Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab and Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Near-infrared duocarmycin photorelease from a Treg-targeted antibody-drug conjugate improves efficacy of PD-1 blockade in syngeneic murine tumor models

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) play a crucial role in mediating immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, Tregs contribute to the lack of efficacy and hyperprogressive disease upon Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade immunotherapy. Thus, Tregs are considered a promising therapeutic target, especially when combined with PD-1 blockade. However, systemic depletion of Tregs causes severe autoimmune adverse events, which poses a serious challenge to Treg-directed therapy. Here, we developed a novel treatment to locally and predominantly damage Tregs by near-infrared duocarmycin photorelease (NIR-DPR). In this technology, we prepared anti-CD25 F(ab')2 conjugates, which site-specifically uncage duocarmycin in CD25-expressing cells upon exposure to NIR light. In vitro, CD25-targeted NIR-DPR significantly increased apoptosis of CD25-expressing HT2-A5E cells. When tumors were irradiated with NIR light in vivo, intratumoral CD25+ Treg populations decreased and Ki-67 and Interleukin-10 expression was suppressed, indicating impaired functioning of intratumoral CD25+ Tregs. CD25-targeted NIR-DPR suppressed tumor growth and improved survival in syngeneic murine tumor models. Of note, CD25-targeted NIR-DPR synergistically enhanced the efficacy of PD-1 blockade, especially in tumors with higher CD8+/Treg PD-1 ratios. Furthermore, the combination therapy induced significant anti-cancer immunity including maturation of dendritic cells, extensive intratumoral infiltration of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells, and increased differentiation into CD8+ memory T cells. Altogether, CD25-targeted NIR-DPR locally and predominantly targets Tregs in the tumor microenvironment and synergistically improves the efficacy of PD-1 blockade, suggesting that this combination therapy can be a rational anti-cancer combination immunotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based dual immunotherapies versus PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor alone in patients with advanced solid tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapies. The debate surrounding the potential additive clinical benefits of combination of two immune-oncology (IO) therapies for cancer patients persists.

METHODS

Both published and grey sources of randomized clinical trials that compared anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based immunotherapy combinations with monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were encompassed. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).

RESULTS

Our analysis encompassed 31 studies comprising 10,341 patients, which covered 12 distinct immune-oncology combination regimens. Across all patients, the immunotherapy combinations exhibited the capability to enhance the ORR (OR = 1.23 [95% CI 1.13-1.34]) and extend PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.87-0.95]). However, the observed enhancement in OS (HR = 0.96 [95% CI 0.91-1.01]) was of no significance. Greater benefits in terms of PFS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93]) and OS (HR = 0.85 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.99]) may be particularly pronounced in cases where PD-L1 expression is negative. Notably, despite a heightened risk of any-grade TRAEs (OR = 1.72 [95% CI 1.40-2.11]) and grade greater than or equal to 3 TRAEs (OR = 2.01 [95% CI 1.67-2.43]), toxicity was generally manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that incorporating an additional immunotherapy agent with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors can elevate the response rate and reduce the risk of disease progression, all while maintaining manageable toxicity. However, there remains a challenge in translating these primary clinical benefits into extended overall survival.

Advancements in the research of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Esophageal cancer (EC) has a high mortality rate and poor prognosis. Most patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage or with distant metastasis, making surgery impossible. Traditional curative radiotherapy and chemotherapy have limited efficacy. In recent years, with the development of clinical trials, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown promising results in treating advanced and metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. ICIs have gradually become a primary therapeutic approach for EC. This review summarizes and provides an overview of the current research status and progress of ICIs in the treatment of advanced ESCC patients.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma).

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I2).

RESULTS

Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

Prognostic biomarkers in melanoma: a 2023 update from clinical trials in different therapeutic scenarios

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, significant advancements in the field of melanoma have included the introduction of a new staging system and the development of immunotherapy and targeted therapies, leading to changes in substage classification and impacting patient prognosis. Despite these strides, early detection remains paramount. The quest for dependable prognostic biomarkers is ongoing, given melanoma's unpredictable nature, especially in identifying patients at risk of relapse. Reliable biomarkers are critical for informed treatment decisions.

AREAS COVERED

This review offers a comprehensive review of prognostic biomarkers in the context of clinical trials for immunotherapy and targeted therapy. It explores different clinical scenarios, including adjuvant, metastatic, and neo-adjuvant settings. Key findings suggest that tumor mutational burden, PD-L1 expression, IFN-γ signature, and immune-related factors are promising biomarkers associated with improved treatment responses.

EXPERT OPINION

Identifying practical prognostic factors for melanoma therapy is challenging due to the tumor's heterogeneity. Promising biomarkers include tumor mutational burden (TMB), circulating tumor DNA, and those characterizing the tumor microenvironment, especially the immune component. Future research should prioritize large-scale, prospective studies to validate and standardize these biomarkers, emphasizing clinical relevance and real-world applicability. Easily accessible biomarkers have the potential to enhance the precision and effectiveness of melanoma management.

Immunotherapy in Older Patients with Cancer: A Narrative Review

Purpose

Immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer treatment; however, relatively little is known about their efficacy and toxicity in the elderly, a cohort accounting for more than half of total cancer cases. In this review, we aim to provide insight into the current knowledge base regarding the clinical utility and side effects of immunotherapies in the geriatric population as well as identify key gaps in the literature where further research is essential.

Methods

We conducted a rapid critical review of available literature, focusing on studies reporting on use of immunotherapy in cancer patients aged ≥65 years. The review assessed studies that included different types of cancer, were of multiple study types (although predominantly retrospective), had different study duration, and reported different outcomes of interest. Owing to this heterogeneity, meta-analysis and a direct comparison between studies were not feasible.

