Evaluation of mycophenolic acid exposure in a patient with immune-related hepatotoxicity caused by nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy for malignant melanoma: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for the treatment of severe steroid-refractory immune-related hepatotoxicity. Mycophenolic acid (MPA) is an active form of MMF that suppresses T- and B-lymphocyte proliferation and immune-related adverse events caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors. MPA has a narrow therapeutic range (37-70 µg·h/mL) and overexposure increases the risk of leukopenia in transplantation. However, the optimal use of MMF in oncology has not yet been established; thus, monitoring plasma MPA concentrations is necessary to avoid excessive immunosuppression in oncology practice. CASE PRESENTATION: We evaluated plasma MPA concentration in a 75-year-old man with immune-related hepatotoxicity following nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy for malignant melanoma. The patient developed severe hepatotoxicity after immunotherapy, and immunosuppressant therapy with corticosteroids was initiated. The patient then developed steroid-refractory immune-related hepatotoxicity; therefore, MMF (1,000 mg twice daily) was co-administered. Seven days after the administration of MMF, the plasma MPA concentration was measured using an enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for MPA from 0 to 12 h was 41.0 µg·h/mL, and the same dose of MMF was continued. Grade 2 lymphocytopenia, which could be attributed to MMF, was observed during the administration period. Unfortunately, the patient was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and died from respiratory failure. CONCLUSION: Our patient did not exceed the upper limit of MPA levels as an index of the onset of side effects of kidney transplantation and achieved rapid improvement in liver function. Prompt initiation of MMF after assessment of the steroid effect leads to adequate MPA exposure. Therapeutic drug monitoring should be considered when MMF is administered, to avoid overexposure.

Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Curative Intent Esophageal Cancer Resection Patients: Real-World Experience within an Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant immunotherapy has been shown in clinical trials to prolong the survival of patients with esophageal cancer. We report our initial experience with immunotherapy within an integrated health system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed reviewing patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy at our institution between 2017 and 2021. The immunotherapy cohort was assessed for completion of treatment, adverse effects, and disease progression, with emphasis on patients who received surgery in 2021 and their eligibility to receive nivolumab. RESULTS: There were 39 patients who received immunotherapy and 137 patients who did not. In logistic regression, immunotherapy was not found to have a statistically significant impact on 1-year overall survival after adjusting for age and receipt of adjuvant chemoradiation. Only seven patients out of 39 who received immunotherapy successfully completed treatment (18%), with the majority failing therapy due to disease progression or side effects. Of the 17 patients eligible for nivolumab, 13 patients received it (76.4%), and three patients completed a full course of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising findings of adjuvant immunotherapy improving the survival of patients with esophageal cancer, real-life practice varies greatly from clinical trials. We found that the majority of patients were unable to complete immunotherapy regimens with no improvement in overall 1-year survival.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for unresectable MPM in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) has been recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology-Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (Version 1.2022) and Chinese Guidelines for the Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (2021 edition) as the first-line treatment for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM). But whether immunotherapy has a financial advantage over conventional chemotherapy (pemetrexed plus cisplatin/carboplatin, C) is uncertain. METHODS: Based on survival and safety data from the CheckMate 743 clinical trial (NCT02899299), a partitioned survival model was constructed using TreeAge Pro2022 software. The model cycle was set to 1 month and the study period was 10 years. The output indicators included total cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the results, considering only direct medical costs. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The ICER for group NI versus Group C was $375,656/QALY in all randomized patients, $327,943/QALY in patients with epithelioid histology, and $115,495/QALY in patients with non-epithelioid histology. The ICERs of all three different populations all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China in 2021). The results of univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the price of pemetrexed and nivolumab had great influence on the analysis results. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis show that the probability of the NI scheme being more economical in all three different populations was 0. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, in patients with unresectable MPM, NI has no economic advantage over C.

[Analysis of efficacy and prognosis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and （or） surgery plus radiotherapy for hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma].

