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.

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.

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.

Cervical cancer - times they are a changing: A report from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology journal club.

In January 2021, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Clinical Practice and Education Committees launched a "Journal Club" webinar series to invite national experts to discuss literature pertaining to common clinical scenarios encountered by the members of SGO. On December 13, 2021, SGO hosted its third journal club focused on the use of immunotherapy in cervical cancer. Charles A. Leath, III from the O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer at the University of Alabama and Leslie M. Randall from Massey Cancer Center at Virginia Commonwealth University discussed the recently published KEYNOTE-826 trial (Colombo et al., 2021) and Jyoti Mayadev from the University of California, San Diego Moores Cancer Center discussed GOG-9929 (Mayadev et al., 2020). Renata Urban from the University of Washington and Christine S. Walsh from the University of Colorado served as moderators. The following is a report of the journal club presentation.

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.

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.

Immune-Related Adverse Events in the Older Adult with Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Older adults with cancer (OAC) may be at elevated risk for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy due to the normal organ function changes of aging, as well as related to a higher prevalence of comorbid conditions compared to younger patients. The importance of high-quality nursing care cannot be overstated for this population, including proactive symptom assessment, management, and coordination of care. The purpose of this paper is to describe the unique challenges faced by OAC receiving ICI drugs. METHODS: We present both a case study and the results of a single-institution retrospective study from a large, urban US National Cancer Institute- designated comprehensive cancer center. The retrospective study examined the frequency and intensity of irAEs experienced by patients aged 75 years or older who received ICI therapy between January 2016 and December 2018 for melanoma. RESULTS: We reviewed the records of 38 OAC (age range 75-92 years) with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma who received pembrolizumab, nivolumab and/or ipilimumab. Median length of therapy was 7.4 months, and median time to onset of irAEs was 81 days. Approximately half (47%) of the patients experienced Grade 1-3 irAEs, and discontinued therapy related to inability to tolerate the ICI more frequently than was reported in clinical trials (24%). CONCLUSIONS: OAC who receive ICI therapy frequently experience irAEs that may result in treatment interruption, discontinuation or long-lasting toxicity. Nurses are well positioned to provide support to this vulnerable population.

Phase III study of nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab as immunotherapy versus standard of care in resectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC) often requires postoperative chemoradiation with high risk of toxicity. Disease-free survival (DFS) after 2 years is approximately 70%. Combining nivolumab (N), a PD-1-inhibitor and ipilimumab (I), a CTLA4- inhibitor, may improve DFS due to antitumor effects of immunotherapy. The IMSTAR-HN study compares neoadjuvant N and N ± I 6 months after adjuvant therapy versus standard therapy as first-line treatment for LA-HNSCC. Eligible patients have treatment-naive LA-HNSCC, Eastern cooperative oncology group performance score (PS) ≤1 and no distant metastasis. 276 patients will be randomized into two arms. Primary endpoint is DFS and secondary endpoint includes locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS). This study is one of the first in HNSCCs implementing immunotherapy in first-line treatment in a curative setting. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03700905 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Navigating the new landscape of second-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Sorafenib and lenvatinib are approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and the efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has been demonstrated versus sorafenib. Over time, first-line treatment frequently fails, and regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab (for patients with alpha fetoprotein ≥400 ng/mL), nivolumab, pembrolizumab and ipilimumab plus nivolumab are approved for use after sorafenib (but not lenvatinib) treatment in advanced HCC. Given the considerable complexity in the therapeutic landscape, the objective of this review was to summarize the clinical evidence for second-line agents and provide practical guidance for selecting the best sequential treatment approach. The timing and sequencing of treatment switches are key to optimizing patient outcomes in advanced HCC, and decisions should be informed by reasons for discontinuation of previous therapy and disease progression. It is important not to switch too soon, because sequential treatment benefit may then be lost, nor should switching be delayed too long. Effectiveness, safety and tolerability, patient quality of life, route of administration, dosing regimen, drug class, molecular target and individual patients' characteristics, including comorbidities, inform the selection of second-line systemic treatment, independently of the aetiology of HCC, tumour stage and the response to previous treatment. Biomarkers predictive of treatment effectiveness are of great value, but currently biomarker-driven patient selection is possible only in the case of ramucirumab. The approval of new combination therapies for advanced HCC in the first-line setting will further increase the complexity of decision-making. However, the important factors will remain the individual patient's characteristics and preferences.

Review of Indications of FDA-Approved Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors per NCCN Guidelines with the Level of Evidence.

