Overview of Systemic Therapies in Penile Cancer.

Penile cancer (PC), although rare, poses significant challenges in both diagnosis and treatment. Penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) represents the most common histologic subtype of PC, accounting for approximately 95% of cases. With limited therapeutic options available, systemic therapies have emerged as critical components in the management of advanced PSCC. Recent developments in clinical research have revealed the effectiveness of new therapeutic strategies. By elucidating the mechanism of action and clinical evidence supporting these treatments, we strive to offer insights into optimizing treatment strategies and enhancing the quality of care for patients affected by this complex disease.

Immune-based Therapies for Penile Cancer.

This article reviews penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC), a rare genitourinary cancer that has been increasing in prevalence. It discusses emerging therapies, focusing on immunotherapy, vaccine therapy, and cell-based treatments, especially in the context of human papillomavirus-related PSCC. Factors influencing these therapies are discussed. These include the immune microenvironment, programmed cell death ligand-1 expression, and tumor immune cell infiltration. This article also highlights immune checkpoint inhibitors and related clinical trials. This review supports the use of personalized medicine in treating PSCC. It stresses the need for collaborative studies and data sharing to create specific treatment plans and achieve better outcomes.

Insights into the management of penile squamous cell carcinoma: from conventional approaches to emerging novel therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC), a rare genitourinary cancer, is associated with poor outcomes due to limited treatment effectiveness, especially in advanced stages. AREAS COVERED: While chemotherapy and/or surgery remain the standard of care, emerging therapies like immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and human papillomavirus (HPV) directed therapies show promise. Key to advancing treatment is understanding the immune microenvironment to gain insights into tumor resistance mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. The scarcity of data on PSCC is a major obstacle in advancing research for this rare cancer. EXPERT OPINION: Future research should prioritize collaborative efforts across various research centers and countries. Enhancing data sharing and pooling resources can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of PSCC, ultimately supporting the development of precision medicine strategies tailored to this specific cancer type. This collaborative approach is essential for making significant strides in PSCC treatment and care.

15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals: a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis.

Background: Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies. Methods: A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL). Findings: We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations. Interpretation: Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care. Funding: None.

Safety and effectiveness of combination versus monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases.

Patients with preexisting autoimmune disease (pAID) are generally excluded from clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer due to concern of flaring pAID. In this multi-center, retrospective observational study, we compared safety of ICI combination (two ICI agents) versus monotherapy in cancer patients with pAIDs. The primary outcome was time to AEs (immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and/or pAID flares), with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Sixty-four of 133 patients (48%) received ICI combination and 69 (52%) monotherapy. Most had melanoma (32%) and lung cancer (31%). Most common pAIDs were rheumatic (28%) and dermatologic (23%). Over a median follow-up of 15 months (95%CI, 11-18 mo), the cumulative incidence of any-grade irAEs was higher for combination compared to monotherapy (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 2.27, 95%CI 1.35-3.82). No statistically significant difference was observed in high-grade irAEs (sHR 2.31 (0.95-5.66), P = .054) or the cumulative incidence of pAID flares. There was no statistically significant difference for melanoma PFS between combination versus monotherapy (23.2 vs. 17.1mo, P = .53). The combination group was more likely to discontinue or hold ICI, but > 50% of the combination group was still able to continue ICI therapy. No treatment-related deaths occurred. In our cohort with pAIDs, patients had a tolerable toxicity profile with ICI combination therapy. Our results support the use of ICI combination if deemed necessary for cancer therapy in patients with pAIDs, since the ICI toxicities were comparable to monotherapy, able to be effectively managed and mostly did not require ICI interruption.

The Prognostic Role of Human Papillomavirus and p16 Status in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma-A Systematic Review.

