Search

Background: To date, no systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, exists to improve clinical outcomes in metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) patients. To understand the role of immune infiltrates in the genesis, metastasis, and response to treatment for UM, we systematically characterized immune profiles of UM primary and metastatic tumors, as well as samples from UM patients treated with immunotherapies., Methods: Relevant immune markers (CD3, CD8, FoxP3, CD68, PD-1, and PD-L1) were analyzed by immunohistochemistry on 27 primary and 31 metastatic tumors from 47 patients with UM. Immune gene expression profiling was conducted by NanoString analysis on pre-treatment and post-treatment tumors from patients (n=6) receiving immune checkpoint blockade or 4-1BB and OX40 dual costimulation. The immune signature of UM tumors responding to immunotherapy was further characterized by Ingenuity Pathways Analysis and validated in The Cancer Genome Atlas data set., Results: Both primary and metastatic UM tumors showed detectable infiltrating lymphocytes. Compared with primary tumors, treatment-naïve metastatic UM showed significantly higher levels of CD3+, CD8+, FoxP3+ T cells, and CD68+ macrophages. Notably, levels of PD-1+ infiltrates and PD-L1+ tumor cells were low to absent in primary and metastatic UM tumors. No metastatic organ-specific differences were seen in immune infiltrates. Our NanoString analysis revealed significant differences in a set of immune markers between responders and non-responders. A group of genes relevant to the interferon-γ signature was differentially up-expressed in the pre-treatment tumors of responders. Among these genes, suppressor of cytokine signaling 1 was identified as a marker potentially contributing to the response to immunotherapy. A panel of genes that encoded pro-inflammatory cytokines and molecules were expressed significantly higher in pre-treatment tumors of non-responders compared with responders., Conclusion: Our study provides critical insight into immune profiles of UM primary and metastatic tumors, which suggests a baseline tumor immune signature predictive of response and resistance to immunotherapy in UM., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SP reports personal fees from Merck & Co, Incyte, Castle Biosciences, and Cardinal Health, and institutional clinical trial support from Provectus, Ideaya, and Bristol Myers Squibb outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Emerging immunotherapy agents, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, have shown remarkable promise in the treatment of various malignancies. These drugs selectively target different steps in the immune response cascade to upregulate the body's normal response to cancer. Due to the novelty of these therapeutic agents, their toxicity profile is less well understood.Meta-analysis results reveal that the overall prevalence of oral mucositis, stomatitis, and xerostomia is lower with checkpoint inhibitors compared to conventional chemotherapy, and head and neck radiation therapy. However, the widespread use of immunotherapy reveals new oral mucosal barrier adverse events, including bullous pemphigoid, mucous membrane pemphigoid, and lichenoid mucositis. Audiovestibular dysfunction can occur from autoimmune-mediated pathways of immunotherapy (adoptive cell) with limited treatment options. Such auditory complications can lead to speech recognition deficits and sensorineural hearing loss. Ocular toxicities are among the most common adverse events resulting from the use of these agents. The majority of ocular immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are mild, low-grade, non-sight threatening, such as blurred vision, conjunctivitis, and ocular surface disease. Serious and sight-threatening events, including corneal perforation, optic neuropathy, and retinal vascular occlusion, can occur but are infrequent. In this chapter, we review the current evidence on the clinical manifestations of oral, audiovestibular, and ocular immune-related adverse events (i.e., irAEs).

Background: Primary intraocular lymphoma is a rare variant of primary CNS lymphoma for which the optimum treatment strategy remains unknown., Methods: We performed a retrospective single-center study including patients who underwent uniform management from October 2007 in which patients were offered sequential rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, and vincristine (R-MPV) followed by binocular radiotherapy and consolidative high-dose cytarabine., Results: Eleven patients with median age 66 years (range, 48-72) were included. All patients received binocular radiotherapy to a median dose of 36 Gy (range, 30.6-39.6) in 20 fractions. Grade 3+ anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia occurred in 1 (9%), 2 (18%), and 3 (27%) patients, respectively; raised creatinine and peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred in 4 (36%) and 3 (27%) patients, respectively. Grade 3+ ocular toxicities included cataract formation and keratitis in 6 (54%) and 3 (27%) patients, respectively. Ten patients (91%) achieved complete response and 1 (9%) partial response. After median follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 1.8-7.6), the median progression-free survival was 3.8 years and the estimated 4-year overall survival was 75.8% (95% CI: 30.5%-93.7%). The initial site of disease progression was the CNS in 4 of 7 patients (57%) and within the eye in 3 of 7 (43%). Five patients achieved responses to salvage therapies., Conclusions: Combined modality treatment with R-MPV, binocular radiation, and high-dose cytarabine is effective with moderate toxicity. Both local and CNS relapses occur; however, the achievement of second and subsequent remissions is possible., (© The Author(s) 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The aim of this review is to elucidate the type and frequency of ocular adverse events associated with selinexor with a goal to quantify the occurrence of these events in our investigator‐initiated trial. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 174 patients treated with at least one dose of selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents between July 2015 and July 2020 at a comprehensive cancer center in the U.S. All reported ocular adverse events were assessed. Results: A total of 174 patient medical records were reviewed. All patients received at least one dose of selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents in our cohort of patients with advanced malignancies. A total of 34 (19.54%) patients experienced 37 ocular adverse events. The most frequently reported ocular symptom was blurred vision, which was reported in 22 (12.64%) patients. The most frequently reported treatment‐related adverse event was dry eye syndrome reported in 21 (12.1%) patients, and 19 (10.9%) of them were diagnosed with mild dry eye. The second most common treatment‐related adverse event was the progression of age‐related nuclear sclerosis (cataract) reported in 7 (4.0%) patients. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight that ocular adverse events associated with oral selinexor were mild. The most frequently reported ocular treatment‐related adverse events were mild dry eye and progression of age‐related nuclear sclerosis. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation. Implications for Practice: Patients receiving selinexor in combination with multiple standard chemotherapy or immunotherapy agents were reviewed, with a total of 34 patients experiencing 37 ocular adverse events. Findings highlight that ocular adverse events associated with oral selinexor were mild. The most frequently reported ocular treatment‐related adverse events were mild dry eye and progression of age‐related nuclear sclerosis. None of the ocular adverse events required therapy discontinuation. XPO1 inhibitors are associated with distinct adverse events. This article focuses on ocular adverse events in patients with advanced malignancies treated with selinexor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uveal melanoma is a common intraocular malignant tumor that is uniformly fatal once metastatic. No effective adjuvant therapy currently exists to reduce the risk of distant metastasis after definitive treatment of the primary lesion. Immunotherapy has been used effectively in the adjuvant setting in locally advanced cutaneous melanoma. We performed a Phase I/II clinical trial of adjuvant ipilimumab in high-risk primary uveal melanoma with distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) as the primary objective. A total of 10 patients with genomically high-risk disease were treated: three at a dose of 3 mg/kg and seven at 10 mg/kg. Two of the seven patients at the higher dose had to discontinue therapy secondary to grade 3 toxicity. At 36 months follow-up, 80% of patients had no evidence of distant disease (95% CI, 58.7–100). With recent advancements in CTLA-4 inhibition, PD-1 inhibition, and combined checkpoint blockade, immunotherapy is a promising avenue of treatment in uveal melanoma. Further clinical trials are needed to elucidate the role of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]