CTLA4 blockade abrogates KEAP1/STK11-related resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors.

For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), dual immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with CTLA4 inhibitors and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (hereafter, PD-(L)1 inhibitors) is associated with higher rates of anti-tumour activity and immune-related toxicities, when compared with treatment with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone. However, there are currently no validated biomarkers to identify which patients will benefit from dual ICB1,2. Here we show that patients with NSCLC who have mutations in the STK11 and/or KEAP1 tumour suppressor genes derived clinical benefit from dual ICB with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab and the CTLA4 inhibitor tremelimumab, but not from durvalumab alone, when added to chemotherapy in the randomized phase III POSEIDON trial3. Unbiased genetic screens identified loss of both of these tumour suppressor genes as independent drivers of resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition, and showed that loss of Keap1 was the strongest genomic predictor of dual ICB efficacy-a finding that was confirmed in several mouse models of Kras-driven NSCLC. In both mouse models and patients, KEAP1 and STK11 alterations were associated with an adverse tumour microenvironment, which was characterized by a preponderance of suppressive myeloid cells and the depletion of CD8+ cytotoxic T cells, but relative sparing of CD4+ effector subsets. Dual ICB potently engaged CD4+ effector cells and reprogrammed the tumour myeloid cell compartment towards inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)-expressing tumoricidal phenotypes that-together with CD4+ and CD8+ T cells-contributed to anti-tumour efficacy. These data support the use of chemo-immunotherapy with dual ICB to mitigate resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition in patients with NSCLC who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 alterations.

Enhancing Precision in Detecting Severe Immune-Related Adverse Events: Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and International Classification of Disease Codes in Patient Records.

PURPOSE: Current approaches to accurately identify immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in large retrospective studies are limited. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential solution to this challenge, given their high performance in natural language comprehension tasks. Therefore, we investigated the use of an LLM to identify irAEs among hospitalized patients, comparing its performance with manual adjudication and International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes. METHODS: Hospital admissions of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy at a single institution from February 5, 2011, to September 5, 2023, were individually reviewed and adjudicated for the presence of irAEs. ICD codes and an LLM with retrieval-augmented generation were applied to detect frequent irAEs (ICI-induced colitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis) and the most fatal irAE (ICI-myocarditis) from electronic health records. The performance between ICD codes and LLM was compared via sensitivity and specificity with an α = .05, relative to the gold standard of manual adjudication. External validation was performed using a data set of hospital admissions from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, from a second institution. RESULTS: Of the 7,555 admissions for patients on ICI therapy in the initial cohort, 2.0% were adjudicated to be due to ICI-colitis, 1.1% ICI-hepatitis, 0.7% ICI-pneumonitis, and 0.8% ICI-myocarditis. The LLM demonstrated higher sensitivity than ICD codes (94.7% v 68.7%), achieving significance for ICI-hepatitis (P < .001), myocarditis (P < .001), and pneumonitis (P = .003) while yielding similar specificities (93.7% v 92.4%). The LLM spent an average of 9.53 seconds/chart in comparison with an estimated 15 minutes for adjudication. In the validation cohort (N = 1,270), the mean LLM sensitivity and specificity were 98.1% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: LLMs are a useful tool for the detection of irAEs, outperforming ICD codes in sensitivity and adjudication in efficiency.

Cryoablation and post-progression immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic melanoma: a phase II trial.

Image-guided percutaneous cryoablation is an established minimally invasive oncologic treatment. We hypothesized that cryoablation may modify the immune microenvironment through direct modulation of the tumor, thereby generating an anti-tumor response in tumors refractory to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). In this non-randomized phase II single-center study (NCT03290677), subjects with unresectable melanoma progressing on ICI underwent cryoablation of an enlarging metastasis, and ICI was continued for a minimum of two additional cycles. The primary endpoints were safety, feasibility and tumor response in non-ablated lesions. From May 2018 through July 2020, 17 patients were treated on study. The study met its primary endpoints with the combination strategy found to be safe and feasible with an objective response rate of 23.5% and disease control rate of 41% (4 partial response, 3 stable disease). Our data support further study of this synergistic therapeutic approach.

