Stem cell transplantation for systemic sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic inflammation, fibrosis, vascular injury, reduced quality of life, and limited treatment options. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) has emerged as a potential intervention for severe SSc refractory to conventional treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for the treatment of systemic sclerosis (specifically, non-selective myeloablative HSCT versus cyclophosphamide; selective myeloablative HSCT versus cyclophosphamide; non-selective non-myeloablative HSCT versus cyclophosphamide). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries from database insertion to 4 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared HSCT to immunomodulators in the treatment of SSc. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence using standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs evaluating: non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT (10 participants), non-myeloablative selective HSCT (79 participants), and myeloablative selective HSCT (36 participants). The comparator in all studies was cyclophosphamide (123 participants). The study examining non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT had a high risk of bias given the differences in baseline characteristics between the two arms. The other studies had a high risk of detection bias for participant-reported outcomes. The studies had follow-up periods of one to 4.5 years. Most participants had severe disease, mean age 40 years, and the duration of disease was less than three years. Efficacy No study demonstrated an overall mortality benefit of HSCT when compared to cyclophosphamide. However, non-myeloablative selective HSCT showed overall survival benefits using Kaplan-Meier curves at 10 years and myeloablative selective HSCT at six years. We graded our certainty of evidence as moderate for non-myeloablative selective HSCT and myeloablative selective HSCT. Certainty of evidence was low for non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT. Event-free survival was improved compared to cyclophosphamide with non-myeloablative selective HSCT at 48 months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.74; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no improvement with myeloablative selective HSCT at 54 months (HR 0.54 95% CI 0.23 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence). The non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT trial did not report event-free survival. There was improvement in functional ability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI, scale from 0 to 3 with 3 being very severe functional impairment) with non-myeloablative selective HSCT after two years with a mean difference (MD) of -0.39 (95% CI -0.72 to -0.06; absolute treatment benefit (ATB) -13%, 95% CI -24% to -2%; relative percent change (RPC) -27%, 95% CI -50% to -4%; low-certainty evidence). Myeloablative selective HSCT demonstrated a risk ratio (RR) for improvement of 3.4 at 54 months (95% CI 1.5 to 7.6; ATB -37%, 95% CI -18% to -57%; RPC -243%, 95% CI -54% to -662%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 9; low-certainty evidence). The non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT trial did not report HAQ-DI results. All transplant modalities showed improvement of modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) (scale from 0 to 51 with the higher number being more severe skin thickness) favoring HSCT over cyclophosphamide. At two years, non-myeloablative selective HSCT showed an MD in mRSS of -11.1 (95% CI -14.9 to -7.3; ATB -22%, 95% CI -29% to -14%; RPC -43%, 95% CI -58% to -28%; moderate-certainty evidence). At 54 months, myeloablative selective HSCT at showed a greater improvement in skin scores than the cyclophosphamide group (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.13; ATB -27%, 95% CI -6% to -47%; RPC -51%, 95% CI -6% to -113%; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNTB was 4 (95% CI 3 to 18). At one year, for non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT the MD was -16.00 (95% CI -26.5 to -5.5; ATB -31%, 95% CI -52% to -11%; RPC -84%, 95% CI -139% to -29%; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on pulmonary arterial hypertension. Adverse events In the non-myeloablative selective HSCT study, there were 51/79 serious adverse events with HSCT and 30/77 with cyclophosphamide (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.3), with an absolute risk increase of 26% (95% CI 10% to 41%), and a relative percent increase of 66% (95% CI 20% to 129%). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 4 (95% CI 3 to 11) (moderate-certainty evidence). In the myeloablative selective HSCT study, there were similar rates of serious adverse events between groups (25/34 with HSCT and 19/37 with cyclophosphamide; RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.08; moderate-certainty evidence). The non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT trial did not clearly report serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Non-myeloablative selective and myeloablative selective HSCT had moderate-certainty evidence for improvement in event-free survival, and skin thicknesscompared to cyclophosphamide. There is also low-certainty evidence that these modalities of HSCT improve physical function. However, non-myeloablative selective HSCT and myeloablative selective HSCT resulted in more serious adverse events than cyclophosphamide; highlighting the need for careful risk-benefit considerations for people considering these HSCTs. Evidence for the efficacy and adverse effects of non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT is limited at this time. Due to evidence provided from one study with high risk of bias, we have low-certainty evidence that non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT improves outcomes in skin scores, forced vital capacity, and safety. Two modalities of HSCT appeared to be a promising treatment option for SSc though there is a high risk of early treatment-related mortality and other adverse events. Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness and adverse effects of non-myeloablative non-selective HSCT in the treatment of SSc. Also, more studies will be needed to determine how HSCT compares to other treatment options such as mycophenolate mofetil, as cyclophosphamide is no longer the first-line treatment for SSc. Finally, there is a need for a greater understanding of the role of HSCT for people with SSc with significant comorbidities or complications from SSc that were excluded from the trial criteria.