Results

Overall, the review findings indicate that certain malignancies have shown comparable survival rates in younger and older age groups when managed with immunotherapeutic drugs, the incidence of immunotherapy-related side effects varies only slightly by age groups, and in general there is a lack of studies on the determinants of the clinical outcomes of immunotherapy in or including geriatric patients.

Conclusion

Enhanced clinical benefits along with better tolerability associated with immunotherapies make it an attractive alternative to conventional chemotherapeutic drugs, especially in elderly patients. There is currently a limited number of studies assessing the clinical outcomes of immunotherapies, particularly in the elderly. Overall, our findings reflect a need for further prospective studies focussing on geriatric patients representative of the real-life population, in order to derive a more precise understanding of the clinical utility, toxicity profile, and cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in older patients with cancer.

A Novel Deep Learning Model for Drug-drug Interactions

INTRODUCTION

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can lead to adverse events and compromised treatment efficacy that emphasize the need for accurate prediction and understanding of these interactions.

METHODS

In this paper, we propose a novel approach for DDI prediction using two separate message-passing neural network (MPNN) models, each focused on one drug in a pair. By capturing the unique characteristics of each drug and their interactions, the proposed method aims to improve the accuracy of DDI prediction. The outputs of the individual MPNN models combine to integrate the information from both drugs and their molecular features. Evaluating the proposed method on a comprehensive dataset, we demonstrate its superior performance with an accuracy of 0.90, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99, and an F1-score of 0.80. These results highlight the effectiveness of the proposed approach in accurately identifying potential drugdrug interactions.

RESULTS

The use of two separate MPNN models offers a flexible framework for capturing drug characteristics and interactions, contributing to our understanding of DDIs. The findings of this study have significant implications for patient safety and personalized medicine, with the potential to optimize treatment outcomes by preventing adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Further research and validation on larger datasets and real-world scenarios are necessary to explore the generalizability and practicality of this approach.

Real-World Survival of First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment Versus Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Synchronous Brain Metastases

PURPOSE

This study assessed real-world survival among older patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases (BMs) at diagnosis (synchronous BM [SBM]) receiving first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) compared with chemotherapy only.

METHODS

Patients with NSCLC and SBM age 65 years or older at diagnosis from 2010 to 2019 SEER-Medicare database and received US Food and Drug Administration-approved ICIs (pembrolizumab/nivolumab/ipilimumab/atezolizumab/durvalumab/cemiplimab) and/or chemotherapy (platinum-based doublets/taxane/pemetrexed/gemcitabine) as first-line systemic treatment were included, excluding those with no cranial radiation or ever being treated with targeted therapies. Overall survival time was from the start of systemic treatment (ICI/chemotherapy) to death, censored at disenrollment from Medicare part A/B, enrollment in part C, or end of the study period (December 31, 2019). Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves were compared between treatment groups using the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model was used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) between groups, adjusting for patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The study included 1,481 patients (1,303 chemotherapy and 178 ICI). The median (range) age was 71 (65-91) years. First-line ICI patients were more likely to be older, live in urban areas, and less likely to be non-White than the chemotherapy group. KM estimates showed that survival curves initially overlapped but diverged approximately 6 months after initiating first-line systemic treatment (median survival [95% CI]: ICI, 190 [131 to 303] days versus chemotherapy, 189 [177 to 201] days), with ICI showing a better survival than the chemotherapy group (log-rank test P < .0001). First-line ICI was associated with a lower risk of death compared with chemotherapy in adjusted CPH model (HR [95% CI], 0.67 [0.55 to 0.80]; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Among older patients with NSCLC and SBM, first-line ICI use was associated with improved survival occurring 6 months after treatment initiation compared with chemotherapy only.

Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Nivolumab Alone in Advanced Cancers Other Than Melanoma: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Although the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab has unquestionable benefit over nivolumab monotherapy in advanced melanoma, currently no summative analyses have compared the combination with nivolumab monotherapy for advanced cancers other than melanoma.

Objective

To examine whether the addition of ipilimumab to standard-dose nivolumab safely improves clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancers other than melanoma.

Data Sources

Electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCO Information Services, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for studies of standard-dose nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in the treatment of advanced cancers other than melanoma published from database inception to October 31, 2022.

Study Selection

Eight studies (total patients, 1727; nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 854; nivolumab monotherapy group, 873) met the selection criteria. Patients had squamous cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death ligand 1 level of 1% or higher, small cell lung cancer, pleural mesothelioma, urothelial carcinoma, esophagogastric carcinoma, sarcoma, or glioblastoma multiforme.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

For comparison of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes, estimation of log(hazard ratios [HRs]) and SEs was initially performed for OS and PFS of each included study based on summary statistics extracted from individual Kaplan-Meier curves. Inverse-variance weighting was then used to compute pooled HRs (95% CIs). For comparison of dichotomous data (treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events and discontinuations), odds ratios (ORs) were used, and the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to estimate pooled ORs (95% CIs).

Results

Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was not associated with improvement in OS over treatment with nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; P = .36), with 4 of the 8 studies having numerically lower median OS with the combination. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with marginal, but not clinically meaningful, improvement in PFS over nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98; P = .02). The combination was associated with substantially higher treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (pooled OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31; P < .001) and treatment-related discontinuations (pooled OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.44-2.65; P < .001). This finding was recapitulated in meta-analyses of individual grade 3 to 4 adverse events of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, pneumonitis, endocrine dysfunction, dermatitis, fatigue.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis of 8 advanced cancers other than melanoma, the differences detected in OS and PFS between nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab were not clinically meaningful (even though statistical significance was detected in PFS). Treatment-related higher-grade toxicity and discontinuations were substantially higher with the combination therapy. The data indicate that investigations of anti-programmed death 1 (PD1) plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) therapies in any nonmelanoma advanced cancer should be conducted along with anti-PD1 monotherapy to ensure that the net effect of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 to anti-PD1 can be clearly established for that cancer and setting and that unnecessary CTLA-4 inhibition with related toxic effects (both clinical and financial) can be avoided.

