Ocular adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become an important part of the treatment of multiple cancers, especially for advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer. Some tumors are capable of escaping immunosurveillance by stimulating checkpoints on T-cells. ICIs prevent activation of these checkpoints and thereby stimulate the immune system and indirectly the anti-tumor response. However, the use of ICIs is associated with various adverse events. Ocular side effects are rare but may have a major impact on the quality of life of the patient. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the medical databases Web of Science, Embase and PubMed was performed. Articles that provided a comprehensive description of a case report containing 1) cancer patient(s) treated with (a combination of) immune checkpoint inhibitors, and 2) assessed occurrence of ocular adverse events, were included. A total of 290 case reports were included. RESULTS: Melanoma (n = 179; 61.7%) and lung cancer (n = 56; 19.3%) were the most frequent reported malignancies. The primary used ICIs were nivolumab (n = 123; 42.5%) and ipilimumab (n = 116; 40.0%). Uveitis was most the common adverse event (n = 134; 46.2%) and mainly related to melanoma. Neuro-ophthalmic disorders, including myasthenia gravis and cranial nerve disorders, were the second most common adverse events (n = 71; 24.5%), mainly related to lung cancer. Adverse events affecting the orbit and the cornea were reported in 33 (11.4%) and 30 cases (10.3%) respectively. Adverse events concerning the retina were reported in 26 cases (9.0%). CONCLUSION: The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of all reported ocular adverse events related to the use of ICIs. The insights retrieved from this review might contribute to a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of these ocular adverse events. Particularly, the difference between actual immune-related adverse events and paraneoplastic syndromes might be relevant. These findings might be of great value in establishing guidelines on how to manage ocular adverse events related to ICIs.

Changes in anticancer treatment plans in patients with solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19: analysis of the nationwide BSMO-COVID registry providing lessons for the future.

BACKGROUND: Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for poor outcome with COVID-19. As guidelines for patient management in that setting depend on retrospective efforts, we here present the first analyses of a nationwide database of patients with cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium, with a focus on changes in anticancer treatment plans at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Nineteen Belgian hospitals identified all patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Demographic, cancer-specific and COVID-specific data were pseudonymously entered into a central Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)-COVID database. The association between survival and primary cancer type was analyzed through multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Group comparisons for categorical variables were carried out through a Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 928 patients were registered in the database; most of them were aged ≥70 years (61.0%) and with poor performance scores [57.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≥2]. Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was 19.8%. In multivariate analysis, a trend was seen for higher mortality in patients with lung cancer (27.6% versus 20.8%, P = 0.062) and lower mortality for patients with breast cancer (13.0% versus 23.3%, P = 0.052) compared with other tumour types. Non-curative treatment was associated with higher 30-day COVID-related mortality rates compared with curative or no active treatment (25.8% versus 14.3% versus 21.9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In 33% of patients under active treatment, the therapeutic plan was changed due to COVID-19 diagnosis, most frequently involving delays/interruptions in systemic treatments (18.6%). Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was not significantly different between patients with and without treatment modifications (21.4% versus 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Interruption in anticancer treatments at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a reduction in COVID-related mortality in our cohort of patients with solid cancer, highlighting that treatment continuation should be strived for, especially in the curative setting.

Advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head in two renal transplanted patients treated with cemiplimab.

It is well known that organ transplant recipients are prone to develop non-melanoma skin cancers, particularly cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). This is explained by the long-term use of immunosuppressants and thus the decrease of the immunosurveillance that protects from developing malignant tumours. Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are 65-250 times more likely to develop cSCC compared to the general population (Am J Transplant 2017; 17: 2509). Moreover, in these patients cSCCs follow a more aggressive course. Close follow-up and regular skin check-ups by a dermatologist are, therefore, crucial in the management of these patients. When detected early, cSCC can be easily and effectively treated by a simple excision. However, when advanced, outcomes are poor. Immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) have been recently added to our arsenal and represent a breakthrough, having proved to be effective in achieving long-term responses. We, hereby, present two cases of difficult-to-treat cSCCs in renal transplanted patients.

