IntroductionImmunotherapy in the form of immune checkpoint inhibitors has changed the landscape of cancer treatment. Newer monoclonal antibodies are coming up and are being tested in various cancers during different stages of treatment. With the increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of various types of cancers, the question is raised as to what next can be offered to a patient who has progressed on this newer treatment. Does Sequence matter? There have been reports of improved responses to chemotherapy after immunotherapy in the form of vaccines. Here we present a case series of 6 patients who progressed on immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors after initial modality of treatment (chemotherapy/radiation), subsequently received chemotherapy with excellent response.MethodsWe have a cohort of six patients who had disease progression on second line Immunotherapy for solid or hematological malignancies and had ECOG < 2. All these patients received third line salvage chemotherapy. Three patients had metastatic head and neck cancer, 2 had non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and one had T -cell rich B- cell lymphoma. Prior review and approval were obtained from our institutional review board.ResultsAll patients had an excellent response to chemotherapy in third line setting, after immune checkpoint inhibitors and most of them achieved a complete response.ConclusionTargeting cancer with chemotherapy after failure of immunotherapy is a valid option and can lead to better response rates and PFS which may lead to OS. This effect may be secondary to immunotherapy removing the inhibition exerted by tumor cells or other immune cells initially followed by cytotoxic chemotherapy mediated killing of tumor cells.
BackgroundSeveral anti-cancer drugs have been linked to new onset atrial fibrillation (AF) but the true association of these drugs with AF is unknown. The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a publicly available pharmacovigilance mechanism provided by the FDA, collects adverse event reports from the United States and other countries, thus providing real-world data.ObjectivesTo identify anti-cancer drugs associated with AF using the FAERS database.MethodsThe FAERS database was searched for all drugs reporting AF as an adverse event (AE). The top 30 anti-cancer drugs reporting AF cases were shortlisted and analyzed. Proportional reporting ratio (PRR) was used to measure disproportionality in reporting of adverse events for these drugs.ResultsWhen analyzed for AF as a percentage of all reported AE for a particular drug, Ibrutinib had the highest percentage (5.3%) followed distantly by venetoclax (1.6%), bortezomib (1.6%), carfilzomib (1.5%), and nilotinib (1.4%). The percentage of cardiac AE attributable to AF was also highest for ibrutinib (41.5%), followed by venetoclax (28.4%), pomalidomide (23.9%), bortezomib (18.2%), and lenalidomide (18.2%). Drugs with the highest PRR for AF included ibrutinib (5.96, 95% CI= 5.70–6.23), bortezomib (1.65, 95% CI = 1.52–1.79), venetoclax (1.65, 95% CI = 1.46–1.85), carfilzomib (1.53, 95% CI = 1.33–1.77), and nilotinib (1.46, 95% CI = 1.31–1.63).ConclusionsWhile newer anti-cancer drugs have improved the prognosis in cancer patients, it is important to identify any arrhythmias they may cause early on to prevent increased morbidity and mortality. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true incidence of new onset AF associated with anti-cancer drugs.