Tyrosine kinase and immune checkpoints inhibitors in favorable risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Trick or treat?

Over the past decade, the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has undergone rapid evolution, culminating in a significant improvement in prognosis with frontline immunotherapy. RCC is a highly immunogenic and pro-angiogenic cancer, and mounting evidence has established the immunosuppressive effects of pro-angiogenic factors on the host's immune system. Anti-angiogenic agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and bevacizumab, which obstruct the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway, have demonstrated the potential to enhance antitumor activity and improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Consequently, various combinations of TKIs and ICIs have been assessed and are currently considered the preferred regimens for all metastatic RCC patients, regardless of their prognostic risk score. Nevertheless, some inquiries have arisen within the medical community, as metastatic RCC patients with favorable risk scores who received ICIs and TKIs in combination showed no statistically significant advantage in overall survival compared to those treated with sunitinib alone. Considering these concerns, this review aims to elucidate the rationale behind TKI and ICI combination therapies, provide a summary of current first-line metastatic RCC combinations approved for use, with a focus on favorable-risk patients, and outline present challenges and future perspectives in this context.

New Opportunities to Individualize Frontline Therapy in Advanced Stages of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death globally and is rising in incidence. Until recently, treatment options for patients with advanced stages of HCC have been limited to antiangiogenic therapies with modest improvements in overall survival. The emerging role of immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in oncology has led to a rapid expansion in treatment options and improvements in outcomes for patients with advanced stages of HCC. Recent clinical trials have shown meaningful survival improvement in patients treated with the combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab, as well as with the combination of tremelimumab with durvalumab, resulting in regulatory approvals of these regimens as frontline therapy. Beyond improvements in overall survival, ICI-based combination regimens achieve higher rates of durable treatment response than multikinase inhibitors and have favorable side effect profiles. With the emergence of doublet anti-angiogenic and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and dual ICI combinations, individualized therapy is now possible for patients based on co-morbidity profiles and other factors. These more potent systemic therapies are also being tested in earlier stages of disease and in combination with loco-regional therapies such as trans-arterial chemoembolization and stereotactic body radiotherapy. We summarize these advances and emerging therapeutic combinations currently in clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in young adults with metastatic melanoma

BACKGROUND

The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of melanoma has resulted in remarkable and durable responses. Given the potential role of immunosenescence, age may contribute to differential ICI efficacy and toxicity. While older patients have been studied in detail, outcomes from ICI in young patients (≤40 years) are not well characterised.

METHODS

We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or ICI combination (ipilimumab and anti-PD-1). Response rates, survival, and toxicities were examined based on age comparing those under 40 years of age with older patients (age 41-70 and ≥ 71 years).

RESULTS

A total of 676 patients were included: 190 patients (28%) aged ≤40 years, 313 (46%) between ages 41-70, and 173 patients (26%) aged ≥71. Patients ≤40 years had higher response rates (53% vs 38%, p = 0.035) and improved progression-free survival (median 13.7 vs 4.0 months, p = 0.032) with combination ICI compared to monotherapy. Progression-free survival was similar among groups while overall survival was inferior in patients >70 years, who had low response rates to combination therapy (28%). ICIs had a similar incidence of severe toxicities, though hepatotoxicity was particularly common in younger patients vs. patients >40 with monotherapy (9% vs. 2%, p = 0.007) or combination ICI (37% vs. 10%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ICIs had comparable efficacy between younger and older patients, although outcomes were superior with combination ICI compared to monotherapy in patients aged ≤40 years. Toxicity incidence was similar across age groups, though organs affected were substantially different.

Impact of age and gender on glioblastoma onset, progression, and management

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults, while its frequency in pediatric patients is 10-15%. For this reason, age is considered one of the major risk factors for the development of GBM, as it correlates with cellular aging phenomena involving glial cells and favoring the process of tumor transformation. Gender differences have been also identified, as the incidence of GBM is higher in males than in females, coupled with a worse outcome. In this review, we analyze age- and gender- dependent differences in GBM onset, mutational landscape, clinical manifestations, and survival, according to the literature of the last 20 years, focusing on the major risk factors involved in tumor development and on the mutations and gene alterations most frequently found in adults vs young patients and in males vs females. We then highlight the impact of age and gender on clinical manifestations and tumor localization and their involvement in the time of diagnosis and in determining the tumor prognostic value.

Cutaneous adverse events in lung cancer patients on the therapy based on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: A prospective observational cohort study

AIM

This is a prospective study of cutaneous adverse events (CAEs) in lung cancer patients treated by programmed cell death-1(PD-1) inhibitors and programmed cell death-ligand 1(PD-L1) inhibitors-based single or combination therapy.

PATIENTS & METHODS

It were included that lung cancer patients who developed CAEs from January 2019 to July 2021 after applying PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in our institution.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients with 112 CAEs were enrolled, of which 71 patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy, 31 patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic/targeted therapy, and 5 patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy. The median time to CAEs onset was 8.7w (0.3w-70.7w) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy, 10.1w (0.4w-103.0w) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic/targeted therapy, and 13.6w (0.7w-50.6w) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy. The most common CAEs were reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP) (30.8%, 33/107), followed by eczematous (21.5%, 23/107) and pruritus only (15.9%, 17/107). 7 patients (6.5%, 7/107) had grade 3-4 CAE.

CONCLUSION

Most CAEs are mild to moderate and easily controlled. Early diagnosis and intervention for CAEs are important.