Preferred Strategies for Delivering Health Information to Patients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' information needs may differ from what their care providers may perceive to be the patients' needs. This discordance needs to be recognized and addressed. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a qualitative study to explore the perceptions of patients with selected musculoskeletal disorders and those of rheumatologists, on their preferred strategies for delivery of disease management information. METHODS: Fifty-two patients diagnosed with either rheumatoid arthritis, knee osteoarthritis, or osteoporosis took part in 6 focus groups and 18 individual semistructured interviews. In addition, 11 rheumatologists participated in 2 focus groups and 4 semistructured individual interviews. Data were explored by thematic content analysis. Perceived preferences were identified and compared between patients and rheumatologists regarding (a) media, (b) setting, (c) messengers, and (d) key message content. RESULTS: Patients' preferred media for disease management information were electronic (television and videos delivered as digital optical discs or the Internet), group instruction, and printed material. Patients preferred the information to be delivered in the setting of their homes, doctor's offices, or clinic waiting areas by the rheumatologists and patients with disease experience, addressing healthy lifestyle changes, medication adherence, and consequences of noncompliance. For rheumatologists, the perceived preference for information delivery was through printed material (brochures, booklets, and pamphlets) delivered in waiting areas by nurses and physicians, addressing nature of the disease, complications, and treatment adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Provider perspectives on strategies for education may differ from those of patients. Our findings highlight the need for considering different stakeholder perspectives in designing educational tools and decision support materials for patients with chronic diseases. TAKEHOME MESSAGE: Rheumatologists' preferences on strategies for education (mode of delivery, delivery setting, messengers, and topics) differ from those of patients. For example, patients want to learn about lifestyle changes and consequences of compliance versus noncompliance, whereas rheumatologists considered more important for patients to understand their disease, treatment adverse effects, and consequences of noncompliance.

Genetic determinants of immune-related adverse events in patients with melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause profound immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The host genetic background is likely to play a role in irAE susceptibility because the presentation of toxicity varies among patients and many do not develop irAEs despite continued ICI use. We sought to identify potential genetic markers conferring risk for irAEs. METHODS: We conducted a pilot exploratory study in 89 melanoma patients who received ICIs (44 with irAEs, and 45 without irAEs after at least 1 year from starting treatment). Genotyping was performed using the Infinium Multi-Ethnic Global-8 v1.0 Bead Chip. The genotype data were extracted using PLINK (v1.90b3.34) and processed for quality control. Population structure-based clustering was carried out using IBS matrix, pairwise population concordance test (p < 1 × 10-3), and phenotype distribution for all study participants, resulting in seven population structure-based clusters. In the analytical stage, 599,931 variants in autosomal chromosomes were included for the association study. The association test was performed using an additive genetic model with exact logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, and population cluster. RESULTS: A total of 30 variants or single-nucleotide polymorphisms with p < 1 × 10-4 were identified; 12 were associated with an increased risk of irAEs, and the remaining 18 were associated with a decreased risk. Overall, nine of the identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms mapped to eight unique genes that have been associated with autoimmunity or inflammatory diseases. CONCLUSION: Several genetic variants associated with irAEs were identified. Additional larger studies are needed to validate these findings and establish their potential functional relevance.