PSCC is a rare cancer, with approximately half of all cases related to HPV. While HPV and p16 IHC testing have proven their prognostic value for oropharyngeal cancer, this is not yet established for PSCC. The current level of evidence exploring the relation between PSCC and HPV is moderate, so we conducted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the prognostic role of HPV and p16 IHC in PSCC clinical outcomes. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and identified 34 relevant studies that met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 33 were retrospective cohort studies, and one was a cross-sectional study. Nine studies reported that HPV-positive and p16-positive PSCC had better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). This study highlights the need for a meta-analysis to determine the role of routine HPV status or p16 staining testing as part of the initial diagnosis and staging of PSCC patients worldwide.

Emerging Biomarkers in Immune Oncology to Guide Lung Cancer Management.

Over the last decade, the use of targeted therapies and immune therapies led to drastic changes in the management lung cancer and translated to improved survival outcomes. This growing arsenal of therapies available for the management of non-small cell lung cancer added more complexity to treatment decisions. The genomic profiling of tumors and the molecular characterization of the tumor microenvironment gradually became essential steps in exploring and identifying markers that can enhance patient selection to facilitate treatment personalization and narrow down therapy options. The advent of innovative diagnostic platforms, such as next-generation sequencing and plasma genotyping (also known as liquid biopsies), has aided in this quest. Currently, programmed cell death ligand 1 expression remains the most recognized and fully validated predictive biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Other markers such as tumor mutational burden, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, driver mutations, and other molecular elements of the tumor microenvironment bear the potential to be predictive tools; however, the majority are still investigational. In this review, we describe the advances noted thus far on currently validated as well as novel emerging biomarkers that have the potential to guide the use of immunotherapy agents in the management of non-small cell lung cancer.

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) Protocol Content and Reporting for Clinical Trials that Lead to the approval of frontline Immune Checkpoint Blockade Combination for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma - The Patients' Voice or a Missed Opportunity.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) is a rapidly emerging field of oncology that has revolutionized the metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment. Four recent treatment regimens Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Cabozantinib, and Pembrolizumab-Lenvatinib-have demonstrated improved clinical endpoints compared to standard of care and are endorsed by NCCN (2021). However, data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients receiving these regimens are limited. We conducted a comparative assessment of the quality and standardization of PROs endpoints and data reported for these randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We systematically identified all RCTs evaluating combination ICB for ccRCC. PROs-specific data were abstracted from the final version of 4 RCT protocols, as well as clinical and PROs specific manuscripts published between April 2018 and April 2021. We used 3 previously published guides standardizing PROs research to objectively score the data: (i) 24-point PROEAS; (ii) 12-point SPIRIT-PRO; and (iii) 14-point CONSORT-PRO. RESULTS: The CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, CheckMate 9ER, and CLEAR studies had PROEAS scores of 88% (21/24), 37% (9/24), 83% (20/24), and 16% (4/24), respectively, and SPIRIT-PRO scores of 50% (6/12), 75% (9/12), 66% (8/12), and 41% (5/12) respectively. The CONSORT-PRO scores were 86% (12/14) for CheckMate 214 and 43% (6/14) for CheckMate 9ER, but scores were not available for the CLEAR and KEYNOTE 426 studies because of a lack of sufficient data. The average SPIRIT-PRO score across the 4 RCTs was 58%, indicating a reasonable adoption of PROs research in data management and analysis. The CheckMate 214 trial had the longest follow-up and most comprehensive published PROs data. CONCLUSION: Our analysis identified the limitations of current PROs data in combination ICB approved for mRCC. This analysis will enable clinicians to better interpret the current PROs results and emphasize the importance of better incorporation of PROs endpoints in future mRCC trial design.

Tilsotolimod with Ipilimumab Drives Tumor Responses in Anti-PD-1 Refractory Melanoma.

Many patients with advanced melanoma are resistant to immune checkpoint inhibition. In the ILLUMINATE-204 phase I/II trial, we assessed intratumoral tilsotolimod, an investigational Toll-like receptor 9 agonist, with systemic ipilimumab in patients with anti-PD-1- resistant advanced melanoma. In all patients, 48.4% experienced grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events. The overall response rate at the recommended phase II dose of 8 mg was 22.4%, and an additional 49% of patients had stable disease. Responses in noninjected lesions and in patients expected to be resistant to ipilimumab monotherapy were observed. Rapid induction of a local IFNα gene signature, dendritic cell maturation and enhanced markers of antigen presentation, and T-cell clonal expansion correlated with clinical response. A phase III clinical trial with this combination (NCT03445533) is ongoing. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite recent developments in advanced melanoma therapies, most patients do not experience durable responses. Intratumoral tilsotolimod injection elicits a rapid, local type 1 IFN response and, in combination with ipilimumab, activates T cells to promote clinical activity, including in distant lesions and patients not expected to respond to ipilimumab alone.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1861.

