Clinical Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Unique Cohorts Underrepresented in Clinical Trials.

Regulatory approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) was based on results of large, randomized clinical trials, resulting in limited outcomes data in patient cohorts typically underrepresented in such trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICIs in these unique patient cohorts. This is a multicenter, retrospective analysis of real-world data at six academic and community clinics in the United States from 1 January 2011 to 1 April 2018. Patients were included if they had received at least one cycle of ICI treatment. Unique patient cohorts included age > 75 years, non-White race, positive smoking history, ECOG performance status (PS) ≥ 2, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, autoimmune diseases (AIDs), chronic viral infections (CVI), extensive prior lines of therapy (LOTs), or >three metastatic sites. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs), overall survival (OS), and time to treatment failure were evaluated in the entire cohort and in NSCLC patients treated with PD-(L)1 monotherapy. Outcomes and their association with unique patient cohorts were compared on univariate analysis and multivariate analysis to those without a particular characteristic in the entire NSCLC PD-(L)1 monotherapy cohorts. In total, 1453 patients were included: 56.5%-smokers, 30.4%-non-White, 22.8%-elderly, 20.8%-ECOG PS ≥ 2, 15.7%-history of AIDs, and 4.7%-history of CVI. The common ICIs were nivolumab (37.1%) and pembrolizumab (22.2%). Black patients, compared to White patients, experienced fewer irAEs (OR 0.54, p < 0.001). An ECOG PS of ≥2 (HR = 2.01, p < 0.001) and an increased number of previous LOTs were associated with poor OS (the median OS of 26.2 vs. 16.2 vs. 9.6 months for one vs. two vs. three prior LOTs, p < 0.001). The above results were confirmed in anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy non-small cell lung cancer patients (n = 384). Overall, ICIs were safe and efficacious in these typically underrepresented patient cohorts. We noted ECOG PS ≥ 2 and an increased prior LOTs were associated with poor ICI efficacy, and Black patients, compared to White patients, experienced fewer irAEs.

The impact of immunosuppressive agents on immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced melanoma: A real-world, multicenter, retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are often managed via immunosuppressive agents (ISAs); however, their impact on ICI efficacy is not well studied. The impact of the use of ISAs on ICI efficacy in patients with advanced melanoma was therefore investigated. METHODS: This is a real-world, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma who received ICIs (n = 370). Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) from the time of ICI initiation were compared among patients in subgroups of interest by unadjusted and 12-week landmark sensitivity-adjusted analyses. The association of irAEs and their management with OS and TTF were evaluated using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Overall, irAEs of any grade and of grade ≥3 occurred in 57% and 23% of patients, respectively. Thirty-seven percent of patients received steroids, and 3% received other ISAs. Median OS was longest among patients receiving both (not reached [NR]), shorter among those receiving only systemic steroids (SSs) (84.2 months; 95% CI, 40.2 months to NR), and shortest among those who did not experience irAEs (10.3 months; 95% CI, 6-20.1 months) (p < .001). Longer OS was significantly associated with the occurrence of irAEs and the use of SSs with or without ISAs upon multivariable-adjusted analysis (p < .001). Similar results were noted with anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monotherapy and combination anti-PD-1 plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and with 12-week landmark sensitivity analysis (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings in patients with melanoma who were treated with ICIs suggest that the use of SSs or ISAs for the management of irAEs is not associated with inferior disease outcomes, which supports the use of these agents when necessary.

The Risk of Opportunistic Infections and the Role of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Patients on Checkpoint Inhibitors Requiring Steroids.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) often require treatment with high-dose systemic steroids (SS) and other immunosuppressive agents (ISAs). NCCN Guidelines recommend prophylactic antibiotics for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) for patients receiving prolonged SS/ISAs. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the incidence of opportunistic infections (OIs) and non-OIs and the role of prophylactic antibiotics in patients on SS/ISAs for irAEs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients treated using immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy at 5 MedStar Health hospitals from January 2011 to April 2018. OIs were defined per the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for the prevention and treatment of OIs in patients with HIV. The study cohort included patients who received ≥20 mg daily of a prednisone equivalent for ≥4 weeks to manage irAEs. RESULTS: The study cohort identified 112 (15%) of 758 total patients treated using ICIs. Baseline characteristics included the following: median age was 64 years, 74% (n=82) of patients were White, 89% (n=100) had an ECOG performance status ≤1, 61% (n=68) had melanoma, 19% (n=21) had non-small cell lung cancer, 45% (n=50) were treated using an anti-PD-(L)1 ICI, and 33% (n=37) were treated using an anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination. The median starting SS dose was 100 mg of a prednisone equivalent, and 25% of patients required additional ISAs, with infliximab (n=15) and mycophenolate mofetil (n=9) being the most common. We found that 20% (n=22) of patients developed any infection, including 7% (n=8) with OIs (oral candidiasis [n=4], nondisseminated varicella zoster infection [n=2], PJP [n=1], and Listeria monocytogenes endophthalmitis [n=1]) and 13% (n=14) with non-OIs (most common: Clostridium difficile and pneumonia [n=5 each]). PJP prophylaxis with sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim was given to 13% (n=14) patients, of whom 43% (n=6) developed OIs/non-OIs. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the fundamental issues for patients on ICI therapy who require SS/ISAs for irAEs: the degree of immunosuppression and the relative risk of OI. We noted a low incidence of OIs overall and breakthrough infections despite PJP prophylaxis. We question whether PJP prophylaxis is efficacious or necessary. Prospective trials are required to answer these questions.