Objective:To analyze the risk factors that affect the prognosis of patients with hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma（HPSCC） and to compare the efficacy of surgical resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy（SR） with that of neoadjuvant therapy consisting of platinum-based chemotherapy and fluorouracil combined with either cetuximab or nimotuzumab, followed by SR. The study also aimed to evaluate the overall survival（OS） of patients, their postoperative eating function, tracheostomy decannulation rate, and tumor response to the two neoadjuvant chemotherapies. Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed on the medical records of HPSCC patients who received SR or neoadjuvant therapy followed by SR treatment at the Shanghai General Hospital from 2012 to 2019 and had not undergone any prior treatment. The prognostic factors were analyzed, and the survival analysis of patients who underwent SR treatment with two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens was performed. Results:A total of 108 patients were included in the study. The results of the univariate analysis showed that gender（P=0.850） had no significant correlation with the survival rate of HPSCC patients who underwent SR. However, age, smoking history, alcohol consumption history, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio（PLR）, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio（NLR）, T stage, N stage, neoadjuvant therapy with either cetuximab or nimotuzumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy and fluorouracil, and histological grade were significantly associated with prognosis（P<0.05）. The multivariate analysis revealed that smoking history, histological grade, and neoadjuvant therapy with either cetuximab or nimotuzumab combined with platinum-based chemotherapy and fluorouracil were independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of HPSCC（P<0.05）. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy had longer OS than those who underwent SR only（P<0.001）. There was no significant difference in tumor response to the two neoadjuvant therapies and in OS（P>0.05）, and there was no significant difference in the rate of oral feeding and tracheostomy decannulation among the three treatment groups（P>0.05）. Conclusion:Univariate analysis showed that age at tumor onset, smoking history, alcohol consumption history, NLR, PLR, T stage, N stage, whether receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and pathological grade were associated with the prognosis of HPSCC patients receiving SR treatment. Multivariate analysis showed that smoking history, pathological grade, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were independent risk factors affecting the prognosis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cetuximab or nimotuzumab can prolong the OS of patients, providing a certain basis and reference for the treatment of HPSCC.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with less adverse events (AE) compared with sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced HCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A partitioned survival mode was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The clinical data and outcomes were obtained from CheckMate 459 trial. Medical costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: Treatment with nivolumab yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $65,579.19 compared with sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $236,765.93/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analysis found the model outputs to be most affected for hazard ratio (HR) of OS and the cost of nivolumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 0% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201.19/QALY. The scenario analyses indicated altering the time horizon of the model did not reverse the economic results. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced HCC compared with sorafenib, but was estimated not to be cost-effective at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of China.

Comparison of nivolumab and sorafenib for first systemic therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with decompensated cirrhosis are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials of systemic therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and comparisons of available therapies are lacking. We aimed to compare overall survival for patients with HCC and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis treated with nivolumab or sorafenib as first systemic treatment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in patients with HCC and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis treated at Veterans Affairs medical centers to compare overall survival, adverse events, and reason for discontinuation of therapy between patients treated with nivolumab or sorafenib as first systemic treatment. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of those meeting inclusion criteria, 431 patients were treated with sorafenib and 79 with nivolumab. Median OS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.5-4.8) in the sorafenib cohort and 5.0 months (95% CI 3.3-6.8) in the nivolumab cohort. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, nivolumab was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of death compared to sorafenib (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.52-0.91; p = 0.008). In a secondary analysis using propensity score methods, results did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.55-1.06; p = 0.11). Treatment was discontinued due to toxicity in 12% of patients receiving nivolumab compared to 36% receiving sorafenib (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, nivolumab treatment may be associated with improved overall survival and improved tolerability compared to sorafenib and should be considered for the first systemic treatment in this population.

