Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in patients with solid organ transplant, HIV or hepatitis B/C infection

BACKGROUND

Anti-programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunotherapy is now routinely used to treat several cancers. Clinical trials have excluded several populations, including patients with solid organ transplant, HIV infection and hepatitis B/C infection. We examined the safety outcomes of these populations treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment in a multicentre retrospective study.

METHODS

Patients from 16 centres with advanced cancer and solid organ transplant, HIV infection or hepatitis B/C infection were included. Demographic, tumour, treatment, toxicity and outcome data were recorded.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included for analysis, with a median age of 60 years, and the majority of patients diagnosed with melanoma (72%). Among six patients with solid organ transplants, two graft rejections occurred, with one resulting in death, whereas two patients achieved partial responses. There were four responses in 12 patients with HIV infection. In 14 patients with hepatitis B, there were three responses, and similarly, there were three responses in 14 patients with hepatitis C. There was no unexpected toxicity in any viral infection group or an increase in viral load.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HIV or hepatitis B/C infections treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy may respond to treatment without increased toxicity. Given the risk of graft rejection in solid organ transplant patients and also the potential for response, the role of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy needs to be carefully considered.

The efficacy of re-challenge with BRAF inhibitors after previous progression to BRAF inhibitors in melanoma: A retrospective multicenter study

BRAF and MEK inhibition is efficient in patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, but due to acquired resistance the duration of response (DoR) is often only short-lived. In this retrospective multicenter study with 60 patients suffering from inoperable or metastatic melanoma we evaluated the efficacy of re-challenge with a BRAF inhibitor (BRAF2) with or without MEK-inhibition after progressive disease upon previous treatment with a BRAF inhibitor (BRAF1) with or without MEK inhibition.

Treatment with BRAF1 led to a disease control rate (DCR) of 90% with 12% complete responses (CR), 58% partial responses (PR) and 20% stable diseases (SD), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.9 and DoR 10.7 months. BRAF2 with (68%) or without (32%) additional MEK inhibition was initiated after a median interval of 3.4 months. DCR after re-challenge with BRAF2 was 57%, 8% CR, 20% PR and 28% SD, median PFS was 5.0 and DoR 14.0 months. The duration of the treatment interval or the treatment in the interval did not influence the DCR or PFS to BRAF2. The only predictive factor for response to BRAF2 was previous response to BRAF1; all patients with CR to BRAF1 achieved disease control with BRAF2, but only 60% of the patients with PR to BRAF1 (p=0.002). Addition of MEK inhibition to BRAF2 after treatment with BRAF1 as monotherapy did not significantly increase the DCR or PFS compared to patients treated solely with mono- or combination therapy.

In conclusion re-challenge with a BRAF inhibitor is a meaningful therapeutic option for patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma.

Benzodiazepine dose reduction in prisoner patients: 15 years' teamwork between psychiatrists and pharmacists

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Benzodiazepines are widely consumed in prisons, despite the iatrogenic risks associated with this therapeutic class. A multidisciplinary pharmacotherapy programme was therefore initiated by pharmacists in 2001. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of teamwork between psychiatrists and pharmacists in benzodiazepine dose adjustment, with 15 years of hindsight.

METHOD

In this retrospective study, daily prescribed benzodiazepine doses were compared between a reference group of patients in prisons in Lyon, France, in 2000, and four groups after psychiatrist-pharmacist teamwork in 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A number of 1249 patients were included. Prescribed doses of benzodiazepine decreased in the intervention groups, to a mean of 29-35 mg diazepam equivalent per day, compared to the control group (42 mg/day) (P < .001). The first 4-year period (2000-2004) demonstrated that monthly meetings and systematic pharmaceutical medication review had an impact on prescribed benzodiazepines, limiting consumed doses. The others (2004-2008, 2008-2012 and 2012-2016) confirmed that physicians' adherence to prescription guidelines and the efficacy of pharmacotherapy programme was maintained, particularly in those inmates taking high doses.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

A continuous quality programme conducted by psychiatrists and pharmacists showed positive impact in reducing doses of benzodiazepine prescribed to prisoner patients and contributing to reduce risk of benzodiazepine-related problems.

Ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma patients with pre-existing autoimmune disorders

BACKGROUND

Ipilimumab and programmed death (PD) 1-antibodies are effective treatment options in metastatic melanoma. The safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disorders (AD) has only been evaluated in a selected number of patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis in 14 German skin cancer centers for patients with metastatic melanoma and pre-existing AD treated with ipilimumab.

RESULTS

41 patients with 44 pre-existing AD were treated with ipilimumab (thyroiditis n = 15, rheumatoid n = 11, dermatologic n = 10, Crohn's disease/ulcerative colitis n = 3, neurological n = 2, sarcoidosis n = 2, pancreatitis n = 1). 3 out of 41 patients had two AD, 11 patients required immunosuppressants at the time of induction of ipilimumab. 12 patients (29.2%) experienced a flare of their pre-existing AD, mainly patients with rheumatoid or dermatologic diseases. Additional immune-related adverse events (irAEs) occurred in 12 patients (29.2%). In 23 patients (56%) neither a change of their AD nor additional irAEs were observed. Objective responses were seen in five patients (one complete remission, four partial remissions, 12.1%).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest series of patients with pre-existing AD and treatment with ipilimumab reported. Flares of pre-existing AD were observed but manageable. Response rates and occurrence of new irAEs were comparable to previous trials. Thus, in this patient subgroup, ipilimumab can be a treatment option after a thorough discussion of pros and cons and taking severity and activity of the preexisting AD into account.

Management of side effects of immune checkpoint blockade by anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies in metastatic melanoma

CTLA-4 and PD-1 are potential targets for tumor-induced downregulation of lymphocytic immune responses. Immune checkpoint-modifying monoclonal antibodies oppose these effects, inducing T cell-mediated immune responses to various tumors including melanoma. Both anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies modify the interaction between tumor, antigen-presenting cells, and T lymphocytes. With respect to overall survival, clinical studies have shown a major benefit for the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab as well as the two anti-PD-1 antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Following approval of ipilimumab in 2011, the latter two achieved market authorization in the summer of 2015. Immune responses thus induced and enhanced inevitably entail autoimmune phenomena, affecting various organs to varying degrees. Knowledge of these side effects is crucial with regard to prevention and management by treating physicians. Typically occurring early on and presenting with pronounced and persistent diarrhea, colitis represents a major and severe side effect. Other immune-mediated disorders include dermatitis, hypophysitis, thyroiditis, hepatitis, iridocyclitis as well as other less common autoimmune phenomena. Early recognition and initiation of treatment can reduce risks and sequelae for patients. This review describes the mechanisms of action of immune checkpoint blockade as well as its clinical effects in metastatic melanoma, with a detailed focus on the spectrum of adverse events and their therapeutic management.

Clinical outcome of concomitant vs interrupted BRAF inhibitor therapy during radiotherapy in melanoma patients

Background:

Concomitant radiation with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy may increase radiation-induced side effects but also potentially improve tumour control in melanoma patients.

Methods:

A total of 155 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma from 17 European skin cancer centres were retrospectively analysed. Out of these, 87 patients received concomitant radiotherapy and BRAFi (59 vemurafenib, 28 dabrafenib), while in 68 patients BRAFi therapy was interrupted during radiation (51 vemurafenib, 17 dabrafenib). Overall survival was calculated from the first radiation (OS_RT) and from start of BRAFi therapy (OS_BRAFi).

