Risk Factors and Biomarkers for Immune-Related Adverse Events: A Practical Guide to Identifying High-Risk Patients and Rechallenging Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are a range of complications associated with the use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Two major classes of ICIs widely used are Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4 (CTLA4) and Programmed Cell death-1 (PD-1)/Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. High-grade irAEs are life-threatening and often cause a severe decline in performance status in such that patients do not qualify for any further anticancer treatments. It is difficult to generalize the evidence in the current literature on risk factors or biomarkers for the entire class of ICIs as the studies so far are either disease-specific (e.g., lung cancer or melanoma) or ICI agent-specific (e.g., pembrolizumab, ipilimumab) or irAE-specific (e.g., pneumonitis or gastritis). In this review, risk factors and biomarkers to consider before initiating or monitoring ICI are listed with a practical purpose in day-to-day practice. Risk factors are grouped into demographics and social history, medical history, and medication history, tumor-specific and agent-specific risk factors. A higher risk of irAE is associated with age <60 years, high body mass index, women on CTLA4 and men on PD-1/PD-L1 agents, and chronic smokers. Patients with significant kidney (Stage IV-V), cardiac (heart failure, coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, hypertension), and lung (asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) are at a higher risk of respective organ-specific irAEs. Pre-existing autoimmune disease and chronic use of certain drugs (proton pump inhibitors, diuretics, anti-inflammatory drugs) also increase the irAE-risk. Biomarkers are categorized into circulating blood counts, cytokines, autoantibodies, HLA genotypes, microRNA, gene expression profiling, and serum proteins. The blood counts and certain protein markers (albumin and thyroid-stimulating hormone) are readily accessible in current practice. High neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, eosinophil/monocyte/lymphocyte counts; TSH and troponins at diagnosis and drop in the white count and lymphocyte count can predict irAE. Other biomarkers with limited evidence are cytokines, autoantibodies, HLA genotypes, microRNA, and gene expression profiling. With fast-expanding approvals for ICIs in various cancer types, knowledge on risk factors and biomarkers can help providers assess the irAE-risk of their patients. Prospective disease and agent-specific studies are needed to provide further insight on this essential aspect of ICI therapy.

When can patients with potentially life-threatening adverse effects be rechallenged with clozapine? A systematic review of the published literature

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is widely prescribed for treatment refractory patients with schizophrenia, but its use is limited by potentially life threatening adverse effects. Rechallenge after these complications has been occasionally attempted in patients with severe psychotic symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To review the outcome of clozapine rechallenge after potentially life threatening adverse effects.

METHODS

Electronic, all-language, literature search (1972-2011) followed by demographic and clinical data extraction. The outcome of rechallenge was considered favorable when the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the proportion of patients who could continue clozapine was >50%.

RESULTS

Altogether, 138 patients (mean age: 36.3years, 65.7% male, 57.6% Caucasian, virtually all with schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis) underwent clozapine rechallenge after developing neutropenia (n=112), agranulocytosis (n=15), neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) (n=5), myocarditis (n=4), pericarditis (n=1) and lupus erythematosus (n=1). Rechallenge strategies were heterogeneous and not systematically evaluated. Clozapine rechallenge was successful in 78/112 patients (69.6%, CI: 60.6-77.4) after neutropenia, 3/15 (20%, CI: 7.1-45.2) after agranulocytosis, 5/5 (100%, CI: 56-100) after NMS, 3/4 (75%, CI: 30-95) after myocarditis, 1/1 after pericarditis, and 0/1 after clozapine-induced lupus. Successfully rechallenged patients were followed for 16-96weeks. None of the rechallenged patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

Although controlled studies are clearly needed, using a priori, confidence interval-based criteria, case reports/series suggest that in refractory patients who benefited from clozapine, careful rechallenge can be considered after neutropenia and NMS, but not after agranulocytosis and myocarditis.

Safety and Efficacy of the Rechallenge of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors After Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Little evidence exists on the safety and efficacy of the rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with cancer.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane for articles on ICI rechallenge after irAEs for systemic review and meta-analysis. The outcomes included the incidence and associated factors for safety and objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) for efficacy.

