Search

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have become a major source of general and medical information, though their accuracy and completeness are still being assessed. Their utility to answer questions surrounding immune-related adverse events (irAEs), common and potentially dangerous toxicities from cancer immunotherapy, are not well defined.Methods We developed 50 distinct questions with answers in available guidelines surrounding 10 irAE categories and queried two AI chatbots (ChatGPT and Bard), along with an additional 20 patient-specific scenarios. Experts in irAE management scored answers for accuracy and completion using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (least accurate/complete) to 4 (most accurate/complete). Answers across categories and across engines were compared.Results Overall, both engines scored highly for accuracy (mean scores for ChatGPT and Bard were 3.87 vs 3.5, p

Adoptive cell therapy with autologous, ex vivo-expanded, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is being investigated for treatment of solid tumors and has shown robust responses in clinical trials. Based on the encouraging efficacy, tolerable safety profile, and advancements in a central manufacturing process, lifileucel is now the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved TIL cell therapy product. To this end, treatment management and delivery practice guidance is needed to ensure successful integration of this modality into clinical care. This review includes clinical and toxicity management guidelines pertaining to the TIL cell therapy regimen prepared by the TIL Working Group, composed of internationally recognized hematologists and oncologists with expertize in TIL cell therapy, and relates to patient care and operational aspects. Expert consensus recommendations for patient management, including patient eligibility, screening tests, and clinical and toxicity management with TIL cell therapy, including tumor tissue procurement surgery, non-myeloablative lymphodepletion, TIL infusion, and IL-2 administration, are discussed in the context of potential standard of care TIL use. These recommendations provide practical guidelines for optimal clinical management during administration of the TIL cell therapy regimen, and recognition of subsequent management of toxicities. These guidelines are focused on multidisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses, and stakeholders involved in the care of these patients.

Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) plus ipilimumab has demonstrated greater antitumor activity versus ipilimumab alone, without additional toxicity, in patients with advanced melanoma. Here, we report the 5-year outcomes from a randomized phase II study. These data provide the longest efficacy and safety follow-up for patients with melanoma treated with a combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor.Eligible patients with unresectable stage IIIB‒IV melanoma were randomized 1:1 to receive T-VEC plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. T-VEC was administered intralesionally at 106 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL in week 1, followed by 108 PFU/mL in week 4 and every 2 weeks thereafter. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤4 doses) was administered intravenously starting at week 1 in the ipilimumab arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per immune-related response criteria; key secondary end points included durable response rate (DRR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.Overall, 198 patients were randomized to receive the combination (n=98) or ipilimumab (n=100). The combination improved the ORR versus ipilimumab (35.7% vs 16.0%; OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7; p=0.003). DRR was 33.7% and 13.0% (unadjusted OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.0; descriptive p=0.001), respectively. Among the objective responders, the median DOR was 69.2 months (95% CI 38.5 to not estimable) with the combination and was not reached with ipilimumab. Median PFS was 13.5 months with the combination and 6.4 months with ipilimumab (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09; descriptive p=0.14). Estimated 5-year OS was 54.7% (95% CI 43.9 to 64.2) in the combination arm and 48.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 58.1) in the ipilimumab arm. Forty-seven (48.0%) and 65 (65.0%) patients in the combination and ipilimumab arms, respectively, received subsequent therapies. No new safety signals were reported.At the 5-year follow-up, the improved response rates observed with T-VEC plus ipilimumab were durable. This is the first randomized controlled study of the combination of an oncolytic virus and a checkpoint inhibitor that meets its primary end point.Trial registration number: NCT01740297.

Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are some of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies. In general, early-stage NMSCs have favorable outcomes; however, a small subset of patients develop resistant, advanced, or metastatic disease, or aggressive subtypes that are more challenging to treat successfully. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), and basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Although ICIs have demonstrated activity against NMSCs, the routine clinical use of these agents may be more challenging due to a number of factors including the lack of predictive biomarkers, the need to consider special patient populations, the management of toxicity, and the assessment of atypical responses. With the goal of improving patient care by providing expert guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew on the published literature as well as their own clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for NMSCs, including staging, biomarker testing, patient selection, therapy selection, post-treatment response evaluation and surveillance, and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations, among others. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to provide guidance to cancer care professionals treating patients with NMSCs.

The clinical and immunologic implications of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic for patients with cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy have introduced a multitude of clinical challenges and academic controversies. This review summarizes the current evidence, discussion points, and recommendations regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with a focus on patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). More specifically, we summarize the theoretical concepts and available objective data regarding the relationships between ICIs and the antiviral immune response, along with recommended clinical approaches to the management of melanoma and RCC patient cohorts receiving ICIs throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional insights regarding the use of ICIs in the setting of current and upcoming COVID-19 vaccines and broader implications toward future pandemics are also discussed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for the treatment of several cancers. While these immunotherapies have improved patient outcomes in many clinical settings, they bring accompanying risks of toxicity, specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs). There is a need for clear, effective guidelines for the management of irAEs during ICI treatment, motivating the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) to convene an expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline. The panel discussed the recognition and management of single and combination ICI irAEs and ultimately developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to assist medical professionals in clinical decision-making and to improve outcomes for patients.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have emerged as a front-line therapy for a variety of solid tumors. With the widespread use of these agents, immune-associated toxicities are increasingly being recognized, including fatal myocarditis. There are limited data on the outcomes and prognostic utility of biomarkers associated with ICI-associated myocarditis. Our objective was to examine the associations between clinical biomarkers of cardiomyocyte damage and mortality in patients with cancer treated with ICIs.Methods We retrospectively studied 23 patients who developed symptomatic and asymptomatic troponin elevations while receiving ICI therapy at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. We obtained serial ECGs, troponin I, and creatine kinase-MD (CK-MB), in addition to other conventional clinical biomarkers, and compared covariates between survivors and non-survivors.Results Among patients with myocarditis, higher troponin I (p=0.037) and CK-MB (p=0.034) levels on presentation correlated with progression to severe myocarditis. Higher troponin I (p=0.016), CK (p=0.013), and CK-MB (p=0.034) levels were associated with increased mortality, while the presence of advanced atrioventricular block on presentation (p=0.088) trended toward increased mortality. Weekly troponin monitoring lead to earlier hospitalization for potential myocarditis (p=0.022) and was associated with decreased time to steroid initiation (p=0.053) and improved outcomes.Conclusions Routine troponin surveillance may be helpful in predicting mortality in ICI-treated patients with cancer in the early phase of ICI therapy initiation. Early detection of troponin elevation is associated with earlier intervention and improved outcomes in ICI-associated myocarditis. The recommended assessment and diagnostic studies guiding treatment decisions are presented.

Abstract Immunotherapy is now widely established as a potent and effective treatment option across several types of cancer. However, there is increasing recognition that not all patients respond to immunotherapy, focusing attention on the immune contexture of the tumor microenvironment (TME), drivers of the immune response and mechanisms of tumor resistance to immunity. The development of novel immunotherapeutics and their use in combination with checkpoint inhibitors and other standard of care and novel treatment modalities is an area of particular attention across several tumor types, including melanoma, lung, ovarian, breast, pancreatic, renal, head and neck, brain and non-melanoma skin cancers. The 4th Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (28–29 November, 2018, Naples, Italy) focused on a wide range of evolving topics and trends in the field of cancer immunotherapy and key presentations from this meeting are summarised in this report.

Abstract As part of the 2018 Immunotherapy Bridge congress (November 28–29, Naples, Italy), the Great Debate session featured counterpoint views from leading experts on four topical clinical issues in immunotherapy today. These were: the relative importance of adaptive versus innate immunity in the anti-cancer immune response; the merits of combination versus sequential immunotherapy regimens in the treatment of cancer; the advantages and disadvantages of murine models of cancer versus humans in order to evaluate immunotherapy; and whether or not mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy differ between different cancers. Discussion of these important topics are summarised in this report.

