Nivolumab plus chemotherapy or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (CheckMate 648): 29-month follow-up from a randomized, open-label, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data. METHODS: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population. RESULTS: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC.

Distinct autoantibody profiles across checkpoint inhibitor types and toxicities.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in combination. To understand the effects of different ICI categories, we characterized changes in circulating autoantibodies in patients enrolled in the E4412 trial (NCT01896999) of brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus ipilimumab, BV plus nivolumab, or BV plus ipilimumab-nivolumab for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) autoantibody levels were compared to pre-treatment baseline. Across 112 autoantibodies tested, we generally observed increases in ipilimumab-containing regimens, with decreases noted in the nivolumab arm. Among 15 autoantibodies with significant changes at C2D1, all nivolumab cases exhibited decreases, with more than 90% of ipilimumab-exposed cases showing increases. Autoantibody profiles also showed differences according to immune-related adverse event (irAE) type, with rash generally featuring increases and liver toxicity demonstrating decreases. We conclude that dynamic autoantibody profiles may differ according to ICI category and irAE type. These findings may have relevance to clinical monitoring and irAE treatment.

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.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced hypophysitis with transient ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism.

A woman in her 70s with metastatic melanoma presenting with refractory hypokalaemia on combined immune checkpoint inhibitors, nivolumab-ipilimumab, was diagnosed with adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-dependent hypercortisolism 11 weeks following the initiation of her immunotherapy. Investigations also demonstrated central hypothyroidism and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. She underwent imaging studies of her abdomen and brain which revealed normal adrenal glands and pituitary, respectively. She was started on levothyroxine replacement and had close pituitary function monitoring. Two weeks later, her cortisol and ACTH levels started to trend down. She finally developed secondary adrenal insufficiency and was started on hydrocortisone replacement 4 weeks thereafter.This report highlights a case of immunotherapy-related hypophysitis with well-documented transient central hypercortisolism followed, within weeks, by profound secondary adrenal insufficiency. Healthcare professionals should remain vigilant in monitoring laboratory progression in these patients. Early recognition of the phase of hypercortisolism and its likely rapid transformation into secondary adrenal insufficiency can facilitate timely hormonal replacement and prevent complications.

Treatment-free survival outcomes from the phase II study of nivolumab and salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (HCRN GU16-260-Cohort A).

BACKGROUND: As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured. RESULTS: At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population.

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (CheckMate 358): a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial.

BACKGROUND: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort. METHODS: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Successful treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis.

We report a 64-year-old patient with melanoma receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab therapy who presented with a periaortic soft tissue mass around the abdominal aorta on restaging fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging. Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings resulted in a diagnosis of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis. Periaortitis is a rare disease presenting with fibro-inflammatory tissue around the aorta and may lead to serious complications. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were discontinued, and the patient was treated with glucocorticoids, leading to a complete resolution of the periaortitis. To our knowledge, this is only the third reported case of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related periaortitis.

Checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy induced inflammatory arthritis secondary to Nivolumab and Ipilimumab: a pediatric first.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have expanded the arsenal of cancer therapeutics over the last decade but are associated with a spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including inflammatory arthritis. While these complications are increasingly recognized in the adult population, no cases of inflammatory arthritis irAEs have been reported in the pediatric literature. CASE PRESENTATION: A 14-year-old female with metastatic epithelioid mesothelioma was referred to the pediatric rheumatology clinic after developing progressive inflammatory joint pain in her bilateral shoulders, hips, and small joints of hands following the second cycle of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. Initial examinations showed bilateral shoulder joint line tenderness, positive FABERs test bilaterally, tenderness over bilateral greater trochanters, and bilateral second PIP effusions. Her serological profile was notable for positive HLA-B27, positive anti-CCP, negative Rheumatoid Factor, and negative ANA. PET-CT scan performed for disease response following immunotherapy showed symmetric increased metabolic activity primarily involving the supraspinatus, gluteus medius and minimus, and semimembranosus tendon insertions. Her presentation was consistent with a grade 1 irAE that worsened to a grade 2 irAE despite NSAID therapy, prompting a short course of oral prednisolone. She achieved clinical remission of her mesothelioma following six cycles of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab and her inflammatory arthritis was controlled on Celebrex monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first pediatric case of ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis and enthesitis. This case highlights the importance of increasing awareness of diagnosis and management of irAEs in children.