Results

A total of 789 ICI rechallenge cases from 18 cohort studies, 5 case series studies, and 54 case reports were included. The pooled incidence of all-grade and high-grade irAEs after rechallenge in patients with cancer was 34.2% and 11.7%, respectively. Compared with initial ICI treatment, rechallenge showed a higher incidence for all-grade irAEs (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.15–6.74; p < 0.0001), but similar incidence for high-grade irAEs (p > 0.05). Types of initial irAEs (pneumonitis and global irAEs) and cancer (non-small cell lung cancer and multiple cancer) recapitulated these findings. Gastrointestinal irAEs and time interval between initial irAEs and ICI rechallenge were associated with higher recurrence of high-grade irAEs (p < 0.05), whereas initial anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies were associated with a lower recurrence (p < 0.05). Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies rechallenge was associated with a lower all-grade irAE recurrence (p < 0.05). The pooled ORR and DCR after rechallenge were 43.1% and 71.9%, respectively, showing no significant difference compared with initial ICI treatment (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

ICI rechallenge after irAEs showed lower safety and similar efficacy outcomes compared with initial ICI treatment.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42020191405.

Switching administration of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review

BACKGROUND

Based on several phase III studies, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are essential and promising drugs for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in patients previously treated with ICI, the efficacy and safety of rechallenging the same or another type of ICI inhibitor remain unclear. Moreover, clinical data about the efficacy of switching the administration of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies (e.g. nivolumab, pembrolizumab) and anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies (e.g. atezolizumab) as ICI rechallenge are limited. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of such treatment strategy in NSCLC patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 17 patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC who received both anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies during their clinical courses.

RESULTS

Among the 17 patients, one (5.9%) and nine (52.9%) achieved partial response and stable disease, respectively, after ICI rechallenge. The median progression-free survival of ICI rechallenge in these patients was 4.0 (range: 0.4-8.0) months, and the median overall survival from the start of the initial ICI was 31.0 (range: 7.6-46.8) months. Of the 10 patients who developed immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during the first ICI treatment, five presented with these events after the readministration of ICI. Among them, four experienced relapsed irAEs and two patients had pneumonitis, which is a grade 3 or higher irAE. Almost all irAEs during the rechallenge treatment were manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching the administration of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies as ICI rechallenge could be a treatment option for some NSCLC patients.

KEY POINTS

• Significant findings of the study In this study, switching the administration of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies as ICI rechallenge could be an effective and safe treatment option for some patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC. • What this study adds Switching the administration of ICI may increase the efficacy of readministration. However, the mechanism is unknown. Thus, further accumulation of cases is required, and extensive investigations must be conducted to elucidate the mechanism and benefits of such treatment.

Beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Background

The optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use beyond the second line for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear.

Materials and methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and Medline for records published between January 2002 and May 2017, and cancer congress databases for records published between January 2014 and June 2017. Eligible studies evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of monotherapies or combination therapies at any dose and number of treatment cycles for use beyond the second line in patients with mCRC. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a qualitative data synthesis was conducted to understand the impact of treatment on overall survival and other relevant cancer-related outcomes.

Results

The search yielded 938 references of which 68 were included for qualitative synthesis. There was limited evidence to support rechallenge with chemotherapy, targeted therapy or both. Compared with placebo, an overall survival benefit for trifluridine/tipiracil (also known as TAS-102) or regorafenib has been shown for patients previously treated with conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between these treatments. Patient choice and quality of life at this stage of treatment should also be considered when choosing an appropriate therapy.

Conclusions

These findings support the introduction of an approved agent such as trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib beyond the second line before any rechallenge in patients with mCRC who have failed second-line treatment.

The effect and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated long survival for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the effect and safety of ICI rechallenge have not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge in NSCLC patients.

METHODS

We defined 'rechallenge' as re-administration of ICIs for patients who were previously treated with ICIs and discontinued treatment for any reason, and received subsequent chemotherapy. We retrospectively analyzed the histories of 434 patients with advanced NSCLC who received ICIs from December 2015 to December 2017 at seven centers.