Efficacy and Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Checkpoint Inhibitors versus Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Combined with Other Therapies for Tumors: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) or combination therapies have been recommended as an alternative emerging choice of treatment for oncology patients. However, the efficacy and adverse events of different combination strategies for the treatment of tumors remain controversial.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medicine Oncology (ESMO) were searched from database inception until 16 February 2022. The endpoints of objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed from different treatment schemes and tumor types. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022328927).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included forty-eight eligible studies. Combination therapy has improved ORR (RR = 1.40, p < 0.001), DCR (RR = 1.22, p < 0.001), and PFS (the median survival ratio (MSR) was estimated to be 1.475 p < 0.001) compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 but had no significant benefit on OS (MSR was estimated to be 1.086 p = 0.117). Besides, combination treatment strategies are more toxic in any grade AEs (RR = 1.13, p < 0.001) and grade 3-5 AEs (RR = 1.81, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in combination with other antitumor therapies improve patients' ORR, DCR, and PFS compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1. However, it is regrettable that there is no benefit to OS and an increased risk of AEs in combinatorial therapies.

Treatment-related adverse events of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors in clinical trials: a meta-analysis

AIM

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors are being tested in a number of ongoing clinical trials. As a result, it is critical to fully comprehend the toxicity characteristics of adverse events in combination therapy. This study aims to extensively compare the incidences and ORs of treatment-related adverse events between two combination strategies.

METHODS

The eligible articles were searched from PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases for studies published between 1 January 2010 and 1 May 2021, investigating PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitor-based combined clinical therapies. The mean incidences and pooled ORs of all-grade and grade 3 or higher adverse events were calculated by random-effects model using Stata 12.1. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with I² statistics and Chi square-based Q statistic. The overall risk of bias was assessed by Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 26 eligible studies of 3607 patients were selected; 2852 patients developed at least one all-grade adverse event. PD-L1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitors regimen (incidence 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57-0.77) had marked advantage over PD-1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitors regimen (incidence 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86-0.93).

CONCLUSION

PD-L1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitors shows better safety in treatment-related adverse events than PD-1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in esophageal cancer: Clinical development and perspectives

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The standard treatment for unresectable esophageal cancer is systemic chemotherapy. However, the survival benefit is limited, with a median overall survival of less than 10 months. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including programmed cell death-1 antibodies, has revolutionized the treatment paradigm for esophageal cancer. Since demonstrating promising efficacy with manageable safety in several clinical trials, ICIs has finally reached the point where they can be used in various tumor stages in the clinical setting. ICIs are most promising treatments that can be expected to improve the prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer now and in the future. This review outlines the mechanisms, results of clinical trials, and prospects for future studies of ICIs in esophageal cancer. It also discusses clinical questions and challenges in the therapeutic development of ICIs.

Risk of Adverse Events in Cancer Patients Receiving Nivolumab With Ipilimumab: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Combining two immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) instead of using one can effectively improve the prognosis of advanced malignant tumors. At present, ipilimumab alongside nivolumab is the most widely used combinatorial regimen of ICIs. However, the risk of treatment-related adverse events is higher in combinatorial regimens than in single-drug regimens. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the risks of common adverse events associated with the combinatorial regimen of ipilimumab and nivolumab by using meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for reports published by 30 September 2021. A randomized controlled study was developed and analyzed using the statistical software R to determine the efficacy of the combinatorial treatment. Risk estimates (hazard ratios, RR) and 95% confidence intervals for various common serious adverse events were used.

Results

A total of 23 randomized control trials (n = 3970 patients) were included. Our meta-analysis indicated the risks of adverse events of any grade and grade ≥ 3 as 90.42% (95%CI: 85.91% ~ 94.18%) and 46.46% (95%CI: 39.37% ~ 53.69%), respectively; the risks of treatment-related death and adverse events leading to discontinuation were estimated at 0.42% (95% CI, 0.18% ~ 0.72%) and 19.11% (95% CI, 14.99% ~ 24.38%), respectively. Classification of 19 common adverse events. The top 5 grade 1-2 adverse events were found to be fatigue (30.92%, 95% CI: 24.59% ~ 37.62%), pruritus (26.05%, 95%CI: 22.29%~29.99%), diarrhea (23.58%, 95% CI: 20.62% ~ 26.96%), rash (19.90%, 95%CI: 15.75% ~ 25.15%), and nausea (17.19%, 95% CI:13.7% ~ 21.57%). The top 5 grade ≥ 3 adverse events were identified as increased alanine aminotransferase(8.12%, 95% CI: 5.90%~10.65%), increased lipase(7.62%, 95% CI: 4.88% ~ 10.89%), and colitis (6.39%, 95%CI: 3.98% ~ 10.25%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (6.30%, 95% CI: 4.61% ~ 8.22%), and diarrhea(5.72%, 95%CI: 3.50% ~ 8.44%). Subgroup analysis revealed some differences in the adverse events between the N1-I3 and N3-I1 subgroups and between subgroups of different cancer types.

Conclusion

This study summarized the risks of common adverse events in the co-treatment of malignant-tumor patients with ipilimumab and nivolumab and identified the impacts of various initial administration schemes on the risks of such events, thereby providing an important reference for the toxicity of co-treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42020181350.

