Prognostic Value of Nivolumab Clearance in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients for Survival Early in Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors improved survival of advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients, but the overall response rate remains low. A biomarker that identifies non-responders would be helpful to allow treatment decisions. Clearance of immune checkpoint inhibitors is related to treatment response, but its prognostic potential early in treatment remains unknown. Our primary aim was to investigate the prognostic potential of nivolumab clearance for overall survival early in treatment. Our secondary aim was to evaluate the performance of nivolumab clearance as prognostic biomarker. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual estimates of nivolumab clearances at first dose, 6 and 12 weeks after treatment initiation were obtained via nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. Prognostic value of nivolumab clearance was estimated using univariate Cox regression at first dose and for the ratios between 6 and 12 weeks to first dose. The performance of nivolumab clearance as biomarker was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: During follow-up of 75 months, 69 patients were included and 865 died. Patients with a nivolumab clearance ≥ 7.3 mL/h at first dose were more likely to die compared to patients with a nivolumab clearance < 7.3 mL/h at first dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.55, 955 CI 1.75-7.20). The HRs of dose nivolumab clearance ratios showed similar results with a HR of 3.93 (955 CI 1.66-9.32) for 6 weeks to first-dose clearance ratio at a 0.953 cut-point and a HR of 2.96 (955 CI 1.32-6.64) for 12 weeks to first-dose clearance ratio at a cut-point of 0.814. For nivolumab clearance at all early time points, sensitivity was high (≥ 0.95) but specificity was low (0.11-0.29). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab clearance is indicative of survival early in treatment. Our results encourage to further assess the prognostic potential of immunotherapy clearance.

Practical recommendations to combine small-molecule inhibitors and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The risk for thromboembolisms in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients is increased and often requires treatment or prophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Small-molecule inhibitors (SMIs) to treat NSCLC may cause relevant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with DOACs. Guidance on how to combine these drugs is lacking, leaving patients at risk of clotting or bleeding. Here, we give practical recommendations to manage these DDIs. METHODS: For all DOACs and SMIs approved in Europe and the USA up to December 2021, a literature review was executed and reviews by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency were analysed for information on DDIs. A DDI potency classification for DOACs was composed and brought together with DDI characteristics of each SMI, resulting in recommendations for each combination. RESULTS: Half of the combinations result in relevant DDIs, requiring an intervention to prevent ineffective or toxic treatment with DOACs. These actions include dose adjustments, separation of administration or switching between anticoagulant therapies. Combinations of SMIs with edoxaban never cause relevant DDIs, compared to more than half of combinations with other DOACs and even increasing to almost all combinations with rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of SMIs and DOACs often result in relevant DDIs that can be prevented by adjusting the DOAC dosage, separation of administration or switching between anticoagulants.

Outcome Definition Influences the Relationship Between Genetic Polymorphisms of ERCC1, ERCC2, SLC22A2 and Cisplatin Nephrotoxicity in Adult Testicular Cancer Patients.

Although previous research identified candidate genetic polymorphisms associated with cisplatin nephrotoxicity, varying outcome definitions potentially contributed to the variability in the effect size and direction of this relationship. We selected genetic variants that have been significantly associated with cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in more than one published study (SLC22A2 rs316019; ERCC1 rs11615 and rs3212986; ERCC2 rs1799793 and rs13181) and performed a replication analysis to confirm associations between these genetic polymorphisms and cisplatin nephrotoxicity using various outcome definitions. We included 282 germ cell testicular cancer patients treated with cisplatin from 2009-2014, aged >17 years recruited by the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety. Nephrotoxicity was defined using four grading tools: (1) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 for acute kidney injury (AKI) or CTCAE-AKI; (2) adjusted cisplatin-induced AKI; (3) elevation of serum creatinine; and (4) reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Significant associations were only found when using the CTCAE v4.03 definition: genotype CA of the ERCC1 rs3212986 was associated with decreased risk of cisplatin nephrotoxicity (ORadj = 0.24; 95% CI:0.08-0.70; p= 0.009) compared to genotype CC. In contrast, addition of allele A at SLC22A2 rs316019 was associated with increased risk (ORadj = 4.41; 95% CI:1.96-9.88; p < 0.001) while genotype AC was associated with a higher risk of cisplatin nephrotoxicity (ORadj = 5.06; 95% CI:1.69-15.16; p= 0.004) compared to genotype CC. Our study showed that different case definitions led to variability in the genetic risk ascertainment of cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Therefore, consensus on a set of clinically relevant outcome definitions that all such studies should follow is needed.