Strategies to identify hepatitis C virus infection in patients receiving anticancer therapy: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening strategies for cancer patients have not been established. We compared the performance of selective HCV screening strategies. METHODS: We surveyed patients presenting for first systemic anticancer therapy during 2013-2014 for HCV risk factors. We estimated the prevalence of positivity for HCV antibody (anti-HCV) and examined factors associated with anti-HCV status using Fisher's exact test or Student's t test. Sensitivity was calculated for screening patients born during 1945-1965, patients with ≥ 1 other risk factor, or both cohorts ("combined screening"). RESULTS: We enrolled 2122 participants. Median age was 59 years (range, 18-91); 1138 participants were women. Race/ethnicity distribution was white non-Hispanic, 76% (n = 1616); Hispanic, 11% (n = 233); black non-Hispanic, 8% (n = 160); Asian, 4% (n = 78); and other, 2% (n = 35). Primary cancer distribution was non-liver solid tumor, 78% (n = 1664); hematologic cancer, 20% (n = 422); and liver cancer, 1% (n = 28). Prevalence of anti-HCV was 1.93% (95% CI, 1.39%-2.61%). Over 28% of patients with detectable HCV RNA were unaware of infection. Factors significantly associated with anti-HCV positivity included less than a bachelor's degree, birth in 1945-1965, chronic liver disease, injection drug use, and blood transfusion or organ transplant before 1992. A total of 1315 participants (62%), including 39 of 41 with anti-HCV, reported ≥ 1 risk factor. Sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 65-91%) for birth-cohort-based, 68% (95% CI, 52-82%) for other-risk-factor-based, and 95% (95% 83-99%) for combined screening. CONCLUSION: Combined screening still missed 5% of patients with anti-HCV. These findings favor universal HCV screening to identify all HCV-infected cancer patients.

Survival in older women with early stage breast cancer receiving low-dose bisphosphonates or denosumab.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and denosumab, as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer, have been associated in some studies with improved cancer outcomes. The potential benefits of these drugs used at the lower doses commonly given for osteoporosis have not been established. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between therapy with bone-modifying agents (BMAs) and survival in older women with early breast cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≥66 years with breast cancer who were included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Texas Cancer Registry Medicare-linked databases. Associations were examined between the receipt of BMAs at dosages indicated for osteoporosis within 2 years after diagnosis and overall and breast cancer-specific survival. Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score adjustment and matching were used for the analyses. RESULTS: Of the 37,724 women included, 7925 (21%) received at least 6 months of a BMA within the first 2 years of breast cancer diagnosis, including bisphosphonates only in 6898 women (80.7%), denosumab only in 1204 (15.2%), and both classes of BMAs in 323 (4.1%). The median follow-up was 64 months. The receipt of a bisphosphonate was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.93) and breast cancer-specific survival (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92) after multivariable adjustment. Benefits were primarily seen for patients who had stage II and III disease. No benefits were observed with denosumab (stage II: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.90-1.22]; stage III: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.66-1.82]). CONCLUSIONS: Bisphosphonates at the doses recommended for osteoporosis are associated with improved survival in older postmenopausal women with early breast cancer.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) 2020 clinical practice recommendations for the management of immune-related adverse events: pulmonary toxicity.

The immune checkpoints associated with the CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways are critical modulators of immune activation. These pathways dampen the immune response by providing brakes on activated T cells, thereby ensuring more uniform and controlled immune reactions and avoiding immune hyper-responsiveness and autoimmunity. Cancer cells often exploit these regulatory controls through a variety of immune subversion mechanisms, which facilitate immune escape and tumor survival. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) effectively block negative regulatory signals, thereby augmenting immune attack and tumor killing. This process is a double-edged sword in which release of regulatory controls is felt to be responsible for both the therapeutic efficacy of ICI therapy and the driver of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs). These adverse immune reactions are common, typically low-grade and may affect virtually every organ system. In the early clinical trials, lung IrAEs were rarely described. However, with ever-expanding clinical applications and more complex ICI-containing regimens, lung events, in particular, pneumonitis, have become increasingly recognized. ICI-related lung injury is clinically distinct from other types of lung toxicity and may lead to death in advanced stage disease. Thus, knowledge regarding the key characteristics and optimal treatment of lung-IrAEs is critical to good outcomes. This review provides an overview of lung-IrAEs, including risk factors and epidemiology, as well as clinical, radiologic, and histopathologic features of ICI-related lung injury. Management principles for ICI-related lung injury, including current consensus on steroid refractory pneumonitis and the use of other immune modulating agents in this setting are also highlighted.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) 2020 clinical practice recommendations for the management of immune-mediated cardiovascular, rheumatic, and renal toxicities from checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as the newest pillar of cancer treatment. Immune-mediated toxicities, stemming from increased activity within the T cell lineage, range from asymptomatic or mild complications to those that are fulminant and potentially fatal. Although they are of variable occurrence, cardiovascular, rheumatic, and renal immune-mediated toxicities are among the most serious of these adverse events. We present MASCC recommendations with respect to the workup and management of cardiovascular, rheumatic, and renal immune-mediated toxicities with a focus on presentations that require treatment with immunomodulating agents.

