Dermatological side effects rarely interfere with the continuation of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced cutaneous toxicities: a review of histopathologic and clinical features

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent an emerging treatment option for a variety of cancer types. Through inhibition of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), and/or cytotoxic lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), ICIs activate the host's immune system causing a heightened anti-tumor response. However, off-target effects of ICIs can result in numerous different immune-related cutaneous adverse events (irCAEs). Beyond impacting quality of life, irCAEs can lead to dose limitations or discontinuation of anti-cancer therapies. Correct diagnosis is necessary for expedient and appropriate management. Skin biopsies are often performed to increase diagnostic accuracy and guide clinical management. An extensive literature review was performed using the PubMed database to identify the reported clinical and histopathologic features of irCAEs. This comprehensive review primarily details the histopathologic features of various irCAEs reported to date. Clinical presentation and immunopathogenesis are also discussed in relation to histopathology.

Skin Infiltrate Composition as a Telling Measure of Responses to Checkpoint Inhibitors

Checkpoint inhibitors treat a variety of tumor types with significant benefits. Unfortunately, these therapies come with diverse adverse events. Skin rash is observed early into treatment and might serve as an indicator of downstream responses to therapy. We studied the cellular composition of cutaneous eruptions and whether their contribution varies with the treatment applied. Skin samples from 18 patients with cancer and 11 controls were evaluated by mono- and multiplex imaging, quantification, and statistical analysis. T cells were the prime contributors to skin rash, with T cells and macrophages interacting and proliferating on site. Among T cell subsets examined, type 1 and 17 T cells were relatively increased among inflammatory skin infiltrates. A combination of increased cytotoxic T cell content and decreased macrophage abundance was associated with dual checkpoint inhibition over PD1 inhibition alone. Importantly, responders significantly separated from nonresponders by greater CD68+ macrophage and either CD11c+ antigen-presenting cell or CD4+ T cell abundance in skin rash. The microenvironment promoted epidermal proliferation and thickening as well. The combination of checkpoint inhibitors used affects the development and composition of skin infiltrates, whereas the combined abundance of two cell types in cutaneous eruptions aligns with responses to checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

T cell co-stimulatory and co-inhibitory pathways in atopic dermatitis

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the T cell inhibitory pathways has revolutionized cancer treatment. However, ICIs might induce progressive atopic dermatitis (AD) by affecting T cell reactivation. The critical role of T cells in AD pathogenesis is widely known. T cell co-signaling pathways regulate T cell activation, where co-signaling molecules are essential for determining the magnitude of the T cell response to antigens. Given the increasing use of ICIs in cancer treatment, a timely overview of the role of T cell co-signaling molecules in AD is required. In this review, we emphasize the importance of these molecules involved in AD pathogenesis. We also discuss the potential of targeting T cell co-signaling pathways to treat AD and present the unresolved issues and existing limitations. A better understanding of the T cell co-signaling pathways would aid investigation of the mechanism, prognosis evaluation, and treatment of AD.

Cutaneous lichenoid drug eruptions: A narrative review evaluating demographics, clinical features and culprit medications

Cutaneous lichenoid drug eruptions (LDE) are adverse drug reactions (ADR) characterized by symmetric, erythematous, violaceous papules reminiscent but rarely fully characteristic of lichen planus (LP). We aimed to analyse the literature describing cases of LDE within the last 20 years to provide additional insight into culprit drugs, typical latency to onset of the eruption, the spectrum of clinical presentations, severity and management. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE between January 2000 and 27 January 2021. The keywords 'lichenoid drug rash' and 'lichenoid drug eruption' were used. Cases were included if LDE diagnosis was made, and culprit drugs were identified. A total of 323 cases with LDE were identified from 163 published case reports and studies. The mean patient age was 58.5 years (1 month to 92 years), and 135 patients (41.8%) were female. Checkpoint inhibitors (CKI) were the most frequently reported culprit drugs (136 cases; 42.1%), followed by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) (39 cases; 12.0%) and anti-TNF-α-monoclonal antibodies (13 cases; 4.0%). The latency between initiation of the drug and manifestation was 15.7 weeks (range: 0.1-208 weeks). After discontinuing the culprit drug, the median time to resolution was 14.2 weeks (range: 0.71-416 weeks). One hundred thirty-six patients (42.1%) were treated with topical, and 54 patients (16.7%) with systemic glucocorticoids. Overall, we conclude that, albeit rare, LDE is challenging to diagnose ADR induced by mostly CKI, TKI, and biologics. Treatment modalities resemble that of lichen planus, and the culprit drugs had to be discontinued in only 26%, which is low compared with other types of adverse drug reactions. This is probably due to the low risk of aggravation (e.g. toxic epidermal necrolysis) if the drug is continued and the benefit/risk ratio favouring the drug, as is often the case in cancer therapy.