Patients with cancer who developed severe, grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors are at risk for developing severe toxicities again on rechallenge with checkpoint inhibitors. Consequently, medical oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are hesitant to retreat in this scenario, despite the fact that a number of patients may derive clinical benefit from this approach. Balancing such clinical benefit and treatment-related toxicities for each patient is becoming increasingly challenging as more and more patients with cancer are being treated with checkpoint inhibitors. In this manuscript, we provide an extensive overview of the relevant literature on retreatment after toxicity, and suggest prophylactic approaches to minimize the risk of severe irAE following rechallenge with immune checkpoint blockade, since treatment may be lifesaving in a number of occasions.

Background Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most common intraocular malignancy in adults. In contrast to cutaneous melanoma (CM), there is no standard therapy, and the efficacy and safety of dual checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab is not well defined.Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic UM (mUM) who received treatment with ipilimumab plus nivolumab across 14 academic medical centers. Toxicity was graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.Results 89 eligible patients were identified. 45% had received prior therapy, which included liver directed therapy (29%), immunotherapy (21%), targeted therapy (10%) and radiation (16%). Patients received a median 3 cycles of ipilimumab plus nivolumab. The median follow-up time was 9.2 months. Overall response rate was 11.6%. One patient achieved complete response (1%), 9 patients had partial response (10%), 21 patients had stable disease (24%) and 55 patients had progressive disease (62%). Median OS from treatment initiation was 15 months and median PFS was 2.7 months. Overall, 82 (92%) of patients discontinued treatment, 34 due to toxicity and 27 due to progressive disease. Common immune-related adverse events were colitis/diarrhea (32%), fatigue (23%), rash (21%) and transaminitis (21%).Conclusions Dual checkpoint inhibition yielded higher response rates than previous reports of single-agent immunotherapy in patients with mUM, but the efficacy is lower than in metastatic CM. The median OS of 15 months suggests that the rate of clinical benefit may be larger than the modest response rate.

Abstract Immunotherapy represents the third important wave in the history of the systemic treatment of cancer after chemotherapy and targeted therapy and is now established as a potent and effective treatment option across several cancer types. The clinical success of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen (CTLA)-4, first, and anti-programmed death (PD)-1/PD-ligand (L)1 agents in melanoma and other cancers a few years later, has encouraged increasing focus on the development of other immunotherapies (e.g. monoclonal antibodies with other immune targets, adoptive cell transfer, and vaccines), with over 3000 immuno-oncology trials ongoing, involving hundreds of research institutes across the globe. The potential use of these different immunotherapeutic options in various combinations with one another and with other treatment modalities is an area of particular promise. The third Immunotherapy Bridge meeting (29-30 November, 2017, Naples, Italy) focused on recent advances in immunotherapy across various cancer types and is summarised in this report.

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the clinical management of melanoma. However, not all patients respond, and current biomarkers including PD-L1 and mutational burden show incomplete predictive performance. The clinical validity and utility of complex biomarkers have not been studied in melanoma. Methods Cutaneous metastatic melanoma patients at eight institutions were evaluated for PD-L1 expression, CD8+ T-cell infiltration pattern, mutational burden, and 394 immune transcript expression. PD-L1 IHC and mutational burden were assessed for association with overall survival (OS) in 94 patients treated prior to ICI approval by the FDA (historical-controls), and in 137 patients treated with ICIs. Unsupervised analysis revealed distinct immune-clusters with separate response rates. This comprehensive immune profiling data were then integrated to generate a continuous Response Score (RS) based upon response criteria (RECIST v.1.1). RS was developed using a single institution training cohort (n = 48) and subsequently tested in a separate eight institution validation cohort (n = 29) to mimic a real-world clinical scenario. Results PD-L1 positivity ≥1% correlated with response and OS in ICI-treated patients, but demonstrated limited predictive performance. High mutational burden was associated with response in ICI-treated patients, but not with OS. Comprehensive immune profiling using RS demonstrated higher sensitivity (72.2%) compared to PD-L1 IHC (34.25%) and tumor mutational burden (32.5%), but with similar specificity. Conclusions In this study, the response score derived from comprehensive immune profiling in a limited melanoma cohort showed improved predictive performance as compared to PD-L1 IHC and tumor mutational burden.