Treatment-related adverse events of first-line immunotherapy versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite all the improvements achieved over the last decade, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been associated to a wide range of adverse drug events, which are frequently markedly different from those observed with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapies, such as sorafenib. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis with the aim to compare grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), grade 5 TRAEs, serious TRAEs, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation in ICIs versus sorafenib across phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RESULTS: Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Patients treated with ICIs showed higher risk of serious TRAEs (OR 1.48, 95% CI = 1.16-1.9) while sorafenib treatment was associated with higher risk of TRAEs leading to discontinuation (OR 0.65, 95% CI = 0.48-0.89). No differences in grade 3/4 TRAEs and grade 5 TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond activity and efficacy, careful consideration should be given to toxicity while choosing the appropriate first-line treatment in HCC.

A case of long-term survival treated with three metastasectomies and two subsequent adjuvant nivolumab therapies for recurrent malignant melanoma of the esophagus.

BACKGROUND: The treatment strategy for metastatic lesions of primary malignant melanoma of the esophagus (PMME) is currently determined on a case-by-case basis, based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for cutaneous melanoma. The NCCN guidelines state that resection should be considered in patients with resectable metastatic recurrence. Herein, we report a case of long-term survival treated with three metastasectomies and two subsequent adjuvant nivolumab therapies for the metastatic recurrence of PMME. CASE PRESENTATION: A 65-year-old female patient with PMME underwent thoracoscopic subtotal esophagectomy, gastric tube reconstruction via the posterior mediastinal route, and cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Histopathological examination of the resected specimen revealed that the tumor was PMME with tumor invasion into the muscularis propria and no lymph node metastasis. At the age of 68 years, she developed intestinal invagination due to jejunal metastasis of malignant melanoma and underwent resection of the jejunum. Histopathological examination of the resected specimen revealed two metastases of malignant melanoma in the jejunum and one metastasis to the mesenteric lymph node. At the age of 75 years, a recurrence of malignant melanoma was found in the cervical esophagus. She underwent thoracoscopic mobilization of the gastric tube and esophagus followed by cervical esophagectomy and reconstruction with a free jejunum flap. She received 24 courses of nivolumab therapy for 1 year as a postoperative adjuvant therapy. Subsequently, at the age of 78 years, an enlarged left cervical lymph node and a mass in the right lower lobe of the lung were found. She underwent left cervical lymph node dissection and thoracoscopic wedge resection of the right lung. Histopathological examination of the resected specimens revealed that both tumors were metastases of malignant melanoma. At age 79 years, she received eight courses of nivolumab therapy as a second postoperative adjuvant therapy, with no sign of recurrence in a 9-month follow-up period after the third metastasectomy. CONCLUSION: In cases of metastatic recurrence of PMME, aggressive resection of oligometastasis with postoperative adjuvant nivolumab therapy may result in long-term survival.

Improvement of Body Weight and Nutritional Status in Gastric Cancer Patients Enhances the Benefit of Nivolumab Therapy.

Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) refractory to at least two previous chemotherapy regimens. We investigated whether changes in body weight and nutrition from first-line chemotherapy to nivolumab affected its efficacy. The correlation between weight change and nutritional status up to the start of nivolumab treatment and OS and progression-free survival (PFS) after starting nivolumab treatment was determined. Nutritional status was examined using the C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR). A loss in body weight (LBW) from the onset of the first treatment of <4.5% led to OS prolongation and improved PFS outcomes. The median OS values in the LBW < 4.5% and ≥4.5% groups were 11.4 and 3.6 months, respectively. Similarly, changes in CAR from first-line chemotherapy (ΔCAR) affected OS; the ΔCAR < 0.01 group had a better prognosis than the ΔCAR ≥ 0.01 group. The median OS values in the ΔCAR < 0.01 and ≥0.01 groups were 9.4 and 4.5 months, respectively. The median OS in the group with LBW < 4.5% and ΔCAR < 0.01 was 12.9 months. LBW and deterioration of nutritional status following first-line chemotherapy are poor prognostic factors in AGC patients who received nivolumab as third- or later-line therapy. Early intervention to maintain body weight and nutritional status may improve the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Therapeutic efficacy of nivolumab plus sorafenib therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is the backbone of numerous combination regimens for improving the therapeutic response of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of nivolumab plus sorafenib therapy in patients with unresectable HCC. METHODS: Patients with unresectable HCC who received sorafenib and followed at Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital from January 2016 to May 2022 were selected for this study, and those treated with nivolumab plus sorafenib and those with sorafenib alone were propensity score matched. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) presented as a hazard ratio calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: In the analysis, 36 patients receiving nivolumab plus sorafenib and 36 receiving sorafenib alone were propensity score matched. The median OS for those receiving nivolumab plus sorafenib and sorafenib alone were 3.6 years and 1.2 years, respectively (p = 0.031). The hazard ratio of OS for nivolumab plus sorafenib compared to sorafenib alone was 0.36 (95 %CI, 0.19-0.70; p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients receiving nivolumab plus sorafenib with a baseline α-fetoprotein(AFP) < 10 ng/mL and early reduction in AFP had a 100 % objective response rate and disease control rate. CONCLUSION: In patients with unresectable HCC, nivolumab plus sorafenib resulted in better OS outcomes than sorafenib.