Immune-related adverse events requiring hospitalization in patients with lung cancer: implications and insights.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are associated with a distinct spectrum of toxicities. Data on irAE hospitalization rates and clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies are lacking. METHODS: Patients with advanced thoracic malignancy treated with ICI (2/2016 to 6/2021) were retrospectively identified. Demographic and clinical data of confirmed irAE hospitalizations were extracted from the medical record and a descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: From February 2016 to June 2021, 1312 patients with thoracic malignancy received ICI (monotherapy, combination with 2nd ICI or other agents) with 102 patients (7.7%) hospitalized for irAEs. Treatment intent was first-line therapy in most patients (N = 50, 49%) with 9% (n = 9) receiving adjuvant ICI (N = 9). Sixty patients (59%) received ICI alone, 32% (N = 33) chemo plus immunotherapy, and 7% (N = 7) dual ICI. The median age on admission was 68 years. The median time between ICI initiation and admission was 64 days (1-935 days). Pneumonitis (32.3%; 33/102) was the most frequent indication for admission followed by gastroenterocolitis (19.6%; 20/102), hepatitis (12.7%; 13/102), myo/pericarditis (9.8%; 10/102), and endocrinopathies (9.8%; 10/102). Multi-organ toxicity occurred in 36% (N = 37) of patients. Overall, 85.2% (87/102) of patients received systemic corticosteroids and 17.6% (18/102) required additional lines of immunosuppression. The median length of hospitalization stay was 7 days (2-28 days) with a 25.5% (n = 26) readmission rate within 60 days and an 11.8% (n = 12) in house mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: Severe irAE requiring inpatient admission, although infrequent, results in considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilization. Pneumonitis was the most common irAE requiring inpatient management in our patient population with a significant risk of mortality despite the use of guideline-directed systemic immunosuppression. This study highlights the continued need for collaborative efforts amongst medical specialties for improving the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with irAEs.

Toxicities from BRAF and MEK Inhibitors: Strategies to Maximize Therapeutic Success.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This report highlights several of the recent therapeutic advancements in the treatment of BRAF-mutant tumors, discusses the most common adverse events observed with BRAF-targeted agents, and suggests strategies to manage and mitigate treatment-related toxicities. RECENT FINDINGS: BRAF and MEK inhibitors represent a significant advancement in the treatment of BRAF-mutated malignancies with data across tumor types demonstrating the anti-tumor efficacy of dual MAPK inhibition. Although these agents have a reasonable toxicity profile, variable side effects across organ systems can develop. The discovery of activating BRAF mutations and subsequent development of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has transformed the treatment algorithms of BRAF-mutant malignancies. With increased application of these targeted regimens, identification and prompt management of their unique adverse events are crucial.

Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Unresectable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: The PACIFIC trial established consolidation durvalumab as the standard of care following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Understanding its benefit in routine US clinical practice is critical. Objective: To report characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of patients who did or did not receive durvalumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prespecified cohorts were curated in this retrospective cohort study (SPOTLIGHT). Deidentified patient-level data from a US database (Flatiron Health) were analyzed. Patients had unresectable stage III NSCLC, were diagnosed on or after January 1, 2011, had 2 or more visits on or afterward, and received CRT. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to October 2023. Exposures: Patients started durvalumab after CRT (durvalumab cohort) or ended CRT without durvalumab (nondurvalumab cohort) by June 30, 2019, to allow 15 or more months of follow-up from CRT end. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to first subsequent therapy or death (TFST), and time to distant metastasis or death (TTDM). Results: The durvalumab cohort included 332 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.5 [60.8-74.0] years; 187 were male [56.3%], 27 were Black [8.7%], 33 were other races [10.7%], and 249 were White [80.6%]) and the nondurvalumab cohort included 137 patients (median (IQR) age, 70.0 [64.0-75.0] years; 89 [65.0%] were male, 11 [8.9%] were Black, 19 [15.4%] were other races, and 93 [75.6%] were White). Most patients had a smoking history (durvalumab, 316 patients [95.2%] and nondurvalumab, 132 patients [96.4%]) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 through 1 (durvalumab, 251 patients [90.9%] and nondurvalumab, 88 patients [81.5%]). Median (IQR) CRT duration was 1.6 (1.4-1.8) months for the durvalumab cohort and 1.5 (1.4-1.8) months for the nondurvalumab cohort. Median time to durvalumab discontinuation was 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.8-10.6 months). Median TFST and TTDM were not reached (NR) in the durvalumab cohort and 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.8 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 6.4-14.5 months), respectively, in the nondurvalumab cohort. Median PFS and OS were 17.5 months (95% CI, 13.6-24.8 months) and NR in the durvalumab cohort and 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.8 months) and 19.4 months (95% CI, 11.7-24.0 months) in the nondurvalumab cohort. In Cox regression analyses of patients who completed concurrent CRT without progression, durvalumab was associated with a lower risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.51) and lower risk of death (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.43), adjusted for prior platinum agent and patient characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, findings were consistent with PACIFIC, and durvalumab was associated with a lower risk of progression and/or death. Further investigation is warranted to explain why patients did not receive durvalumab after its approval.

