Pembrolizumab-induced agranulocytosis.

INTRODUCTION: With the widespread use of anti-programmed death-1 monoclonal antibodies, such as pembrolizumab, rare side effects appear in clinical practice. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a man diagnosed with non-keratinizing squamous lung carcinoma stage IVB with programmed death-ligand 1 70% who developed agranulocytosis 10 days after a single dose of pembrolizumab as monotherapy. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Pembrolizumab was discontinued immediately. Grade 4 neutrophil decrease is mentioned in the product information sheet as a rare side effect. The patient was admitted in poor physical condition with grade 4 neutropenic fever, mucositis and anemia. Agranulocytosis did not improve despite treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, intravenous corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulins. He experienced a rapid worsening and died 3 weeks after admission. The causal relationship between pembrolizumab and the appearance of agranulocytosis was determined as possible according to Naranjo's modified Karch and Lasagna's imputability algorithm. DISCUSSION: Hematologic immune-related adverse events are uncommon but important side effects among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Agranulocytosis and neutropenia are infrequently reported but can be life-threatening. The main approach for agranulocytosis consists of intravenous corticosteroids, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors and blood products. Depending on bone marrow characteristics, treatments for refractory patients include intravenous immunoglobulins or cyclosporine. After an immune-related adverse event, benefits and risks must be considered before continuation with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Detection and communication of adverse drug reactions to the Pharmacovigilance Systems have special relevance for rare side effects.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced upper and lower tract urothelial carcinoma: a comparison of outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes between patients with locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (aUC) in the upper and lower urinary tract receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment, and outcome data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs from 2013 to 2020 across 24 institutions. We compared the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients with upper and lower tract UC (UTUC, LTUC). Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression were used to assess the effect of UTUC on ORR, OS, and PFS. Subgroup analyses were performed stratified based on histology (pure, mixed) and line of treatment (first line, subsequent line). RESULTS: Out of a total of 746 eligible patients, 707, 717, and 738 were included in the ORR, OS, and PFS analyses, respectively. Our results did not contradict the hypothesis that patients with UTUC and LTUC had similar ORRs (24% vs 28%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-1.24), OS (median 9.8 vs 9.6 months; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.73-1.19), and PFS (median 4.3 vs 4.1 months; aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). Patients with mixed-histology UTUC had a significantly lower ORR and shorter PFS vs mixed-histology LTUC (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05-0.91 and aHR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.59), respectively). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients with UTUC and LTUC receiving ICIs have comparable treatment response and outcomes. Subgroup analyses based on histology showed that those with mixed-histology UTUC had a lower ORR and shorter PFS compared to mixed-histology LTUC. Further studies and evaluation of molecular biomarkers can help refine patient selection for immunotherapy.

Impact of performance status on treatment outcomes: A real-world study of advanced urothelial cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent an appealing treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) and a poor performance status (PS). However, the benefit of ICIs for patients with a poor PS remains unknown. It was hypothesized that a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS (≥2 vs 0-1) would correlate with shorter overall survival (OS) in patients receiving ICIs. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcome data were collected for patients with aUC who were treated with ICIs at 18 institutions (2013-2019). The overall response rate (ORR) and OS were compared for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 to 1 and patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2 at ICI initiation. The association between a new ICI in the last 30 and 90 days of life (DOL) and death location was also tested. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients treated with ICIs, 395 and 384 were included in OS and ORR analyses, respectively, with 26% and 24% having a PS ≥ 2. OS was higher in those with a PS of 0 to 1 than those with a PS ≥ 2 who were treated in the first line (median, 15.2 vs 7.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .01) but not in subsequent lines (median, 9.8 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.78; P = .27). ORRs were similar for patients with a PS of 0 to 1 and patients with a PS ≥ 2 in both lines. Of the 288 patients who died, 10% and 32% started ICIs in the last 30 and 90 DOL, respectively. ICI initiation in the last 30 DOL was associated with increased odds of death in a hospital (odds ratio, 2.89; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable ORRs, ICIs may not overcome the negative prognostic role of a poor PS, particularly in the first-line setting, and the initiation of ICIs in the last 30 DOL was associated with hospital death location.

Histological Subtypes and Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade in Advanced Urothelial Cancer: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: Urinary tract cancer can be pure urothelial carcinoma, pure nonurothelial carcinoma or variant urothelial carcinoma (defined here as mixed urothelial carcinoma). Little is known regarding outcomes for patients with variant urothelial carcinoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We hypothesized that variant urothelial carcinoma does not compromise immune checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study across 18 institutions. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data were collected for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who received immune checkpoint inhibitors. Patients were divided into pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma subgroups, with variant urothelial carcinoma further divided by type of variant (ie squamous, neuroendocrine etc). We compared overall response rate using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and progression-free survival and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: Overall 519 patients were identified, with 395, 406 and 403 included in overall response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival analyses, respectively. Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors between patients with pure vs variant urothelial carcinoma was comparable (28% vs 29%, p=0.90) without significant differences for individual subtypes vs pure urothelial carcinoma. Median overall survival for patients with pure urothelial carcinoma was 11.0 months vs 10.1 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.60), but only 4.6 months for patients with neuroendocrine features (9 patients, HR 2.75, 95% CI 1.40-5.40 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.003). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for pure vs 5.2 months for variant urothelial carcinoma (p=0.43) and 3.7 months for neuroendocrine features (HR 1.87, 95% CI 0.92-3.79 vs pure urothelial carcinoma, p=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Overall response rate to immune checkpoint inhibitors was comparable across histological types. However, overall survival was worse for patients with tumors containing neuroendocrine features. Variant urothelial carcinoma should not exclude patients from receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

A New Prognostic Model in Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Treated with First-line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved in the first-line (1L) setting for cisplatin-unfit patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high tumors or for platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin)-unfit patients, response rates remain modest and outcomes vary with no clinically useful biomarkers (except for PD-L1). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) in patients receiving 1L ICIs for advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) in a multicenter cohort study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients treated with 1L ICIs for aUC across 24 institutions and five countries (in the USA and Europe) outside clinical trials were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used a stepwise, hypothesis-driven approach using clinician-selected covariates to develop a new risk score for patients receiving ICIs in the 1L setting. Demographics, clinicopathologic data, treatment patterns, and OS were collected uniformly. Univariate Cox regression was performed on 18 covariates hypothesized to be associated with OS based on published data. Variables were retained for multivariate analysis (MVA) if they correlated with OS (p < 0.2) and were included in the final model if p < 0.05 on MVA. Retained covariates were assigned points based on the beta coefficient to create a risk score. Stratified median OS and C-statistic were calculated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 984 patients, 357 with a mean age of 71 yr were included in the analysis, 27% were female, 68% had pure UC, and 13% had upper tract UC. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases were significant prognostic factors on MVA and were included in the risk score. C index for new 1L risk score was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.71). Limitations include retrospective nature and lack of external validation. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a new 1L ICI risk score for OS based on data from patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the USA and Europe outside of clinical trials. The score components highlight readily available factors related to tumor biology and treatment response. External validation is being pursued. PATIENT SUMMARY: With multiple new treatments under development and approved for advanced urothelial carcinoma, it can be difficult to identify the best treatment sequence for each patient. The risk score may help inform treatment discussions and estimate outcomes in patients treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors, while it can also impact clinical trial design and endpoints. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A new risk score was developed for advanced urothelial carcinoma treated with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors. The score assigned Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, albumin <3.5 g/dl, neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio >5, and liver metastases each one point, with a higher score being associated with worse overall survival.