Cutaneous adverse events in 155 patients with metastatic melanoma consecutively treated with anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 combination immunotherapy: Incidence, management, and clinical benefit.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increased use of combination checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) and the resulting increased cutaneous adverse events (CAEs), this study reviewed patients with melanoma treated with combination CPIs to characterize CAE features and their clinical impact, correlation to adverse events in other organs, and correlation to tumor response. METHODS: Patients from the authors' institutional database who received at least 1 dose of ipilimumab in combination with either nivolumab or pembrolizumab between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, for stage IV or unresectable stage III melanoma were identified. The time to next treatment (TTNT) was calculated from the start of CPI therapy to the start of the next treatment or death, and the development of CAEs was tested in a time-dependent Cox regression to identify associations with TTNT. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (52.3%) experienced a total of 92 CAEs, including eczematous dermatitis (25.0%), morbilliform eruption (22.8%), vitiligo (12.0%), and pruritus without rash (8.7%). The median times to the onset and resolution of CAEs were 21 days (range, 0-341 days) and 50 days (range, 1-352 days), respectively. Most CAEs resolved after patients entered the CPI maintenance phase and treatment with oral antihistamines with or without topical steroids. CPI discontinuation occurred in 4 patients (2.6%) because of CAEs, in 49 (31.6%) because of other immune-related adverse events, and in 20 (12.9%) because of melanoma progression or death. For patients definitively treated with CPIs (n = 134; 86.5%), TTNT was significantly longer with CAEs than without CAEs (hazard ratio, 0.567; 95% CI, 0.331-0.972; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: CAEs were mostly reversible and rarely required therapy discontinuation. The development of CAEs was associated with a longer TTNT, and this suggested a possible clinical benefit.

Assessment of Image-Guided Intratumoral Delivery of Immunotherapeutics in Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Direct intratumoral delivery of immunotherapies is a compelling approach to overcoming barriers to systemic immunotherapy efficacy. While the use of intratumoral delivery of immunotherapy drugs is increasing rapidly in both the investigational and standard of care domains, the feasibility and safety of these interventions, particularly for deeper lesions that require image-guidance, remain unknown. Objective: To address current knowledge gaps in image-guided techniques for intratumoral immunotherapy delivery and the safety of these interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case series study was performed at a single tertiary cancer center over a 2-year period from January 2016 to January 2018. Patients were followed until January 2019. All patients who underwent image-guided intratumoral delivery of immunotherapy agents in the standard of care, off-label, or investigational setting during the study period were included. Data were analyzed from February 1 to June 1, 2019. Exposures: Image-guided biopsies and intratumoral injections of immunotherapies across several clinical trials as well as standard of care talimogene laherparepvec therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Technical success, defined as the delivery of the prescribed injectate volume in its entirety, for image-guided biopsy and injections and procedure-related adverse events. Results: A total of 85 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 61 [47-71] years; 42 [52%] men) underwent 498 encounters during the study period. These encounters comprised 327 image-guided intratumoral investigational agent injections in 67 patients in clinical trials, including 33 patients with melanoma (50%), 14 patients with sarcoma (21%), 3 patients with ovarian cancer (4.5%), 2 patients with breast cancer (3%), and 2 patients with colon cancer (3%). An additional 18 patients with melanoma underwent 113 image-guided talimogene laherparepvec injections. There were no adverse events reported related to the technical component of the procedure, specifically needle insertion or biopsy. Serious adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score ≥3), including dyspnea and severe flu-like symptoms developing within 24 hours of the injection and requiring hospitalization, occurred after 3 of 327 investigational agent injections (2%) and 4 of 113 talimogene laherparepvec injections (4%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this case series study suggest that intratumoral injections of immunotherapies were feasible across a range of histological conditions and target organs. Immediate postdelivery anticipated adverse events occurred in a small number of instances. Performing physicians should have the necessary safeguards in place to respond as needed. Optimal methods for intratumoral drug delivery remain unresolved, and efforts to standardize drug delivery techniques are required.