Cancer is associated with higher morbidity and mortality and is the second leading cause of death in the US. Further, in some nations, cancer has overtaken heart disease as the leading cause of mortality. Identification of molecular mechanisms by which cancerous cells evade T cell-mediated cytotoxic damage has led to the modern era of immunotherapy in cancer treatment. Agents that release these immune brakes have shown activity to recover dysfunctional T cells and regress various cancer. Both cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and Programmed Death-1 (PD-1) play their role as physiologic brakes on unrestrained cytotoxic T effector function. CTLA-4 (CD 152) is a B7/CD28 family; it mediates immunosuppression by indirectly diminishing signaling through the co-stimulatory receptor CD28. Ipilimumab is the first and only FDA-approved CTLA-4 inhibitor; PD-1 is an inhibitory transmembrane protein expressed on T cells, B cells, Natural Killer cells (NKs), and Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells (MDSCs). Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) is expressed on the surface of multiple tissue types, including many tumor cells and hematopoietic cells. PD-L2 is more restricted to hematopoietic cells. Blockade of the PD-1 /PDL-1 pathway can enhance anti-tumor T cell reactivity and promotes immune control over the cancerous cells. Since the FDA approval of ipilimumab (human IgG1 k anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) in 2011, six more immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved for cancer therapy. PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab and PD-L1 inhibitors atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab are in the current list of the approved agents in addition to ipilimumab. In this review paper, we discuss the role of each immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), the landmark trials which led to their FDA approval, and the strength of the evidence per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), which is broadly utilized by medical oncologists and hematologists in their daily practice.

PRISM protocol: a randomised phase II trial of nivolumab in combination with alternatively scheduled ipilimumab in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. METHODS: The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. DISCUSSION: The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). TRIAL STATUS: At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. RESULTS: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: a Minireview of Current Clinical Guidelines.

Successful targeting and inhibition of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 and programmed cell death-1 protein/programmed cell death ligand 1 immune checkpoint pathways has led to a rapidly expanding repertoire of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of various cancers. The approved agents now include ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, and cemiplimab. In addition to antitumor responses, immune checkpoint inhibition can lead to activation of autoreactive T-cells resulting in unique immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Therefore, it is imperative that oncology nurses, and other clinicians involved in the care of cancer patients, are familiar with the management of irAEs which differ significantly from the management of adverse events from cytotoxic chemotherapy. Herein, we review the mechanisms of irAEs and strategies for management of irAEs and highlight similarities as well as differences among clinical guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and European Society for Medical Oncology. Understanding these similarities and key differences will facilitate the development and implementation of a practice site-specific plan for the management of irAEs.

Combination therapy for metastatic melanoma: a pharmacist's role, drug interactions & complementary alternative therapies.

The incidence of metastatic melanoma has been increasing dramatically over the last decades. Yet, there have been many new innovative therapies, such as targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors, which have made progress in survival for these patients. The oncology pharmacist is part of the healthcare team and can help in optimizing these newer therapies. There will be discussion about combination therapies, the oncology pharmacist's role, and issues at the core of his interest, such as drug interactions and complementary and alternative therapies.

ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) Consensus Document on the safety of targeted and biological therapies: an infectious diseases perspective (Immune checkpoint inhibitors, cell adhesion inhibitors, sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators and proteasome inhibitors).

BACKGROUND: The present review is part of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Infections in Compromised Hosts (ESGICH) consensus document on the safety of targeted and biological therapies. AIMS: To review, from an infectious diseases perspective, the safety profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors, LFA-3-targeted agents, cell adhesion inhibitors, sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulators and proteasome inhibitors, and to suggest preventive recommendations. SOURCES: Computer-based Medline searches with MeSH terms pertaining to each agent or therapeutic family. CONTENT: T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death (PD)-1/PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-targeted agents do not appear to intrinsically increase the risk of infection but can induce immune-related adverse effects requiring additional immunosuppression. Although CD4+ T-cell lymphopenia is associated with alefacept, no opportunistic infections have been observed. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) may occur during therapy with natalizumab (anti-α4-integrin monoclonal antibody (mAb)) and efalizumab (anti-CD11a mAb), but no cases have been reported to date with vedolizumab (anti-α4ß7 mAb). In patients at high risk for PML (positive anti-JC polyomavirus serology with serum antibody index >1.5 and duration of therapy ≥48 months), the benefit-risk ratio of continuing natalizumab should be carefully considered. Fingolimod induces profound peripheral blood lymphopenia and increases the risk of varicella zoster virus (VZV) infection. Prophylaxis with (val)acyclovir and VZV vaccination should be considered. Proteasome inhibitors also increase the risk of VZV infection, and antiviral prophylaxis with (val)acyclovir is recommended. Anti-Pneumocystis prophylaxis may be considered in myeloma multiple patients with additional risk factors (i.e. high-dose corticosteroids). IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the risk of immune-related adverse effects and PML in patients receiving immune checkpoint and cell adhesion inhibitors respectively.

Ipilimumab: from preclinical development to future clinical perspectives in melanoma.

The arsenal for the treatment of metastatic melanoma is limited. A new approach to therapy using checkpoint blockade has improved overall survival in this patient population. Ipilimumab a CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody is a first in class drug that has pioneered this revolution. In this review, the authors provide an account of the different stages that led to the development of ipilimumab, its approval in the clinical setting for the treatment of advanced melanoma and ongoing investigations of combinatorial immune therapy.

