COLAR: open-label clinical study of IL-6 blockade with tocilizumab for the treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis and arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are not always effectively treated using glucocorticoids and it may negatively affect the antitumor efficacy of ICIs. Interventional studies of alternatives to glucocorticoids are lacking. We examined whether interleukin-6 blockade by tocilizumab reduced ICI-induced colitis and arthritis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid cancer experiencing Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0) grade >1 ICI-induced colitis/diarrhea (n=9), arthritis (n=9), or both (n=2) were recruited and treated with tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) every 4 weeks until worsening or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were not allowed to receive systemic glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive drugs within the 14-day screening period. The primary endpoint was clinical improvement of colitis and arthritis, defined as ≥1 grade CTCAE reduction within 8 weeks. Secondary endpoints were improvements and glucocorticoid-free remission at week 24; safety; radiologic, endoscopic, and histological changes; and changes in plasma concentrations of C reactive protein, cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, and IL-17), and YKL-40. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were available for efficacy analysis; one patient was excluded due to pancreatic insufficiency-induced diarrhea. Patients received treatment with pembrolizumab (n=10) or nivolumab (n=4) as monotherapy or ipilimumab and nivolumab (n=5) combined. Seven patients had been initially treated with glucocorticoids, and two of them also received infliximab. Ten patients continued ICI therapy during tocilizumab treatment. The primary endpoint was achieved in 15 of 19 (79%) patients. Additional one patient had ≥1 grade reduction at week 10, and another patient had stabilized symptoms. At week 24, ongoing improvement without glucocorticoids (n=12), including complete remission (n=10), was noted. Five patients had grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, which were manageable and reversible. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab showed promising clinical efficacy and a manageable safety profile in the treatment of ICI-induced colitis and arthritis. Our findings support the feasibility of randomized trials of immune-related adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03601611.

Immune checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced diarrhea and Colitis: Incidence and Management. A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved cancer outcomes. However, immune-related adverse effects are common. The aim was to investigate the incidence of diarrhea and colitis of ICIs alone and in combination with chemotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), histopathological findings, and management. METHODS: Two separate studies, including meta-analyses, were performed. Key inclusion criteria were for Study I) phase I-IV trials, and data on diarrhea and/or colitis; for Study II) studies describing histopathologic and endoscopic findings and/or biologic treatment for ICI-induced colitis. RESULTS: The incidence of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody-induced diarrhea and colitis was 10% and 2%, respectively, with no clinically relevant differences between the compounds. The CTLA-4 inhibitor, ipilimumab, induced diarrhea and colitis in 33% and 7% of patients, respectively, whereas the incidence of diarrhea and colitis following ipilimumab combined with nivolumab was 21%-37% and 4%-8%, depending on regimen. The incidence of all-grade diarrhea following ICIs combined with chemotherapy or TKIs was high (17%-56%), whereas only 0.5% of patients developed severe (≥grade 3) colitis. The main patterns of histopathologic presentation after PD-1/CTLA-4 inhibitor mono- or combination therapy were acute and chronic active colitis and microscopic colitis-like. Infliximab and vedolizumab were equally effective against ICI-induced colitis. CONCLUSION: Expanding treatment options include combinations of ICIs and chemotherapy/TKI with a high incidence of diarrhea and a low incidence of colitis; thus, a potential risk of overtreatment with corticosteroids exists. We suggest a more tailored approach, particularly for the management of low-grade diarrhea. Prospective clinical trials are needed to refine management.

A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Study of Gemcitabine and Capecitabine with or without T-ChOS as Adjuvant Therapy in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Cancer (CHIPAC).

The antitumor activity of chitooligosaccharides has been suggested. This phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of T-ChOS™, in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy, in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using patients ≥18 years of age after complete macroscopic resection for PDAC, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either a continuous oral T-ChOS group or a placebo group, in combination with gemcitabine (GEM) and oral capecitabine (CAP), for a maximum of six cycles. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Recruitment was stopped prematurely in July 2018, with 21 of planned 180 patients included, due to poor accrual and because modified FOLFIRINOX replaced GEM/CAP for the target population. Nine patients received T-ChOS and twelve received the placebo. The median DFS was 10.8 months (95% CI 5.9-15.7) for the T-ChOS arm and 8.4 months (95% CI 0-21.5) in the placebo arm. Overall, seven patients (78%) in the T-ChOS arm and eight patients (67%) in the placebo arm experienced at least one grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse event, most frequently neutropenia. Altogether, the addition of T-ChOS to chemotherapy in patients after resection of PDAC seems safe. However, the clinical benefit cannot be assessed due to the premature cessation of the trial.

Regional and age differences in specialised palliative care for patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite national recommendations, disparities in specialised palliative care (SPC) admittance have been reported. The aims of this study were to characterize SPC admittance in patients with pancreatic cancer in relation to region of residence and age. METHOD: The data sources were two nationwide databases: Danish Pancreatic Cancer Database and Danish Palliative Care Database. The study population included patients (18+ years old) diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2011 to 2018. We investigated admittance to SPC, and time from diagnosis to referral to SPC and first contact with SPC to death by region of residence and age. RESULTS: In the study period (N = 5851) admittance to SPC increased from 44 to 63%. The time from diagnosis to referral to SPC increased in the study period and overall, the median time was 67 days: three times higher in Southern (92 days) than in North Denmark Region. The median number of days from diagnosis to referral to SPC was lower in patients ≥70 years (59 days) vs patients < 70 years (78 days), with regional differences between the age groups. Region of residence and age were associated with admittance to SPC; highest for patients in North Denmark Region vs Capital Region (OR = 2.03 (95%CI 1.67-2.48)) and for younger patients (< 60 years vs 80+ years) (OR = 2.54 (95%CI 2.05-3.15)). The median survival from admittance to SPC was 35 days: lowest in Southern (30 days) and highest in North Denmark Region (41 days). The median number of days from admittance to SPC to death was higher in patients < 70 years (40 days) vs ≥ 70 years (31 days), with a difference between age groups in the regions of 1-14 days. CONCLUSIONS: From 2011 to 2018 more patients with pancreatic cancer than previously were admitted to SPC, with marked differences between regions of residence and age groups. The persistently short period of time the patients are in SPC raises concern that early integrated palliative care is not fully integrated into the Danish healthcare system for patients with pancreatic cancer, with the risk that the referral comes so late that the patients do not receive the full benefit of the SPC.