Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in immune checkpoint inhibitor-related encephalitis: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related encephalitis (ICI-encephalitis) is not well characterised and diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are lacking. We aimed to comprehensively characterise ICI-encephalitis and identify diagnostic biomarkers and outcome predictors. Methods: This retrospective observational study included all patients with ICI-encephalitis studied in the French Reference Centre on Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndromes (PNS) and Autoimmune Encephalitis (2015-2023). ICI encephalitis was considered definite in case of inflammatory findings at paraclinical tests and/or well-characterised neural antibodies. Predictors of immune-related adverse event (irAE) treatment response, defined as a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 grade < 3 at any time after therapeutic intervention, were assessed by logistic regression analysis, and predictors of mortality by Cox regression analysis. Neurofilament light chain (NfL) was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Findings: Sixty-seven patients with definite encephalitis were identified (median age, 69 years; 66% male). A focal syndrome was observed in 43/67 patients (64%; limbic encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia, and/or brainstem encephalitis), while 24/67 (36%) had meningoencephalitis, a non-focal syndrome with altered mental status (22/24 patients, 92%) and pleocytosis (24/24 patients, 100%). Patients with focal encephalitis more frequently had abnormal brain MRI (26/42, 62% versus 8/24, 33%, p = 0.025), PNS-related antibodies (36/43, 84% versus 1/24, 4%, p < 0.001), and neuroendocrine cancers (22/43, 51% versus 1/24, 4%; p < 0.001) than patients with meningoencephalitis. Focal encephalitis patients had a lower rate of irAE treatment response (7/39, 18%) and higher mortality (27/43, 63%) compared to meningoencephalitis patients (12/22, 77% and 5/24, 21%, respectively, p < 0.001 each). PNS-related antibodies were associated with less irAE treatment response, independently of age, sex, and baseline severity (adjusted OR 0.05; 95%CI [0.01; 0.19]; p < 0.001) as well as higher mortality, independently of age and cancer type (adjusted HR 5.07; 95% CI [2.12; 12.12]; p < 0.001). Serum NfL discriminated patients with definite ICI-encephalitis (n = 27) from cancer-matched controls (n = 16; optimal cut-off >273.5 pg/mL, sensitivity 81%, specificity 88%, AUC 0.87, 95% CI [0.76; 0.98]) and irAE treatment responders (n = 10) from non-responders (n = 17, optimal cut-off >645 pg/mL, sensitivity 90%, specificity 65%; AUC 0.75, 95% CI [0.55; 0.94]). Interpretation: ICI-encephalitis corresponds to a set of clinically-recognisable syndromes. Patients with focal encephalitis, PNS-related antibodies, and/or higher serum NfL have low irAE treatment response rates. Research is needed on the underlying immunopathogenesis to foster therapeutic innovations. Funding: Agence Nationale de la Recherche.

Evolving Practices in Immune-Related Adverse Event Management: Insights From the IMMUCARE Multidisciplinary Board.

PURPOSE: The management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requires multidisciplinary boards to handle complex cases. This study aimed to examine the evolving practices of the IMMUCARE board and to evaluate its impact on clinical practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IMMUCARE board gathers oncologists and organ specialists from the Cancerology Institute of the Lyon University Hospital since 2018. We conducted a retrospective analysis of its activity (participants' specialty, referred cases, and recommendations) from 2018 to 2021, coupled with a survey among the physicians who participated. RESULTS: Across 68 board meetings, 245 cases from 195 patients were discussed. Each board had a median of six participants (IQR, 5-8). Participation rates varied across specialties and also over time (participation of nephrologists and rheumatologists significantly increased over time, whereas it decreased for endocrinologists). Most of the referred patients (89%) were treated at our center. Only 4% of referrals concerned eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), whereas the majority pertained to irAEs. The board recommended ICI interruption for 56% and steroids for 41% of them. Immunosuppressants were recommended in 17% of cases, with a notable increase over time. ICI reintroduction was debated in 50% of cases, and the board identified a definitive contraindication in 26% of them. The survey of 49 of 98 physicians showed that the board significantly affected immunosuppressant introduction and ICI rechallenge decisions. The board's educational and collaborative benefits were highlighted, but time constraints posed challenges. CONCLUSION: Our 4-year analysis of irAE management practices reveals changing patterns in the distribution of cases presented and in specialists' involvement. Dedicated multidisciplinary boards remain essential, particularly for intricate cases. Expanding access to these boards is crucial to ensure comprehensive care for all patients.