UV1 telomerase vaccine with ipilimumab and nivolumab as second line treatment for pleural mesothelioma - A phase II randomised trial.

PURPOSE: The NIPU-trial investigates the effect of adding the telomerase vaccine UV1 to treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab for patients with pleural mesothelioma (PM). METHODS: In this phase 2 open-label trial, patients with PM progressing after first-line chemotherapy were randomised to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab alone (arm B) or combined with UV1 (arm A). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by BICR. It was estimated that 69 PFS events were needed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 with 80% power and a one-sided alpha level of 0.10. RESULTS: 118 patients were randomised. The median PFS determined by blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.2 months (95%CI 2.9-9.8) in arm A and 4.7 months (95%CI 3.9-7.0) in arm B (HR 1.01, 80%CI 0.75-1.36 P = 0.979), after a median follow-up of 12.5 months (95%CI 9.7-15.6). The investigator-determined median PFS was 4.3 months (95%CI 3.0-6.8) in arm A and 2.9 months (95%CI 2.4-5.5) in arm B (HR 0.60, 80%CI 0.45-0.81 P = 0.025). Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by BICR was 31% in arm A and 16% in arm B (odds ratio 2.44 80%CI 1.35-4.49 P = 0.056). After a median follow-up time of 17.3 months (95%CI 15.8-22.9), the OS was 15.4 months (95%CI 11.1-22.6) in arm A and 11.1 months (95%CI 8.8-18.1) in arm B, (HR 0.73, 80%CI 0.53-1.0, P = 0.197). CONCLUSION: The primary endpoint was not met. Predefined analyses of response rates are in favour of adding the vaccine.

Outcome of adjuvant immunotherapy in a real-world nation-wide cohort of patients with melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated promising outcomes for adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected melanoma. Real-life data provide valuable insights to support patient guidance and treatment decisions. METHODS: Observational population-based study examining a national cohort of patients with resected stage III-IV melanoma referred for adjuvant therapy. Data were extracted from the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED). RESULTS: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 785 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1. The majority had stage III resected melanoma (87%), normal LDH levels (80%), and performance score 0 (87%). Patients were followed for a median of 25.6 months (95%CI 24-28). The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were not reached. The RFS was 78% (95%CI 75-81), 66% (63-70), and 59% (55-63); MSS was 97% (95-98), 93% (91-95), and 87% (84-90) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year; respectively. Less than half (42%) of the patients finalized planned therapy, 32% discontinued due to toxicity, and 19% due to melanoma recurrence. Patients discontinuing adjuvant treatment prematurely, without recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing therapy. In a multivariable analysis, ipilimumab plus nivolumab did not improve outcomes compared to ipilimumab monotherapy as a first-line metastatic treatment after adjuvant anti-PD-1. CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes in real-world patients with melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 align with results from the randomized controlled trials. Patients discontinuing therapy prematurely, for other reasons than recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing planned treatment. First-line metastatic treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab post-adjuvant anti-PD-1 did not show improved outcomes compared to ipilimumab/anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating. OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma. RESULTS: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior. CONCLUSIONS: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

Neoadjuvant Dual Checkpoint Inhibitors vs Anti-PD1 Therapy in High-Risk Resectable Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM. Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered. Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

The association of hypophysitis with immune checkpoint inhibitors use: Gaining insight through the FDA pharmacovigilance database.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) marked a revolutionary change in cancer treatment and opened new avenues for cancer therapy, but ICI can also trigger immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Here, we investigated the publicly available US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to gain insight into the possible association between immune checkpoint inhibitors and hypophysitis. Data on adverse events (AEs) due to hypophysitisfor nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab were collected from the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System from the first quarter of 2004 to the second quarter of 2021, and the signals for hypophysitis associated with the four drugs were examined using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) method. The number of reported hypophysitis events ≥ 3 and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ROR > 1 were considered positive for hypophysitis signals. A total of 1252 AE reports of hypophysitis associated with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab were collected, including 419, 149, 643, and 41 cases, respectively. The RORs of hypophysitis were 289.58 (95% CI 258.49-324.40), 171.74 (95% CI 144.91-203.54), 2248.57 (95% CI 2025.31-2496.45), and 97.29 (95% CI 71.28-132.79), respectively. All four drugs were statistically correlated with the target AE, with the correlation being, in descending order, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab have all been associated with hypophysitis, which can negatively impact quality of life, and early recognition and management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related hypophysitis is critical.