C-reactive protein and immune-related adverse events as prognostic biomarkers in immune checkpoint inhibitor treated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing need to identify biomarkers for correct patient selection for immune-oncology treatments in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic role of elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) values and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) to indicate immune checkpoint inhibitors' (ICIs) efficacy in nivolumab-treated mRCC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 96 mRCC patients treated with nivolumab at Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki University Hospital in a real-life setting were collected between 2006 and 2020 retrospectively. Patients' baseline CRP, on-treatment (<12 weeks) CRP, and reported irAE association to median survival and outcome were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients with elevated baseline CRP were associated with worse overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with normal baseline CRP. This significant correlation was also observed with patients with elevated on-treatment CRP. In multivariate survival analyses both elevated baseline and on-treatment CRP had shorter OS and PFS than patients with normal CRP: hazard ratio (HR) 2.84 (95% CI 1.48-5.42), HR 3.68 (95% CI 1.92-7.03) and PFS: HR 1.77 (95% CI 1.06-2.97), HR 2.88 (95% CI 1.75-4.73), respectively. A significant difference in OS was also seen between patients without irAE and with irAE during treatment. In multivariate survival analyses, patients without irAE had shorter OS HR 1.93 (95% CI 1.03-3.62) compared with patients with reported irAE. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated baseline CRP, on-treatment CRP, and absence of irAE correlate with poor outcome in nivolumb-treated mRCC patients. These results suggest that monitoring CRP values as well as potential irAEs during treatment may be of use in clinical decision making.

Exploring Real World Outcomes with Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Extra-Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (EP-NEC).

Background: Dual utilization of the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) nivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated clinical promise in the treatment of patients with refractory high-grade neuroendocrine neo-plasms (NENs) in phase II clinical trials (DART SWOG 1609 and CA209), while single agent ICPIs have largely been ineffective for these types of tumors. While both trials demonstrated promising results in high grade NENs, there was no adequate description of the association between tumor differentiation (high-grade well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor vs poorly-differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-NEC) and ICPI outcomes in the DART SWOG 1609 trial. Our study reports on the effectiveness and toxicity profile of dual ICPIs in a real world second-line EP-NEC patient population. Methods: Data on metastatic EP-NEC patients, treated with either ICPIs (single and dual ICPIs) or chemo-therapy in the second-line setting, were retrieved from databases of three comprehensive cancer centers. Associations between treatment characteristics and outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), were evaluated. Results: From 2007 to 2020, we identified 70 patients with metastatic EP-NEC (predominantly of gastro-enteropancreatic origin), of whom 42 patients (23 males, 19 females, median age 62 years old) were eligible for the final analysis. All patients were refractory to platinum etoposide doublet chemotherapy in the first-line setting. The median PFS for patients who received dual ICPIs (11 patients), single agent ICPI (8 patients), and cytotoxic chemotherapy (23 patients) was 258 days, 56.5 days, and 47 days, respectively (p = 0.0001). Median overall survival (OS) for those groups was not reached (NR), 18.7 months, and 10.5 months, respectively (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in treatment outcomes in patients according to tumor mismatch repair (MMR) or tumor mutational burden (TMB) status. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11.1% of the patients who received dual ICPIs; however, none of these AEs led to permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: In the second-line setting, patients with EP-NECs treated with dual ICPIs (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) experienced improved PFS and OS compared to patients treated with single agent ICPI or cytotoxic chemotherapy. These results echo some of the current evidence for ICPIs in grade 3 NENs and need to be validated in future prospective studies.