Real-World Adherence to Toxicity Management Guidelines for Immune-Related Adverse Events

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) affect immunologic homeostasis, leading to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Early irAE detection and management can prevent significant morbidity and mortality. A retrospective chart review was performed to characterize irAEs associated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in adult medical oncology patients in Nova Scotia Health-Central Zone from 2013–2020, and to describe adherence to toxicity management guidelines. Diarrhea/colitis, hepatitis, pneumonitis, nephrotoxicity, and cardiotoxicity were studied. Of 129 charts reviewed, 67 patients (51.9%) experienced at least one irAE for a total of 98 irAEs and a 1.5% fatality rate. Of these irAEs, 33.7% led to an emergency room visit. Patients were admitted to hospital and steroids were used in 24.5% and 35.7% of cases, respectively. In 17.3% of irAEs, ICIs were permanently discontinued. In 20.4% of irAEs, ICIs were held, and patients were monitored; while in 18.4%, ICIs were held until the irAE was Grade 0–1 (and until steroids were tapered). Almost 47% of irAEs were managed according to guidelines (14.3% were not), and 38.8% had no documented management. Patients receiving immunotherapy frequently experience irAEs with half of irAEs having documented management adhering to guidelines. As immunotherapy indications expand, it is important to ensure irAEs are documented and managed appropriately.

Loss of Rnf43 Accelerates Kras-Mediated Neoplasia and Remodels the Tumor Immune Microenvironment in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

RNF43 is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that is recurrently mutated in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and precursor cystic neoplasms of the pancreas. The impact of RNF43 mutations on PDAC is poorly understood and autochthonous models have not been characterized sufficiently. In this study, we describe a genetically engineered mouse model (GEMM) of PDAC with conditional expression of oncogenic Kras and deletion of the catalytic domain of Rnf43 in exocrine cells.

METHODS

We generated Ptf1a-Cre;LSL-KrasG12D;Rnf43flox/flox (KRC) and Ptf1a-Cre; LSL-KrasG12D (KC) mice and animal survival was assessed. KRC mice were sacrificed at 2 months, 4 months, and at moribund status followed by analysis of pancreata by single-cell RNA sequencing. Comparative analyses between moribund KRC and a moribund Kras/Tp53-driven PDAC GEMM (KPC) was performed. Cell lines were isolated from KRC and KC tumors and interrogated by cytokine array analyses, ATAC sequencing, and in vitro drug assays. KRC GEMMs were also treated with an anti-CTLA4 neutralizing antibody with treatment response measured by magnetic response imaging.

RESULTS

We demonstrate that KRC mice display a marked increase in incidence of high-grade cystic lesions of the pancreas and PDAC compared with KC. Importantly, KRC mice have a significantly decreased survival compared with KC mice. Using single-cell RNA sequencing, we demonstrated that KRC tumor progression is accompanied by a decrease in macrophages, as well as an increase in T and B lymphocytes, with evidence of increased immune checkpoint molecule expression and affinity maturation, respectively. This was in stark contrast to the tumor immune microenvironment observed in the KPC PDAC GEMM. Furthermore, expression of the chemokine CXCL5 was found to be specifically decreased in KRC cancer cells by means of epigenetic regulation and emerged as a putative candidate for mediating the unique KRC immune landscape.

CONCLUSIONS

The KRC GEMM establishes RNF43 as a bona fide tumor suppressor gene in PDAC. This GEMM features a markedly different immune microenvironment compared with previously reported PDAC GEMMs and puts forth a rationale for an immunotherapy approach in this subset of PDAC cases.

A comprehensive evaluation of the safety of ipilimumab, nivolumab and their combination therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the landscape of management of advanced cancers. It is imperative to evaluate the safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab based therapies. This study was aimed to assess the comparative safety profiles of ipilimumab, nivolumab and their combinations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials of ipilimumab and nivolumab. The outcome measures were treatment-related adverse events [TRAEs], TRAEs of grade 3-5, treatment discontinuation due to TRAEs [TDTRAEs], TDTRAEs of grade 3-5, serious adverse events [SAEs] and SAEs of grades 3-5. We performed a network meta-analysis using the Bayesian approach in R version 4.0.3.

RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs for final analysis. The treatment ranking for TRAEs revealed that nivolumab 240 mg/week and nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week were safer (0.84 and 0.81 in SUCRA); for TRAEs of grade 3-5, nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week and nivolumab 240 mg/week were safer (0.83 and 0.75 in SUCRA); for TDTRAEs nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week and ipilimumab in combination with other drugs were safer (0.87 and 0.64 in SUCRA) and for TDTRAEs of grade 3-5, nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week was safer (0.85 in SUCRA). Nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week and nivolumab 240 mg/week were safer (0.79 and 0.76 in SUCRA) for SAEs and nivolumab 3 mg/kg/week was safer for SAEs of grade 3-5 (0.78 in SUCRA).

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab 3 mg/kg biweekly, nivolumab 240 mg weekly and nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg triweekly could be preferred due to the relatively low risk of TRAEs, TDAEs and SAEs.

Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy in the Management of Oral Cancers

Oral cancers (OCs), being one of the frequent malignancies in the head and neck region, need prompt diagnosis and treatment. Apart from basic therapeutic modalities, immunotherapy has now been utilized as a novel approach to combat the disease. With the comprehension of the strategies adopted by cancer cells to evade the immune elimination by the body's immune system, targeted immunotherapies have now become the core area of research. The immune expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PDL-1), etc., are enhanced in OC and have been associated with evasion of the immune system. Targeted immunotherapies now include monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR like cetuximab and panitumumab, programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors like pembrolizumab, cemiplimab, and nivolumab, and PD-L1 inhibitors like atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab. Targeted immunotherapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment and small molecule inhibitors are in several clinical trials tried as monotherapy and adjuvant immunotherapy and have shown promising results. Other immunothera-peutic approaches such as cytokines like interferons or interleukins, vaccines, and gene therapy have also been an area of research for the management of OC. However, the cautious selection of appropriate patients with specific immune characteristics as a candidate for immunotherapeutic agents is a crucial component of targeted immunotherapy. This article elaborates on the immune contexture of oral cancer cells, the mechanism of immune evasion by cancer cells, targets for immunotherapies, existent immunotherapeutic agents, and prospects in the field of immunotherapy.