RESULTS

A total of 317 patients discontinued the ICI treatment, and 14 patients (4.4%) received ICI rechallenge. All 14 patients discontinued the first ICI due to disease progression. Eight patients received the same kind of ICIs, and six patients received different ICIs. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.6] and 6.5 months [95% CI: 1.4-19.0], respectively. The objective response rate was 7.1%, and the disease control rate was 21.4%. Two of three patients who achieved at least a stable disease, received radiotherapy between the first and second ICIs. Adverse events were not significantly different compared with the first ICIs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the effect of ICI rechallenge was limited. Careful consideration of the administration of ICI rechallenge is necessary. This report involved a small number of cases, so further large prospective studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy of ICI rechallenge and to investigate predictive markers to identify a patient population in which ICI rechallenge is effective.

Retrospective Efficacy Analysis of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Little is known regarding the effectiveness and tolerability of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge after disease progression following initial ICI treatments. To identify eligible patients for ICI rechallenge, we retrospectively analyzed the relationship between clinical profiles and the effect of ICI rechallenge in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We enrolled 35 NSCLC patients at six different institutions who were retreated with ICIs after discontinued initial ICI treatments due to disease progression. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the impact of clinical profiles on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Median PFS and OS were 81 d (95% confidence interval, CI, 41-112 d) and 225 d (95% CI 106-361 d), respectively. The objective response rate was 2.9%, and the disease control rate was 42.9%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score (ECOG-PS) ≥ 2 (hazard ratio, HR, 2.38; 95% CI 1.03-5.52; p = 0.043) and body mass index (BMI) > 20 (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.95, p = 0.036) were significantly associated with PFS of ICI rechallenge. Our observations suggest that poor ECOG-PS and low BMI at intervention with ICI rechallenge may be negative predictors for ICI rechallenge treatment in patients with NSCLC.

Experimental Infection and Response to Rechallenge of Alpacas with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus

We conducted a challenge/rechallenge trial in which 3 alpacas were infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. The alpacas shed virus at challenge but were refractory to further shedding at rechallenge on day 21. The trial indicates that alpacas may be suitable models for infection and shedding dynamics of this virus.

Immune protection against reinfection with nonprimate hepacivirus

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) displays a restricted host species tropism and only humans and chimpanzees are susceptible to infection. A robust immunocompetent animal model is still lacking, hampering mechanistic analysis of virus pathogenesis, immune control, and prophylactic vaccine development. The closest homolog of HCV is the equine nonprimate hepacivirus (NPHV), which shares similar features with HCV and thus represents an animal model to study hepacivirus infections in their natural hosts. We aimed to dissect equine immune responses after experimental NPHV infection and conducted challenge experiments to investigate immune protection against secondary NPHV infections. Horses were i.v. injected with NPHV containing plasma. Flow cytometric analysis was used to monitor immune cell frequencies and activation status. All infected horses became viremic after 1 or 2 wk and viremia could be detected in two horses for several weeks followed by a delayed seroconversion and viral clearance. Histopathological examinations of liver biopsies revealed mild, periportally accentuated infiltrations of lymphocytes, macrophages, and plasma cells with some horses displaying subclinical signs of hepatitis. Following viral challenge, an activation of equine immune responses was observed. Importantly, after a primary NPHV infection, horses were protected against rechallenge with the homologous as well as a distinct isolate with only minute amounts of circulating virus being detectable.

Maintenance olaparib rechallenge in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer previously treated with a PARP inhibitor (OReO/ENGOT-ov38): a phase IIIb trial

BACKGROUND

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor maintenance therapy is the standard of care for some patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor rechallenge.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT03106987) enrolled patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received one prior PARP inhibitor therapy for ≥18 and ≥12 months in the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, respectively, following first-line chemotherapy or for ≥12 and ≥6 months, respectively, following a second or subsequent line of chemotherapy. Patients were in response following their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen and were randomized 2 : 1 to maintenance olaparib tablets 300 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Seventy four patients in the BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 38 to placebo, and 72 patients in the non-BRCA-mutated cohort were randomized to olaparib and 36 to placebo; >85% of patients in both cohorts had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. In the BRCA-mutated cohort, the median PFS was 4.3 months with olaparib versus 2.8 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.87; P = 0.022]; 1-year PFS rates were 19% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). In the non-BRCA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 5.3 months for olaparib versus 2.8 months for placebo (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.26-0.71; P = 0.0023); 1-year PFS rates were 14% versus 0% (Kaplan-Meier estimates). No new safety signals were identified with olaparib rechallenge.

