5%) neurological events, and 2 cases (5.5%) of poly-arthralgia. The median OS was 10.4 ± 1.36 months (95% CI:7.7–13.1), being significantly higher in patients with high-grade irAEs than those without, 27.8 months vs. 8.1 months, respectively (HR = 2.5; p < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis revealed an independent association between high-grade irAEs and longer OS (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.2–0.6, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our real-life study confirms that high-grade irAEs predict longer OS in advanced NSCLC.
Background: Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSis) abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone and enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the most administered first-line treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). AA and Enza have shown similar overall survival (OS) benefits and there is no consensus upon the best option for mCRPC first-line treatment. Volume of disease may represent a useful biomarker to predict response to therapy in such patients. Objectives: In this study, we seek to evaluate the impact of volume of disease on patients treated with first-line AA versus Enza for mCRPC. Design and methods: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of consecutive patients with mCRPC categorized by volume of disease [high volume (HV) or low volume (LV) per E3805 criteria] at ARSi onset and treatment type (AA or Enza), assessing OS and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), from therapy start, as co-primary endpoints. Results: Of the 420 patients selected, 170 (40.5%) had LV and received AA (LV/AA), 76 (18.1%) LV and had Enza (LV/Enza), 124 (29.5%) HV and were given AA (HV/AA), and 50 (11.9%) HV and received Enza (HV/Enza). Among patients with LV, OS was significantly longer when treated with Enza [57.2 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 52.1–62.2 months] versus AA (51.6 months; 95% CI, 42.6–60.6 months; p = 0.003). Consistently, those with LV receiving Enza showed increased rPFS (40.3 months; 95 CI, 25.0–55.7 months) than those having AA (22.0 months; 95% CI, 18.1–26.0 months; p = 0.004). No significant difference in OS or rPFS was observed in those with HV treated with AA versus Enza ( p = 0.51 and p = 0.73, respectively). In multivariate analysis of patients with LV, treatment with Enza was independently associated with better prognosis than AA. Conclusion: Within the intrinsic limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our report suggests that volume of disease could be a useful predictive biomarker for patients starting first-line ARSi for mCRPC.
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]
Une méta-analyse des études Chinoises sur 3 600 patients avec cancer et COVID-19, a montré une augmentation du risque de COVID-19 et de mortalité chez ces patients. Les études Nord-Américaines et Européennes ont confirmé que les patients avec cancer évolutif étaient à haut risque de COVID-19, indépendamment de l’âge, du sexe, et que leur risque de formes sévères et de décès était plus important que celui de la population générale, à structure d’âge équivalente. Les patients avec cancers bronchiques sont ceux présentant le risque le plus important de forme sévère et de mortalité (de 25 à 30 %), après les patients traités pour hémopathie maligne. Les patients métastatiques, avec PS altéré, et ceux ayant reçu une chimiothérapie cytotoxique dans les semaines précédant l’infection, sont à plus haut risque décès. Par contre, le fait d’avoir reçu une immunothérapie ne semble pas favoriser l’orage cytokinique qui fait la gravité du COVID-19. La pandémie a nécessité des changements organisationnels des services et des hôpitaux, pour permettre la continuité des soins des patients avec cancer, mais aussi des adaptations des schémas thérapeutiques (espacement des cures, choix de schémas moins toxiques, utilisation systématique de facteurs de croissance), et des surveillances par téléconsultation. Enfin, les vaccins à ARN messager apparaissent efficaces dans les cancers thoraciques, si l’on maintient le schéma vaccinal à 21/28 jours, car l’immunisation protectrice apparait retardée, notamment par la chimiothérapie cytotoxique, avec 13 % des patients gardant un taux très bas d’anticorps protecteurs, mais bénéficiant d’une troisième injection avec ascension des titres d’anticorps. © 2021 SPLF. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.