Case Report: Neuromyelitis Optica After Treatment of Uveal Melanoma With Nivolumab and Ipilimumab.

The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has greatly improved survival of patients with advanced malignancies. ICIs can cause immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) involving any organ. Neurological irAEs are infrequent and have mostly been reported in patients with melanoma. We describe the case of a 57-year-old male with right eye uveal melanoma, gene expression profile (class 2), and PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) positivity, who received plaque brachytherapy with Iodine-125 for 4 days with subsequent adjuvant ICIs (immune checkpoint inhibitors), nivolumab and ipilimumab. 18 weeks after discontinuation of immunotherapy, the patient presented with acute onset of left-sided headaches, pain with eye movements, and vision loss. The patient was tested positive for serum anti-aquaporin-4 antibody (AQP4-Ab) and was diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). Subsequently, he was treated with 5 days of intravenous methylprednisolone followed by an oral prednisone taper over 10 weeks, with improvement in symptoms. We report a unique case of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) following treatment with ICIs. To our best knowledge, this is the third reported case in English literature of NMOSD following ICI therapy and the first reported case of NMOSD caused by ICI treatment in uveal melanoma.

Safety, efficacy, and tolerability of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of mortality worldwide with an increasing incidence due to escalating rates of obesity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Unfortunately, a majority of patients with HCC present with advanced disease. The immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, in combination with bevacizumab, anti-VEGF, has become the new standard of care for patients with advanced HCC after demonstrating improved overall and progression free survival over sorafenib. In this review, we discuss the evolving role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of HCC and their safety, efficacy, and tolerability.

Anti-PD-1 combined sorafenib versus anti-PD-1 alone in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matching study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a role in the tumor microenvironment. Sorafenib, which inhibits the VEGF pathway, has an immune-modulation function but lacks substantial clinical data. This study aims to explore the efficacy of anti-PD-1 combined sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: HCC patients who underwent anti-PD-1 treatment at Taipei Veterans General Hospital (Taipei, Taiwan) between January 2016 and February 2019 were reviewed. The efficacy was compared between groups after propensity-score matching. RESULTS: There were 173 HCC patients receiving anti-PD-1. After excluding unsuitable cases, 140 patients were analyzed, of which 58 received combination therapy and 82 received anti-PD-1 alone. The combination therapy had a trend of higher CR rate (8.6% vs. 4.9%, ns.), ORR (22.4% vs. 19.5%, ns.) and significantly higher DCR (69.0% vs. 37.8%, p < 0.05) comparing to anti-PD-1 alone. After matching, combination group achieved longer progression-free survival (3.87 vs. 2.43 months, p < 0.05) and overall survival (not reached vs. 7.17 months, p < 0.05) than anti-PD-1 alone, without higher grade 3/4 AE (10.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.73). The tumor response varied among different metastatic sites, with high responses in adrenal glands, peritoneum and lungs. The more AFP declined (> 10, > 50 and > 66%), the higher the ORR (70, 80 and 92%) and CR rates (30, 35 and 58%) were achieved at day 28. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the combination of anti-PD-1 and sorafenib had better efficacy and survival benefit. A prospective randomized study is needed to confirm this finding.

