Comparative efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 therapies used in metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: Systemic studies on anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with microsatellite instability or mismatch repair defects are lacking. We aimed to summarize the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and tislelizumab in mCRC. Methods: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy and safety data for clinical decision-making. In this NMA, eligible publications from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from 2016 to April 2023 were identified through a systematic literature review. Literature screening and data extraction were performed according to established criteria. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and statistical analysis was performed using Revman5.4 and R language. The main outcome indicators, DCR, ORR, PFS, and OS, were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the drugs, and the main outcome indicators AE and SAE were used to evaluate the safety of each program. Results: Fifteen studies with a sample size of 798 patients were included. In terms of effectiveness, the disease control rate DCR of PD-1 inhibitors was 0.727[95% CI:0.654-0.794]; objective response rate ORR was 0.448[95% CI:0.382-0.514]; and the 1-year progression-free survival rate was 0.551[95% CI:0.458-0.642]. The 1-year overall survival rate was 0.790[95% CI:0.705-0.865]. The adverse events associated with anti-PD-1 were 0.567[95% CI:0.344-0.778] in terms of safety. The total incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 0.241[95% CI:0.174-0.313]. In the subgroup analysis results, the incidence of DCR in the nivolumab + ipilimumab group was 0.826[95% CI:0.780-0.869], the ORR was 0.512[95% CI:0.377-0.647], and the PFS was 0.668[95% CI:0.516-0.804]. The incidence of AE was 0.319 [95% CI:0.039-0.700] and SAE was 0.294 [95% CI:0.171-0.433]... (AU)

Inmunoterapia vs. terapia diana en el paciente con melanoma avanzado y mutación BRAF V600, ¿por cuál comenzar? / Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Patients With Advanced Melanoma and the V600 BRAF Mutation: Which One First?

El paciente con melanoma avanzado, metastásico o de alto riesgo, cuenta con opciones de tratamiento sistémico, inmunoterapia y terapias dirigidas, que han mejorado significativamente su supervivencia. El 50% de los pacientes con melanoma presentan mutación del gen BRAF. La toma de decisiones en cuanto a la secuencia óptima de tratamiento sistémico debe tener en cuenta factores relacionados con el medicamento, factores clínicos del paciente, así como los propios del tumor. Aunque la combinación ipilimumab-nivolumab es la que proporciona mejores resultados de supervivencia en todos los pacientes, la toxicidad asociada y el perfil de las terapias diana las puede hacer recomendables como primera línea en pacientes en determinadas situaciones clínicas. El objetivo de esta revisión es proporcionar un algoritmo de toma de decisiones en cuanto a la primera línea de tratamiento sistémico, inmunoterapia vs. terapias dirigidas, en el paciente con melanoma avanzado con mutación BRAF (AU)

Systemic treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy can significantly improve survival in patients with advanced (metastatic or high-risk) melanoma. Fifty percent of patients with melanoma have a BRAF mutation. Decisions on optimal sequencing of systemic treatments should take into account drug- and tumor-related factors and patient characteristics. Although the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is associated with the best survival outcomes, it is associated with significant toxicity. Targeted therapy may be a more favorable option in certain clinical situations. We review the literature on immunotherapy and targeted therapy in melanoma and present an algorithm for guiding decision-making on their use as first-line systemic treatments for advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma (AU)

[Translated article] Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Patients With Advanced Melanoma and the V600 BRAF Mutation: Which One First? / Inmunoterapia vs. terapia diana en el paciente con melanoma avanzado y mutación BRAF V600, ¿por cuál comenzar?

Systemic treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy can significantly improve survival in patients with advanced (metastatic or high-risk) melanoma. Fifty percent of patients with melanoma have a BRAF mutation. Decisions on optimal sequencing of systemic treatments should take into account drug- and tumor-related factors and patient characteristics. Although the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is associated with the best survival outcomes, it is associated with significant toxicity. Targeted therapy may be a more favorable option in certain clinical situations. We review the literature on immunotherapy and targeted therapy in melanoma and present an algorithm for guiding decision-making on their use as first-line systemic treatments for advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma (AU)

El paciente con melanoma avanzado, metastásico o de alto riesgo, cuenta con opciones de tratamiento sistémico, inmunoterapia y terapias dirigidas, que han mejorado significativamente su supervivencia. El 50% de los pacientes con melanoma presentan mutación del gen BRAF. La toma de decisiones en cuanto a la secuencia óptima de tratamiento sistémico debe tener en cuenta factores relacionados con el medicamento, factores clínicos del paciente, así como los propios del tumor. Aunque la combinación ipilimumab-nivolumab es la que proporciona mejores resultados de supervivencia en todos los pacientes, la toxicidad asociada y el perfil de las terapias diana las puede hacer recomendables como primera línea en pacientes en determinadas situaciones clínicas. El objetivo de esta revisión es proporcionar un algoritmo de toma de decisiones en cuanto a la primera línea de tratamiento sistémico, inmunoterapia vs. terapias dirigidas, en el paciente con melanoma avanzado con mutación BRAF (AU)