Individualized decision aid for diverse women with lupus nephritis (IDEA-WON): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making regarding immunosuppressive therapy is challenging for individuals with lupus. We assessed the effectiveness of a decision aid for immunosuppressive therapy in lupus nephritis. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a United States multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT), adult women with lupus nephritis, mostly from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient settings, were randomized to an individualized, culturally tailored, computerized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using computer-generated randomization. We hypothesized that the co-primary outcomes of decisional conflict and informed choice regarding immunosuppressive medications would improve more in the decision aid group. Of 301 randomized women, 298 were analyzed; 47% were African-American, 26% Hispanic, and 15% white. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 37 (12) years, 57% had annual income of <$40,000, and 36% had a high school education or less. Compared with the provision of the ACR lupus pamphlet (n = 147), participants randomized to the decision aid (n = 151) had (1) a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.005) and (2) no difference in informed choice in the main analysis, 41% versus 31% (p = 0.08), but clinically meaningful and statistically significant difference in sensitivity analysis (net values for immunosuppressives positive [in favor] versus negative [against]), 50% versus 35% (p = 0.006). Unresolved decisional conflict was lower in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups, 22% versus 44% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in the decision aid versus pamphlet group rated information to be excellent for understanding lupus nephritis (49% versus 33%), risk factors (43% versus 27%), medication options (50% versus 33%; p ≤ 0.003 for all); and the ease of use of materials was higher in the decision aid versus pamphlet groups (51% versus 38%; p = 0.006). Key study limitations were the exclusion of men, short follow-up, and the lack of clinical outcomes, including medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized decision aid was more effective than usual care in reducing decisional conflict for choice of immunosuppressive medications in women with lupus nephritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02319525.

Arthritis risk with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the current evidence on inflammatory arthritis following cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and the effects of these therapies in patients with preexisting autoimmune arthritis. RECENT FINDINGS: As the use of ICI for cancer therapy continues to expand, a myriad of immune-related adverse events (irAE) caused by these therapies are being recognized. Arthritis has been increasingly reported as a de novo irAE, presenting sometimes as a well defined disorder, such as rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, and in other occasions as undifferentiated monoarthritis, oligoarthritis, or polyarthritis. Remitting seronegative symmetric synovitis with pitting edema (RS3PE) and tenosynovitis have also been reported. Most published cases are reported as mild to moderate in severity. The most common treatment for arthritis has been systemic corticosteroids, although several patients have been treated with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), and a few, with biologic DMARD. SUMMARY: Arthritis following ICI therapy is pleomorphic. Prompt identification and treatment are imperative to achieve optimal outcomes. Management should be multidisciplinary, including rheumatologists and oncologists, to ensure prompt symptomatic and functional management and continuation of cancer therapy as appropriate.

Frequency and distribution of various rheumatic disorders associated with checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have advanced the treatment paradigm of various cancers, achieving remarkable survival benefits. However, a myriad of immune-related adverse events (irAE) has been recognized in almost every organ system, presumably because of persistent immune system activation. Rheumatic symptoms such as arthralgia or myalgia are very common. More specific irAE are increasingly being reported. The most frequent ones are inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia-like syndromes, myositis and sicca manifestations. These rheumatic irAE can develop in ∼5-10% of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, although true incidence rates cannot be estimated given the lack of prospective cohort studies, and likely underreporting of rheumatic irAE in oncology trials. In this review, we will provide a summary of the epidemiologic data reported for these rheumatic irAE, until more robust prospective longitudinal studies become available to further define the true incidence rate of rheumatic irAE in patients receiving these novel cancer therapies.

