No abstract

Background Most immune-related adverse event (irAE) patterns and treatment guidelines are based on western clinical data. We evaluated the incidence and patterns of irAEs in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in Thailand. Methods All solid tumor patients treated with ICIs were retrospectively reviewed in a multicenter analysis. The study aims to evaluate the incidence of irAEs and their characteristics, treatments, outcomes, and impact on survival. All irAEs were graded using the CTCAE version 4.0. Characteristics of irAEs including time to onset, duration of irAEs, specific treatments, and outcomes of irAEs were reviewed. The Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare variables. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared by the log-rank test. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results irAEs of any grade were observed in 98 of 414 patients (24%), whereas grades 3–4 irAEs were observed in 5.6%. The majority of patients (78%) were treated with monotherapy ICI (anti-PD1/PD-L1 92%). The most common all-grade irAEs were hypothyroidism (7.5%), hepatitis (6.5%), and rash (4.8%). Median onset of overall irAEs was 63 days. Pancreatitis and pneumonitis had the earliest onset at 30 and 34 days, respectively. ICIs were rechallenged in 68 of 98 patients with irAE. Eleven of sixty-eight patients (11.2%) with initial irAE had reoccurrence after ICI rechallenge. Based on a multivariate analysis, pre-existing hypothyroidism, ICI used in a clinical trial setting, and combinations of ICI/ICI were independent factors predicting irAE occurrence. Patients with irAE had a statistically significant longer overall survival (OS) when compared to patients without irAE (p = 0.019). A multivariate analysis revealed that occurrence of irAE was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51–0.96; p = 0.028). Conclusion irAE was commonly observed in Thai cancer patients treated with ICIs. Most irAEs were low-grade and manageable. Re-occurrence of irAE after re-challenging ICI was not uncommonly observed. Patients who experienced irAEs might have significantly longer OS compared to patients without irAEs. However, OS in this study should be interpreted with caution since it might be affected by various tumor types, treatment settings, dosing schedule, and ICI combinations.

Background Several human monoclonal antibodies directed against immune checkpoints, including T lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed cell death protein 1, have been implemented for cancer treatment in order to promote effector T cell response to tumors. Despite the antitumor activity of these agents, a significant number of patients demonstrated immune-related adverse events that affected the functions of multiple organs, including the endocrine system. We report the first case of immune checkpoint inhibitor–induced simultaneous diabetic ketoacidosis and isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency following combination treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Case presentation A 70-year-old Thai man with no previous history of diabetes mellitus was diagnosed with stage IVB non–small cell lung with pleural and liver metastases. After 14 weeks of combination treatment with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab, he presented with fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Laboratory investigation revealed random plasma glucose 794 mg/dl, serum ketone 6.3 mmol/L, bicarbonate 13 mmol/L, and high anion gap 24 mmol/L. New-onset diabetes mellitus and diabetic ketoacidosis were diagnosed. Insulin therapy was initiated a favorable outcome within 10 hours. Despite improvement of hyperglycemia, the patient had persistent nausea and hyponatremia. Further investigation revealed cortisol 0.8 μg/dl and adrenocorticotropic hormone 21.7 pg/ml. His other pituitary hormone levels were normal, except for mild elevation of gonadotropin hormone. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pituitary showed a normal pituitary gland. Isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency was diagnosed, and corticosteroid replacement therapy was administered, resulting in an improvement of his symptoms. Conclusion Our patient developed new-onset diabetes mellitus, diabetic ketoacidosis, and isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency during cancer treatment with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab. The present case highlights the need for physicians to be aware that immune-related adverse events can occur in multiple organs at the same time.