Apremilast in Psoriasis Patients With Serious Comorbidities: a Case Series and Systematic Review of Literature

INTRODUCTION

Patients with serious comorbidities are traditionally excluded from clinical trials. Apremilast is not contraindicated in active infections, malignancy and serious hepatic or renal impairment, but real-life data is needed to support this recommendation.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper is to present our personal as well as literature-sourced real-world evidenced on apremilast use in psoriasis patients with serious baseline comorbidities.

METHODS

A case-series and systematic literature review were performed. The psoriasis archives of a tertiary-care hospital, four electronic databases (MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Google scholar) and other sources were searched (January 2014 - July 2021). Identified records were considered eligible, if they reported on the use of apremilast monotherapy in psoriasis patients with chronic infections, history of malignancy, serious liver, renal, psychiatric, or other disease(s).

RESULTS

At least 841 psoriasis patients with serious baseline diseases received apremilast. Only 3 cases of cancer progression and no infection reactivations or worsening of other diseases were documented. No increased frequency/severity of adverse events or reduced drug efficacy were noted. Main limitations of this study are the exclusion of a few reports due to inappropriately documented data and the fact that at least some patients might have been counted more than once.

CONCLUSIONS

Apremilast is a safe and adequately efficacious option for psoriasis that cannot be treated/is challenging to treat with classic systemic agents and/or biologics.

Cutaneous side effects and types of dermatological reactions in metastatic melanoma patients treated by immunotherapies or targeted therapies: A retrospective single center study

Immunotherapy and target therapy have revolutionized treatment of stage III/IV melanoma. Both treatments show a favorable toxicity profile even if cutaneous adverse events (AEs) are frequent (30%-40% of cases). This is a retrospective single center cohort study that included patients with stage IV or inoperable stage III metastatic melanoma (AJCC 8th) who received BRAFi + MEKi therapy or immunotherapy with Checkpoint inhibitors. All cutaneous AEs were ascertained by a dermatologist based on clinical and histological findings. The primary outcome was to provide a detailed clinical dermatological classification of cutaneous adverse events and an evaluation of the incidence of skin toxicity in the two arms of therapy (immunotherapy and target therapy). A total of 286 patients with stages III-IV metastatic melanoma were included: 146 received immunotherapy and 140 target therapy. In the immunotherapy cohort, 63 (43.1%) cutaneous reactions were observed while 33 skin reactions (23.6%) were identified in patients treated with target therapy. All the skin toxicities observed were grade I, excepted four cases: an erythema multiforme-like eruption, a grade III psoriasis and two grade III maculopapular rashes. Immunotherapy in older age resulted statistically related to skin toxicities (p = 0.011), meanly in metastatic setting (p = 0.011). Cumulative incidence of skin toxicities was 65.63% in immunotherapy cohort (p = 0.001). Also multivariate logistic regression shows a significant association between skin adverse events and immunotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.85, p: 0.01) and between cutaneous AEs and metastatic setting (OR = 1.97; 95% CI: 1.04-3.74, p: 0.04). We have also shown that as the age of initiation of therapy increases the probability of developing skin toxicity grows. However, stratifying by type of therapies the effect of age persists only in immunotherapy (OD: 1.04; CI: 1.01-1.06; p: 0.04) while for target therapy age does not affect the onset of skin toxicity (OD 1.01; CI 0.98-1.04; p = 0.42). No differences were shown between patients on target therapy and immunotherapy regarding gender. Patients were also evaluated regarding concomitant therapies and seems that Levotyroxine may be involved in AEs during immunotherapy treatment. More studies are needed to deepen this aspect, also considering the medical history and diverse drug associations. Cutaneous adverse events are characterized by heterogeneous manifestations, are more often seen in patients on immunotherapy and dermatologists can play a crucial role in multidisciplinary care.

"Skin rashes" and immunotherapy in melanoma: distinct dermatologic adverse events and implications for therapeutic management

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown efficacy in the treatment of different cancers by stimulating the antitumoral activity of the patient's immune system, representing a major breakthrough in the field of cancer therapy. Monoclonal antibodies including anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand inhibitors have been approved for advanced melanoma among other solid cancers. Although immunotherapy demonstrated a good safety profile, a new spectrum of multisystemic immune-related adverse events has been recently reported due to their use. Cutaneous reactions represent one of the leading adverse events, often reported in literature as "skin rash", and rarely further characterized in distinct dermatologic entities. Herein we describe the distinctive cutaneous rashes occurring during immunotherapies for advanced melanoma, discussing implications in the treatment management.