CONCLUSIONS

In ovarian cancer patients previously treated with one prior PARP inhibitor and at least two lines of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance olaparib rechallenge provided a statistically significant, albeit modest, PFS improvement over placebo in both the BRCA-mutated and non-BRCA-mutated cohorts, with a proportion of patients in the maintenance olaparib rechallenge arm of both cohorts remaining progression free at 1 year.

Neurological complications induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors: a comprehensive descriptive case-series unravelling high risk of long-term sequelae

Neurological immune-related adverse events are complications of programmed-cell death 1 or programmed-cell death 1 ligand immunotherapies that can be life threatening and often lead to anticancer immunotherapy withdrawal. Scant clinical data are available that integrate the clinical presentation, therapeutic management and long-term outcome. All consecutive adult patients treated by programmed-cell death 1 or programmed-cell death 1 ligand immunotherapies, given alone or in combination with other treatment, who experienced a neurological immune-related adverse event with a severity grade ≥2 in Paris Saclay-University hospitals were investigated from June 2014 to February 2019. The frequency of neurological immune-related adverse events was calculated from the prospective Registre des Effets Indésirables Sévères des Anticorps Monoclonaux Immunomodulateurs en Cancérologie cohort. Forty patients presenting with 51 distinct neurological immune-related adverse events were included. The prevalence of grade ≥2 neurological immune-related adverse events was estimated to be 1.22% in the Registre des Effets Indésirables Sévères des Anticorps Monoclonaux Immunomodulateurs en Cancérologie cohort. Among 40 patients with neurological immune-related adverse events, 65% received programmed-cell death 1 or programmed-cell death 1 ligand monotherapy and 35% received a combination of programmed-cell death 1 plus anti-CTLA4 (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). Clinical neurological presentations were peripheral (48%), central (35%), or mixed (18%). The severity of neurological immune-related adverse events was grade 2 for 14 (35%) and ≥grade 3 for 26 patients (65%). The mortality rate related to neurological immune-related adverse events was 8%. Corticosteroid treatment led to neurological recovery in 74%. Long-term follow-up highlighted that 53% of patients experienced long-term neurological sequelae. Five patients were rechallenged by programmed-cell death 1 monotherapy without recurrence of their neurological immune-related adverse event(s). Neurological immune-related adverse events induced by programmed-cell death 1 or programmed-cell death 1 ligand are rare but are severe with a mortality rate of 8% and long-term sequelae for 53% of patients. Corticosteroids should be started when neurological immunological complications are identified to avoid long-term sequelae.

Imatinib rechallenge in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors following progression with imatinib, sunitinib and regorafenib

BACKGROUND

Rechallenge with imatinib is an option in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients following progression with standard tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), imatinib, sunitinib and regorafenib. We retrospectively collected data from metastatic Italian GIST patients treated with imatinib resumption after progression to conventional TKIs.

METHODS

A total of 104 eligible advanced GIST patients, previously treated with imatinib, sunitinib and regorafenib, were collected from six referral Italian institutions. Mutational analysis was recorded and correlated with survival and response according to RECIST 1.1 or CHOI criteria.

RESULTS

Overall, 71 patients treated with imatinib 400 mg as rechallenge were included. Mutational status was available in all patients. The median follow up was 13 months. In patients who received a rechallenge therapy, the median time to progression (TTP) was 5.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9-13.5] and overall survival (OS) was 10.6 months (95% CI 2.8-26.9). A correlation between mutational status, response rate, TTP and OS was not found but comparing deleted versus nondeleted KIT exon 11 patients, a significant difference was identified in terms of TTP and OS (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective data confirm that imatinib rechallenge is a reasonable option in advanced GIST. The prognostic value of the specific KIT mutations was confirmed in our series.