No abstract

12100 Background: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is vital in cancer treatment. Here, we compared the efficacy of netupitant-containing regimen; composed of NEPA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine (NEPAs), which is recommended for preventing CINV from high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to standard 3-drugs; ondansetron, dexamethasone, olanzapine for preventing CINV from high-dose cisplatin (≥75 mg/m2). Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-control trial randomly assigned untreated patients who were received high-dose cisplatin in a 1:1 ratio to either NEPAs or standard 3-drugs combination regimen. Dose of dexamethasone in NEPAs regimen was modified after preplanned interim safety analysis to increase from 4 to 8 mg per day on days 2-4. The stratification factors were concurrent treatment with radiation and sex. The primary endpoint was the overall complete response (CR) rate defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue antiemetic drugs. The protocol allowed crossover to NEPAs for those who received standard 3-drugs and did not reach CR in the first cycle. We collected outcome in the first 2-cycle of treatment. Results: Between January 2019 and December 2020, hundred patients were randomly assigned to either NEPAs (n = 51) or in-house standard 3-drugs (n = 49). Demographic characteristics were well-balanced in both arms. Total events in both arms were 101 events for NEPAs and 78 events for standard 3-drug. Overall CR rate were 70% and 69% in NEPAs and standard 3-drugs, ( p-value 0.87) respectively. According to emesis phase, CR in acute (0- 24 hrs.) and delay phase (24-120 hrs.) were not different in both arms; 91% vs. 89% and 72% vs. 71% in NEPAs and standard 3-drugs respectively. However, mean nausea VAS score was significantly lower in NEPAs (1.63 vs. 2.02, p-value = 0.001). The ad hoc subgroup analysis shown similar efficacy between before and after protocol amendment of NEPAs regimen in term of delay emesis CR rate; 70.9% vs. 73.9% ( p-value 0.73). Conclusions: The NEPA-containing regimen did not show superiority compare to standard 3-drug in terms of complete response rate for CINV prevention among patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. Furthermore, the dexamethasone dosage of 4 vs. 8 mg per day might not affect the efficacy of delay emesis of the NEPAs regimen. Clinical trial information: TCTR20190508001. [Table: see text]

195 Background: Currently, there are no guideline recommendations of anti-EGFR Ab specific to tumor sidedness in subsequent-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We previously reported the effect of primary tumor location on subsequent-line treatment with anti-EGFR Ab from a single center. Here we presented the outcome from a multi-center study. Methods: Medical records of patients diagnosed with mCRC at 3 academic centers in Thailand (Siriraj, Chulalongkorn, and Ramathibodi hospital) between 2008 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with KRASwt mCRC who received anti-EGFR Ab in second- or later-line treatment were included. The impact of tumor sidedness on progression-free survival (PFS) was determined using Kaplan-Meier method, and those results were compared using log-rank test. Results: Among the 2,102 patients who had KRAS analysis data, 1,130 (54%) patients had KRASwt. Of those, 413 patients received anti-EGFR Ab in second- or later-line treatment. One hundred and sixty-two of 413 (39%) patients had extended RAS analysis. Seventy (17%) patients had right-sided tumors. Two hundred and thirty-eight (58%) patients received anti-EGFR Ab in the third line, and 132 (32%) patients and 43 (10%) patients were treated in the second and more than third line, respectively. Single-agent irinotecan was the most commonly used backbone chemotherapy (303/413, 73%). Patients with right-sided tumors had non-significantly inferior PFS compared to patients with left-sided tumors (median PFS: 5.7 months (mo), 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9-7.5 vs. 7.5 mo, 95% CI 6.5-8.5; p =0.17). Subgroup analysis showed no difference in PFS when stratified by treatment lines. Patient with right-sided tumors had significantly inferior OS compared to patients with left-sided tumors (median OS: 23.3 mo vs. 29.9 mo; p =0.005). Conclusions: To date, this is the largest real world data of the effect of primary tumor location on anti-EGFR Ab which demonstrated that tumor sidedness has no significant impact on treatment outcomes in KRASwt mCRC patients receiving second- or later-line therapy. Our findings do not support the utility of tumor sidedness for treatment selection in these settings. We confirmed that patients with right-sided tumors had significantly worse survival.

No abstract

No abstract