Defining D-irAEs: consensus-based disease definitions for the diagnosis of dermatologic adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

With an increasing number of patients eligible for immune checkpoint inhibitors, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is on the rise. Dermatologic immune-related adverse events (D-irAEs) are the most common and earliest to manifest, often with important downstream consequences for the patient. Current guidelines lack clarity in terms of diagnostic criteria for D-irAEs. The goal of this project is to better define D-irAE for the purposes of identification, diagnosis, and future study of this important group of diseases.The objectives of this project were to develop consensus guidance for an approach to D-irAEs including disease definitions and severity grading. Knowing that consensus among oncologists, dermatologists, and irAE subspecialists would be critical for usability, we formed a Dermatologic irAE Disease Definition Panel. The panel was composed of 34 experts, including oncologists, dermatologists, a rheumatologist, and an allergist/immunologist from 22 institutions across the USA and internationally. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two virtual meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness, and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. A working group aggregated survey responses and incorporated them into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions.Following revisions based on panelist feedback, all items received consensus in the second round of ratings. Consensus definitions were achieved for 10 core D-irAE diagnoses: ICI-vitiligo, ICI-lichen planus, ICI-psoriasis, ICI-exanthem, ICI-bullous pemphigoid, ICI-Grover's, ICI-eczematous, ICI-eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, ICI-pruritus without rash, and ICI-erosive mucocutaneous. A standard evaluation for D-irAE was also found to reach consensus, with disease-specific exceptions detailed when necessary. Each disorder's description includes further details on disease subtypes, symptoms, supportive exam findings, and three levels of diagnostic certainty (definite, probable, and possible).These consensus-driven disease definitions standardize D-irAE classification in a useable framework for multiple disciplines and will be the foundation for future work. Given consensus on their accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that they can be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Multicenter Evaluation of Radiation and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Mucosal Melanoma and Review of Recent Literature.

Purpose: Optimal integration of local therapy and systemic immune therapy for patients with mucosal melanoma (MM) is uncertain. We evaluated treatment patterns and outcomes following radiation therapy (RT) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in MM. Methods and Materials: Thirty-seven patients with localized (n = 32, 87%) or node-positive (n = 5, 14%) MM were treated across 4 institutions with RT to the primary tumor with or without oncologic resection (n = 28, 76%) and ICI from 2012 to 2020. Recurrence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence in the presence of the competing risk of death. Results: Mucosal sites were head/neck (n = 29, 78%), vaginal (n = 7, 19%), and anorectal (n = 1, 3%). Patients received ICI prior to or concurrent with RT (n = 14, 38%), following RT (n = 5, 14%), or at recurrence (n = 18, 49%). The objective response rate for evaluable patients was 31% for ICI as initial treatment (95% CI, 11%-59%) and 19% for ICI at recurrence (95% CI, 4%-46%). Median follow-up was 26 months for living patients; median overall survival (OS) was 54 months (95% CI, 31 months-not reached). Two-year OS was 85%; distant metastasis-free survival 44%. The 2-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence (LR) was 26% (95% CI, 13%-41%). For 9 patients with unresectable disease, 2-year OS was 88% (95% CI, 35%-98%); LR was 25% (95% CI, 3%-58%). For 5 patients with positive nodes at diagnosis, 2-year OS was 100%; LR was 0%. Conclusions: High rates of local control were achieved with RT with or without oncologic resection and ICI for localized and locally advanced MM. In particular, favorable local control was possible even for patients with unresectable or node-positive disease. Although risk of distant failure remains high, patients with MM may benefit from aggressive local therapy including RT in the setting of immunotherapy treatment.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, version 3.0.