Economic Burden of Toxicities Associated with Treating Metastatic Melanoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Little has been reported on the costs of managing the adverse events (AEs) associated with current therapies for patients with regional or distant metastatic melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To identify treatment-related AEs in patients with metastatic melanoma and to estimate the associated costs of treating these AEs in the United States. METHODS: A cost-estimation study for AEs associated with treatment of metastatic melanoma was conducted from 2012 to 2013 by identifying grades 3 and 4 AEs through the use of a comprehensive search of drug labels and English-language, published phase 2/3 studies in PubMed, conference abstracts, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Resource utilization for the management of each type of AE in the outpatient setting was obtained via interviews with 5 melanoma specialists in the United States. Unit costs for an AE associated with melanoma treatment in the outpatient setting were assigned using Medicare reimbursement rates to obtain these costs. Hospitalization and length-of-stay costs were estimated for each associated AE using the large national claims database Optum Clinformatics Data Mart for the period of July 1, 2004, to November 30, 2012. RESULTS: The most common AEs associated with chemotherapies used for melanoma were neutropenia, vomiting, and anemia. The most common AEs associated with vemurafenib were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma or keratoacanthoma, rash, and elevated liver enzymes; the most common AEs associated with dabrafenib were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and pyrexia. Trametinib was most often associated with hypertension and rash. The most common AEs with ipilimumab were immune-related diarrhea or colitis, dyspnea, anemia, vomiting, and, less frequently, hypophysitis. The most common grade 3/4 AE with talimogene laherparepvec was cellulitis. The highest treatment costs for an AE in the outpatient setting were for neutropenia ($2092), headache ($609), and peripheral neuropathy ($539). The highest mean inpatient costs for an AE were for acute myocardial infarction, sepsis, and coma, which ranged from $31,682 to $47,069. Colitis or diarrhea, cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, thrombocytopenia, hyponatremia, oliguria or anuria, hypertension, anemia, and elevated liver enzymes were associated with mean costs for hospitalization ranging from $19,122 to $26,861. CONCLUSION: The costs of managing treatment-related AEs in patients with metastatic melanoma are substantial. Effective treatments with improved safety profiles may help to reduce these costs. Until real-world evidence for the costs associated with treatment toxicity is available in the outpatient and inpatient settings, the costs estimated in this study can help inform decision makers about the cost-effectiveness of managing patients with metastatic melanoma.

Use of complementary medicine in metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab within a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Germany, 40-90 % of all cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). So far, no data are available on the use of CAM by melanoma patients. The objective of our study was to gather data on CAM use, sources of information, and goals of patients with metastatic melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six patients from 25 study centers participated in the DecOG-MM-PAL-Multibasket Study. These individuals were also asked to participate in a side study addressing CAM use. A standardized CAM questionnaire was distributed at defined points during the treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 55 questionnaires from 32 (21 %) melanoma patients were received. Of those, 17 (53 %) stated an interest in CAM, and seven (22 %) actually used CAM. Family and friends were the main source of information (31 %), followed by physicians (19 %). The main reasons for using CAM were boosting the immune system (41 %) and strengthening the body (34 %). Supplements (vitamins and trace elements) were most commonly used (28 %). CONCLUSIONS: A relatively high number of metastatic melanoma patients used CAM despite their participation in a clinical trial. Interactions may be due to biologically based CAM, especially immunomodulatory CAM strategies. In order to avoid risks, communication between physicians and patients should be improved.

Three-year follow-up of advanced melanoma patients who received ipilimumab plus fotemustine in the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy (NIBIT)-M1 phase II study.

BACKGROUND: In the NIBIT-M1 study, we reported a promising activity of ipilimumab combined with fotemustine in metastatic melanoma (MM) patients with or without brain metastases. To corroborate these initial findings, we now investigated the long-term efficacy of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This analysis captured the 3-year outcome of MM patients who received ipilimumab combined with fotemustine as first- or second-line treatment. Median overall survival (OS), 3-year survival rates, immune-related (ir) progression-free survival (irPFS), brain PFS, and ir duration of response (irDOR) for the entire population and for patients with brain metastases were assessed. Clinical results were correlated with circulating CD3(+)CD4(+)ICOS(+)CD45RO(+) or CD45RA(+) T cells, neutrophil/lymphocyte (N/L) ratios, and tumorBRAF-V600 mutational status. RESULTS: Eighty-six MM patients, including 20 with asymptomatic brain metastases that had been pre-treated with radiotherapy in 7 subjects, were enrolled in the study. With a median follow-up of 39.9 months, median OS and 3-year survival rates were 12.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-18.7 months] and 28.5% for the whole study population, and 12.7 months (95% CI 2.7-22.7 months) and 27.8% for patients with brain metastases, respectively. Long-term ir adverse events consisting of G1 rush and pruritus occurred in 21% of patients. The absolute increase from baseline to week 12 in 'memory' but not in 'naïve' T cells identified patients with a better survival (P = 0.002). The N/L ratio correlated with a significantly better survival at early time points. BRAF status did not correlate with clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term analysis of the NIBIT-M1 trial continues to demonstrate efficacy of ipilimumab combined with fotemustine in MM patients. Fotemustine does not seem to impair the immunologic activity of ipilimumab. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2010-019356-50. CINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01654692.