PURPOSE Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy often is suspended because of immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis (IMDC). We examined the rate of and risk factors for IMDC recurrence after ICI resumption. METHODS This retrospective multicenter study examined patients who resumed ICI therapy after improvement of IMDC between January 2010 and November 2018. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed the association of clinical covariates and IMDC recurrence. RESULTS Of the 167 patients in our analysis, 32 resumed an anti–cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 (CTLA-4) agent, and 135 an anti–programmed cell death 1 or ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) agent. The median age was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50-69 years). The median duration from IMDC to restart of ICI treatment was 49 days (IQR, 23-136 days). IMDC recurred in 57 patients (34%) overall (44% of those receiving an anti–CTLA-4 and 32% of those receiving an anti–PD-1/L1); 47 of these patients (82%) required immunosuppressive therapy for recurrent IMDC, and all required permanent discontinuation of ICI therapy. The median duration from ICI resumption to IMDC recurrence was 53 days (IQR, 22-138 days). On multivariable logistic regression, patients who received anti–PD-1/L1 therapy at initial IMDC had a higher risk of IMDC recurrence (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% CI, 1.59 to 7.69; P = .002). Risk of IMDC recurrence was higher for patients who required immunosuppression for initial IMDC (OR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.08 to 9.62; P = .019) or had a longer duration of IMDC symptoms in the initial episode (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.03; P = .031). Risk of IMDC recurrence was lower after resumption of anti–PD-1/L1 therapy than after resumption of anti–CTLA-4 therapy (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.81; P = .019). CONCLUSION One third of patients who resumed ICI treatment after IMDC experienced recurrent IMDC. Recurrence of IMDC was less frequent after resumption of anti–PD-1/L1 than after resumption of anti–CTLA-4.
Background: Bone metastases and skeletal-related events (SREs) are a frequent cause of morbidity in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Data are limited on bone metastases and SREs in patients with mNSCLC treated using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and on the efficacy of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in this setting. Here we report the incidence, impact on survival, risk factors for bone metastases and SREs, and impact of BMAs in patients with mNSCLC treated with ICIs in a multi-institutional cohort. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with mNSCLC treated with ICIs at 2 tertiary care centers from 2014 through 2017. Overall survival (OS) was compared between patients with and without baseline bone metastases using a log-rank test. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between OS and the presence of bone metastases at ICI initiation, controlling for other confounding factors. Results: We identified a cohort of 330 patients who had received ICIs for metastatic disease. Median patient age was 63 years, most patients were treated in the second line or beyond (n=259; 78%), and nivolumab was the most common ICI (n=211; 64%). Median OS was 10 months (95% CI, 8.4–12.0). In our cohort, 124 patients (38%) had baseline bone metastases, and 43 (13%) developed SREs during or after ICI treatment. Patients with bone metastases had a higher hazard of death after controlling for performance status, histology, line of therapy, and disease burden (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19–2.08; P=.001). Use of BMAs was not associated with OS or a decreased risk of SREs. Conclusions: Presence of bone metastases at baseline was associated with a worse prognosis for patients with mNSCLC treated with ICI after controlling for multiple clinical characteristics. Use of BMAs was not associated with reduced SREs or a difference in survival.
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.