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAFV600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others.

Immunotherapy in Melanoma: Recent Advancements and Future Directions.

Immune checkpoint inhibition has fundamentally altered the treatment paradigm of resectable and unresectable melanoma, resulting in dramatic improvements in patient outcomes. With these advances, the five-year overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable disease has eclipsed 50%. Ongoing research is focused on improving outcomes further, with a considerable emphasis on preventing de novo and acquired resistance and personalizing therapeutic options. Here, we review the ongoing advancements in the treatment of malignant melanoma, focusing on novel combination strategies that aim to build upon the successes of the last decade.

The case for adjuvant BRAF-targeted therapy versus adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for patients with resected, high-risk melanoma.

The development of highly effective BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibition for patients with advanced metastatic melanoma has transformed the treatment of this disease. More recently, these advances have moved into the resected, high-risk stage II and III settings. For patients with resected, BRAF-mutant stage III melanoma, there are no head-to-head data to support the use of BRAF-targeted therapy (specifically the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib) with either single-agent nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Because the relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survivals are similar in a cross-trial comparison, it is not clear what the best option for these patients is. In this piece, the authors argue on behalf of and against both approaches. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Two types of therapy exist for patients diagnosed with melanoma who have completed surgery and remain at high risk for tumor recurrence: (1) drugs that target the BRAF mutation (found in ∼50% of patients) and (2) immunotherapy. There are no data showing that either approach is better than the other, so the choice of which therapy is best for an individual patient can be challenging. In this article, we make arguments for and against each option.

Dose-escalation trial of combination dabrafenib, trametinib, and AT13387 in patients with BRAF-mutant solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is an active regimen in patients who have BRAF V600E-mutated tumors; however, the clinical efficacy of this therapy is limited by resistance. Preclinically, the addition of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibition improves the efficacy of BRAF inhibitor therapy in both BRAF inhibitor-sensitive and BRAF inhibitor-resistant mutant cell lines. METHODS: Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program study 9557 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02097225) is a phase 1 study that was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the small-molecule HSP90 inhibitor, AT13387, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAF V600E/K-mutant solid tumors. Correlative analyses evaluated the expression of HSP90 client proteins and chaperones. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors were enrolled using a 3 + 3 design at four dose levels, and 21 patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment. The most common tumor type was colorectal cancer (N = 12). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in one patient at dose level 3 and in one patient at dose level 4; specifically, myelosuppression and fatigue, respectively. The maximum tolerated dose was oral dabafenib 150 mg twice daily, oral trametinib 2 mg once daily, and intravenous AT13387 260 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The best response was a partial response in two patients and stable disease in eight patients, with an overall response rate of 9.5% (90% exact confidence interval [CI], 2%-27%), a disease control rate of 47.6% (90% CI, 29%-67%), and a median overall survival of 5.1 months (90% CI, 3.4-7.6 months). There were no consistent proteomic changes associated with response or resistance, although responders did have reductions in BRAF expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor downregulation using HSP90 inhibition was observed in one patient who had colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: HSP90 inhibition combined with BRAF/MEK inhibition was safe and produced evidence of modest disease control in a heavily pretreated population. Additional translational work may identify tumor types and resistance mechanisms that are most sensitive to this approach.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer in the Setting of Interstitial Lung Disease.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis increases the risk of developing lung cancer. Diagnosing and staging lung cancer in patients with ILD is challenging and requires careful interpretation of computed tomography (CT) and fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT to distinguish nodules from areas of fibrosis. Minimally invasive tissue sampling is preferred but may be technically challenging given tumor location, coexistent fibrosis, and pneumothorax risk. Current treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, percutaneous thermal ablation, and systemic therapy; however, ILD increases the risks associated with each treatment option, especially acute ILD exacerbation.

