Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related colitis assessment and prognosis: can IBD scoring point the way?

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve survival but cause immune-related adverse events (irAE). We sought to determine if CTCAE classification, IBD biomarkers/endoscopic/histological scores correlate with irAE colitis outcomes. METHODS: A dual-centre retrospective study was performed on patients receiving ICI for melanoma, NSCLC or urothelial cancer from 2012 to 2018. Demographics, clinical data, endoscopies (reanalysed using Mayo/Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) scores), histology (scored with Nancy Index) and treatment outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: In all, 1074 patients were analysed. Twelve percent (134) developed irAE colitis. Median patient age was 66, 59% were male. CTCAE diarrhoea grade does not correlate with steroid/ infliximab use. G3/4 colitis patients are more likely to need infliximab (p < 0.0001) but colitis grade does not correlate with steroid duration. CRP, albumin and haemoglobin do not correlate with severity. The UCEIS (p = 0.008) and Mayo (p = 0.016) scores correlate with severity/infliximab requirement. Patients with higher Nancy indices (3/4) are more likely to require infliximab (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: CTCAE assessment does not accurately reflect colitis severity and our data do not support its use in isolation, as this may negatively impact timely management. Our data support utilising endoscopic scoring for patients with >grade 1 CTCAE disease, and demonstrate the potential prognostic utility of objective histologic scoring.

The impact of patient characteristics and disease-specific factors on first-line treatment decisions for BRAF-mutated melanoma: results from a European expert panel study.

Treatment decisions for advanced melanoma are increasingly complex and guidelines provide limited advice on how to choose between immunotherapy and targeted therapy for first-line treatment. A Delphi study was carried out to understand which patient characteristics and disease-related factors inform clinicians' choices of first-line treatment for BRAF-mutated melanoma. Twelve European melanoma specialists experienced in using immunotherapies and targeted agents participated in a double-blind two-phase Delphi study. In phase 1, participants completed a questionnaire developed after reviewing patient characteristics and disease-related factors reported in trials, clinical guidelines, and health technology assessments. Phase 2 was an expert panel meeting to explore outstanding issues from phase 1 and seek consensus, defined as 80% agreement. Twenty patient-related and disease-related characteristics were considered. There was consensus that tumor burden (83% of clinicians) and disease tempo (83%) are very or extremely important factors when selecting first-line treatment. Several components were deemed important when assessing tumor burden: brain metastases (82% of clinicians) and location of metastases (89%). There was consensus that disease tempo can be quantified in clinical practice, but not on a formal classification applicable to all patients. Lactate dehydrogenase level is a component of both tumor burden and disease tempo; all clinicians considered lactate dehydrogenase important when choosing first-line treatment. The majority (92%) did not routinely test programmed death ligand-1 status in patients with melanoma. Clinicians agreed that choosing a first-line treatment for advanced melanoma is a complex, multifactorial process and that clinical judgment remains the most important element of decision-making until research can provide clinicians with better scientific parameters and tools for first-line decision-making.

Talimogene Laherparepvec for Treating Metastatic Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Amgen) of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the company's submission of T-VEC, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance (TA410), issued in September 2016. T-VEC is an oncolytic virus therapy granted a marketing authorisation by the European Commission for the treatment of adults with unresectable melanoma that is regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB, IIIC and IVM1a) with no bone, brain, lung or other visceral disease. Clinical evidence for T-VEC versus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) was derived from the multinational, open-label randomised controlled OPTiM trial [Oncovex (GM-CSF) Pivotal Trial in Melanoma]. In accordance with T-VEC's marketing authorisation, the company's submission focused primarily on 249 patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease who constituted 57% of the overall trial population (T-VEC, n = 163 and GM-CSF, n = 86). Results from analyses of durable response rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure and overall survival all showed marked and statistically significant improvements for patients treated with T-VEC compared with those treated with GM-CSF. However, GM-CSF is not used to treat melanoma in clinical practice. It was not possible to compare treatment with T-VEC with an appropriate comparator using conventionally accepted methods due to the absence of comparative head-to-head data or trials with sufficient common comparators. Therefore, the company compared T-VEC with ipilimumab using what it described as modified Korn and two-step Korn methods. Results from these analyses suggested that treatment with T-VEC was at least as effective as treatment with ipilimumab. Using the discounted patient access scheme (PAS) price for T-VEC and list price for ipilimumab, the company reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the comparison of treatment with T-VEC versus ipilimumab, the ICER per QALY gained was -£16,367 using the modified Korn method and -£60,271 using the two-step Korn method. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) agreed with the ERG that the company's methods for estimating clinical effectiveness of T-VEC versus ipilimumab were flawed and therefore produced unreliable results for modelling progression in stage IIIB to stage IVM1a melanoma. The AC concluded that the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatment with T-VEC compared with ipilimumab is unknown in patients with stage IIIB to stage IV/M1a disease. However, the AC considered that T-VEC may be a reasonable option for treating patients who are unsuitable for treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies (such as ipilimumab). T-VEC was therefore recommended by NICE as a treatment option for adults with unresectable, regionally or distantly metastatic (stage IIIB to stage IVM1a) melanoma that has not spread to bone, brain, lung or other internal organs, only if treatment with systemically administered immunotherapies is not suitable and the company provides T-VEC at the agreed discounted PAS price.