Keeping an Eye Out for Immunotherapy Toxicity: A Case of Unilateral Ptosis Caused by Ipilimumab/Nivolumab Therapy.

Despite ocular adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitors being uncommon, they are still important complications to be aware of. We present the case of metastatic melanoma on ipilimumab/nivolumab in a patient who developed immunotherapy complications with delayed diagnosis because the only presenting symptom was unilateral ptosis. We reviewed the literature for relevant and important ocular and neurological complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Real-world Trends, Rural-urban Differences, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Narrow versus Broad Next-generation Sequencing Panels.

Advances in genetic technology have led to the increasing use of genomic panels in precision oncology practice, with panels ranging from a couple to hundreds of genes. However, the clinical utilization and utility of oncology genomic panels, especially among vulnerable populations, is unclear. We examined the association of panel size with socioeconomic status and clinical trial matching. We retrospectively identified 9,886 eligible adult subjects in the Mayo Clinic Health System who underwent genomic testing between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2020. Patient data were retrieved from structured and unstructured data sources of institutional collections, including cancer registries, clinical data warehouses, and clinical notes. Socioeconomic surrogates were approximated using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) corresponding to primary residence addresses. Logistic regression was performed to analyze relationships between ADI or rural/urban status and (i) use of genomic test by panel size; (ii) clinical trial matching status. Compared with patients from the most affluent areas, patients had a lower odds of receiving a panel test (vs. a single-gene test) if from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation [OR (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71 (0.61-0.83), P < 0.01] or a rural area [OR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.76-0.96), P < 0.01]. Patients in areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation were less likely to be matched to clinical trials if receiving medium panel tests [(OR) (95% CI): 0.69 (0.49-0.97), P = 0.03]; however, there was no difference among patients receiving large panel tests (P > 0.05) and rural patients were almost 2x greater odds of being matched if receiving a large panel test [(OR) (95% CI): 1.76 (1.21-2.55), P < 0.01]. SIGNIFICANCE: We identified socioeconomic and rurality disparities in the use of genomic tests and trial matching by panel size, which may have implications for equal access to targeted therapies. The lack of association between large panel tests and clinical trial matching by socioeconomic status, suggests a potential health equity impact, while removing barriers in access to large panels for rural patients may improve access to trials. However, further research is needed.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Across Three Lines of Therapy in Patients with ALK+ NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are standard first- and second-line treatment for advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated outcomes in patients with ALK+ NSCLC receiving third-line ALK TKI versus non-ALK-directed therapy. METHODS: Flatiron Health OncoEMR data were extracted for patients with ALK+ NSCLC initiating first-line ALK TKI between January 2015 and March 2022 followed by second-line ALK TKI and third-line ALK TKI (group A) or non-TKI therapy (group B). Time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using multivariate modelling. RESULTS: Among patients receiving third-line ALK TKI (A, n = 85) or non-TKI therapy (B, n = 43), most received first-line crizotinib (A/B: 64%/60%) and second-line alectinib (36%/30%), ceritinib (24%/19%), or lorlatinib (15%/30%). Common third-line treatments were lorlatinib/alectinib (41%/33%) in A and immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or chemotherapy + immunotherapy (30%/28%/21%) in B. Group A versus B had longer TTD of first-line treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.93; p = 0.020) and second-line treatment (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33-0.75; p < 0.001) and longer OS from start of first-line treatment (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.54; p < 0.001) and second-line treatment (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.66; p < 0.001). For third-line treatment, median TTD (A/B) was 6.2/2.4 months (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37-1.00; p = 0.049) and OS was 17.6/6.5 months (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.98; p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving third-line non-ALK-directed therapy had suboptimal outcomes on prior TKIs. Patients with longer duration of prior ALK TKI treatment appeared to benefit from third-line ALK TKIs.

Impact of EML4-ALK Variants and Co-Occurring TP53 Mutations on Duration of First-Line ALK Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment and Overall Survival in ALK Fusion-Positive NSCLC: Real-World Outcomes From the GuardantINFORM database.

