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.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab plus Chemotherapy in Resectable Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy confers a modest benefit over surgery alone for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In early-phase trials, nivolumab-based neoadjuvant regimens have shown promising clinical activity; however, data from phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IB to IIIA resectable NSCLC to receive nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone, followed by resection. The primary end points were event-free survival and pathological complete response (0% viable tumor in resected lung and lymph nodes), both evaluated by blinded independent review. Overall survival was a key secondary end point. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS: The median event-free survival was 31.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.2 to not reached) with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and 20.8 months (95% CI, 14.0 to 26.7) with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio for disease progression, disease recurrence, or death, 0.63; 97.38% CI, 0.43 to 0.91; P = 0.005). The percentage of patients with a pathological complete response was 24.0% (95% CI, 18.0 to 31.0) and 2.2% (95% CI, 0.6 to 5.6), respectively (odds ratio, 13.94; 99% CI, 3.49 to 55.75; P<0.001). Results for event-free survival and pathological complete response across most subgroups favored nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. At the first prespecified interim analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.57 (99.67% CI, 0.30 to 1.07) and did not meet the criterion for significance. Of the patients who underwent randomization, 83.2% of those in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and 75.4% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group underwent surgery. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33.5% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-chemotherapy group and in 36.9% of those in the chemotherapy-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with resectable NSCLC, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a higher percentage of patients with a pathological complete response than chemotherapy alone. The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase the incidence of adverse events or impede the feasibility of surgery. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 816 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02998528.).

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.

Calcitriol-mediated hypercalcemia as an immune-related adverse event in a patient receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, case report.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypercalcemia is often associated with uncontrolled malignancy through several mechanisms. However, calcitriol-mediated hypercalcemia is a rare etiology for advanced solid tumors. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of calcitriol-mediated hypercalcemia secondary to immune checkpoint inhibition in a responder with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In this case, a 68 year old male with metastatic ccRCC to the liver within 4 months of right radical nephrectomy went on to develop hypercalcemia (12.8 mg/dL) shortly following 2 cycles of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Additional testing showed an elevated calcitriol level (142 pg/mL), low parathyroid hormone (PTH) and parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP) levels, and a normal 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. FDG-PET imaging showed hypermetabolic mediastinal, hilar, and intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy, however the subsequent lymph node biopsy only showed reactive lymphoid cells without malignancy or granuloma. The hypercalcemia was resistant to initial therapy with calcitonin, hydration, and zoledronic acid but quickly responded to high-dose prednisone (1 mg/kg), followed by normalization of calcitriol levels. The patient was rechallenged with nivolumab and ipilimumab which provided a partial response after 4 cycles. He was maintained on low dose prednisone (10 mg daily) leading to a sustained resolution of his hypercalcemia. CONCLUSION: This case suggests calcitriol-mediated hypercalcemia as a novel immune-related adverse event.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in First-line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.  3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.  4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.

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).

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.

Inflammation-induced hypoparathyroidism triggered by combination immune checkpoint blockade for melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with a combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 targeted checkpoint inhibition has improved outcome of melanoma patients and led to durable remissions but is also associated with significant toxicities. Endocrinopathies such as thyroiditis and hypophysitis are often seen, but other, rarer disturbances have also been described. Endocrinopathies affecting the parathyroid gland are rarely reported and no clear pathomechanism has been proposed. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we report a case of severe hypocalcemia due to an antibody-mediated hypoparathyroidism as an immune-related adverse event (irAE) in a patient who was treated with the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab and anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab. Hypocalcemia was rapidly corrected by substitution, but the endogenous serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) remained low. The patient demonstrated a rapid and profound tumor response to the combination immune checkpoint blockade, but developed a severe colitis that required high-dose intravenous corticosteroid and anti-TNFα therapy. During this strong immunosuppression the PTH level normalized and the calcium levels were stable without substitution. However, during tapering of immunosuppressants, the PTH and calcium levels decreased again to a level requiring calcium substitution. CONCLUSION: Our report demonstrates a rare endocrinopathy as a complication of combined PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade. In addition, it provides evidence from the course of the disease that inflammation within the parathyroid gland is involved in the mechanism.

Adverse Effects of Immune Checkpoint Therapy in Cancer Patients Visiting the Emergency Department of a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Cancer immunotherapy is evolving rapidly and is transforming cancer care. During the last decade, immune checkpoint therapies have been developed to enhance the immune response; however, specific adverse effects related to autoimmunity are increasingly apparent. This study aims to fill the knowledge gap related to the spectrum of immune-related adverse effects among cancer patients visiting emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients treated with immune checkpoint therapy who visited the ED of a comprehensive cancer center between March 1, 2011, and February 29, 2016. Immune-related adverse effects from the ED visits were identified and profiled. We analyzed the association of each immune-related adverse effect with overall survival from the ED visit to death. RESULTS: We identified 1,026 visits for 628 unique patients; of these, 257 visits (25.0%) were related to one or more immune-related adverse effects. Diarrhea was the most common one leading to an ED visit. The proportions of ED visits associated with diarrhea, hypophysitis, thyroiditis, pancreatitis, or hepatitis varied significantly by immune checkpoint therapy agent. Colitis was significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas pneumonitis was significantly associated with worse survival. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab may have a spectrum of immune-related adverse effects that require emergency care. Future studies will need to update this profile as further novel immunotherapeutic agents are added.

Nuevas posibilidades terapéuticas en melanoma metastásico / Novel therapeutics possibilities for metastatic melanoma

El melanoma ha experimentado un aumento constante en su tasa de incidencia en las últimas cinco décadas a nivel mundial. El pronóstico del paciente con melanoma se relaciona con el estadio de la enfermedad al momento del diagnóstico, con una sobrevida global media de 6,2 meses en pacientes con melanoma metastásico. El avance en las investigaciones sobre la biología y el comportamiento tumoral permitió el desarrollo de nuevas terapias con distintos mecanismos de acción y mayor eficacia. En esta revisión se abordan las terapias biológicas en melanoma metastásico, su mecanismo de acción y principales resultados en ensayos clínicos. (AU)

Melanoma has experienced a consistent increase in incidence over the past five decades worldwide. The prognosis of patients with melanoma is related to the stage of disease at diagnosis, with a median overall survival of 6.2 months in metastatic melanoma. Progress in research on tumor biology allowed the development of new therapies with different mechanisms of action and greater efficiency. In this review, biologic therapies in metastatic melanoma, its mechanism of action and main results in clinical trials are discussed. (AU)