Cemiplimab for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are at increased risk of cancer due to chronic immunosuppression. Non-melanoma skin cancer has an excess risk of approximately 250 times higher than the general population. Moreover, in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) these cancers have a more aggressive behavior, with an increased risk of metastasis and death. Cemiplimab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody against programmed cell death (PD-1) has shown considerable clinical activity in metastatic and locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) in patients for whom no widely accepted standard of care exists. Cemiplimab has therefore been approved since 2018 for the treatment of advanced cSCC. However, data regarding the use of cemiplimab in SOTR and particularly in KTR are scarce and based on published case reports and small case series. In this study, we report on the real-life outcome of cemiplimab use in a Belgian cohort of seven KTR suffering from advanced cSCC. Objective: To report on the overall response rate (ORR) and safety of cemiplimab in KTR in Belgium. Results: Seven patients suffering from advanced cSCC, treated with cemiplimab, between 2018 and 2022, in Belgium were identified. Three patients were on corticosteroid monotherapy, one patient on tacrolimus monotherapy and three patients were on at least 2 immunosuppressants at start of cemiplimab. The ORR was 42.8%, stable disease was seen in 14.3% and progressive disease was found in 42.8% of the patients, respectively. The median administered number of cycles was 12, interquartile range (IQR) 25-75 [3.5 - 13.5]. All patients were treated with surgery before administration of cemiplimab, 71.4% received additional radiotherapy and only 1 patient was treated with chemotherapy prior to receiving cemiplimab. Biopsy-proven acute renal allograft rejection was observed in one patient, who eventually lost his graft function but showed a complete tumor response to treatment. Low grade skin toxicity was seen in one patient of the cohort. Conclusion: The present case series shows that the use of cemiplimab in KTR with advanced cSCC who failed to respond to previous surgery, chemo - and/or radiotherapy treatment is associated with an ORR of 42.8% with minimal risk of graft rejection (14.3%) and good tolerance.

Delayed immune-related adverse events with anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) typically occur within 4 months of starting anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)-based therapy [anti-PD-1 ± anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4)], but delayed irAEs (onset >12 months after commencement) can also occur. This study describes the incidence, nature and management of delayed irAEs in patients receiving anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with delayed irAEs from 20 centres were studied. The incidence of delayed irAEs was estimated as a proportion of melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1-based therapy and surviving >1 year. Onset, clinical features, management and outcomes of irAEs were examined. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients developed a total of 140 delayed irAEs (20 after initial combination with anti-CTLA4), with an estimated incidence of 5.3% (95% confidence interval 4.0-6.9, 53/999 patients at sites with available data). The median onset of delayed irAE was 16 months (range 12-53 months). Eighty-seven patients (74%) were on anti-PD-1 at irAE onset, 15 patients (12%) were <3 months from the last dose and 16 patients (14%) were >3 months from the last dose of anti-PD-1. The most common delayed irAEs were colitis, rash and pneumonitis; 55 of all irAEs (39%) were ≥grade 3. Steroids were required in 80 patients (68%), as well as an additional immunosuppressive agent in 27 patients (23%). There were two irAE-related deaths: encephalitis with onset during anti-PD-1 and a multiple-organ irAE with onset 11 months after ceasing anti-PD-1. Early irAEs (<12 months) had also occurred in 69 patients (58%), affecting a different organ from the delayed irAE in 59 patients (86%). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed irAEs occur in a small but relevant subset of patients. Delayed irAEs are often different from previous irAEs, may be high grade and can lead to death. They mostly occur in patients still receiving anti-PD-1. The risk of delayed irAE should be considered when deciding the duration of treatment in responding patients. However, patients who stop treatment may also rarely develop delayed irAE.

Immunotherapy phase I trials in patients Older than 70 years with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: The development of immune checkpoint blocker development brings new hope in older patients (OPs) because of clinical efficacy and low toxicity. Clinical indications are rising steadily, but very few data are available in the geriatric population where comorbidities, reduced functional reserve and immunosenescence may affect efficacy and tolerance. METHODS: All cases of patients enrolled in immunotherapy phase I trials between January 2012 and December 2016 in the Drug Development Department (DITEP) at Gustave Roussy were retrospectively reviewed. Case-control analysis was performed in OPs (patients ≥ 70 years) matched to younger patients (YPs) (patients < 70 years) by trial and treatment dose. We compared cumulative incidence, grade and type of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 46 OPs and the 174 YPs enrolled in 14 phase I/II trials, 10 (22%) and 23 (13%) patients experienced grade III-IV IrAEs. Cumulative incidence of grade I-II IrAEs was significantly higher in OPs than YPs (p < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups for grade III-IV IrAEs (p = 0.50). Older age was not associated with lower dose intensity of treatment (p = 0.14). No significant difference was observed between OPs and YPs in median progression-free survival (hazards ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.94-2.11] p = 0.09) or median overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI [0.61-1.39] p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: Immune checkpoint blockade appears to be an acceptable treatment option for OPs in the setting of phase I trials.