Anthracycline rechallenge using pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis using individual data from four prospective trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the activity of anthracycline rechallenge using pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with conventional anthracyclines.

METHODS

Pooled individual data from four prospective trials were used, and the primary end point of the pooled analysis was clinical benefit rate (CBR). The studies comprised 935 patients, of whom 274 had received PLD in the metastatic setting after prior exposure to conventional anthracyclines (rechallenge population).

RESULTS

The majority of patients were heavily pretreated. Previous anthracycline therapy was administered in the adjuvant (14%) or metastatic setting (46%), or both (40%). The overall CBR from rechallenge with PLD was 37.2% (95% CI, 32.4-42.0). In univariate analyses, the CBR was significantly higher in patients with less exposure to prior chemotherapy, in taxane-naive patients, and in patients with a favourable Eastern Cooperative Group performance status of 0 vs 1 vs 2 (53.3 vs 35.5 vs 18.2%; P<0.001). In multivariate analyses, performance status proved to be the only independent predictor of the CBR achieved with PLD rechallenge (P=0.038). There was no statistically significant difference in CBR regarding the setting, cumulative dose of and/or resistance to prior anthracyclines, or time since prior anthracycline administration.

CONCLUSION

Anthracycline rechallenge using PLD is effective in patients with MBC who have a favourable performance status, regardless of setting, resistance, cumulative dose or time since prior conventional anthracycline therapy.

Biomarker-Guided Anti-Egfr Rechallenge Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Simple Summary

The survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been improved over the years and now reaches 30–40 months. However, few therapeutic options are available after failure of first- and second-line treatments. In fact, prognosis of chemo-refractory mCRC remains poor. Therefore, new therapeutic strategies are needed. Emerging evidence suggest that retreatment with epidermal growth factor (EGFR) inhibitors after a treatment break, in patients that obtained a clinical benefit by previous anti-EGFR, could lead to prolonged survival. The rationale beyond this “rechallenge” strategy is that after a “treatment holiday” EGFR resistant cancer cells decay, restoring the sensibility to EGFR blockade. In this review we analyze the current knowledge of retreatment with EGFR inhibitors, examine the role of novel biomarkers that can guide the appropriate selection of patients. Finally, we discuss future perspectives and on-going clinical trials.

Abstract

The prognosis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who progressed to the first and the second lines of treatment is poor. Thus, new therapeutic strategies are needed. During the last years, emerging evidence suggests that retreatment with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) in the third line of mCRC patients, that have previously obtained clinical benefit by first-line therapy with anti-EGFR MAbs plus chemotherapy, could lead to prolonged survival. The rationale beyond this “rechallenge” strategy is that, after disease progression to first line EGFR-based therapy, a treatment break from anti-EGFR drugs results in RAS mutant cancer cell decay, restoring the sensitivity of cancer cells to cetuximab and panitumumab. In fact, rechallenge treatment with anti-EGFR drugs has shown promising clinical activity, particularly in patients with plasma RAS and BRAF wild type circulating tumor DNA, as defined by liquid biopsy analysis at baseline treatment. The aim of this review is to analyze the current knowledge on rechallenge and to investigate the role of novel biomarkers that can guide the appropriate selection of patients that could benefit from this therapeutic strategy. Finally, we discuss on-going trials and future perspectives.

Use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to prevent recurrent clozapine-induced neutropenia on drug rechallenge: A systematic review of the literature and clinical recommendations

BACKGROUND

Clozapine is the most effective medication for treatment-refractory schizophrenia; however, its use is contraindicated in people who have had previous clozapine-induced neutropenia. Co-prescription of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor may prevent recurrent neutropenia and allow continuation or rechallenge of clozapine.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

Systematic review of literature reporting the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to allow rechallenge or continuation of clozapine in people with previous episodes of clozapine-induced neutropenia. The efficacy of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor and predictors of successful rechallenge will be determined to elucidate whether evidence-based recommendations can be made regarding the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in this context.