Sicca/Sjögren's syndrome triggered by PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. Data from the International ImmunoCancer Registry (ICIR).

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the worldwide occurrence of sicca/Sjögren's (SS) syndrome associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with cancer. METHODS: The ImmunoCancer International Registry (ICIR) is a Big Data-Sharing multidisciplinary network composed by 40 specialists in Rheumatology, Internal Medicine, Immunology and Oncology from 18 countries focused on the clinical and basic research of the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) related to cancer immunotherapies. For this study, patients who were investigated for a clinical suspicion of SS after being exposed to ICI were included. RESULTS: We identified 26 patients (11 women and 15 men, with a mean age at diagnosis of 63.57 years). Underlying cancer included lung (n=12), renal (n=7), melanoma (n=4), and other (n=3) neoplasia. Cancer immunotherapies consisted of monotherapy (77%) and combined regimens (23%). In those patients receiving monotherapy, all patients were treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (nivolumab in 9, pembrolizumab in 7 and durvalumab in 4); no cases associated with CTLA-4 inhibitors were identified. The main SS-related features consisted of dry mouth in 25 (96%) patients, dry eye in 17 (65%), abnormal ocular tests in 10/16 (62%) and abnormal oral diagnostic tests in 12/14 (86%) patients. Minor salivary gland biopsy was carried out in 15 patients: histopathological findings consisted of mild chronic sialadenitis in 8 (53%) patients and focal lymphocytic sialadenitis in the remaining 7 (47%); a focus score was measured in 5 of the 6 patients (mean of 1.8, range 1-4). Immunological markers included positive ANA in 13/25 (52%), anti-Ro/ SS-A in 5/25 (20%), RF in 2/22 (9%), anti-La/SS-B in 2/25 (8%), low C3/C4 levels in 1/17 (6%) and positive cryoglobulins in 1/10 (10%). Classification criteria for SS were fulfilled by 10 (62%) out of 16 patients in whom the two key classificatory features were carried out. Among the 26 patients, there were only 3 (11%) who presented exclusively with sicca syndrome without organ-specific autoimmune manifestations. Therapeutic management included measures directed to treat sicca symptoms and therapies against autoimmune-mediated manifestations (glucocorticoids in 42%, second/third-line therapies in 31%); therapeutic response for systemic features was observed in 8/11 (73%). No patient died due to autoimmune involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Sjögren's syndrome triggered by ICI display a very specific profile different from that reported in idiopathic primary SS, including more frequent occurrence in men, a higher mean age, a predominant immunonegative serological profile, and a notable development of organ-specific autoimmune involvement in spite of the poor immunological profile. The close association found between sicca/Sjögren's syndrome and primarily PD-1 blockade requires further specific investigation.

Use of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients With Cancer and Preexisting Autoimmune Disease: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cancer immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) is associated with frequent immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and is often not recommended for patients with concomitant autoimmune disease. Purpose: To summarize the evidence on adverse events associated with CPIs in patients with cancer and preexisting autoimmune disease. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed ePubs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through September 2017 with no language restrictions. Study Selection: Original case reports, case series, and observational studies describing patients with cancer and autoimmune disease who were receiving CPIs. Data Extraction: 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality of reporting. Data Synthesis: 123 patients in 49 publications were identified; 92 (75%) had exacerbation of preexisting autoimmune disease, irAEs, or both. No differences in adverse events were observed in patients with active versus inactive disease. Patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy at initiation of CPI therapy seemed to have fewer adverse events than those not receiving treatment. Most flares and irAEs were managed with corticosteroids; 16% required other immunosuppressive therapies. Adverse events improved in more than half of patients without discontinuation of CPI therapy. Three patients died of adverse events. Limitations: The quality and quantity of data were limited. Case reports typically describe unique manifestations and are not generalizable to the population at large. Because there were no prospective observational studies, incidence could not be determined. Conclusion: Flares and irAEs in patients with autoimmune disease who are receiving CPIs can often be managed without discontinuing therapy, although some events may be severe and fatal. Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to establish incidence of adverse events and evaluate risk-benefit ratios and patient preferences in this population. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

Low Rate of Cervical Cancer Screening among Women with Hematologic Malignancies after Stem Cell Transplant.