Severe de novo pustular psoriasiform immune-related adverse event associated with nivolumab treatment for metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Breakthrough targeted therapies have produced significant improvements in survival for cancer patients, but have a propensity to cause cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Psoriasiform irAEs, representing about 4% of dermatologic toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, are usually mild, occur in older patients and present as an exacerbation of existing psoriasis after several doses of ICI therapy. We report a case of a 58-year-old woman with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma and no prior history of psoriasis who developed a pustular psoriasiform irAE, beginning 3 days after initiation of nivolumab and progressing to confluent erythroderma with pustules over 2 weeks despite topical steroid use. She had concurrent acrodermatitis enteropathica, clinically diagnosed and confirmed with a low serum zinc level, that improved with supplementation. Her psoriasiform irAE was refractory to systemic steroids and acitretin, prompting discontinuation of nivolumab and treatment with ustekinumab and concomitant slow taper of acitretin and prednisone. Pustular psoriasiform irAE is a rare but severe dermatologic toxicity resulting from ICI therapy. Given the diverse morphologic types of cutaneous irAEs that can occur during ICI therapy, a clinical and histopathologic examination of dermatologic toxicities is critical to identify patients who may benefit from biologic therapy.

Severe Skin Disorders Due to Sorafenib Use After Nivolumab Treatment in Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients.

BACKGROUND: We report two cases in which severe skin disorders developed during sorafenib treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who had previously received nivolumab. CASE REPORT: Case 1: A 50-year-old man with RCC received nivolumab as the fifth-line therapy followed by sorafenib as the sixth-line therapy. On day 15 of sorafenib administration, the patient was hospitalized with systemic erythema multiforme, acne-like skin rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Case 2: A 40-year-old man with RCC received nivolumab as the second-line therapy followed by sorafenib as the fifth-line treatment. On day 12 of sorafenib administration, the patient was hospitalized with an acne-like skin rash and hand-foot syndrome. The skin disorders in the two cases improved within 2-3 weeks after sorafenib discontinuation and the start of treatment with topical and oral steroids. CONCLUSION: When using sorafenib in patients previously treated with nivolumab, close attention should be paid to the onset of serious skin disorders.

Evolving therapeutic strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Introduction: While sorafenib dominated the therapeutic arena in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for almost a decade, newer agents and combinations have been changing the therapeutic landscape in the last years.Areas covered: The authors outline the etiopathogenesis and evaluate the diagnostics in HCC, followed by a comprehensive review of the currently approved and experimental treatment approaches, with a focus on various systemic agents and combinations of agents. The manuscript was subdivided into relevant categories, thus making it applicable for both clinical practice and research endeavors.Expert opinion: Recently, combination therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors with anti-VEGF/R agents have shown superior clinical efficacy in HCC. The Atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination is currently the preferred first-line therapy. Single-agents cabozantinib and regorafenib as well as nivolumab-ipilimumab combination are favored as second-line therapies. Further research is needed to identify the predictors of response to various treatments and establish the distinct patient profiles that will derive most benefit. Tumor mutation analysis and germline mutation testing could identify rational therapeutic targets in HCC in the near future. As the skyline for new therapeutic agents and combinations in HCC continues to expand, the outlook as of today is cautiously optimistic in this still difficult-to-treat malignant neoplastic disease.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib.

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

Nivolumab + Ipilimumab for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with Sorafenib.

INTRODUCTION: The systemic treatment of advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has undergone an evolution in recent years. In March 2020, a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab was approved by the FDA for treatment of patients with advanced HCC who received prior sorafenib. This was based on the results of the phase I/II CheckMate-040 cohort 4 trials, which showed a promising overall response rate and encouraging overall survival with a manageable safety profile. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of nivolumab-ipilimumab in advanced HCC with prior sorafenib. Other existing systemic treatment options for advanced HCC will be described and compared to nivolumab-ipilimumab. Impact of different dose regimes, ongoing research and future developments of nivolumab-ipilimumab will be discussed. We focus on the analysis from the aforementioned CheckMate-040 cohort 4 registration trial. EXPERT OPINION: The approval of nivolumab-ipilimumab in the second-line treatment of advanced HCC by the FDA is an important development for treatment of advanced HCC. However, further investigations are needed to optimize dosing regimens and explore the use of nivolumab-ipilimumab in other combinations and settings.