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide reduces the incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease in patients with acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndromes who receive immune checkpoint inhibitors after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are being used after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHCT) to reverse immune dysfunction. However, a major concern for the use of ICIs after alloHCT is the increased risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We analyzed the association between GVHD prophylaxis and frequency of GVHD in patients who had received ICI therapy after alloHCT. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in 21 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (n=16) or myelodysplastic syndromes (n=5) who were treated with antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (16 patients) or anticytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (5 patients) therapy for disease relapse after alloHCT. Associations between the type of GVHD prophylaxis and incidence of GVHD were analyzed. RESULTS: Four patients (19%) developed acute GVHD. The incidence of acute GVHD was associated only with the type of post-transplantation GVHD prophylaxis; none of the other variables included (stem cell source, donor type, age at alloHCT, conditioning regimen and prior history of GVHD) were associated with the frequency of acute GVHD. Twelve patients received post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for GVHD prophylaxis. Patients who received PTCy had a significantly shorter median time to initiation of ICI therapy after alloHCT compared with patients who did not receive PTCy (median 5.1 months compared with 26.6 months). Despite early ICI therapy initiation, patients who received PTCy had a lower observed cumulative incidence of grades 2-4 acute GVHD compared with patients who did not receive PTCy (16% compared with 22%; p=0.7). After controlling for comorbidities and time from alloHCT to ICI therapy initiation, the analysis showed that PTCy was associated with a 90% reduced risk of acute GVHD (HR 0.1, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.6, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ICI therapy for relapsed acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndromes after alloHCT may be a safe and feasible option. PTCy appears to decrease the incidence of acute GVHD in this cohort of patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Leading to Cancer Immunotherapy Drug Approvals From 2011 to 2018: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient centeredness in clinical trials; however, in the field of rapidly emerging and clinically impressive immunotherapy, data on PROs are limited. METHODS: We systematically identified all immunotherapy approvals from 2011 through 2018 and assessed the analytic tools and reporting quality of associated PRO reports. For randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we developed a novel 24-point scoring scale: the PRO Endpoints Analysis Score based on 24 criteria derived from the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium. RESULTS: We assessed 44 trial publications supporting 42 immunotherapy approvals. PROs were published for 21 of the 44 (47.7%) trial publications. Twenty-three trials (52.3%) were RCTs and 21 (47.7%) pertained to single-arm trials. The median time between primary clinical outcomes publications and their corresponding secondary PRO publications was 19 months (interquartile range = 9-29 months). Of the 21 PRO reports, 4 (19.0%) reported a specific hypothesis, and most (85.7%) used descriptive statistics. Three (3 of 21 [14.3%]) studies performed a control for type I error. As for RCTs, 14 of 23 (60.9%) published PRO data, including 13 (56.5%) that published a secondary dedicated manuscript. One-half of these 14 trials scored less than 13 points on the 24-point PRO Endpoints Analysis Score. The mean score was 12.71 (range = 5-17, SD = 3.71), and none met all the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal reporting of PROs occurs regularly in cancer immunotherapy trials. Increased efforts are needed to maximize the value of these data in cancer immunotherapy development and approval.