Preclinical Characterization of GLS-010 (Zimberelimab), a Novel Fully Human Anti-PD-1 Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibody for Cancer

Background

Zimberelimab (GLS-010) is a novel fully human monoclonal immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) against the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor.

Aim

To evaluate the affinity, competitive blocking capability, T cell activation effect, cytotoxic effector functions by Fc, preliminary anti-tumor activity, and pharmacokinetics of GLS-010.

Methods

The affinity of GLS-010 to PD-1 and the ability of GLS-010 to block the PD-L1/2 to PD-1 interaction on the cell surface were measured. An allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction was conducted to evaluate the inhibitory effect of GLS-010 on Tregs and stimulatory effect on T cell proliferation and activation. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics were evaluated in tumor-bearing mice and cynomolgus monkeys, respectively.

Results

The equilibrium dissociation constant (KD) for the association between GLS-010 and PD-1 was 1.75×10^-10 M. GLS-010 could effectively block the binding of PD-L1/2 to PD-1. GLS-010 showed statistically significant anti-tumor effects in the MC38 model in human PD-1 knock-in mice. The RO rate on in the low-, moderate-, and high-dose groups were 64.50%-48.53% in CD3⁺T, 58.87%-40.12% in CD8⁺T, and 66.26%-49.07% in CD4⁺T, respectively. With the increasing dose from 2 mg/kg to 18 mg/kg, the systemic exposure level of GLS-010 (AUC_0-last) and C₀ increased proportionally, while the proportion of AUC_0-last was higher than the proportion of the increase in the dose.

Conclusions

As a fully human anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, GLS-010 has a high affinity to PD-1 and shows potent anti-tumor effects in vivo and in vitro. The results support that GLS-010 could be investigated in clinical trials in tumor patients.

Treatment-related adverse events of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapies in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous ongoing trials are testing anti-PD-1-based or anti-PD-L1-based cancer treatment combinations. Understanding the toxicity profiles of treatment-related adverse events is essential. The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the incidences and profiles of treatment-related adverse events across different combination therapies.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing different chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy combinations with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and May 21, 2020, investigating globally approved PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapies. Only prospective trials reporting overall incidence or tabulated data of treatment-related adverse events were included. Trials investigating sequential therapies, comprising three or more classes of therapies, and enrolling less than ten patients were excluded. The primary outcomes were overall incidences and profiles for all-grade and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events by random-effect models. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed with I² statistics. The summary measures for main outcomes are incidences (95% CI). The 95% CI were calculated together with the incidence through a random-effects model with a logit transformation. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189617).

FINDINGS

We identified 2540 records, of which 161 studies (17 197 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events in the chemotherapy combination was 97·7% (95% CI 96·4-98·5; I²=75%) for all-grade adverse events and 68·3% (60·7-75·0; I²=93%) for grade 3 or higher adverse events; in the targeted therapy combination was 94·5% (90·7-96·8; I²=86%) for all-grade adverse events and 47·3% (37·3-57·5; I²=93%) for grade 3 or higher adverse events; in the immunotherapy combination was 86·8% (80·9-91·1; I²=94%) for all-grade adverse events and 35·9% (29·5-42·9; I²=92%) for grade 3 or higher adverse events; and in the radiotherapy combination was 89·4% (69·0-96·9; I²=74%) for all-grade adverse events and 12·4% (4·4-30·6; I²=73%) for grade 3 or higher adverse events. For these four combination therapies, the most common all-grade adverse events were anaemia (45.4% [95% CI 32·4-59·1]), fatigue (34·3% [27·5-41·9]), fatigue (26·4% [19·2-35·2]), and dysphagia (30·0% [18·7-44·5]), respectively, and the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (19·6% [13·5-27·7]), hypertension (9·3% [5·7-14·9]), lipase increased (7·2% [5·2-9·9]), and lymphopenia (10·3% [4·5-21·8]). All included randomised controlled trials had a low risk of bias.

INTERPRETATION

Our study provides comprehensive data on treatment-related adverse events of different PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapies. Our results provide an essential reference of toxicity profiles of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapies for clinicians in routine practice of cancer care.

FUNDING

National Key Research and Development Programme, National Natural Science Foundation of China key program, National Natural Science Foundation of China general program, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Initiative for Innovative Medicine, Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Non-profit Central Research Institute Fund.

CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody PD-L1 inhibitor, in combination with ipilimumab in patients with advanced solid tumors (PROCLAIM-CX-072): a first-in-human, dose-finding study

BACKGROUND

Probody® therapeutics are antibody prodrugs designed to be activated by tumor-associated proteases. This conditional activation restricts antibody binding to the tumor microenvironment, thereby minimizing 'off-tumor' toxicity. Here, we report the phase 1 data from the first-in-human study of CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), in combination with the anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab.