Impact of the use of antibiotics on the clinical response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer / Impacto del uso de antibióticos en la respuesta clínica de los inhibidores del punto de control en pacientes con carcinoma de pulmón no microcítico

Objectives. Recent research suggests that the use of antibiotics could reduce the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors, in addition to other well-known factors. It could be due to gut microbiota modification, which impact over the immune system response. However, the information available so far is contradictory. The objective of this research was to clarify whether antibiotic use influences efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors treatments in non-small cell lung cancer patients in clinical practice. Methods. Therefore, a retrospective observational study was designed. Use of antibiotics among patients treated with atezolizumab, pembrolizumab or nivolumab was assessed within 2 months of checkpoint inhibitors treatments initiation. Results. A total of 140 patients were included, mostly men, with good performance status (ECOG 0-1), all of them previously treated with chemotherapy. An antibiotic prescription was identified in 31% of these patients, mainly fluoroquinolones or beta-lactams. The most frequent indication was respiratory infection. Both progression-free survival and overall survival were lower for patients treated with anti-infective drugs, although this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion. More studies are needed to draw conclusions about the impact of antibiotics on the efficacy of immunotherapy. (AU)

Objetivos. Investigaciones recientes sugieren que el uso de antibióticos podría reducir la eficacia de los inhibidores del punto de control inmunológico, además de otros factores ya conocidos. Podría deberse a la modificación de la microbiota, por su impacto en la respuesta del sistema inmune. En cualquier caso, la información disponible hasta el momento es contradictoria. El objetivo de esta investigación es esclarecer si el uso de antibióticos influye en la eficacia de los inhibidores del punto de control para el tratamiento de pacientes con carcinoma de pulmón no microcítico en la práctica clínica. Métodos. Se diseñó un estudio observacional, retrospectivo. Se investigó el uso de antibióticos entre aquellos pacientes a tratamiento con atezolizumab, pembrolizumab o nivolumab en los 2 meses previos o posteriores a su inicio. Resultados. Se incluyeron 140 pacientes, principalmente hombres con aceptable estado general (ECOG 0-1), todos previamente tratados con quimioterapia. Se identificó una prescripción antibiótica en el 31% de la población, principalmente fluoroquinolonas o betalactámicos. La indicación más frecuente para dicha prescripción era la infección respiratoria. Tanto la supervivencia libre de progresión con la supervivencia global fue inferior en el grupo tratado con antiinfecciosos, aunque no se alcanzó significación estadística. Conclusiones. Son necesario más estudios para concluir acerca del impacto de los antibióticos en la eficacia de la inmunoterapia. (AU)

Renal Failure Management in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cancer Receiving Nivolumab: Evaluation from Two Points of View

Introduction: Immunotherapy is recommended as category 1 in first-line treatment in metastatic renal cancer (mRC), however the evidence on the management of toxicities in patients with chronic renal failure is limited. Description of the Cases: Case 1: Patient with mRC and renal failure on hemodialysis. After 25 months of treatment with Nivolumab, he presented a partial response, without toxicities. Case 2: Patient with mRC undergoing treatment with Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, who after 6 cycles was admitted for acute renal failure, compatible with grade 4 nephrotoxicity, requiring definitive suspension of treatment, corticosteroid therapy and hemodialysis. Conclusions: Nivolumab is a safe and effective therapy in hemodialysis patients, not increasing adverse events, nor requiring dose adjustment. Immunotherapy nephrotoxicity must be adequately managed in daily clinical practice in an interdisciplinary way with the nephrologist (AU)

Introducción: La inmunoterapia está recomendadacon categoría 1 en primera línea de tratamiento en cáncerrenal metastásico (CRm), sin embargo la evidencia sobre elmanejo de toxicidades en pacientes con insuficiencia renalcrónica es limitada.Descripción de los Casos: Caso 1: Paciente con CRme insuficiencia renal en hemodiálisis. Tras 25 meses detratamiento con Nivolumab, presenta respuesta parcial, sintoxicidades. Caso 2: Paciente con CRm en tratamiento conNivolumab-Ipilimumab, que tras 6 ciclos precisa ingresopor fracaso renal agudo, compatible con nefrotoxicidadgrado 4, requiriendo suspensión definitiva del tratamiento,corticoterapia y hemodiálisis.Conclusiones: El uso de Nivolumab es seguro y eficaz en pacientes en hemodiálisis, no incrementando losefectos adversos, ni precisando ajuste de dosis. Es fundamental conocer el manejo de la nefrotoxicidad por inmunoterapia en la práctica clínica diaria y establecer un enfoque multidisciplinar con nefrología. (AU)

Impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy vs palliative radiotherapy on oncologic outcomes of patients with metastatic kidney cancer concomitantly treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a preliminary, multicentre experience