Comparison of non-myeloablative lymphodepleting preconditioning regimens in patients undergoing adoptive T cell therapy.

BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy with T cells genetically engineered to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) or tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TIL) demonstrates impressive clinical results in patients with cancer. Lymphodepleting preconditioning prior to cell infusion is an integral part of all adoptive T cell therapies. However, to date, there is no standardization and no data comparing different non-myeloablative (NMA) regimens. METHODS: In this study, we compared NMA therapies with different doses of cyclophosphamide or total body irradiation (TBI) in combination with fludarabine and evaluated bone marrow suppression and recovery, cytokine serum levels, clinical response and adverse events. RESULTS: We demonstrate that a cumulative dose of 120 mg/kg cyclophosphamide and 125 mg/m2 fludarabine (120Cy/125Flu) and 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning were equally efficient in achieving deep lymphopenia and neutropenia in patients with metastatic melanoma, whereas absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) and absolute neutrophil counts were significantly higher following 200 cGyTBI/75Flu-induced NMA. Thrombocytopenia was most profound in 120Cy/125Flu patients. 30Cy/75Flu-induced preconditioning in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia resulted in a minor ALC decrease, had no impact on platelet counts and did not yield deep neutropenia. Following cell infusion, 120Cy/125Flu patients with objective tumor response had significantly higher ALC and significant lower inflammatory indexes, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR). Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis 7 days after cell infusion was performed to determine the cut-offs, which distinguish between responding and non-responding patients in the 120Cy/125Flu cohort. NLR≤1.79 and PLR≤32.7 were associated with clinical response and overall survival. Cytokine serum levels did not associate with clinical response in patients with TIL. Patients in the 120Cy/125Flu cohort developed significantly more acute NMA-related adverse events, including thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia and cardiotoxicity, and stayed significantly longer in hospital compared with the 60Cy/125Flu and TBI/75Flu cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Bone marrow depletion and recovery were equally affected by 120Cy/125Flu and 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning; however, toxicity and consequently duration of hospitalization were significantly lower in the 60Cy/125Flu cohort. Patients in the 30Cy/75Flu and TBI/75Flu groups rarely developed NMA-induced adverse events; however, both regimens were not efficient in achieving deep bone marrow suppression. Among the regimens, 60Cy/125Flu preconditioning seems to achieve maximum effect with minimum toxicity.

Real World Outcomes of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma.

Background: Immunotherapy has drastically changed the outlook for melanoma patients over the past decade. Specifically, the dual blockade of immune checkpoints using ipilimumab and nivolumab has shown unprecedented response rates and survival outcomes. This immense achievement, though, is at the cost of toxicity, with 60% of the patients experiencing high-grade adverse events (AEs). Our study aims to report the efficacy and toxicity outcomes of an out-of-trial, real-life population. Methods: Data on metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab were retrieved from our melanoma database-a single-center prospectively updated, medical-records based oncologic registry. Data included demographics, clinical and pathological information, as well as tumor responses and survival. Associations between patient or treatment characteristics and outcomes were also evaluated. Results: We identified 172 metastatic melanoma patients, of whom 64% were treatment-naïve. The median follow-up was 12 months. The response rates for treatment-naïve and previously-treated patients were 61% and 25%, respectively; median progression-free survival (PFS) were 12.2 and 2.6 months, and median overall survival (OS) were not-reached (NR) and 6.1 months, respectively. The estimated three-year OS for treatment-naïve patients was 58% (95% CI 42-65). At data cutoff, 22% were still on-treatment. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 60% of the patients, almost all of whom were exposed to steroid treatments (59%); AEs were fatal in 4 patients, and led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 31%. Factors significantly associated with outcome were cutaneous histology, low lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), low number of metastatic sites, performance status, first line of treatment and number of combinations administered during the induction phase. Conclusions: Despite the profoundly different baseline patient characteristics, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is as effective in the real-world population as it was in clinical trials, including long-term outcomes. In addition to confirming the significance of baseline prognostic factors, our study reveals that the number of combinations effectively administered may also be correlated with good outcome.