Annual cervical cancer screening with Papanicolaou (Pap) and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing after stem cell transplant (SCT) is recommended, but the uptake is unknown. We aimed to determine the prevalence and predictors of cervical cancer screening in patients with hematologic malignancies. We searched MarketScan Commercial Claims database for women who underwent allogeneic or autologous SCT. The primary outcome was cervical cancer screening, defined as procedures or abnormal results for HPV and/or Pap testing according administrative codes within 2 years after SCT. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted with cancer type, SCT year, age, geographic area, insurance plan, comorbidity, and presence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).The study included 1484 patients; 1048 patients (70.6%) had autologous and 436 (29.4%) allogeneic SCT. Mean age was 52.5 years. Overall, 660 patients (44.5%) had screening within 2 years after SCT, 214 (49.1%) with allogeneic SCT and 446 (42.6%) with autologous SCT (P = .02). In the allogeneic SCT group, patients with GVHD had a lower rate of screening than patients without GVHD (42.5% versus 55.4%, P < .01), and GVHD was associated with lower odds of screening (odds ratio, .50; 95% confidence interval, .32 to .79). In the autologous SCT group, patients with comorbid medical conditions had a lower rate of screening than patients without comorbidity (36.0% versus 45.7%, P < .01). In both allogeneic and autologous SCT groups older patients had lower odds of screening. Cervical cancer screening rates after SCT are low, particularly in patients with GVHD, who are at significant risk of second malignancies. Future work is needed to develop strategies to increase uptake.

Radiomics to predict immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis: proof of concept.

We present the first reported work that explores the potential of radiomics to predict patients who are at risk for developing immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis. Despite promising results with immunotherapies, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are challenging. Although less common, pneumonitis is a potentially fatal irAE. Thus, early detection is critical for improving treatment outcomes; an urgent need to identify biomarkers that predict patients at risk for pneumonitis exists. Radiomics, an emerging field, is the automated extraction of high fidelity, high-dimensional imaging features from standard medical images and allows for comprehensive visualization and characterization of the tissue of interest and corresponding microenvironment. In this pilot study, we sought to determine whether radiomics has the potential to predict development of pneumonitis. We performed radiomic analyses using baseline chest computed tomography images of patients who did (N = 2) and did not (N = 30) develop immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis. We extracted 1860 radiomic features in each patient. Maximum relevance and minimum redundancy feature selection method, anomaly detection algorithm, and leave-one-out cross-validation identified radiomic features that were significantly different and predicted subsequent immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis (accuracy, 100% [p = 0.0033]). This study suggests that radiomic features can classify and predict those patients at baseline who will subsequently develop immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis, further enabling risk-stratification that will ultimately lead to better treatment outcomes.

Incidence of immune-related adverse events and its association with treatment outcomes: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience.

Background Immunotherapy is emerging as the cornerstone for treatment of patients with advanced cancer, but significant toxicity (immune-related adverse events [irAEs]) associated with unbridled T cell activity remains a concern. Patients and methods A retrospective review of the electronic medical records of 290 patients with advanced cancer treated on an immunotherapy-based clinical trial in the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between February 2010 and September 2015 was performed. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected to determine the incidence of irAEs, risk factors, and their association with treatment outcomes. Results Ninety eight of 290 patients (34%) experienced any grade irAEs. Among the 15 (5.2%) patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs, the most common irAEs were dermatitis and enterocolitis. Although 80% of the patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs required systemic corticosteroids, all the 15 patients recovered from the irAEs. On re-challenge, 4 of the 5 patients who had received systemic corticosteroids for irAE continued to respond. There were no irAE-related deaths. Importantly, patients with grade ≥ 3 irAEs had improved overall response rate (25 vs. 6%; p = 0.039) and longer median time to progression (30 weeks vs. 10 weeks; p = 0.0040) when compared to those without grade ≥ 3 irAEs. Conclusion Incidence of irAEs with immunotherapeutic agents indicates an active immune status, suggestive of potential clinical benefit to the patient. Further validation of this association in a large prospective study is warranted.