Efficacy of anti-PD-1 and ipilimumab alone or in combination in acral melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Acral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites. CONCLUSION: While the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab was significantly higher than anti-PD-1 and PFS numerically higher, in this retrospective cohort this benefit did not translate to improved OS. Future trials should specifically include patients with acral melanoma, to help determine the optimal management of this important melanoma subtype.

Real-world incidence and impact of pneumonitis in patients with lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multi-institutional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival and are increasingly used for non-small cell lung cancer. However, use may be limited by immune-related adverse events such as checkpoint-inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP). Literature estimates for CIP incidence are inconsistent. Real-world adherence to guidelines, clinical course, and healthcare utilization in the treatment of CIP has not been described in large cohorts. METHODS: A combined claims and electronic health record database (TriNetX) was used to identify 13,113 patients with lung cancer treated with programmed cell death receptor/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors, and a propensity score-matched control cohort treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies. The attributable risk of CIP was calculated in the first 12 months after therapy by comparing the incidence of diagnosis codes for pneumonitis/pneumonia between cohorts. Cases of CIP, identified by the most specific code for drug-induced respiratory conditions, were further analyzed for medication usage, rates of diagnostic bronchoscopy, ICI discontinuation rates, and usage of hospital services compared with patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors who did not develop CIP. RESULTS: The attributable risk of pneumonitis to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was 2.49% (95% CI, 1.50% to 3.47%). Median time to onset in the CIP subcohort was 3.9 months (IQR, 2.1-7.3 months). Steroid and antibiotic use increased dramatically after a pneumonitis diagnosis, and 70.2% of patients permanently discontinued ICI therapy. Compared with controls, patients with CIP had more than a threefold increased risk of needing critical care (relative risk 3.59, 95% CI, 2.31 to 5.57) and an increased risk of mortality (HR 2.34, 95% CI, 1.47 to 3.71). CONCLUSIONS: In a large claims-based analysis, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors increase the risk of pneumonitis in patients with lung cancer by 2.49%. Cases of CIP are associated with high healthcare utilization, discontinuation of ICIs, and mortality.

Case Report: Fulminant Celiac Disease With Combination Immune Checkpoint Therapy.

Since the first approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011, these agents have rapidly become an integral treatment option across tumor types. However, with the increased adoption of ICIs, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) continues to rise, and rare toxicity continues to be reported. Here, we present a case of a 70-year-old male patient with widespread metastatic melanoma who developed rapid onset anasarca and transaminitis after initiation of dual anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab. An extensive workup was performed with serologies returning positive for anti-tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin (tTG-IgA) and endoscopy revealing duodenal mucosal atrophy with duodenal biopsies confirming celiac disease. All symptoms resolved after initiation of a gluten-free diet without the addition of immunosuppression. This case highlights the importance of considering celiac disease in patients with suspected protein-losing enteropathy on ICI, the fulminant nature this uncommon irAE can present with, and underscores the broad differential clinicians must maintain when managing presumed irAEs.

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 in non-small-cell lung carcinomas: correlations with clinicopathologic features and prognostic significance.