8550 Background: The PACIFIC study (PS) concluded that the use of durvalumab from 1 to 42 days after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CXRT) in stage 3 unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) increased the median overall survival (mOS) from 29 to 48 months. It also showed a benefit in tumors with PD-L1 <25%. However, a post-hoc analysis of the PS showed no survival benefit with durvalumab in patients with PD-L1 <1% but was not statistically powered. Currently in the US, durvalumab is approved irrespective of PDL-1 percentage, whereas in Europe it is not approved for tumors with PDL-1 <1%. Also, there was no survival benefit in starting durvalumab within and after 2 weeks of CXRT. Our objectives in this study are to analyze the impact of PDL-1 expression and the date of initiation of durvalumab post CXRT on mOS. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of stage 3 unresectable NSCLC patients who received durvalumab post CXRT at LSU Health Shreveport from 2018 to 2021. A survival analysis was done including the following variables: age, race, sex, tumor histology, tumor PD-L1 percentage, and date of initiation of durvalumab post CXRT. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We identified 83 patients who received durvalumab after CXRT for treatment of stage 3 unresectable NSCLC. Baseline characteristics are provided in table 1. Among all the tumors, 25% had a PDL-1 <1%. 33% of the study population received durvalumab less than 30 days after CXRT and 67% received it after 30 days. The mOS was not impacted by race, sex, or tumor hisotology. Compared to higher PDL-1 percentage, patients with PD-L1 <1% had a statistically significant lower survival probability. At 14 months, 87% of patients with a PD-L1 <1% were alive compared to 100% in those with a PD-L1 1-50% or a PD-L1 >50%. Less than 35% of patients with PD-L1 <1% survived beyond 30 months compared to 45% for PD-L1 1-50% and 100% for PD-L1 >50% (p-value 0.02). Patients who received durvalumab 30-60 days after concurrent CXRT had a lower OS at 30 months compared to those who started before 30 days (44% versus 90%). However, statistical significance was not reached (p-value 0.45). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that patients with a PD-L1 tumor expression of <1% had a statistically significant lower survival probability compared to those with a PD-L1 expression of 1-50% and > 50% in this patient population. Time from CXRT to the start of durvalumab was not shown to affect survival outcomes.[Table: see text]
Background Lung cancer cause nearly 1.76 million deaths worldwide in 2018. In 2011, the National-Lung-Cancer-Screening-Trial showed 20% relative risk reduction with LDCT and subsequently led to the current USPSTF screening guidelines. However, the predominant focus on elderly, Caucasian questions its generalizability to communities with young, African Americans such as our institution. Hence, the objective of our study is to investigate the need to modify the current screening guidelines at our institution by assessing the applicability of newer individual risk-based prediction models for LDCT screening.Methods This is a retrospective observational cohort study of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients at LSU Health Sciences Center Shreveport from 2011 to 2015. One-third of the patients did not meet the current USPSTF screening guidelines. We categorized them into high-risk (groups1 and 2), moderate-risk, and low-risk according to 2018 NCCN Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Version 1.2020. The high-risk groups were differentiated using the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. ResultsAmong those who did not meet the screening guidelines, nearly 50% were African American, 95% with known smoking history, and 80% diagnosed at advanced stage at the time of diagnosis. After employing the Tammemagi Risk based calculator, 12.5% were categorized into high-risk group 2, who are also eligible for annual LDCT. ConclusionThe current USPSTF guidelines have failed in our population consisting of young African American smokers, questioning the health disparity in medicine. By employing individual risk-based prediction models, we could potentially identify tailored high-risk populations leading to appropriate use of LDCT screening. European
e13572 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in men and women with 1.76 million deaths worldwide in 2018 [1]. Given its high prevalence and mortality, trials were developed to improve screening strategies. National-Lung-Screening-Trial showed a 20% relative-risk-reduction in mortality in people screened with annual low-dose-CT-scan [2] leading to the implementation of current USPSTF guidelines. We used USPSTF screening criteria to estimate the proportion of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that would have been screening-eligible at our institution.Upon chart review 33% of overall lung cancer patients at our institution did not meet the screening guidelines. We decided to investigate the need to modify the current screening guidelines of our institution based on individual risk assessment. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of the new diagnoses at Louisiana-State-University-Shreveport from 2011-2015. Patients were categorized into high-risk (groups 1 and 2), moderate risk, and low risk according to 2018 NCCN Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Version 1.2020 [3]. To differentiate between high-risk group 2 and moderate risk, the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator was employed, considering 1.3% threshold of lung cancer risk over 6-year time frame [4]. According to NCCN, high-risk group 1 and 2 are eligible for annual low-dose-CT-scan. Results: 33% of overall lung cancer patients at our institution did not meet the screening guidelines criteria, among the 33% ineligible for screening, only 12.5% fell under the high-risk category based on the Tammemagi calculator. Conclusions: Despite using individual risk assessment based on Tammemagi calculator, 87.5% of lung cancer patients ineligible to current USPSTF guidelines are still missing the eligibility for screening at our institution. We believe more efficient risk prediction models have to be developed to improve selection of individuals for lung cancer screening.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.