Abstract Background Traditional response criteria may be insufficient to characterize full clinical benefits of anticancer immunotherapies. Consequently, endpoints such as durable response rate (DRR; a continuous response [complete or partial objective response] beginning within 12 months of treatment and lasting ≥6 months) have been employed. There has not, however, been validation that DRR correlates with other more traditional endpoints of clinical benefit such as overall survival. Methods We evaluated whether DRR was associated with clinically meaningful measures of benefit (eg, overall survival [OS], quality of life [QoL], or treatment-free interval [TFI]) in a phase 3 clinical trial of an oncolytic virus for melanoma treatment. To evaluate the association between DRR and OS and to mitigate lead time bias, landmark analyses were used. QoL was evaluated using the FACT-BRM questionnaire (comprising the FACT-BRM Physical, Social/Family, Emotional, and Functional well-being domains, the Additional Concerns, Physical and Mental treatment-specific subscales, and the Trial Outcome Index [TOI]). TFI was defined as time from the last study therapy dose to first subsequent therapy dose (including any systemic anticancer therapy for melanoma after study therapy discontinuation). Results Four hundred thirty-six patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Achieving DR was associated with a statistically significant improvement in OS in a landmark analysis at 9 months (HR = 0.07; P = 0.0003), 12 months (HR = 0.05, P

Background Anti-PD-1 therapy is increasingly used in various advanced malignancies. Patients with baseline organ dysfunction are largely excluded from clinical trials. Therefore it is unclear whether anti-PD-1 therapy is safe or effective in this setting. Further, these patients are often not candidates for other anti-cancer therapies, highlighting their need for active treatment options.Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients from multiple centers with advanced solid tumors and baseline organ dysfunction who received anti-PD-1 therapy. Organ dysfunction was defined as cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45 %), renal (creatinine ≥2 mg/dL or GFR ≤30 ml/min) or hepatic dysfunction (evidence of cirrhosis on imaging or AST, ALT or bilirubin ≥3x ULN). We assessed change in organ dysfunction, immune related adverse events (irAEs), response rate, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Results We identified 27 patients eligible for inclusion with the following diseases: renal cell carcinoma (n = 8), melanoma (10), non-small cell lung cancer (3), small cell lung cancer (2) and urothelial bladder cancer (4). Baseline organ dysfunction included renal dysfunction (n = 17), hepatic dysfunction (7), cardiac dysfunction (11), including >1 organ dysfunction (8). Worsening organ dysfunction requiring hospitalization or dose delays occurred in 8 patients (30 %) although in most cases this was thought not-drug related and resolved with supportive care. Grade 3 irAEs occurred in 2 pts (7 %; hepatitis and colitis). Thirteen of 27 patients had ongoing treatment benefit (objective response or stable disease) at data collection (48 %). Eleven patients had primary progressive disease (41 %), 11 had stable disease (41 %), 4 had partial responses (15 %), and one had a complete response (4 %). Overall, median PFS was 168 days. Median OS was not reached.Conclusions In our experience, anti-PD-1 agents in this group of patients with cardiac, hepatic or renal dysfunction were associated with tolerable irAEs and infrequent manageable worsening of organ dysfunction. Further, objective responses and prolonged PFS were observed in a number of patients. Thus, patients with baseline organ dysfunction may be considered for anti-PD-1 therapy with appropriate clinical monitoring.