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) modulates the tumor microenvironment through immunosuppressive effects. Its associations with clinicopathologic parameters and prognostic significance in non-small-cell lung carcinomas remain unclear. We examined LAG-3 expression in 368 resected non-small-cell lung carcinomas (including 218 adenocarcinomas and 150 squamous-cell carcinomas) using tissue microarrays, with normalization to CD8+ T-cell count (LAG-3/CD8 index), and correlated LAG-3, CD8, and LAG-3/CD8 index with clinicopathologic features, molecular status, and survival. LAG-3 expression in the immune cells (ranged 0.35-540.1 cells/mm²) was identified in 92% of non-small-cell lung carcinomas. In adenocarcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, LAG-3 expression correlated with CD8+ T-cell count and PD-L1 expression. In adenocarcinomas, high LAG-3 expression (defined as >median) was additionally associated with smoking history, high T stage, aggressive pathologic features (solid-predominant histologic pattern, lymphovascular invasion, and nodal metastasis), and lack of EGFR mutation. In the entire resected tumor cohort and in adenocarcinomas, high LAG-3 and LAG-3/CD8 index were each associated with worse overall survival. In squamous-cell carcinomas, high CD8 was associated with better overall survival. In an exploratory analysis of pretreatment samples from advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients treated with pembrolizumab, high CD8 was predictive of improved overall and progression-free survival, while high LAG-3, but not high LAG-3/CD8 index, was associated with improved progression-free survival. In conclusion, the clinicopathologic correlations and prognostic impact of LAG-3 in non-small-cell lung carcinoma are histotype-dependent, highlighting differences in the immune microenvironment between adenocarcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas. The predictive impact of LAG-3 warrants further investigation.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with pre-existing psoriasis: safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved to treat multiple cancers. Retrospective analyses demonstrate acceptable safety of ICIs in most patients with autoimmune disease, although disease exacerbation may occur. Psoriasis vulgaris is a common, immune-mediated disease, and outcomes of ICI treatment in patients with psoriasis are not well described. Thus we sought to define the safety profile and effectiveness of ICIs in patients with pre-existing psoriasis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients from eight academic centers with pre-existing psoriasis who received ICI treatment for cancer were evaluated. Main safety outcomes were psoriasis exacerbation and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). We also assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 76 patients studied (50 (66%) male; median age 67 years; 62 (82%) with melanoma, 5 (7%) with lung cancer, 2 (3%) with head and neck cancer, and 7 (9%) with other cancers; median follow-up 25.1 months (range=0.2-99 months)), 51 (67%) received anti-PD-1 antibodies, 8 (11%) anti-CTLA-4, and 17 (22%) combination of anti-PD-1/CTLA-4. All patients had pre-existing psoriasis, most frequently plaque psoriasis (46 patients (61%)) and 15 (20%) with psoriatic arthritis. Forty-one patients (54%) had received any prior therapy for psoriasis although only two (3%) were on systemic immunosuppression at ICI initiation. With ICI treatment, 43 patients (57%) experienced a psoriasis flare of cutaneous and/or extracutaneous disease after a median of 44 days of receiving ICI. Of those who experienced a flare, 23 patients (53%) were managed with topical therapy only; 16 (21%) needed systemic therapy. Only five patients (7%) required immunotherapy discontinuation for psoriasis flare. Forty-five patients (59%) experienced other irAEs, 17 (22%) of which were grade 3/4. PFS with landmark analysis was significantly longer in patients with a psoriasis flare versus those without (39 vs 8.7 months, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, ICI therapy was associated with frequent psoriasis exacerbation, although flares were manageable with standard psoriasis treatments and few required ICI discontinuation. Patients who experienced disease exacerbation performed at least as well as those who did not. Thus, pre-existing psoriasis should not prevent patients from receiving ICIs for treatment of malignancy.

Effect of a multidisciplinary Severe Immunotherapy Complications Service on outcomes for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, Massachusetts General Hospital implemented the Severe Immunotherapy Complications (SIC) Service, a multidisciplinary care team for patients hospitalized with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), a unique spectrum of toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study's objectives were to evaluate the intervention's (1) effect on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization, and (2) ability to collect biological samples via a central infrastructure, in order to study the mechanisms responsible for irAEs. METHODS: A hospital database was used to identify patients who received ICIs for a malignancy and were hospitalized with severe irAEs, before (April 2, 2016-October 3, 2017) and after (October 3, 2017-October 24, 2018) SIC Service initiation. The primary outcome was readmission rate after index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) for admissions, corticosteroid and non-steroidal second-line immunosuppression use, ICI discontinuation, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: In the pre-SIC period, 127 of 1169 patients treated with ICIs were hospitalized for irAEs; in the post-SIC period, 122 of 1159. After SIC service initiation, reductions were observed in irAE readmission rate (14.8% post-SIC vs 25.9% pre-SIC; OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.95; p=0.036) and readmission LOS (median 6 days post-SIC vs 7 days pre-SIC; 95% CI -16.03 to -0.14; p=0.046). No significant pre-initiation and post-initiation differences were detected in corticosteroid use, second-line immunosuppression, ICI discontinuation, or inpatient mortality rates. The SIC Service collected 789 blood and tissue samples from 234 patients with suspected irAEs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report that establishing a highly subspecialized care team focused on irAEs is associated with improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare utilization. Furthermore, the SIC Service successfully integrated blood and tissue collection safety into routine care.