Clinical outcomes and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with solid tumors and paraneoplastic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are excluded from clinical trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to safety concerns. Moreover, real-world data on efficacy and safety is scarce. METHODS: In this retrospective study, data were collected on patients with PNS and solid tumors receiving ICI between 2015 and 2022 at nine institutions. Patients were classified into: Cohort 1 (pre-existing PNS before ICI initiation), cohort 2 (PNS during ICI treatment), and cohort 3 (PNS after ICI discontinuation). Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (mNSCLC) from cohort 1 were matched to patients who were PNS-free at each institution up to a 1:3 ratio for age, sex, type of ICI, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and number of lines of systemic therapy prior to ICI initiation. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess overall survival (OS) and time-to-next treatment (TTNT). RESULTS: Among 109 patients with PNS treated with ICIs, median age at ICI initiation was 67 years (IQR: 58-74). The most represented cancer type was NSCLC (n=39, 36%). In cohort 1 (n=55), PNS exacerbations occurred in 16 (29%) patients with median time to exacerbation after ICI of 1.1 months (IQR: 0.7-3.3). Exacerbation or de novo PNS prompted temporary/permanent interruption of ICIs in 14 (13%) patients. For cohort 2 (n=16), median time between ICI initiation and de novo PNS was 1.2 months (IQR: 0.4-3.5). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) occurred in 43 (39%) patients. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 18 (17%) patients. PNS-directed immunosuppressive therapy was required in 55 (50%) patients. We matched 18 patients with mNSCLC and PNS (cohort 1) to 40 without PNS, treated with ICIs. There was no significant difference in OS or TTNT between patients with mNSCLC with and without PNS, although a trend was seen towards worse outcomes in patients with PNS. TrAEs occurred in 6/18 (33%) and 14/40 (35%), respectively. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 4 (22%) patients with PNS and 7 (18%) patients without PNS. CONCLUSIONS: Exacerbations of pre-existing PNS occurred in 29% of patients treated with ICIs and both exacerbations and de novo PNS occur early in the ICI course. TrAE from ICIs were similar between patients with and without PNS. Our data suggest that pre-existing PNS should not preclude consideration of ICI therapy although patients may not derive the same clinical benefit compared with patients without PNS.

Patterns of lower risk myelodysplastic syndrome progression: factors predicting progression to high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia.

The patterns of low-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) progression and the clinical and molecular features of those patterns have not been well described. We divided our low-risk (LR) MDS patients (N=1,914) into 4 cohorts: 1) patients who remained LR-MDS (LR-LR; N=1,300; 68%), 2) patients who progressed from LR to high-risk (HR) MDS (LR-HR) without transformation into acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (N=317; 16.5%), 3) patients who progressed from LR to HR MDS and then AML (LR-HR-AML; N=124; 6.5%), and 4) patients who progressed from LR MDS directly to AML (LR-AML; N=173; 9%). Risk factors for progression included: male gender, low absolute neutrophil count (ANC), low platelet count, high bone marrow (BM) blasts, ferritin >1000 mcg/L, albumin <3.5 g/dL, multi-lineage dysplasia (MLD), and lack of ring sideroblasts. Among patients with marked BM fibrosis (N=49), 18% progressed directly to AML. Somatic mutations (SM) associated with an increased risk of direct or indirect AML progression included SRSF2 and NRAS. SM in IDH1, IDH2 and NPM1 were more common in patients with direct AML transformation. SM associated with progression to higher risk disease only, without AML transformation, were ASXL1, TP53, RUNX1, and CBL. SF3B1 mutation was associated with less progression. About 171 patients (13.1% of all LR-LR patients) died within two years of diagnosis of LR-MDS without disease progression. Among the 61 cases with documented cause of death, 18 patients (29.5%) died from cytopenia and MDS-related complications. Identifying patterns of disease progression of LR MDS patients and their predictive factors will be crucial to be able to tailor therapy accordingly.

Consolidation Osimertinib Versus Durvalumab Versus Observation After Concurrent Chemoradiation in Unresectable EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Durvalumab improves survival when used as consolidation therapy after chemoradiation (CRT) in patients with stage III NSCLC. The optimal consolidation therapy for patients with EGFR-mutant (EGFRmut) stage III NSCLC remains unknown. METHODS: In this multi-institutional, international retrospective analysis across 24 institutions, we evaluated outcomes in patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with concurrent CRT followed by consolidation therapy with osimertinib, durvalumab, or observation between 2015 and 2022. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS, primary end point) and overall survival (secondary end point). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) during consolidation treatment were defined using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Of 136 patients with stage III EGFRmut NSCLC treated with definitive concurrent CRT, 56 received consolidation durvalumab, 33 received consolidation osimertinib, and 47 was on observation alone. Baseline characteristics were similar across the three cohorts. With a median follow-up of 46 months for the entire cohort, the median duration of treatment was not reached (NR) for osimertinib (interquartile range: NR-NR) and was 5.5 (interquartile range: 2.4-10.8) months with durvalumab. After adjusting for nodal status, stage III A/B/C, and age, patients treated with consolidation osimertinib had significantly longer 24-month rwPFS compared to those treated with durvalumab or in the observation cohorts (osimertinib: 86%, durvalumab: 30%, observation: 27%, p < 0.001 for both comparisons). There was no difference in rwPFS between the durvalumab and the observation cohorts. No significant difference in overall survival across the three cohorts was detected, likely due to the limited follow-up. Any-grade trAE occurred in 52% (2 [6.1%] grade ≥3) and 48% (10 [18%] grade ≥3) of patients treated with osimertinib and durvalumab, respectively. Of 45 patients who progressed on consolidation durvalumab, 37 (82%) subsequently received EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Of these, 14 (38%) patients developed trAEs including five patients with pneumonitis (14%; 2 [5.4%] grade ≥3) and five patients with diarrhea (14%; 1 [2.7%] grade ≥3). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that among patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, consolidation osimertinib was associated with a significantly longer rwPFS compared to durvalumab or observation. No unanticipated safety signals were observed with consolidation osimertinib.

Adjuvant ovarian function suppression and tamoxifen in premenopausal breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of adding ovarian function suppression (OFS) to tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal women with breast cancer is uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that addressed this question. METHODS: Systematic search of PubMed, the web of science, and the meeting library of ASCO, ESMO, and SABCS was conducted using the following keywords: tamoxifen, ovarian suppression, and breast cancer. Eligible studies were those recruiting patients with breast cancer randomized to receive adjuvant tamoxifen and OFS versus tamoxifen alone. Pooled hazard ratio [HR]) for disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the fixed effect model. RESULTS: We searched a total of 845 records, of which 5 clinical trials, including 7557 patients, were eligible for our analysis. Adding OFS to tamoxifen improved DFS with pooled HR: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.96, P= 0.004) and OS (pooled HR: 0.87 {95% CI: 0.77-0.98, P= 0.02}) compared to tamoxifen alone. The benefit of the addition of OFS to tamoxifen was mostly observed in patients younger than 40 years where the pooled HRs of DFS was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63-0.91; P= 0.004), and in those who received adjuvant chemotherapy with pooled HRs of DFS 0.80 (95% CI: 0.65-0.99, P= 0.042). There was an increase in the incidence of all grade musculoskeletal symptoms and high-grade hot flushes with the addition of OFS with risk ratios of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.07-1.17, P< 0.001) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.01-4.51, P= 0.047) respectively. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that the addition of OFS to tamoxifen improves DFS and OS. This strategy could be considered in patients in which tamoxifen alone is not deemed sufficient or in case of poor tolerance to OFS with aromatase inhibitors.