Impact of the timing of hepatitis B virus identification and anti-hepatitis B virus therapy initiation on the risk of adverse liver outcomes for patients receiving cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Data on the incidence of adverse liver outcomes are limited for cancer patients with chronic (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]-positive/hepatitis B core antibody [anti-HBc]-positive) or past (HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive) hepatitis B virus (HBV) after chemotherapy. This study was aimed at determining the impact of test timing and anti-HBV therapy on adverse liver outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Patients with solid or hematologic malignancies who received chemotherapy between 2004 and 2011 were retrospectively studied. HBV testing and anti-HBV therapy were defined as early at the initiation of cancer therapy and as late after initiation. Outcomes included hepatitis flares, hepatic impairment, liver failure, and death. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine incidence, and multivariate hazard models were used to determine predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: There were 18,688 study patients (80.4% with solid tumors). The prevalence of chronic HBV was 1.1% (52 of 4905), and the prevalence of past HBV was 7.1% (350 of 4905). Among patients with solid tumors, late identification of chronic HBV was associated with a higher risk of hepatitis flare (hazard ratio [HR], 4.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-12.86), hepatic impairment (HR, 8.48; 95% CI, 1.86-38.66), liver failure (HR, 9.38; 95% CI, 1.50-58.86), and death (HR, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.19-12.83) in comparison with early identification. Among patients with hematologic malignancies and chronic HBV, the risk of death was 7.8 (95% CI, 1.73-35.27) times higher for persons with late initiation of anti-HBV therapy versus early initiation. Patients with late identification of chronic HBV had late or no anti-HBV therapy. Chronic HBV predicted liver failure in patients with solid or hematologic malignancies, whereas male sex and late identification were predictors for patients with solid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Early identification correlates with early anti-HBV therapy and reduces the risk of liver failure and death in chronic HBV patients receiving chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:3367-76. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Management Considerations in Cancer Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory disease that requires treatment with immunosuppressants to control symptoms and avoid joint destruction. Managing cancer in patients with concomitant rheumatoid arthritis poses special challenges that require close coordination of care between oncologists and rheumatologists. Potential clinical issues needing special consideration include: 1) perioperative management in patients undergoing cancer surgery, which often requires discontinuation of antirrheumatic therapy; 2) use of immunosuppressant therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, especially biologic agents that inhibit cytokine and immune pathways, which conceivably could affect immune-mediated antitumor responses (the issues are different in patients with active cancer vs those with a past history of cancer and no recurrences); 3) management in the palliative care setting; and 4) use of cancer immunotherapy, such as checkpoint inhibitor agents, in patients with pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis. We explore these clinical issues in case-based scenarios. In all cases, clinical decision making must include a careful weighing of risks and benefits of both cancer treatments and antirrheumatic therapies, with attention given to prognosis and life expectancy, quality of life, and patient preferences.

Prospective cohort study of cancer patients diagnosed with incidental venous thromboembolism on routine computed tomography scans.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication of cancer with recent increasing reports of incidental VTE. The objectives are to estimate the prevalence of incidental VTE in cancer patients on staging CT scans, identify common symptoms, and determine VTE recurrence in a prospective study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand ninety patients were studied. Adult cancer patients scheduled for outpatient staging CT scans were eligible. VTE cases were followed for 6 months. Fisher's exact test for group comparisons of categorical variables and generalized linear modeling to estimate the prevalence of incidental VTE was used. RESULTS: The mean age was 58 years (range 18-87 years); 50% were male. The prevalence of incidental VTE was 1.8% (CI 1.15-2.87%). Significant symptoms in patients with VTE included fatigue (p = 0.004), stress (p = 0.0195), depression (p = 0.019), poorer quality of life (p = 0.0194), and poorer physical well-being (p = 0.0007). All the patients with VTE had at least one comorbidity (p = 0.03). No patient had recurrence within 6 months. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of incidental VTE on staging CT scans is lower than previously reported. Symptoms were associated with VTE; however, further work is needed to understand whether these are clinically relevant. No VTE recurrences were noted following 6 months.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate. METHODS: In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H). MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics. METHODS: On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.