Background: Cancer types eligible for treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have increased over the past decade thus simultaneously growing the number of patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) with immune mediated toxicities. Objectives: The objective of this study was to ascertain information regarding the knowledge and management of immune checkpoint inhibitor mediated toxicities amongst emergency department physicians. Methods: A multiple-choice questionnaire was developed assessing the understanding of ICI usage and management of immune mediated toxicities, amongst ED physicians in 6 major ED departments in London. Participating clinicians included all levels of trainees and ED physicians. Questionnaires were distributed during weekly ED educational sessions, followed by training on immune-mediated toxicities. Results: Between March 2019 and September 2019, the questionnaire was delivered to 126 participants (80% junior grade, 20% specialist ED consultants). There was no significant association between clinician's seniority and overall score reached on the questionnaire. Amongst all participants, 56, 49, and 36% identified correctly ICIs as the first-line treatment regimen for melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and non-small cell lung cancer, respectively. Overall, 90% of the participants recognized correctly cisplatin as a chemotherapy agent and 77% pembrolizumab as an ICI agent. Generally, there was a good understanding of chemotherapy related toxicities, however, the participants scored less well on questions relating to ICIs. Ten months following the initial audit and educational intervention, a single site re-audit was performed. The total average correct score was similar pre- and post-intervention (8, 13%, respectively). Conclusions: Knowledge and management of immune mediated toxicities is inferior compared to chemotherapy across physicians working in major ED departments in London. This survey highlights the need for increased education on ICI amongst ED clinicians.
706 Background: The introduction of first line immune combination or immune/VEGF therapy in metastatic renal cancer has changed treatment landscape. Here we compare outcomes of these combinations with patients treated with first line sunitinib. The focus is on the impact of subsequent treatments. Methods: This retrospective analysis was performed at Barts Cancer Institute for consecutive patients from April 2015 when front line immune therapy was first used at our institution. Only patients enrolled on reported prospective trials were included to avoid selection bias. Patients were treated with VEGF targeted therapy (n=35) (group V), PD-1 + CTLA4 (n=15) (group I/I) or a combination of PD-L1 + VEGF TKI inhibitor (n=29) (group I/V). The primary analysis focused on the proportion of patients who received second line therapy and their outcome. Results: 79 patients received first line therapy for clear cell RCC. IMDC good, intermediate and poor risk occurred in 27.8%, 60.8% and 11.4% respectively. Front line response rates for V, I/I and I/V groups were 34.3%, 46.7% and 65.5% and PFS in V, I/I and I/V groups were 11mo (95%CI 6-16), 18mo (95% CI 0-41) and 36mo (95% CI 13-59), respectively (P= 0.016). OS in the 3 groups were immature but not significantly different. Second line therapy occurred in 87.5%, 92.9% and 81.8% in the V, I/I and I/V groups respectively (in those who progressed after initial therapy). Second line response rate post first line V, I/I and I/V were 11%, 0% and 0% respectively as per RECIST 1.1. 63% of patients receiving VEGF front line therapy subsequently received immune therapy. 95% of patients receiving first line immune/immune or immune/VEGF combination therapy received VEGF therapy in the second line. Only 70% of patients who progressed on second line therapy got 3rd line therapy across all arms. Conclusions: Response rates after front line immune combination therapy are modest. The sequencing of PD-1 therapy after VEGF monotherapy appears particularly relevant in outcomes. A high proportion of patients are sequencing therapy and reaching third line which may help improve outcomes.
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.