Results:

The median duration of BRAFi treatment interruption prior to radiotherapy was 4 days and lasted for 17 days. Median OS_RT and OS_BRAFi in the entire cohort were 9.8 and 12.6 months in the interrupted group and 7.3 and 11.5 months in the concomitant group (P=0.075/P=0.217), respectively. Interrupted vemurafenib treatment with a median OS_RT and OS_BRAFi of 10.1 and 13.1 months, respectively, was superior to concomitant vemurafenib treatment with a median OS_RT and OS_BRAFi of 6.6 and 10.9 months (P=0.004/P=0.067). Interrupted dabrafenib treatment with a median OS_RT and OS_BRAFi of 7.7 and 9.8 months, respectively, did not differ from concomitant dabrafenib treatment with a median OS_RT and OS_BRAFi of 9.9 and 11.6 months (P=0.132/P=0.404). Median local control of the irradiated area did not differ in the interrupted and concomitant BRAFi treatment groups (P=0.619). Skin toxicity of grade ≥2 (CTCAE) was significantly increased in patients with concomitant vemurafenib compared to the group with treatment interruption (P=0.002).

Conclusions:

Interruption of vemurafenib treatment during radiation was associated with better survival and less toxicity compared to concomitant treatment. Due to lower number of patients, the relevance of treatment interruption in dabrafenib treated patients should be further investigated. The results of this analysis indicate that treatment with the BRAFi vemurafenib should be interrupted during radiotherapy. Prospective studies are desperately needed.

Progression patterns under BRAF inhibitor treatment and treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma

Despite markedly improved treatment options for metastatic melanoma, resistance to targeted therapies such as BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) or BRAFi plus MEK inhibitors (MEKi) remains a major problem. Our aim was to characterize progression on BRAFi therapy and outcome of subsequent treatment. One hundred and eighty patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma who had progressed on treatment with single-agent BRAFi from February 2010 to April 2015 were included in a retrospective data analysis focused on patterns of progression, treatment beyond progression (TBP) and subsequent treatments after BRAFi therapy. Analysis revealed that 51.1% of patients progressed with both new and existing metastases opposed to progression of only preexisting (28.3%) or only new (20.6%) metastases. Exclusive extracranial progression occurred in 50.6% of patients compared to both extra- and intracranial (29.4%) or sole cerebral progression (20%). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that single site progression and primary response to BRAFi were associated with improved progression-free survival. Progression with exclusively new or only existing metastases and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) of 0 were associated with prolonged overall survival (OS). TBP had no significant impact on OS. Other subsequent treatments showed low efficacy with the exception of anti-PD-1 antibodies. In conclusion we identified specific patterns of progression which significantly correlate with further prognosis after progression on BRAFi treatment. In contrast to previously published data, we could not demonstrate a significant survival benefit for BRAFi TBP. Subsequent therapies had strikingly low efficacy except for PD-1 inhibitors.

The safety and efficacy of dabrafenib and trametinib for the treatment of melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of BRAF and MEK inhibitors into clinical practice improved the prognosis of metastatic melanoma patients. The combination of BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib with MEK inhibitor trametinib has shown its superiority to single agent therapy and is characterized by a tolerable spectrum of adverse events which shows a decrease in incidence over time on treatment. Areas covered: The current scientific literature on safety and adverse events (AEs) related to BRAF and MEK-inhibition has been investigated with special focus on the large phase 3 studies (COMBI-v, COMBI-d and CoBRIM) as well as recent updates presented at oncology and melanoma meetings. Additionally, published case series/case reports were screened for information on AEs. Expert opinion: Even though almost every patient (98%) under combination therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib experiences at least one adverse event, these are generally mild to moderate, reversible and can be managed with dose reductions or interruptions. However, due to an increased life expectancy, there is a substantial need to prevent and treat also mild adverse events, as they play a central role for the quality of life of patients. Ongoing clinical trials will have to demonstrate the efficacy as well as safety of triple combination with anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 antibodies.

Radiosensibilisierung durch BRAF Inhibitoren

HINTERGRUND

In der letzten Zeit wurden in der Literatur vermehrt erhöhte Hauttoxizitäten während einer Kombinationstherapie mit BRAF Inhibitoren und Radiotherapie beschrieben.