Immuno-oncology-101: overview of major concepts and translational perspectives.

Cancer immunotherapy is demonstrating impressive clinical benefit in different malignancies and clinical oncologists are increasingly turning their attention to immune-oncology. It is now well recognized that innate and adaptive immune cells infiltrating tumors are associated with clinical outcomes and responses to treatments, and can be harnessed to patients' benefit. Considerable advances have also been made in understanding how cancers escape from immune attack. Targeting of immunological escape processes regulated by the expression of immune checkpoint receptors and ligands and the down-modulation of tumor antigen presentation is the basis of immuno-oncology treatments. Despite recent achievements, there remain a number of unresolved issues in order to successfully implement cancer immunotherapy in many cancers. Importantly, clinical biomarkers are still needed for better optimization of emerging combination immunotherapies and better treatment tailoring. In this review, we summarize the function of innate and adaptive immune cells in anti-tumor immunity and the general mechanisms exploited by tumor cells to escape and inhibit immune responses as well as therapeutic strategies developed to overcome these mechanisms and discuss emerging biomarkers in immuno-oncology.

Epigenetic modifiers as new immunomodulatory therapies in solid tumours.

Background: Immune therapies have revolutionized cancer treatment over the last few years by allowing improvements in overall survival. However, the majority of patients is still primary or secondary resistant to such therapies, and enhancing sensitivity to immune therapies is therefore crucial to improve patient outcome. Several recent lines of evidence suggest that epigenetic modifiers have intrinsic immunomodulatory properties, which could be of therapeutic interest. Material and methods: We reviewed preclinical evidence and clinical studies which describe or exploit immunomodulatory properties of epigenetic agents. Experimental approaches, clinical applicability and corresponding ongoing clinical trials are described. Results: Several epigenetic modifiers, such as histone deacetylase inhibitors, DNA methyl transferase inhibitors, bromodomain inhibitors, lysine-specific histone demethylase 1 inhibitors and enhancer of zeste homolog 2 inhibitors, display intrinsic immunomodulatory properties. The latter can be achieved through the action of these drugs either on cancer cells (e.g. presentation and generation of neoantigens, induction of immunogenic cell death, modulation of cytokine secretion), on immune cells (e.g. linage, differentiation, activation status and antitumor capability), or on components of the microenvironment (e.g. regulatory T cells and macrophages). Several promising combinations, notably with immune checkpoint blockers or adoptive T-cell therapy, can be envisioned. Dedicated clinically relevant approaches for patient selection and trial design will be required to optimally develop such combinations. Conclusion: In an era where immune therapies are becoming a treatment backbone in many tumour types, epigenetic modifiers could play a crucial role in modulating tumours' immunogenicity and sensitivity to immune agents. Optimal trial design, including window of opportunity trials, will be key in the success of this approach, and clinical evaluation is ongoing.

Challenges of phase 1 clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint-targeted antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies (imAbs) targeting immune checkpoint molecules are revolutionizing oncology not only regarding cancer therapeutics and clinical care, but also from a drug development point of view. A handful of first-generation molecules have been approved so far based on their tremendous efficacy, after an expedited development phase that has challenged most paradigms established in the era of conventional cytotoxic therapy and to some extent molecularly targeted agents. A huge wave of second-generation imAbs is just entering into phase 1 trials now, in monotherapy or in combination. In order to maximize their chances of success in early phase trials, and eventually for patients' benefit, their clinical development has to benefit from lessons learnt from previous imAbs phase 1 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the early clinical development of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and anti-programmed death-1 receptor/ligand. Particularities of each agent, including safety, dose--toxicity and dose--efficacy relationships, scheduling, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), trial design, biomarkers, response assessment and overall drug development strategies, are described and challenged. RESULTS: As opposed to conventional cytotoxic agents, dose of imAbs is not linearly associated with efficacy and toxicity. Therefore, the definition of a minimal immunologically active dose could be proposed. Traditional patient eligibility criteria might also be revisited as the toxicity profile and mechanism of toxicity--immune-related adverse events--are mostly known and their physiopathology somehow less unexpected than with molecularly targeted small molecules. Most challenging are the comprehensive investigation of complex PK and PD characteristics as well as the definition of patient selection biomarkers. Finally, the early focus on efficacy (and not only dose confirmation) in expansion cohorts challenges the traditional phase 1/2/3 drug development process. CONCLUSION: Several drug development paradigms have been challenged by imAbs. Here, we discuss novel approaches for an efficient and successful drug development of these agents.