Intra-individual Dose Escalation of Abiraterone According to Its Plasma Exposure in Patients with Progressive Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Results of the OPTIMABI Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Trough abiraterone concentration (ABI Cmin) of 8.4 ng/mL has been identified as an appropriate efficacy threshold in patients treated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of the phase II OPTIMABI study was to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacokinetics (PK)-guided dose escalation of abiraterone acetate (AA) in underexposed patients with mCRPC with early tumour progression. METHODS: This multicentre, non-randomised study consisted of two sequential steps. In step 1, all patients started treatment with 1000 mg of AA once daily. Abiraterone Cmin was measured 22-26 h after the last dose intake each month during the first 12 weeks of treatment. In step 2, underexposed patients (Cmin < 8.4 ng/mL) with tumour progression within the first 6 months of treatment were enrolled and received AA 1000 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was the rate of non-progression at 12 weeks after the dose doubling. During step 1, adherence to ABI treatment was assessed using the Girerd self-reported questionnaire. A post-hoc analysis of pharmacokinetic (PK) data was conducted using Bayesian estimation of Cmin from samples collected outside the sampling guidelines (22-26 h). RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis (ITT), 81 patients were included in step 1. In all, 21 (26%) patients were underexposed in step 1, and 8 of them (38%) experienced tumour progression within the first 6 months. A total of 71 patients (88%) completed the Girerd self-reported questionnaire. Of the patients, 62% had a score of 0, and 38% had a score of 1 or 2 (minimal compliance failure), without a significant difference in mean ABI Cmin in the two groups. Four patients were enrolled in step 2, and all reached the exposure target (Cmin > 8.4 ng/mL) after doubling the dose, but none met the primary endpoint. In the post-hoc analysis of PK data, 32 patients (39%) were underexposed, and ABI Cmin was independently associated with worse progression-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-5.81; p = 0.03], in contrast to the ITT analysis. CONCLUSION: The ITT and per-protocol analyses showed no statistical association between ABI underexposure and an increased risk of early tumour progression in patients with mCRPC, while the Bayesian estimator showed an association. However, other strategies than dose escalation at the time of progression need to be evaluated. Treatment adherence appeared to be uniformly good in the present study. Finally, the use of a Bayesian approach to recover samples collected outside the predefined blood collection time window could benefit the conduct of clinical trials based on drug monitoring. OPTIMABI trial is registered as National Clinical Trial number NCT03458247, with the EudraCT number 2017-000560-15).

Multidisciplinary real-world management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A French national study (PROFILE study).

While androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), recent strategies like intensification of systemic treatment (Rozet et al., 2020) (i.e. adding another treatment to ADT) and radiotherapy have improved overall survival. PROFILE, a national retrospective multicentric real-world study, involved patients with mCSPC recruited by medical oncologists, urologists, and radiation oncologists, and who started treatment between November 2020 and May 2021. Patients by sites were included consecutively. Data were collected from medical records. Primary objectives were to: (1) describe retrospectively the characteristics of whole population of patients with mCSPC as well as subgroups defined by prognostic factors in France at diagnosis; (2) identify current practices for managing mCSPC in a real-life clinical setting. Among the 416 patients with mCSPC included in the PROFILE study, 315 (76%) were synchronous (metastasis at the initial diagnosis) and 101 (24%) were metachronous patients (metastasis diagnosed post-progression). A majority (83% of synchronous and 73% of metachronous patients) received an intensified systemic treatment (ADT plus ARSI [androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors]±chemotherapy±primary tumour radiotherapy±metastasis-directed therapy [MDT]), while only 40% of low-volume patients received prostate radiotherapy. This study depicts the standardization of new therapeutic strategies for patients with mCSPC in France with most of them receiving an intensified treatment, mainly with ADT+ARSI (64% of synchronous intensified patients and 76% of metachronous intensified patients). Most of patients were assessed using conventional imaging (CT scan and/or bone scan). Overall, PROFILE results are in line with French and European guidelines for diagnosis, management, and follow-up of such patients (Rozet et al., 2020; Cornford et al., 2021).