MATERIAL UND METHODIK

Wir berichten über sieben Melanompatienten in einem nicht resezierbaren Stadium III oder IV, die eine kombinierte Behandlung aus Bestrahlung und BRAF-Inhibitor erhielten.

ERGEBNISSE

Bei allen Patienten konnte durch die Kombinationstherapie ein gutes lokales Ansprechen erreicht werden. Nur bei zwei Patienten wurde eine schwere Radiodermatitis (CTCAE Grad 3 bzw. 4) beobachtet. Bei diesen Patienten, die beide Vemurafenib erhielten, trat die Radiodermatitis nach ein bzw. zwei Wochen auf und resultierte in einer Unterbrechung der BRAF-Inhibitor Behandlung.. Die kumulative Dosis bis zum Zeitpunkt der Strahlendermatitis betrug 10 Gy bzw. 35 Gy. Bei allen anderen Vemurafenibpatienten konnten nur milde Reaktionen im Sinne einer Radiodermatitis CTCAE Grad 2, beim Dabrafenibpatienten CTCAE Grade 1 diagnostiziert werden. Bei einem Patienten wurde eine Recalldermatitis nach 14 Tagen einer beendeten Strahlentherapie mit einer kumulativen Dosis von 30 Gy diagnostiziert.

SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN

Schwere Toxizitätsreaktionen der Haut unter einer BRAF-Inhibitionen treten nicht häufig auf und sind meistens gut therapierbar. Deshalb sollte die Kombinationstherapie bei aggressiv wachsenden Melanomen eine Therapieoption bleiben. Obwohl ein erhöhtes Risiko der Hauttoxizität unter einer Kombinationstherapie von Radiatio und BRAF-Inhibitoren besteht, wird diese von den meisten Patienten gut toleriert. Sequenzielle Therapie anstelle von gleichzeitiger Behandlung scheint die Toxizitätreaktionen nicht zu verhindern.

Radiosensitization by BRAF inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Increased skin toxicity during combination therapy with a BRAF inhibitor and radiation therapy has recently been reported.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We present seven melanoma patients with non-resectable stage III or IV disease and concomitant treatment with a BRAF inhibitor and radiation therapy.

RESULTS

In all patients, combination therapy yielded a good local response. Only two patients, both on vemurafenib, showed severe radiation dermatitis (CTCAE grade 3/4) after one and two weeks, respectively, resulting in interruption of BRAF inhibitor treatment. The respective cumulative radiation dose was 10 Gy and 35 Gy. The remaining vemurafenib patients displayed only mild radiation dermatitis CTCAE grade 2; the only dabrafenib patient CTCAE grade 1. In one patient, recall dermatitis was diagnosed 14 days after completion of radiation therapy with a cumulative dose of 30 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe skin toxicity caused by BRAF inhibitor-induced radiosensitization is not common and usually amenable to treatment. Thus, combination treatment should remain a therapeutic option, especially in melanoma patients characterized by aggressive tumor growth. Although there is an increased risk of skin toxicity during combination therapy, it is usually well tolerated by most patients. Sequential - instead of simultaneous - treatment does not seem to prevent such toxicity reactions.

Phase 1b/2 trial of ribociclib+binimetinib in metastatic NRAS-mutant melanoma: Safety, efficacy, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D)