Dermatologic immune-related adverse events: The toxicity spectrum and recommendations for management

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a new class of oncologic drugs that act via the inhibition of checkpoints, thereby unlocking the immune system to attack cancer cells. Their emergence has radically changed the concept of therapy in oncologic patients. However, despite their overall favorable profile, their use has been associated with specific toxicities that may potentially affect treatment. The so-called immune-related adverse events (irAEs) mostly correspond to dysimmune reactions that can affect nearly every organ system, in theory, notably with the development of colitis, hepatitis, pneumonitis, or thyroiditis. Dermatologic irAEs are also among the most common, reaching a rate of approximately 40%. They are characterized by a wide phenotypic range, including mainly eczematous or lichenoid rashes, psoriasis, or autoimmune bullous disorders. Pruritus may accompany the aforementioned rashes or develop as an isolated symptom without the presence of skin changes. Depigmentation and hair/nail changes can be also observed in association with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. In the current article, we present an overview of the clinical spectrum of irAEs and provide tips for early recognition and management of dermatologic irAEs. We highlight the role that dermatologists can play in relieving patients and allowing for oncologic treatment to be maintained and administered more safely.

Monoclonal Antibodies to CTLA-4 with Focus on Ipilimumab

The immune checkpoint cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4 or CD152) is a negative regulator of T-cell-mediated immune responses which plays a critical role in suppressing autoimmunity and maintaining immune homeostasis. Because of its inhibitory activity on T cells, CTLA-4 has been investigated as a drug target to induce immunostimulation, blocking the interaction with its ligands. The antitumor effects mediated by CTLA-4 blockade have been attributed to a sustained active immune response against cancer cells, due to the release of a brake on T cell activation. Ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a fully human anti-CTLA-4 IgG1κ monoclonal antibody (mAb) that represents the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved as monotherapy by FDA and EMA in 2011 for the treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma. In 2015, FDA also granted approval to ipilimumab monotherapy as adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma to reduce the risk of tumour recurrence. The subsequent approved indications of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma, regardless of BRAF mutational status, and other advanced/metastatic solid tumours always involve its use in association with the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) mAb nivolumab. Currently, ipilimumab is evaluated in ongoing clinical trials for refractory/advanced solid tumours mainly in combination with additional immunostimulating agents.

European recommendations for management of immune checkpoint inhibitors-derived dermatologic adverse events. The EADV task force 'Dermatology for cancer patients' position statement

The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) opened a new era in oncologic therapy. The favourable profile of ICIs in terms of efficacy and safety can be overshadowed by the development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Dermatologic irAEs (dirAEs) appear in about 40% of patients undergoing immunotherapy and mainly include maculopapular, psoriasiform, lichenoid and eczematous rashes, auto-immune bullous disorders, pigmentary disorders, pruritus, oral mucosal lesions, hair and nail changes, as well as a few rare and potentially life-threatening toxicities. The EADV task force Dermatology for Cancer Patients merged the clinical experience of the so-far published data, incorporated the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of each specific dirAEs, and released dermatology-derived, phenotype-specific treatment recommendations for cutaneous toxicities (including levels of evidence and grades of recommendation). The basic principle of management is that the interventions should be tailored to serve the equilibrium between patients' relief from the symptoms and signs of skin toxicity and the preservation of an unimpeded oncologic treatment.

PD-1 and beyond to Activate T Cells in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancers: The Case for 4-1BB and VISTA Antibodies in Combination Therapy

Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC) have a higher incidence than all other cancers combined with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), capable of metastasis, representing approximately 20% of NMSCs. Given the accessibility of the skin, surgery is frequently employed to treat localized disease, although certain localities, the delineation of clear margins, frequency and recurrence of tumors can make these cancers inoperable in a subset of patients. Other treatment modalities, including cryotherapy, are commonly used for individual lesions, with varying success. Immunotherapy, particularly with checkpoint antibodies, is increasingly a promising therapeutic approach in many cancers, offering the potential advantage of immune memory for protection against lesion recurrence. This review addresses a role for PD-1, 4-1BB and VISTA checkpoint antibodies as monotherapies, or in combination as a therapeutic treatment for both early and late-stage cSCC.