METHODS

Adults (n=27) with advanced solid tumors (naive to PD-L1/programmed cell death protein 1 or CTLA-4 inhibitors) were enrolled in the phase 1 combination therapy dose-escalation portion of this multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 study (NCT03013491). Dose-escalation pacmilimab/ipilimumab followed a standard 3+3 design and continued until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined. Pacmilimab+ipilimumab was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by pacmilimab administered every 2 weeks as monotherapy. The primary objective was identification of dose-limiting toxicities and determination of the MTD. Other endpoints included the rate of objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v.1.1).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in pacmilimab (mg/kg)+ipilimumab (mg/kg) dose-escalation cohorts: 0.3+3 (n=6); 1+3 (n=3); 3+3 (n=3); 10+3 (n=8); 10+6 (n=6); and 10+10 (n=1). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in three patients, one at the 0.3+3 dose level (grade 3 dyspnea/pneumonitis) and two at the 10+6 dose level (grade 3 colitis, grade 3 increased aspartate aminotransferase). The MTD and recommended phase 2 dose was pacmilimab 10 mg/kg+ipilimumab 3 mg/kg administered every 3 weeks. Pacmilimab-related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 3-4 immune-related AEs were reported in nine (33%) and six (22%) patients, respectively. Three patients (11%) discontinued treatment because of AEs. The overall response rate was 19% (95% CI 6.3 to 38.1), with one complete (anal squamous cell carcinoma) and four partial responses (cancer of unknown primary, leiomyosarcoma, mesothelioma, testicular cancer). Responses lasted for >12 months in four patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The MTD and recommended phase 2 dose of pacmilimab (10 mg/kg)+ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) every 3 weeks is active and has a favorable tolerability profile.

The efficacy and safety of Nivolumab combined with Ipilimumab in the immunotherapy of cancer: a meta-analysis

Background and Objective: Nivolumab and Ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors. The combination of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab has been reported to have complementary effects in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. The combination therapy of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab (N+I) has shown synergistic effects in cancer immunotherapy but this is still controversial due to the higher incidence of toxicity. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of Nivolumab combined with Ipilimumab and compared the different dosing schedules of the N+I combination.Methods: By searching in PubMed, PMC, Cochrane library and major conference abstracts, eligible sixteen studies including N+I therapy and Nivolumab monotherapy were selected to analyze overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and high-grade (3-4) adverse effects (AEs). Results: Compared with monotherapy of Nivolumab, N+I significantly improved ORR (RR=1.40 [95% CI 1.27, 1.54], P<0.00001) and PFS (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.83 [95% CI 0.77, 0.90], P<0.00001), but not OS (HR=0.93 [95% CI 0.84, 1.03], P=0.16). In a sub-analysis, the combination of Nivolumab 1mg/kg plus Ipilimumab 3mg/kg (N1I3) and Nivolumab 3mg/kg plus Ipilimumab 1mg/kg (N3I1) achieved better ORR and PFS than Nivolumab 3mg/kg (N3) alone. Remarkably, OS was also prolonged with the N1I3 combination compared with the N3I1 combination or N3. Furthermore, a higher incidence of high-grade AEs also occurred with the combination therapy of N1I3.Conclusions: N+I combination therapy showed greater ORR and PFS compared with Nivolumab monotherapy. N1I3 combination provided the benefit of ORR, PFS and OS but was associated with a higher incidence of toxicity.

Results from a Meta-analysis of Combination of PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 Inhibitors in Malignant Cancer Patients: Does PD-L1 Matter?

Background: Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been widely used for clinical treatment in recent years, which has a better survival benefit. However, not all patients can derive clinical benefit from combination immunotherapy. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the biomarkers of combination immunotherapy.

Methods: We retrieved articles from electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane. The statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software. Progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) were the outcome indicators. In the unselect population, we compared combination therapy with other treatments. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analysis on PFS, OS and ORR according to PD-L1 status.

Results: Seven studies were included in the analysis for a total of 3,515 cases. In the unselected population, we found that combination therapy has longer PFS, OS, and better ORR than other treatments for cancer patients. The longer PFS was showed in PD-L1 ≥ 5% cases (HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.56–0.76; p < 0.001) than PD-L1 ≥ 1% cases (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.66–0.79; p < 0.001), while ORR and OS have not related to the status of PD-L1.

Conclusion: This study supported the efficacy of combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and also showed that PFS in patients with malignant tumors is positively correlated with PD-L1 expression. Due to the limited number of trials included, more high-quality clinical randomized controlled trials should be conducted to confirm the review findings.

Agnostic evaluation of ipilimumab and nivolumab association: a metanalysis

Background

Ipilimumab and Nivolumab, targeting the molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, respectively,have shown efficacy against several types of cancer. Despite these results, only a small percentage of patients maintains a long-lasting effect. Even Ipilimumab, in combination with nivolumab, has demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in multiple tumor types. However, no trial has been designed with the primary endpoint to compare the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined, compared to nivolumab alone. Hence, the added value of ipilimumab in the combination has not clearly been established yet. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of the combination strategy compared to the single agent therapy.

Materials and methods

We performed a meta-analysis of Phase I-II-III Clinical Trials, published from 2010 up to 2020, in which the combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was compared to nivolumab alone. We extracted ORR, OS and PFS HR on the basis of treatment from the subgroup analysis of each trial.

Results

A total of 7 trials were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, 1313 patients were treated with the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination compared to 1110 patients treated with nivolumabalone. All trials reported the Objective response rate(ORR), no heterogeneity was found among studies and the pooled Odds Ratio was highly in favor of the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination with respect to nivolumab alone (1.683; 95% CI: 1.407–2.012; P < 0.0001). Three studies were considered for Progression free survival (PFS) analysis, and the pooled Hazard Ratio favored the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.807; 95% CI: 0.719–0.907; P < 0.0001). The Overall survival(OS) endpoint was considered only in 2 trials, and the pooled HR favored, also in this case, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with respect to nivolumab alone (0.87; 95% CI: 0.763–0.997; P = 0.045).

Conclusions

The combination of ipilimumab plus nivolumab seems to be superior to nivolumab alone in cancer patients, regardless of histology.