9519

Background: Simultaneous inhibition of MEK and CDK4/6 may suppress MAPK pathway activation and cell-cycle checkpoint dysregulation in NRAS-mutant melanoma, resulting in enhanced antitumor activity. Phase 1b data are reported. Methods: The phase 1b primary objective was to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/RP2D. A 28-d cycle of oral ribociclib (RIBO) once daily (QD) for 21 d + oral binimetinib (BINI) twice daily (BID) for 28 d, and a 21-d cycle of RIBO QD + BINI BID, both for 14 d per cycle, were evaluated. Secondary objectives were to evaluate efficacy, safety and pharmacodynamics. Results: Based on dose escalation (van Herpen, ESMO 2015), MTD was 600mg RIBO/45mg BINI for the 21-d and 200/45 for the 28-d regimens. Due to promising activity, the 28-d cycle was selected as RP2D(unconfirmed partial response [PR] with limited follow-up occurred in 35% of pts). This finding was supported by comparable and manageable safety and the Bayesian logistic regression model.As of Jan 2017, the RP2D was received by 16 pts in phase 1b (ECOG PS 0/1/2, 63%/31%/6%; elevated lactate dehydrogenase, 44%; stage IVM1c disease, 50%; prior ipilimumab [ipi], 44%; prior anti–programmed death [PD]-1/PD-L1, 31%). Median (range) exposure was 4 (0–13) mo. Common adverse events (AEs) were increased blood creatine phosphokinase, elevated AST, peripheral edema, acneiform dermatitis, diarrhea and fatigue. Common grade 3/4 AEs were elevated AST and ALT (19%/6%), nausea (19%/0%), rash (19%/0%), vomiting (6%/6%) and neutropenia (12%/0%). Confirmed PR (cPR) occurred in 4 pts (25%; time to response, 48–168 d), stable disease in 7 pts (44%), disease progression in 3 pts (19%); 2 pts (12%) were not evaluable. Among cPR pts, 3 had prior ipi and/or anti–PD-1/PD-L1. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.7 (95% CI, 3.5–9.2) mo. Sequence analysis of synchronous non- RAS genetic alterations will be presented. Conclusions: Combined RIBO/BINI at the selected RP2D had a manageable safety profile and favorable efficacy (based on mPFS) for NRAS-mutant melanoma in phase 1b. Based on these promising data, the phase 2 expansion is underway to assess antitumor activity at the RP2D. Clinical trial information: NCT01781572.

Quantitative longitudinal imaging of activated microglia as a marker of inflammation in the pilocarpine rat model of epilepsy using [11C]-( R)-PK11195 PET and MRI

Inflammation may play a role in the development of epilepsy after brain insults. [¹¹C]-( R)-PK11195 binds to TSPO, expressed by activated microglia. We quantified [¹¹C]-( R)-PK11195 binding during epileptogenesis after pilocarpine-induced status epilepticus (SE), a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. Nine male rats were studied thrice (D0-1, D0 + 6, D0 + 35, D0 = SE induction). In the same session, 7T T2-weighted images and DTI for mean diffusivity (MD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) maps were acquired, followed by dynamic PET/CT. On D0 + 35, femoral arterial blood was sampled for rat-specific metabolite-corrected arterial plasma input functions (AIFs). In multiple MR-derived ROIs, we assessed four kinetic models (two with AIFs; two using a reference region), standard uptake values (SUVs), and a model with a mean AIF. All models showed large (up to two-fold) and significant TSPO binding increases in regions expected to be affected, and comparatively little change in the brainstem, at D0 + 6. Some individuals showed increases at D0 + 35. AIF models yielded more consistent increases at D0 + 6. FA values were decreased at D0 + 6 and had recovered by D0 + 35. MD was increased at D0 + 6 and more so at D0 + 35. [¹¹C]-( R)-PK11195 PET binding and MR biomarker changes could be detected with only nine rats, highlighting the potential of longitudinal imaging studies.

Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy in patients with advanced melanoma and preexisting autoimmunity or ipilimumab-triggered autoimmunity

AIM

Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors are a common treatment strategy for metastatic melanoma and other tumour entities. Clinical trials usually exclude patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases, thus experience with PD-1 inhibitor (PD-1i) in this patient population is limited.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Metastatic melanoma patients with preexisting autoimmune disorders or previous ipilimumab-triggered immune-related adverse events (irAE) undergoing treatment with PD-1i from seven German skin cancer centres were evaluated retrospectively with regard to flare of the preexisting autoimmunity and development of new, not preexisting irAE as well as response to PD-1i therapy.

