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.

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).

Calcium-sensing receptor autoantibody-mediated hypoparathyroidism associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: diagnosis and long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have produced significant survival benefit across many tumor types. However, immune-related adverse events are common including autoimmune responses against different endocrine organs. Here, a case of ICI-mediated hypoparathyroidism focusing on long-term follow-up and insights into its etiology is presented. CASE AND METHODS: A 73-year-old man developed severe symptomatic hypocalcemia after the initiation of ipilimumab and nivolumab for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Hypoparathyroidism was diagnosed with undetectable intact parathyroid hormone (PTH). Immunoprecipitation assays, ELISAs, and cell-based functional assays were used to test the patient for antibodies against the calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR). NACHT leucine-rich repeat protein 5 (NALP5) and cytokine antibodies were measured in radioligand binding assays and ELISAs, respectively. RESULTS: The patient's symptoms improved with aggressive calcium and vitamin D supplementation. At 3 years and 3 months since the diagnosis of hypoparathyroidism, PTH was still inappropriately low at 7.6 pg/mL, and attempted discontinuation of calcium and calcitriol resulted in recurrent symptomatic hypocalcemia. Analysis for an autoimmune etiology of the patient's hypoparathyroidism indicated that CaSR antibodies were negative before treatment and detected at multiple time points afterwards, and corresponded to the patient's clinical course of hypoparathyroidism. CaSR antibodies purified from the patient's serum activated the human CaSR. The patient was seronegative for NALP5 and cytokine antibodies, indicating that their hypoparathyroidism was not a manifestation of autoimmune polyendocrine syndrome type 1. CONCLUSION: The etiology of hypocalcemia is likely autoimmune hypoparathyroidism caused by the development of CaSR-activating antibodies that might prevent PTH release from the parathyroid.

Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Pazopanib Immediately After Discontinuation of Immunotherapy for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: In the first-line (1L) setting, pazopanib (PAZ) has been recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). In 2018, immuno-oncology (IO) therapy became a commonly used 1L treatment option for aRCC. We report the real-world clinical outcomes of PAZ after IO therapy for patients with aRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a longitudinal, retrospective medical record review study. The included patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had initiated second-line and/or beyond PAZ after IO therapy for clear cell aRCC on or before October 2017, and had complete medical records available from the diagnosis of aRCC to the discontinuation of PAZ, death, or the medical record extraction date (May 2018), whichever occurred first. The primary outcome variable was the PAZ duration of therapy. The secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival since PAZ initiation, the reasons for PAZ discontinuation, and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 258 eligible patients had initiated IO therapies before PAZ as follows: nivolumab (68%), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (14%), pembrolizumab (12%), and ipilimumab (3%). Overall, the median PAZ duration of therapy was 13.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.1-16.0 months). The median progression-free survival with PAZ after IO therapy was 13.5 months (95% CI, 11.8 months to not reached). The estimated overall survival rate of PAZ after IO therapy at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 89%, respectively. A total of 109 patients (42%) had reported an AE. The most frequently reported AEs were fatigue (29%) and diarrhea (14%). No additional safety signal of hepatotoxicity was observed (increased aspartate aminotransferase, 5%; increased alanine transaminase, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: In the present real-world study, second-line and/or beyond PAZ after previous IO therapy was well-tolerated and effective for patients with aRCC.

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.