Infections occurring following IL6 blockade for the management of cytokine release syndrome in onco-hematology patients.

BACKGROUND: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a common adverse event of CAR T cell or bispecific antibody (bsAb) therapy. Anti-IL6/IL6R drugs are used in the management of auto-immune diseases. Some reports showed increased risk of bacterial infection in this context. In onco-hematology, there are few data about the occurrence of infection after administration of an anti-IL6/IL6R for CRS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients treated in Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus between 2018 and 2021, who received anti-IL6/IL6R for CRS due to bsAb in phase I clinical trials or adoptive cellular therapy (ACT). We constituted a control group including all the patients treated in the same clinical trials or standard of care ACT, naïve of anti-IL6/IL6R. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients have been included. In the anti-IL6/IL6R group (n = 26), five patients developed a grade 2 to 5 infection within a month after anti-IL6/IL6R treatment, including two grade 5 infections. In the control group (n = 26), only one patient had a grade 3 infection. The two patients who had grade 5 infections were treated for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), one with bsAb and the other with CAR T cell. Fifty percent (3/6) of DLBCL patients who received an anti-IL6/IL6R presented an infection, one of which was a grade 5. In solid tumor patients treated with bsAb and anti-IL6/IL6R, only one patient (/9, 11%) developed a grade 2 viral infection. CONCLUSION: It seems that the use of anti-IL6/IL6R in CRS secondary to bsAb administration in solid tumors patients does not significantly increase the risk of infection, as opposed to DLBCL patients where secondary infection might be a concern.

Haematological immune-related adverse events with immune checkpoint inhibitors, how to manage?

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are changing the treatments of many patients with cancer. These immunotherapies are generally better tolerated than chemotherapy, and their adverse events are immune-related mimicking autoimmune or inflammatory conditions. Although these immune-related adverse events mainly affect the skin, endocrine glands, digestive tract, joints, liver or lungs, all the organs can be theoretically affected, and the haematopoietic system is not spared. This review of the literature will focus on the haematological immune-related adverse events (Haem-irAEs). By reviewing the largest clinical trials of ICIs, we estimate the frequency of Haem-irAEs at 3.6% for all grades and 0.7% for grades III-IV. Frequency of Haem-irAEs of all grades was found to be higher with anti-programmed cell death 1 (4.1%) or anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (4.7%) than with anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (0.5%) (p < 0.0001). From the 63 cases with Haem-irAEs reported in the literature, the mean time to the onset was found to be 10 weeks after ICI initiation, and the large range for occurrence (1-84 weeks) and the regular incidence suggest that Haem-irAEs could occur at any time after ICI therapy. Among the 63 reported cases with Haem-irAEs, the distribution was immune thrombocytopenia (n = 18, 29%), pancytopenia or immune aplastic anaemia (n = 12, 19%), neutropenia (n = 11, 17%), haemolytic anaemia (n = 10, 16%), cytokine release syndrome with haemophagocytic syndrome (n = 7, 11%) and other Haem-irAEs including bicytopenia or pure red cell aplasia (n = 5, 8%). Haem-irAEs are generally highly severe adverse reactions with a mortality rate of Haem-irAEs reported to be 14% (9 deaths among the 63 cases reported). The more severe and life-threatening Haem-irAEs were both cytokine release syndrome with haemophagocytic syndrome and pancytopenia or aplastic anaemia. Haem-irAEs induced by ICIs are potentially life-threatening. By discussing their pathophysiological aspects and clinical picture, we propose in this review clinical guidelines for management.

Novel patterns of response under immunotherapy.

Novel patterns of response and progression to immunotherapy have been reported that are not observed with conventional cytotoxic or targeted anticancer treatments. A major breakthrough with immunotherapy is its potential to achieve durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced cancer that can be maintained several years even after stopping the treatment. No standardized definition of durable response exists in the literature, and the optimal duration of treatment in case of durable response is not clearly established. However, the majority of patients do not respond to immunotherapy. Initially reported in advanced melanoma patients, pseudoprogression occurs when tumor index lesions regress after initial progression, supporting the concept of treating some patients beyond progression. Overall, reported rates of pseudoprogression never exceeded 10%, meaning that the large majority of patients who have a disease progression will not eventually respond to treatment. The decision to pursue treatment beyond progression must therefore only be taken in carefully selected patients with clinical benefit, who did not experience severe toxicities with immunotherapy. Conversely, rapid progressions, called hyperprogressions, were reported by several teams with rates ranging from 4% to 29%. These observations need to be confirmed from randomized trials. It is essential to interrupt the treatment in patients with hyperprogression, in order to switch to another potentially active treatment. Finally, some patients experience dissociated responses, with some lesions shrinking and others growing. Local treatment with surgery or radiotherapy for growing lesions may be considered. Several immune-specific-related response criteria were developed to better capture benefits of immunotherapy. These criteria only address the pseudoprogression pattern of response, and do not capture the other patterns of response such as hyperprogression and dissociated response. The classic RECIST remains a reasonable and meaningful method to assess response to immunotherapy in the clinic.