RESULTS

In total, 41 patients had either preexisting autoimmunity (n=19, group A, including two patients with additional ipilimumab-triggered autoimmune colitis) or ipilimumab-triggered irAE (n=22, group B). At PD-1i therapy initiation, six patients in group A and two patients in group B required immunosuppressive therapy. In group A, a flare of preexisting autoimmune disorders was seen in 42% of patients, new irAE in 16%. In group B, 4.5% of patients showed a flare of ipilimumab-triggered irAE and 23% new irAE. All flares of preexisting autoimmune disorders or irAE were managed by immunosuppressive and/or symptomatic therapy and did not require termination of PD-1i therapy. tumour responses (32% in group A and 45% in group B) were unrelated to occurrence of autoimmunity.

CONCLUSION

While preexisting autoimmunity commonly showed a flare during PD-1i therapy, a flare of ipilimumab-triggered irAE was rare. Response rates were above 30% and unrelated to irAE. PD-1i therapy can be considered in patients with autoimmune disorders depending on severity and activity of autoimmunity.

IRF4 rs12203592 functional variant and melanoma survival

Inherited genetic factors may modulate clinical outcome in melanoma. Some low-to-medium risk genes in melanoma susceptibility play a role in melanoma outcome. Our aim was to assess the role of the functional IRF4 SNP rs12203592 in melanoma prognosis in two independent sets (Barcelona, N = 493 and Essen, N = 438). Genotype association analyses showed that the IRF4 rs12203592 T allele increased the risk of dying from melanoma in both sets (Barcelona: odds ratio [OR] = 6.53, 95% CI 1.38-30.87, Adj p = 0.032; Essen: OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.72, Adj p = 0.035). Survival analyses only showed significance for the Barcelona set (hazard ratio = 4.58, 95% CI 1.11-18.92, Adj p = 0.036). This SNP was also associated with tumour localization, increasing the risk of developing melanoma in head or neck (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.07-2.98, Adj p = 0.032) and protecting from developing melanoma in the trunk (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.41-0.85, Adj p = 0.004). These findings suggest for the first time that IRF4 rs12203592 plays a role in the modulation of melanoma outcome and confirms its contribution to the localization of the primary tumour.

Analysis of SDHD promoter mutations in various types of melanoma

Objectives

Recently, recurrent mutations in regulatory DNA regions, such as promoter mutations in the TERT gene were identified in melanoma. Subsequently, Weinhold et al. reported SDHD promoter mutations occurring in 10% of melanomas and being associated with a lower overall survival rate. Our study analyzes the mutation rate and clinico-pathologic associations of SDHD promoter mutations in a large cohort of different melanoma subtypes.

Methods

451 melanoma samples (incl. 223 non-acral cutaneous, 38 acral, 33 mucosal, 43 occult, 43 conjunctival and 51 uveal melanoma) were analyzed for the presence of SDHD promoter mutations by Sanger-sequencing. Statistical analysis was performed to screen for potential correlations of SDHD promoter mutation status with various clinico-pathologic criteria.

Results

The SDHD promoter was successfully sequenced in 451 tumor samples. ETS binding site changing SDHD promoter mutations were identified in 16 (4%) samples, of which 5 mutations had not been described previously. Additionally, 5 point mutations not located in ETS binding elements were identified. Mutations in UV-exposed tumors were frequently C>T. One germline C>A SDHD promoter mutation was identified. No statistically significant associations between SDHD promoter mutation status and various clinico-pathologic variables or overall patient survival were observed.

Conclusions

Melanomas harbor recurrent SDHD promoter mutations, which occur primarily as C>T alterations in UV-exposed melanomas. In contrast to the initial report and promoter mutations in the TERT gene, our analysis suggests that SDHD promoter mutations are a relatively rare event in melanoma (4% of tumors) of unclear clinical and prognostic relevance.