INTRODUCTION: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are first-line treatment options for ALK-positive (ALK+) NSCLC. Factors such as variant allele frequencies (VAFs), EML4-ALK fusion variant, and concurrent TP53 mutations (TP53mt) in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may affect treatment outcomes. We evaluated their effects on time to discontinuation (TTD) of first-line treatment with next-generation ALK TKIs in a real-world setting. METHODS: Adults with advanced or metastatic NSCLC and ctDNA-detected ALK fusion who received first-line next-generation ALK TKI monotherapy were identified in GuardantINFORM. Effects of ALK fusion VAF, EML4-ALK variants, and TP53mt detection on TTD were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients with ALK fusion in baseline ctDNA received first-line alectinib (n = 280), brigatinib (n = 15), lorlatinib (n = 9), or ceritinib (n = 3); 150 patients (49%) had ALK-fusion VAF greater than or equal to 1%. Among 232 patients with EML4-ALK fusions (v1, 50%; v3, 36%), TP53mt co-occurred with v1 in 42 (18%) and v3 in 32 (14%). Patients with VAF less than 1% versus greater than or equal to 1% had a median TTD of 32.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.7-not estimable [NE]) versus 14.7 months (10.4-19.9; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.57 [95% CI: 1.09-2.26]; p = 0.0146). Median TTD was 13.1 (9.5-19.9) versus 27.6 months (17.3-NE) in patients with versus without TP53mt detected (HR = 1.53 [1.07-2.19]; p = 0.0202) and 20.3 (14.4-NE) versus 11.5 months (7.4-31.1) in patients with v1 versus v3 (HR = 1.29 [0.83-2.01]; p = 0.2641). Patients with TP53mt and v3 had a median TTD of 7.4 months (95% CI: 4.2-31.1). CONCLUSION: High ctDNA VAF, EML4-ALK v3, and TP53mt were associated with early discontinuation of first-line ALK TKIs.

Proton Craniospinal Irradiation with Immunotherapy in Two Patients with Leptomeningeal Disease from Melanoma.

Introduction: Proton craniospinal irradiation (pCSI) is a treatment option for leptomeningeal disease (LMD), which permits whole neuroaxis treatment while minimizing toxicity. Despite this, patients inevitably experience progression. Adding systemic therapy to pCSI may improve outcomes. Methods: In this single-institution retrospective case series, we present the feasibility of treatment with pCSI (30Gy, 10 fractions) and an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in two sequential patients with LMD from melanoma. Results: The first patient developed LMD related to BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma after prior ICI and BRAF-targeted therapy. After pCSI with concurrent nivolumab, the addition of relatlimab, and BRAF-targeted therapy, he remained alive 7 months after LMD diagnosis despite central nervous system progression. The second patient developed LMD related to BRAF-wildtype melanoma after up-front ICI. He received pCSI with concurrent ipilimumab and nivolumab, then nivolumab maintenance. Though therapy was held for ICI hepatitis, the patient remained progression-free 5 months after LMD diagnosis. Conclusion: Adding an ICI to pCSI is feasible for patients with LMD and demonstrates a tolerable toxicity profile. While prospective evaluation is ultimately warranted, pCSI with ICI may confer survival benefits, even after prior ICI.

Neoadjuvant cobimetinib and atezolizumab with or without vemurafenib for high-risk operable Stage III melanoma: the Phase II NeoACTIVATE trial.

Both targeted therapies and immunotherapies provide benefit in resected Stage III melanoma. We hypothesized that the combination of targeted and immunotherapy given prior to therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) would be tolerable and drive robust pathologic responses. In NeoACTIVATE (NCT03554083), a Phase II trial, patients with clinically evident resectable Stage III melanoma received either 12 weeks of neoadjuvant vemurafenib, cobimetinib, and atezolizumab (BRAF-mutated, Cohort A, n = 15), or cobimetinib and atezolizumab (BRAF-wild-type, Cohort B, n = 15) followed by TLND and 24 weeks of adjuvant atezolizumab. Here, we report outcomes from the neoadjuvant portion of the trial. Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (≤50% viable tumor) and major pathologic response (complete or near-complete, ≤10% viable tumor) were observed in 86.7% and 66.7% of BRAF-mutated and 53.3% and 33.3% of BRAF-wild-type patients, respectively (primary outcome); these exceeded pre-specified benchmarks of 50% and 30% for major pathologic response. Grade 3 and higher toxicities, primarily dermatologic, occurred in 63% during neoadjuvant treatment (secondary outcome). No surgical delays nor progression to regional unresectability occurred (secondary outcome). Peripheral blood CD8 + TCM cell expansion associated with favorable pathologic responses (exploratory outcome).