Immunogenicity of radiotherapy on bone metastases from prostate adenocarcinoma: What is the future for the combination with radiotherapy/immunotherapy?

Bone metastatic prostate cancers (PCa) are resistant to usual immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitors. The main hypothesis related to this immunoresistance is the lack of antigens to stimulate anti-tumor immunity. External radiation is a potential inducer antigens presentation and thus to immunotherapy proprieties. The aim of this review is to describe the tumor microenvironment specificities, especially in bone metastasis and the immune modifications after radiation therapy on a metastatic castration-resistant PCa population. PCa microenvironment is immunosuppressive because of many tumor factors. The complex interplay between PCa cells and bone microenvironment leads to a 'vicious circle' promoting bone metastasis. Furthermore, the immune and bone systems, are connected through an osteoclastogenic cytokine: the Receptor Activator Nuclear Factor Kappa B ligand. Adapted doses of ionizing radiation play a dual role on the tumor. Indeed, radiotherapy leads to immunogenicity by inducing damage associated with molecular patterns. However, it also induces an immunosuppressive effect by increasing the number of immunosuppressive cells. Interestingly, the abscopal effect could be used to optimize immunotherapy potential, especially on bone metastasis. Radiotherapy and immunotherapy combination is a promising strategy, however further studies are necessary to determine the more efficient types of radiation and to control the abscopal effect.

Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

Prognostic Value of the Modeled Prostate-Specific Antigen KELIM Confirmation in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Taxanes in FIRSTANA.

PURPOSE: In a previous exploratory study, modeled early longitudinal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics observed within the 100-first treatment days with androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with prostate cancer with rising PSA levels after primary local therapy. This prognostic value had to be confirmed in different settings. The objectives were to assess PSA kinetics modeling in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with chemotherapy in FIRSTANA trial and to investigate modeled PSA kinetic parameters prognostic/predictive value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FIRSTANA phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel is superior to docetaxel in terms of PFS/OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. PSA longitudinal kinetics was assessed using the previous kinetic-pharmacodynamics model. Patient modeled ELIMination rate constant K (PSA.KELIM) was used to categorize favorable/unfavorable PSA declines (standardized PSA.KELIM < or ≥ 1.0 days-1) and further correlated with PFS/OS. RESULTS: In total, 1,050 of 1,168 enrolled patients were assessable for PSA.KELIM estimation. The median PSA.KELIM was 0.02 days-1. In univariate analyses, PSA.KELIM exhibited a significant prognostic value regarding survival: unfavorable versus favorable PSA.KELIM; median PFS, 3.6 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.2) versus 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.2), P = .002; median OS, 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 19.3) versus 28.4 months (95% CI, 26.7 to 31.6), P < .001. In multivariate analyses, PSA.KELIM was significant for PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.93], P = .005) and OS (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.60], P < .001), together with baseline radiological tumor progression and PSA doubling time. PSA.KELIM predictive value was not significant across treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This external validation study confirmed previous results about modeled PSA longitudinal kinetics prognostic value regarding PFS/OS in patients with mCRPC treated with taxanes. PSA.KELIM could be used to identify a subpopulation with poor prognosis, who may benefit from treatment intensification.