Phase 1b study of intraperitoneal ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has shown poor response rates in recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Intraperitoneal (i.p.) ICB may result in enhanced T cell activation and anti-tumor immunity. METHODS: In this phase 1b study, registered at Clinical. TRIALS: gov (NCT03508570), initial cohorts received i.p. nivolumab monotherapy, and subsequent cohorts received combination i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks and i.p. ipilimumab every 6 weeks, guided by a Bayesian design. The primary objective was determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination. Secondary outcomes included toxicity, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). FINDINGS: The trial enrolled 23 patients: 18 with ovarian cancer, 2 with uterine cancer, and 3 with cervical cancer. Study evaluable patients (n = 16) received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range: 1-8). Partial response was observed in 2 patients (12.5%; 1 ovarian, 1 uterine), and complete response was observed in 1 patient (6.3%) with cervical cancer, for an ORR of 18.8% (95% confidence interval: 4.0%-45.6%). The median duration of response was 14.8 months (range: 4.1-20.8), with one complete response ongoing. Median PFS and OS were 2.7 months and not reached, respectively. Grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events occurred in 2 (8.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: i.p. administration of dual ICB is safe and demonstrated durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy. The RP2D is 3 mg/kg i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks plus 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 6 weeks. FUNDING: This work was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (CA209-9C7), an MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (CA016672), the Ovarian Cancer Moon Shots Program, the Emerson Collective Fund, and a T32 training grant (CA101642).

Nivolumab monotherapy or combination with ipilimumab with or without cobimetinib in previously treated patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 032).

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancer types and represents a major unmet medical need. CheckMate 032 investigated safety and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without cobimetinib in advanced/metastatic solid tumors, including pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In the original pancreatic cancer cohort, previously treated patients (≥1 prior regimen) with advanced/metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were assigned to nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (monotherapy arm) or nivolumab 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (combination arm). A subsequent modified pancreatic cohort (one or two prior regimens) received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, and cobimetinib 60 mg orally once daily for 21 days on and 7 days off (triplet arm). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), PFS rate, overall survival (OS), OS rate, safety, and tolerability. Additionally, ORR, PFS, and duration of response were assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the triplet arm. RESULTS: 18 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 21 received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and 30 received nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus cobimetinib. In the triplet arm, partial responses were observed in two patients per investigator (ORR 6.7% (95% CI 0.8% to 22.1%)) and in three patients per BICR (ORR 10% (95% CI 2.1% to 26.5%)); no responses were observed in the other arms. Median (95% CI) PFS per investigator was 1.4 (1.3 to 2.0), 1.4 (1.2 to 2.7), and 3.0 (1.5 to 4.1) months for the monotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and triplet arms, respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was 5.1 (2.0 to 9.0) months, 4.0 (1.9 to 5.6) months, and 6.2 (3.9 to 11.4) months, respectively. Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 2 or less. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab did not elicit objective responses in previously treated patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, although three confirmed partial responses and manageable safety were observed with cobimetinib-containing triplet therapy. The small sample size and differences in baseline disease-specific characteristics between arms limit interpretation of these results.

Nephrotic syndrome with acute kidney injury due to combination therapy of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have focused on immune checkpoint inhibitors. Renal complications associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors are uncommon compared with other immune-related adverse events. Acute interstitial nephritis accounts for most of these renal complications, with nephrotic syndrome quite rare. We herein report a case of nephrotic syndrome associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors that was more severe than that in previous cases. By comparing this case with previous reports, the possible reasons for the particular severity of this case are discussed. CASE PRESENTATION: A 75-year-old man developed nephrotic syndrome with acute kidney injury after the first combination therapy of nivolumab and ipilimumab for malignant pleural mesothelioma. The results of a kidney biopsy indicated minimal change disease with mild atherosclerosis, acute interstitial nephritis, and fusion of nearly all podocyte foot processes. Nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy were stopped, and treatment with corticosteroids was initiated. We investigated previously reported cases of nephrotic syndrome using immune checkpoint inhibitors. Seventeen cases of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related nephrotic syndrome, including ours, have been reported. Two of the 17 patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-related nephrotic syndrome required hemodialysis treatment for acute kidney injury. Unlike many previously reported cases, the present patient was administered two different immune checkpoint inhibitors, which may be one of the reasons for the development of severe nephrotic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to previously reported risk factors, immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy can exacerbate nephrotic syndrome compared to immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy.