RESULTS

A total of 17 articles were identified that reported on clozapine rechallenge with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor support. In all, 76% of cases were able to continue clozapine at median follow-up of 12 months. There were no clear clinical or laboratory predictors of successful rechallenge; however, initial neutropenia was more severe in successful cases compared to unsuccessful cases. Cases co-prescribed lithium had lower success rates of rechallenge (60%) compared to those who were not prescribed lithium (81%). The most commonly reported rechallenge strategy was use of filgrastim 150-480 µg between daily to three times a week. There were no medication-specific side effects of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor reported apart from euphoria in one case. Three cases who failed granulocyte-colony stimulating factor had bacterial infection at time of recurrent neutropenia. No deaths were reported.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data suggest granulocyte-colony stimulating factor is safe and effective in facilitating rechallenge with clozapine. Clinical recommendations for use are discussed.

Single agent panitumumab in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients following cetuximab-based regimens: Clinical outcome and biomarkers of efficacy

BACKGROUND

Few data are available outlining outcomes of panitumumab in advanced colorectal cancer patients benefiting from prior cetuximab-based regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with KRAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer with clinical benefit from prior cetuximab-based regimens between May 2004 and October 2011 were reviewed at nine Italian Institutions. Inclusion key criteria included interruption of cetuximab for reasons other than progressive disease. Patients were classified according to prior regimens (0 or ≥1), prior response or stabilization, surgery of metastases, and Köhne prognostic score. At the time of subsequent progression, patients were treated with single agent panitumumab until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

RESULTS

Panitumumab obtained 67% disease control rate and 30% objective response rate, with median PFS of 4.2 and median OS of 9.6 mo. Patients with BRAF/NRAS/PI3KCA and KRAS (by mutant enriched technique) wild-type tumors had the best chance of response to panitumumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Single agent panitumumab provided significant clinical benefit in heavily pretreated patients without acquired resistance to prior cetuximab-based regimens.

Current Status in Rechallenge of Immunotherapy

The treatment of malignant tumors has entered the era of immunotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have brought significant benefits to patients. However, some patients are required to discontinue treatment with ICIs owing to factors such as disease progression and intolerable side effects. Faced with limited subsequent treatment options and complex medical needs, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and the NIH clinical trials database and found that ICI rechallenge could be a relevant clinical strategy. The factors that could affect the rechallenge efficacy include the patients' characteristics, therapeutic strategy selection, and the timing of treatment. Multiple factors are used to identify target population, of which clinical features and PD-L1 expression are more potential. Both single ICI rechallenge and combination therapy may have survival benefits. Patients who have tolerated initial immunotherapy well could undergo ICI rechallenge, while patients who have experienced grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events should be carefully assessed prior to rechallenge. Interventions and the interval between two courses of ICI will clearly have an impact on the efficacy of subsequent treatment. Preliminary data evaluation supports further investigation on ICI rechallenge to identify the factors that could contribute to its efficacy.

Early Experience of Rechallenge 177Lu-PSMA Radioligand Therapy After an Initial Good Response in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer

Our aim was to retrospectively evaluate the feasibility of rechallenge ¹⁷⁷Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA) radioligand therapy. Methods: Rechallenge radioligand therapy was defined as subsequent treatment with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA after initial exposure with an excellent response followed by progression. Biochemical, radiographic, clinical antitumor response, and adverse events were analyzed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were calculated. Results: Eight patients underwent a median of 2 (range: 1-4) cycles of rechallenge with ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA for imaging and therapy. A maximum PSA decrease of 50% was achieved in 3 patients (37.5%). Radiographic response was favorable in 3 patients, whereas 4 exhibited progressive disease. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was stable during therapy in all patients. No grade 4 toxicity was noticed, and grade 3 toxicity occurred in 3 patients (37.5%). The median PSA-PFS and overall survival were 3.2 mo (95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.7 mo) and 14.0 mo (95% confidence interval, 6.2-21.8 mo), respectively. Conclusion: In a small patient cohort with an initial excellent response, ¹⁷⁷Lu-PSMA rechallenge is still active, with lower efficacy and higher toxicity.

Retreatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of patients eventually experience disease progression despite treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but subsequent treatment options are limited for this population. Retreatment with the same or different types of ICIs is a possible strategy, but the clinical efficacy and safety data are limited. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICIs retreatment in patients with solid tumors after disease progression to previous ICIs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and major meeting libraries for prospective studies. The primary outcomes included the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median overall survival (mOS), and the incidence of grade ⩾3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

RESULTS

We identified 22 prospective studies including 1865 patients. For disease progression after CTLA-4 inhibitors, three studies evaluated anti-CTLA-4 retreatment. The ORR was 12-23%, the DCR was 48.4-67.7%, and the mOS was 12 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was 5.9-25%. Four studies evaluated anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) retreatment. The ORR was 22-36%, the DCR was 40-64%, and the mOS was 13.4-20.6 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was <10%. For disease progression after PD-(L)1 inhibitors, 13 studies evaluated anti-PD-(L)1 retreatment. The ORR was 5-53%, the DCR was 38-83%, and the mOS was 13.9 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was 0-15% for patients retreated with single anti-PD-(L)1 agent, but was higher (0-64%) for those retreated with ICIs combined with other agents. Two studies evaluated anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) retreatment. The ORR was 0-22.4%, the DCR was 50-72%, and the mOS was 4-21 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was 26-61%.

CONCLUSION

Retreatment with ICIs is feasible for cancer patients considering its encouraging efficacy and tolerable safety. Further prospective trials are needed to explore more promising strategies and identify suitable populations for retreatment.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors-Associated Myocarditis: Diagnosis, Treatment and Current Status on Rechallenge

Immune checkpoint molecules like cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), play a critical role in regulating the immune response, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting these checkpoints have shown clinical efficacy in cancer treatment; however, their use is associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including cardiac complications. The prevalence of cardiac irAEs, particularly myocarditis, is relatively low, but they can become a severe and potentially life-threatening condition, usually occurring shortly after initiating ICI treatment; moreover, diagnosing ICI-related myocarditis can be challenging. Diagnostic tools include serum cardiac biomarkers, electrocardiography (ECG), echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). The treatment of ICI-induced myocarditis involves high-dose corticosteroids, which have been shown to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In refractory cases, second-line immunosuppressive drugs may be considered, although their effectiveness is based on limited data. The mortality rates of ICI-induced myocarditis, particularly in severe cases, are high (38-46%). Therapy rechallenge after myocarditis is associated with a risk of recurrence and severe complications. The decision to rechallenge should be made on a case-by-case basis, involving a multidisciplinary team of cardiologists and oncologists. Further research and guidance are needed to optimize the management of cancer patients who have experienced such complications, evaluating the risks and benefits of therapy rechallenge. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available evidence on cardiovascular complications from ICI therapy, with a particular focus on myocarditis and, specifically, the rechallenge of immunotherapy after a cardiac adverse event.

The Effectiveness of Cancer Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Retreatment and Rechallenge-A Systematic Review

Despite a great success of immunotherapy in cancer treatment, a great number of patients will become resistant. This review summarizes recent reports on immune checkpoint inhibitor retreatment or rechallenge in order to overcome primary resistance. The systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. In total, 31 articles were included with a total of 812 patients. There were 16 retreatment studies and 13 rechallenge studies. We identified 15 studies in which at least one parameter (overall response rate or disease control rate) improved or was stable at secondary treatment. Interval treatment, primary response to and the cause of cessation for the first immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be promising predictors of secondary response. However, high heterogeneity of investigated cohorts and lack of reporting guidelines are limiting factors for current in-depth analysis.

Carboplatin Rechallenge After Hypersensitivity Reactions in Pediatric Patients With Low-Grade Glioma

BACKGROUND

The high prevalence of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) significantly affects the treatment of pediatric patients with low-grade glioma (LGG). Rechallenging patients is an option that must balance the risks of repeat allergic reaction to the benefits of retaining an effective anti-tumor regimen.