Inflammatory gastrointestinal diseases associated with PD-1 blockade antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Immune check-point blockade agents have shown clinical activity in cancer patients but are associated with immune-related adverse events that could limit their development. The aim of this study was to describe the gastrointestinal immune-related adverse events (GI-irAE) in patients with cancer treated with anti-PD-1. METHODS: this is a retrospective study of consecutive adult patients who had a suspected GI-irAE due to anti-PD-1 antibodies between 2013 and 2016. Patients were recruited through a pharmacovigilance registry. Patients' data were reviewed by a multidisciplinary committee that included gastroenterologists, oncologists and a pathologist. Quantitative variables are described by median (range), qualitative variable by frequency (percentage). RESULTS: Forty-four patients were addressed to a Gastroenterology unit for a suspected GI-IrAE. Twenty patients had a confirmed GI-irAE related to anti-PD-1, which occurred 4.2 months (0.2; 22.1) after the initiation of anti-PD-1. GI-IrAE incidence rate under anti-PD-1 treatment was estimated to be 1.5%. Among patients with GI-IrAE, main symptoms were diarrhoea (n = 16, 80%), abdominal pain (n = 13, 65%), nausea and vomiting (n = 11, 55%), intestinal obstruction (n = 1, 5%), and haematochezia (n = 2, 10%). No patient had colectomy. Four distinct categories of GI-irAE were observed: acute colitis (n = 8, 40%), microscopic colitis (n = 7, 35%), upper gastrointestinal tract inflammation (n = 4, 20%) and pseudo-obstruction (n = 1, 5%). Response rates to corticosteroids were 87.5% (7/8) in acute colitis, 57% (4/7) in microscopic colitis and 75% (3/4) in upper gastrointestinal tract inflammation. Median time to resolution was 36 days (6-172) in acute colitis, and 98 days (42-226) in microscopic colitis. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that GI-irAE are different and less frequent with anti PD-1 than with anti CTLA-4.

Immune-related adverse events with immune checkpoint blockade: a comprehensive review.

Cancer immunotherapy is coming of age; it has prompted a paradigm shift in oncology, in which therapeutic agents are used to target immune cells rather than cancer cells. The first generation of new immunotherapies corresponds to antagonistic antibodies that block specific immune checkpoint molecules cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein (PD-1) and its ligand PD-L1. Targeting these checkpoints in patients living with cancer had led to long-lasting tumour responses. By unbalancing the immune system, these new immunotherapies also generate dysimmune toxicities, called immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) that mainly involve the gut, skin, endocrine glands, liver, and lung but can potentially affect any tissue. In view of their undisputed clinical efficacy, anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies are entering in the routine oncological practice, and the number of patients exposed to these drugs will increase dramatically in the near future. Although steroids can be used to treat these IRAEs, the associated immunosuppression may compromise the antitumour response. Oncologists must be ready to detect and manage these new types of adverse events. This review focuses on the mechanisms of IRAE generation, putative relationship between dysimmune toxicity and antitumour efficacy, as a basis for management guidelines.

Management of immune checkpoint blockade dysimmune toxicities: a collaborative position paper.

Monoclonal antibodies targeted against the immune checkpoint molecules CTLA-4 and PD-1 have recently obtained approval for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and advanced/refractory non small-cell lung cancers. Therefore, their use will not be limited anymore to selected hospitals involved in clinical trials. Indeed, they will be routinely prescribed in many cancer centers across the world. Besides their efficacy profile, these immune targeted agents also generate immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This new family of dysimmune toxicities remains largely unknown to the broad oncology community. Although severe irAEs remain rare (∼10% of cases under monotherapy), they can become life-threatening if not anticipated and managed appropriately. Over the last 5 years, Gustave Roussy has accumulated a significant experience in the prescription of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) antibodies and the management of their toxicities. Together with the collaboration of Gustave Roussy's network of organ specialists with expertise in irAEs, we propose here some practical guidelines for the oncologist to help in the clinical care of patients under ICB immunotherapy.