Effects of CTLA-4 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms on Toxicity of Ipilimumab-Containing Regimens in Patients With Advanced Stage Melanoma.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) gene, an inhibitor of T-cell priming, are associated with auto and alloimmunity. Studies implied a role for these SNPs as surrogate markers for immunotherapy-outcome in patients with melanoma. However, no predictive SNPs are defined to date. We analyzed different CTLA-4 SNPs in a large multicenter cohort of patients with ipilimumab-treated melanoma and investigated possible correlations with treatment-related outcomes. Archival blood and/or tumor tissue samples were collected from 361 patients with advanced-stage ipilimumab-treated (±nivolumab) in 6 Swiss and Dutch hospitals. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry based DNA genotyping was performed for 10 different CTLA-4 SNPs: 49A>G, CT60G>A, Jo27T>C, Jo30G>A, Jo31G>T, -658C>T, -1722T>C, -1661A>G, 318C>T, and C>T rs1863800. Associations between different allele genotypes and occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and survival were tested using univariable logistic regressions or Cox proportional hazard models. 262/361 (73%) patients could be analyzed; 65% of those were males, the median age was 58 years, 39% showed a partial or complete response, and 65% had ≥1 AEs. A TT-genotype of -1722T>C SNP was significantly associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥3 AEs ( P = 0.049), whereas the GG-genotype of CT60G>A correlated with a higher incidence of grade ≥3 AEs ( P = 0.026). The TT-genotype of Jo27T>C SNP ( P = 0.056) and GG-genotype of Jo31G>T ( P = 0.046) were associated with overall survival. CTLA-4 SNPs might predict treatment-related outcomes in patients with melanoma receiving ipilimumab. Confirmatory studies are needed to fully exploit those findings as predictive biomarkers for ipilimumab AEs.

Perimyocarditis Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Patient prognoses have been significantly enhanced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), altering the standard of care in cancer treatment. These novel antibodies have become a mainstay of care for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients. Several types of adverse events related to ICIs have been identified and documented as a result of the launch of these innovative medicines. We present here a 74-year-old female patient with a stage IV lung adenocarcinoma, treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, who developed perimyocarditis two weeks after receiving the third cycle of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The patient was diagnosed using troponin levels, computed tomography (CT) angiography, and echocardiography. After hospitalization, her cardiac condition was successfully resolved with corticosteroids, colchicine, and symptomatic treatment. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the rarest cases to be reported of perimyocarditis as a toxicity of immunotherapy in a patient treated for adenocarcinoma of the lung.

Seasonal patterns of toxicity in melanoma patients treated with combination anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors are frequently associated with the development of immunotherapy-related adverse events (irAEs). The exact etiology, including the role of environmental factors, remains incompletely understood. METHODS: We analyzed the records of 394 melanoma patients from three centers (northern and southern hemisphere). Patients had received at least one cycle of anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. We study the distribution and time to irAEs onset throughout the calendar year. RESULTS: 764 irAEs were recorded; the most frequent were skin rash (35%), hepatitis (32%) and colitis (30%). The irAEs incidence was the highest in autumn and winter, and the ratio for the 'number of irAEs' per 'therapies commenced' was the highest in winter and lowest in summer (2.4 and 1.7, respectively). Season-specific patterns in the time of irAEs onset were observed for pneumonitis (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.025), hepatitis (shorter time to onset in spring, p = 0.016) and sarcoid-like immune reaction (shorter time to onset in autumn, p = 0.041). Season-specific patterns for early-onset irAEs were observed for hepatitis (spring, p = 0.023) and nephritis (summer, p = 0.017). Early-onset pneumonitis was more frequent in autumn-winter (p = 0.008) and early-onset nephritis in spring-summer (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Environmental factors that are associated with particular seasons may contribute to the development of certain irAEs and suggest the potential effect of environmental triggers. The identification of these factors may enhance preventive and therapeutic strategies to reduce the morbidity of irAEs.