Best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected immune-mediated liver injury caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors during drug development.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown significant efficacy in patients with various malignancies, however, they are associated with a wide range of immune-related toxicities affecting many organs, including the liver. Immune-mediated liver injury caused by checkpoint inhibitors (ILICI) is a distinctive form of drug induced liver injury (DILI), that differs from most DILI types in presumed underlying mechanism, incidence, and response to therapeutic interventions. Despite increased awareness of ILICI and other immune-related adverse effects of ICIs reflected by recent guidelines for their management in post marketing clinical practice, there is lack of uniform best practices to address ILICI risk during drug development. As efforts to develop safer and more effective ICIs for additional indications grow, and as combination therapies including ICIs are increasingly investigated, there is a growing need for consistent practices for ILICI in drug development. This publication summarizes current best practices to optimize the monitoring, diagnosis, assessment, and management of suspected ILICI in clinical trials using ICI as a single agent and in combination with other ICIs or other oncological agents. It is one of several publications developed by the IQ DILI Initiative in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. Recommended best practices are outlined pertaining to hepatic inclusion and exclusion criteria, monitoring of liver tests, ILICI detection, approach to a suspected ILICI signal, causality assessment, hepatic discontinuation rules and additional medical treatment.

Clinical Characteristics and Adverse Impact of Hepatotoxicity due to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted this study to characterize the incidence, clinical features, treatment, and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) hepatotoxicity. METHODS: Patients who received ICIs (with either single-agent or combination regimens) from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2018, were identified. Hepatotoxicity was defined as alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >5 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), in the absence of an alternate cause, and categorized as grade 3 (ALT 5-20× ULN) or grade 4 (ALT >20× ULN), according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.03. RESULTS: Among 5,762 patients, 100 (2%) developed hepatotoxicity, occurring in a higher proportion of recipients of combination therapy (9.2%) compared with monotherapy (up to 1.7%, P < 0.001). ICIs were discontinued permanently in 69 and temporarily in 31 patients. Sixty-seven patients received steroids, 10 of whom (14%) had recurrent hepatotoxicity after the steroid taper. Thirty-one patients resumed ICIs after ALT improvement, 8 of whom (26%) developed recurrent hepatotoxicity. Characteristics of liver injury, response to steroids, and outcomes were similar between 38 individuals with and 62 without possible pre-existing liver disease. The severity and outcome of hepatotoxicity due to combination therapy were not significantly different from monotherapy. There were 36 deaths. Two had liver failure at the time of death, both with progression of liver metastases and grade 3 hepatotoxicity. DISCUSSION: Clinically significant ICI-related hepatotoxicity was uncommon but led to permanent ICI discontinuation in the majority. ICIs were restarted in a sizable proportion of patients, most of whom did not experience recurrent hepatotoxicity.

Determinants and prognostic value of quality of life in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is impaired in pancreatic cancer patients. Our aim was to investigate the determinants and prognostic value of QOL after diagnosis in a hospital-based cohort of racially/ethnically diverse patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: QOL was prospectively assessed using the Short Form-12 in 2478 PDAC patients. The Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) were categorised into tertiles based on their distribution. Ordered logistic regression was adopted to compare the risk of having lower PCS and MCS by patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. The association of PCS and MCS with mortality was assessed by Cox regression. RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics were at significantly higher risk of having lower PCS (odds ratio [95% CI], 1.69 [1.26-2.26]; P < 0.001) and lower MCS (1.66 [1.24-2.23]; P < 0.001). Patients diagnosed with stage III (1.80 [1.10-2.94]; P = 0.02) and stage IV (2.32 [1.50-3.59]; P < 0.001) PDAC were more likely to have lower PCS than stage I patients. Other determinants of QOL included sex, age, drinking, smoking, education level, comorbidities and time since diagnosis. The low tertile of PCS (hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.94 [1.72-2.18]; P < 0.001) and MCS (1.42 [1.26-1.59]; P < 0.001) were each related to poor prognosis. Similar results were found for non-Hispanic whites as compared with African-Americans/Hispanics/others. CONCLUSION: QOL after diagnosis is a significant prognostic indicator for patients with PDAC. Multiple factors determine QOL, suggesting possible means of intervention to improve QOL and outcomes of PDAC patients.

Coadministration of telaprevir and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in hepatitis C virus-associated hepatocellular carcinoma.

The use of direct-acting antiviral agents (e.g., telaprevir, boceprevir) has improved response rates in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infections. Substantial number of drug-drug interactions are anticipated with the use of telaprevir, a cytochrome P450 3A and P-glycoprotein substrate and inhibitor. Herein we describe a patient with HCV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma treated simultaneously with a telaprevir-containing regimen and localized chemotherapy (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization) with doxorubicin. No clinically relevant interactions or adverse events developed while on antiviral therapy.

The use of DNA fingerprinting to resolve conflicting results in patients with suspected gastrointestinal malignancy.

GOALS: To underscore the utility of DNA fingerprinting for clarifying disparate results from endoscopic pathologic specimens. BACKGROUND: Occasionally, serially obtained gastrointestinal biopsies may yield inconsistent results. These discrepancies pose a dilemma for gastroenterologists and their patients, especially when malignancy is a consideration. STUDY: Patients referred to our tertiary care center from outside institutions had undergone endoscopically obtained esophageal biopsies showing malignancy, verified by pathologists at both our site and from the referring center. Repeat endoscopic biopsies at our center did not show malignancy. To verify that different sets of biopsies came from the same patient, we performed a polymerase chain reaction-based analysis comparing the 2 specimens. This analysis, called DNA fingerprinting, can show a high degree of certainty whether 2 specimens came from the same patient. RESULTS: In each case, DNA fingerprinting verified a match, laying the groundwork for intervention. One patient underwent endoscopic radiofrequency ablation to the esophageal mucosa involved. Another underwent esophagectomy with partial gastrectomy. Both are doing well clinically and remain cancer-free on follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DNA fingerprinting is a powerful and a relatively inexpensive tool. Usually, only small amounts of tissue are required, and even degraded or archival tissue is adequate. DNA fingerprinting can be an important tool in the gastroenterologist's arsenal to help clarify conflicting results, allowing the patient and physician to move forward with the management.