Difficulties in differentiating between checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis and lung metastasis in a patient with melanoma.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is associated with significant toxicities such as pneumonitis; the clinical presentation of the latter can be misleading and may mimic metastasis. We report the case of a melanoma patient who developed late-onset pneumonitis after discontinuation of treatment with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) (patient had a complete response). The patient was asymptomatic, however, surveillance computed tomography (CT) scan showed a growing lung nodule and several new-onset, small lung lesions highly suspicious for recurrence. A biopsy of the lesions revealed organizing pneumonia with absence of malignant cells. The lung lesions completely resolved after 6 months without any intervention. The patient is still in complete remission 2 years after the initial diagnosis of melanoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor related myasthenia gravis: single center experience and systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare but life-threatening adverse event of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Given the limited evidence, data from a large cohort of patients is needed to aid in recognition and management of this fatal complication. METHODS: We reviewed our institutional databases to identify patients who had cancer and MG in the setting of ICI. We systematically reviewed the literature through August 2018 to identify all similar reported patients. We collected data on clinical and diagnostic features, management, and outcomes of these cases. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were identified. Median age was 73 years; 42 (65%) were males, 31 (48%) had metastatic melanoma, and 13 (20%) had a preexisting MG before ICI initiation. Most patients received anti-PD-1 (82%). Sixty-three patients (97%) developed ICI-related MG (new onset or disease flare) after a median of 4 weeks (1 to 16 weeks) of ICI initiation. Twenty-four patients (37%) experienced concurrent myositis, and respiratory failure occurred in 29 (45%). ICI was discontinued in 61 patients (97%). Death was reported in 24 patients (38%); 15 (23%) due to MG complication. A better outcome was observed in patients who received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or plasmapheresis (PLEX) as first-line therapy than in those who received steroids alone (95% vs 63% improvement of MG symptoms, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: MG is a life-threatening adverse event of acute onset and rapid progression after ICI initiation. Early use of IVIG or PLEX, regardless of initial symptoms severity, may lead to better outcomes than steroids alone. Our data suggest the need to reassess the current recommendations for management of ICI-related MG until prospective longitudinal studies are conducted to establish the ideal management approach for these patients.

Corrections to: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer in solid organ transplantation recipients: an institutional experience and a systematic review of the literature.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in the Acknowledgments section. It should be read: 'We are grateful to Mohsin Shah from the Department of Emergency Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center for assisting in study selection, and to Gregory F. Pratt from the Research Medical Library and Erica Goodoff, from the Department of Scientific Publications at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center for their valuable contributions.

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer in solid organ transplantation recipients: an institutional experience and a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer, but their use remains limited by off-target inflammatory and immune-related adverse events. Solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients have been excluded from clinical trials owing to concerns about alloimmunity, organ rejection, and immunosuppressive therapy. Thus, we conducted a retrospective study and literature review to evaluate the safety of CPIs in patients with cancer and prior SOT. METHODS: Data were collected from the medical records of patients with cancer and prior SOT who received CPIs at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 1, 2004, through March 31, 2018. Additionally, we systematically reviewed five databases through April 2018 to identify studies reporting CPIs to treat cancer in SOT recipients. We evaluated the safety of CPIs in terms of alloimmunity, immune-related adverse events, and mortality. We also evaluated tumor response to CPIs. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with allograft transplantation were identified. The median age was 63 years (range 14-79 years), 74% were male, 62% had metastatic melanoma, 77% received anti-PD-1 agents, and 59% had prior renal transplantation, 28% hepatic transplantation, and 13% cardiac transplantation. Median time to CPI initiation after SOT was 9 years (range 0.92-32 years). Allograft rejection occurred in 41% of patients (11/23 renal, 4/11 hepatic, and 1/5 cardiac transplantations), at similar rates for anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy. The median time to rejection was 21 days (95% confidence interval 19.3-22.8 days). There were no associations between time since SOT and frequency, timing, or type of rejection. Overall, 31% of patients permanently discontinued CPIs because of allograft rejection. Graft loss occurred in 81%, and death was reported in 46%. Of the 12 patients with transplantation biopsies, nine (75%) had acute rejection, and five of these rejections were T cell-mediated. In melanoma patients, 36% responded to CPIs. CONCLUSIONS: SOT recipients had a high allograft rejection rate that was observed shortly after CPI initiation, with high mortality rates. Further studies are needed to optimize the anticancer treatment approach in these patients.