PROCEDURE

We performed a retrospective review of children with LGG treated with carboplatin and vincristine between October 2000 and April 2013, who had a documented HSR to carboplatin. Patients were re-exposed to carboplatin using either precautionary measures (prolonged infusion time and premedication with H1 antagonists, H2 antagonists, and corticosteroids), a desensitization protocol, or both.

RESULTS

We report the results of our institutional experience of carboplatin re-exposure using both premedication with a prolonged infusion time and a desensitization protocol. Overall, 40 of 55 (73%) patients were successfully rechallenged with carboplatin, including 19 of 25 (76%) patients who underwent desensitization.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate re-exposure to be a safe alternative to abandoning carboplatin for patients with a hypersensitivity reaction. We propose a clinical algorithm for treatment.

Rechallenge with anti-EGFR therapy to extend the continuum of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

In patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody plus chemotherapy is a standard option for treatment in the first-line setting. Patients who progress while on treatment with anti-EGFR-based therapy can be resistant to further anti-EGFR treatment, but evidence suggests that the anti-EGFR-resistant clones decay, thereby opening the potential for rechallenge or reintroduction in later lines of treatment. Results from recent clinical studies have shown that some patients with mCRC who are rechallenged with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies exhibit durable responses. While other therapies have demonstrated improved overall survival in chemorefractory mCRC over the past decade, rechallenge with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in later lines of treatment represents a new option that deserves further investigation in clinical trials. In this review, we summarize the molecular rationale for rechallenge or reintroduction in patients with mCRC who have progressed on earlier-line anti-EGFR treatment and examine the current evidence for using liquid biopsy as a method for selecting rechallenge as a therapeutic option. We also provide an overview of published trials and trials in progress in this field, and outline the potential role of rechallenge in the current clinical setting.

Propofol and priapism

Propofol-induced priapism in a 25-year-old male confirmed by rechallenge is reported for its rarity and to create awareness among practitioners, because propofol is used frequently in India for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia or sedation. The probable mechanisms are highlighted. Because propofol causes low-flow priapism, early alleviation is essential to minimize and/or avert the long-term complications.

Is there a role for rechallenge and reintroduction of anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy in later lines of therapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma? A retrospective analysis

Background

Mechanisms of resistance have been described during disease progression (PD) for patients under treatment with anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy (CT). The aim of our study was to evaluate efficacy of anti-EGFR rechallenge (ReCH) and reintroduction (ReIn) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective analysis of patients with mCRC that previously received anti-EGFR + CT and interrupted therapy due to PD in the ReCH group and other reasons in the ReIn group. We aimed to describe progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rate (RR) after re-exposure and to evaluate prognostic factors associated with PFS.

Results

Sixty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. The median follow-up after re-exposure was 39.3 months. ReCH was adopted in 25% and ReIn in 75%. The median anti-EGFR free interval was at 10.5 months. At re-exposure, the main CT regimen was FOLFIRI in 58.8%. Cetuximab and Panitumumab were used in 59 and 9 patients, respectively. mPFS for ReCH and ReIn was 3.3 × 8.4 months, respectively (p 0.001). The objective response rate for ReCH and ReIn was 18% and 52%, respectively. In univariate analysis, adverse prognostic factors related to PFS were: stable disease or PD at first anti-EGFR exposure (HR: 2.12, CI:1.20-3.74; p = 0.009); ReCH (HR: 3.44, CI:1.88-6.29, p < 0.0001); rechallenge at fourth or later lines (HR: 2.51, CI:1.49-4.23, p = 0.001); panitumumab use (HR: 2.26 CI:1.18-5.54, p = 0.017). In the multivariate model, only ReCH remained statistically significant (HR = 2.63, CI: 1.14-6.03, p = 0.022).

Conclusion

In our analysis, ReCH resulted in short PFS and low RR. However, reintroduction of anti-EGFR plus CT before complete resistance arose resulted in prolonged PFS. These data could be clinically useful to guide a treatment break due to side effects or patient decisions. Our data should be confirmed by larger and prospective trials.