Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients With Cancer and Preexisting Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Safety of nivolumab monotherapy in five cancer types: pooled analysis of post-marketing surveillance in Japan

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab has been approved for treating ≥ 10 cancer types. However, there is limited information on the incidence of rare, but potentially serious, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), as well as notable TRAEs in patients with certain medical disorders or older patients in Japan.

METHODS

We performed pooled analyses of data from published post-marketing surveillance in Japan of nivolumab monotherapy for patients with malignant melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancer, and gastric cancer to determine the frequencies of 20 categories of TRAEs of special interest overall and in patient groups with higher perceived safety risks (history of autoimmune disease, interstitial lung disease, tuberculosis, or hepatitis B/C; patients vaccinated during nivolumab treatment; and older patients [≥ 75 years]).

RESULTS

The overall population comprised 7421 patients treated with nivolumab. TRAEs were reported in 49.1% of patients, with grade ≥ 3 TRAEs in 16.7%. Endocrine disorders (14.4%), hepatobiliary disorders (10.9%), and interstitial lung disease (7.0%) were the three most common categories (any grade). The incidences of rare TRAEs with high risk of becoming serious, which occurred in < 1% of patients, were consistent with those in previous reports. The frequencies of TRAEs were not markedly increased in the specified patient groups relative to the overall population.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest study examining the safety of nivolumab-treated patients in real-world clinical practice including rare but potentially serious TRAEs. We found no new signals in the safety of nivolumab among the patient groups relative to the overall population, and no additional safety measures are required in these groups. Trial registration UMIN000048892 (overall analysis), JapicCTI-163272 (melanoma), Japic-163271 (non-small cell lung cancer), JapicCTI-184071 (head and neck cancer), JapicCTI-184070 (gastric cancer), and JapicCTI-184069 (renal cell cancer).

Biological Agents for Treating Atezolizumab-Induced Psoriasis in Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Case Report

One of the immune-related adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is skin toxicity. Oral corticosteroids are the first-line treatment for severe cutaneous immune-related adverse events. However, corticosteroids may conflict with the efficacy of ICIs. A 55-year-old Japanese man with a history of psoriasis vulgaris was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer (Stage ⅣA) and administered combined chemoimmunotherapy, including atezolizumab, which resulted in exacerbation of psoriasis. In response, he was treated with biological agents, such as anti-IL-23 and IL-17 antibodies, risankizumab, and secukinumab, respectively, and achieved long-term survival with continued treatment with atezolizumab. This case report suggests that biological agents might be the best course of treatment against autoimmune-related adverse events caused by ICI therapy.

Defining D-irAEs: consensus-based disease definitions for the diagnosis of dermatologic adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

With an increasing number of patients eligible for immune checkpoint inhibitors, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is on the rise. Dermatologic immune-related adverse events (D-irAEs) are the most common and earliest to manifest, often with important downstream consequences for the patient. Current guidelines lack clarity in terms of diagnostic criteria for D-irAEs. The goal of this project is to better define D-irAE for the purposes of identification, diagnosis, and future study of this important group of diseases.The objectives of this project were to develop consensus guidance for an approach to D-irAEs including disease definitions and severity grading. Knowing that consensus among oncologists, dermatologists, and irAE subspecialists would be critical for usability, we formed a Dermatologic irAE Disease Definition Panel. The panel was composed of 34 experts, including oncologists, dermatologists, a rheumatologist, and an allergist/immunologist from 22 institutions across the USA and internationally. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two virtual meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness, and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. A working group aggregated survey responses and incorporated them into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions.Following revisions based on panelist feedback, all items received consensus in the second round of ratings. Consensus definitions were achieved for 10 core D-irAE diagnoses: ICI-vitiligo, ICI-lichen planus, ICI-psoriasis, ICI-exanthem, ICI-bullous pemphigoid, ICI-Grover's, ICI-eczematous, ICI-eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, ICI-pruritus without rash, and ICI-erosive mucocutaneous. A standard evaluation for D-irAE was also found to reach consensus, with disease-specific exceptions detailed when necessary. Each disorder's description includes further details on disease subtypes, symptoms, supportive exam findings, and three levels of diagnostic certainty (definite, probable, and possible).These consensus-driven disease definitions standardize D-irAE classification in a useable framework for multiple disciplines and will be the foundation for future work. Given consensus on their accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that they can be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Predictive Factors in Metastatic Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: From Clinical Practice to Future Perspective

The introduction of immunotherapy revolutionized the treatment landscape in metastatic melanoma. Despite the impressive results associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), only a portion of patients obtain a response to this treatment. In this scenario, the research of predictive factors is fundamental to identify patients who may have a response and to exclude patients with a low possibility to respond. These factors can be host-associated, immune system activation-related, and tumor-related. Patient-related factors can vary from data obtained by medical history (performance status, age, sex, body mass index, concomitant medications, and comorbidities) to analysis of the gut microbiome from fecal samples. Tumor-related factors can reflect tumor burden (metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and circulating tumor DNA) or can derive from the analysis of tumor samples (driver mutations, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and myeloid cells). Biomarkers evaluating the immune system activation, such as IFN-gamma gene expression profile and analysis of circulating immune cell subsets, have emerged in recent years as significantly correlated with response to ICIs. In this manuscript, we critically reviewed the most updated literature data on the landscape of predictive factors in metastatic melanoma treated with ICIs. We focus on the principal limits and potentiality of different methods, shedding light on the more promising biomarkers.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors: maximizing benefit whilst minimizing toxicity

INTRODUCTION

The advent of immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer; anti-tumor efficacy has been observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in ~20 different cancer types with durable responses in some cases. However, the risk of toxicity in the form of immune-related adverse events (irAE) partially counterbalances these benefits, and there are no FDA-approved biomarkers to categorize patients by likelihood of response or risk of irAEs.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a thorough review of the literature of clinical studies regarding ICI and their toxicities. In this review, we synthesize the current body of literature about ICI treatment and irAE by summarizing the classes and uses of ICI, how to identify patients at risk for irAE, present the current understanding of irAE development, describe ongoing research into biomarkers of irAE, examine opportunities for irAE prevention, described management of steroid refractory irAE, and highlight future directions for development of prevention and management strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

While ongoing biomarker studies are promising, it is unlikely that there will be a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to categorizing irAE risk. In contrast, improved management and irAE prophylaxis are potentially in reach, and ongoing trials will help elucidate best practices.

Rheumatic Immune-Related Adverse Events due to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors—A 2023 Update

With the aging of the population, malignancies are becoming common complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly in elderly patients. Such malignancies often interfere with RA treatment. Among several therapeutic agents, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) which antagonize immunological brakes on T lymphocytes have emerged as a promising treatment option for a variety of malignancies. In parallel, evidence has accumulated that ICIs are associated with numerous immune-related adverse events (irAEs), such as hypophysitis, myocarditis, pneumonitis, and colitis. Moreover, ICIs not only exacerbate pre-existing autoimmune diseases, but also cause de novo rheumatic disease–like symptoms, such as arthritis, myositis, and vasculitis, which are currently termed rheumatic irAEs. Rheumatic irAEs differ from classical rheumatic diseases in multiple aspects, and treatment should be individualized based on the severity. Close collaboration with oncologists is critical for preventing irreversible organ damage. This review summarizes the current evidence regarding the mechanisms and management of rheumatic irAEs with focus on arthritis, myositis, and vasculitis. Based on these findings, potential therapeutic strategies against rheumatic irAEs are discussed.