Ipilimumab, nivolumab, and brentuximab vedotin combination therapies in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma: phase 1 results of an open-label, multicentre, phase 1/2 trial

BACKGROUND

Recognising that the immune suppressive microenvironment promotes tumour growth in Hodgkin lymphoma, we hypothesised that activating immunity might augment the activity of targeted chemotherapy. We evaluated the safety and activity of combinations of brentuximab vedotin with nivolumab or ipilimumab, or both in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial, patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma aged 18 years or older who had relapsed after at least one line of therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and adequate organ and marrow function, with no pulmonary dysfunction were eligible for inclusion. Phase 1 primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose limiting toxicities of brentuximab vedotin combined with ipilimumab (ipilimumab group), nivolumab (nivolumab group), or both (triplet therapy group) using a 3 + 3 dose escalation design with expansion cohorts. During the dose escalation phase, patients were enrolled sequentially into one of six cohorts: in the ipilimumab group fixed brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (cohort A) or 3 mg/kg (cohort B); in the nivolumab group fixed nivolumab 3 mg/kg with brentuximab vedotin 1·2 mg/kg (cohort D) or 1·8 mg/kg (cohort E); and in the triplet therapy group fixed nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg with brentuximab vedotin 1·2 mg/kg (cohort G) or 1·8 mg/kg (cohort H). Additional patients were enrolled in the expansion phase at the same doses of cohorts B, E, and H. All drugs were given intravenously; brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab were given every 3 weeks, ipilimumab was given every 6 weeks in the ipilimumab group and every 12 weeks in the triplet therapy group. All eligible and treated patients were included in the analysis. This phase 1/2 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01896999. The phase 2, randomised portion of the trial is still enrolling.

FINDINGS

Between March 7, 2014, and Dec 28, 2017, 64 patients were enrolled; two patients in the ipilimumab group and one patient in the nivolumab group were excluded due to ineligibility after enrolment and 61 were evaluable. A total of six dose limiting toxicities were reported in four patients, and the doses used in cohorts B, E, and H were established as maximum tolerated doses and patients were subsequently enrolled onto expansion cohorts (C, F, and I) with these schedules. There were ten (43%) grade 3-4 treatment related adverse events in the ipilimumab group, three (16%) in the nivolumab group, and 11 (50%) in the triplet therapy group including: eight (13%) of 64 patients reporting rash, and colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis and arthritis, and diabetic ketoacidosis each occurring in one (2%) patient. There were two (3%) treatment related deaths, one in the nivolumab group and one in the triplet therapy group. The overall response rate was 76% (95% CI 53-92) in the ipilimumab group, 89% (65-99) in the nivolumab group, and 82% (60-95) in the triplet therapy group, and the complete response rate was 57% (95% CI 34-78%) in the ipilimumab group, 61% (36-83%) in the nivolumab group, and 73% (50-89%) in the triplet therapy group. With a median follow-up of 2·6 years (IQR 1·8-2·9) in the ipilimumab group, 2·4 years (2·2-2·6) in the nivolumab group, and 1·7 years (1·6-1·9) in the triplet therapy group, median progression-free survival is 1·2 years (95% CI 1·7-not reached) in the ipilimumab group, but was not reached in the other two treatment groups. Median overall survival has not been reached in any of the groups.

INTERPRETATION

There are clear differences in activity and toxicity of the three combination regimens. The tolerability and preliminary activity for the two most active regimens, brentuximab vedotin with nivolumab and the triplet therapy, are being compared in a randomised phase 2 trial (NCT01896999).

FUNDING

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Ophthalmic adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors: the Mayo Clinic experience

Background/Aims

To investigate immune-related ophthalmic side effects of systemic checkpoint inhibitors and compare side effect frequency and requirement for cessation of immunotherapy by checkpoint target.

Methods

Patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitors at a single centre from January 1, 2010 to February 29, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for clinical characteristics, treatments and concurrent systemic adverse effects.

Results

Of 996 patients, 28 (2.8%) experienced an ophthalmic side effect that came to the attention of an eye care provider. Mean age at presentation of the side effect was 63 years (median 64, range 25–88). The checkpoint inhibitor most often preceding side effects was pembrolizumab in 12 (43%). The most common side effect was dry eye in 16 (57%), followed by uveitis in 4 (14%) patients, and singular cases of ptosis and binocular diplopia, among others. Ocular surface adverse effects occurred more frequently with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) targeting therapy. There were no significant differences in the frequency of orbit/ocular adnexa and uveitis or retinal side effects based on checkpoint targets. Follow-up was available in 13 (46%) patients, with mean duration of 20 months (median 16, range 2–52 months). Of these patients, the ophthalmic side effects were controlled without discontinuing therapy in 12 (92%). Checkpoint inhibitor cessation was required in one patient with panuveitis.

Conclusion

Ophthalmic immune-related adverse events are rare but could be more common than previously estimated. PD-L1-directed checkpoint inhibitors may have a slight predilection for ocular surface adverse effects. Most ophthalmic events can be treated with targeted therapy without discontinuation of life-prolonging immunotherapy.

Combination of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab in Cancers: From Clinical Practice to Ongoing Clinical Trials

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) are inhibitory checkpoints that are commonly seen on activated T cells and have been offered as promising targets for the treatment of cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)targeting PD-1, including pembrolizumab and nivolumab, and those targeting its ligand PD-L1, including avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab, and two drugs targeting CTLA-4, including ipilimumab and tremelimumab have been approved for the treatment of several cancers and many others are under investigating in advanced trial phases. ICIs increased antitumor T cells’ responses and showed a key role in reducing the acquired immune system tolerance which is overexpressed by cancer and tumor microenvironment. However, 50% of patients could not benefit from ICIs monotherapy. To overcome this, a combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is frequently investigated as an approach to improve oncological outcomes. Despite promising results for the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, safety concerns slowed down the development of such strategies. Herein, we review data concerning the clinical activity and the adverse events of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy, assessing ongoing clinical trials to identify clinical outlines that may support combination therapy as an effective treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is one of the first studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy in several cancers.