Purpose: To explore the benefit yielded by radiotherapy (RT), we report a series of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with concomitant RT plus Nivolumab.Methods/patientsPatients undergoing Nivolumab treatment plus concomitant RT (ablative or palliative) were included. RT was defined Ablative if >5 Gy/fraction were delivered.ResultsAblative RT intent was the only independent predictor of both progression free and overall survival (HR 3.51, 95% CI 1.6–7.5, p = 0.0012 and HR 2.8, 95% CI 0.99–8.07, p = 0.05, respectively).ConclusionAblative RT may improve oncologic outcomes in selected patients with metastatic RCC treated with Nivolumab as compared to palliative RT. (AU)

Impact of cranial stereotactic radiotherapy associated with immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab on overall survival in patients with melanoma brain metastases: a real-world evidence

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of cranial stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) on overall survival (OS) of melanoma brain metastases (MBM) patients treated with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab (CNI) in a contemporary and real-world setting.Methods/patientsThe study was performed by using TriNetX, a global health network dataset of electronic medical records from patients in 49 healthcare organizations. We queried for patients with specific terms between January 2016 and December 2020 and run a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. OS was estimated by Kaplan–Meier and log-rank test was applied.ResultsAfter initial query and PSM, 114 patients were selected in each cohort. Median OS was 327 days in CNI and not reached in the CNI + SRT cohort, with OS probability of 54.4 and 40.9%, respectively (log-rank P = .0057). CNI + SRT was associated with significantly decreased mortality (HR, 0.57; 95% CI 0.377-0.853; proportionality P = .0034).ConclusionsThis real-world analysis showed that CNI + SRT led to an improvement in OS compared to CNI. (AU)

Correction to: Nivolumab treatment beyond progressive disease in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

In the original version of this article, the given names of all authors were omitted. The complete names were provided below.Takatoshi Enomoto, Akihiro Tamiya, Kinnosuke Matsumoto, Yuichi Adachi, Koji Azuma, Yuji Inagaki, Shunichi Kouno, Yoshihiko Taniguchi, Nobuhiko Saijo, Kyoichi Okishio, Shinji AtagiThe original article has been corrected.

Exploratory analysis of clinical benefit of ipilimumab and nivolumab treatment in patients with metastatic melanoma from a single institution

PurposeWe retrospectively analysed overall survival (OS) and potential predictive biomarkers of OS in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab in a single institution.Methods and patientsElectronic medical records of patients with advanced melanoma receiving ≥ 1 dose of a combined ipilimumab plus nivolumab regimen between March 3, 2016 and March 7, 2020 in a single institution, were reviewed. OS was analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Sub-group analyses were conducted to examine several endpoints according to relevant clinical, molecular and pathological variables using logistic and Cox models.ResultsForty-four cases were reviewed, 38 (86.4%), of whom had cutaneous melanoma, 21 (47.7%) were BRAF mutant, 21 (47.7%) presented high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) values, 23 (52.3%) had ≥ 3 disease sites, and 10 (22.7%) patients had brain metastases. The median follow-up was 37.7 months, and the median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI 8.2–NR). In the multivariate analysis, the OS was significantly longer in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0, LDH ≤ upper limit of normal, absence of liver metastases and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) < 5 (all p ≤ 0.05, log-rank test). These factors allowed the classification of patients into three prognostic risk groups (low/intermediate/high risk) for death.ConclusionOverall survival of real-world patients from our cohort receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab was lower than in previous studies. The ECOG score, LDH values, the presence of liver metastases and the NLR were independent prognostic factors for survival.

Systematic review and meta-analysis efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced melanoma patients with anti-PD-1 progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background More than half of melanoma patients taking first-line anti-PD-1 therapy either express transient or no response at all. The efficacy and safety of secondary treatments for these patients are still not well established. Here, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of different melanoma FDA-approved ICI modalities used in post-anti-PD-1 refractory settings. Materials and methods We searched the PubMed database and the ASCO meetings library for studies on advanced melanoma patients with cancer progression on anti-PD-1 therapy and were then treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, or retreated with anti-PD-1. Primary and secondary endpoints were efficacy and toxicity, respectively. Pooled estimates for each treatment group were obtained using a random or fixed effects model according to detected heterogeneity. Results Fourteen studies, of which 10 on ipilimumab, 2 on anti-PD-1 treatment, and 6 on combination therapies, were included, involving a total of 1460 patients. Twelve studies reported objective response rates (ORRs) and nine of them reported immune-related adverse events (irAEs). As for ORR, patients experienced a response that was inferior compared to the same therapy in treatment -naïve patients, with combination therapy having the best ORR of a pooled 23.08% (95% CI: 16.75% to 30.03%), followed by ipilimumab with a pooled ORR of 8.19% (95% CI: 5.78% to 10.92%). Survival data were also inferior in the ipilimumab cohort (mOS: 5.1 to 7.4 months) compared to ipilimumab in anti-PD-1 naive patients. As for grade 3/4 irAE occurrence, the ipilimumab cohort showed an estimate of 43.77% (95% CI 22.55% to 66.19%) (AU)