Exploring Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors' Experience with Cancer Treatment-Related Symptoms: A Qualitative Analysis of Semi-Structured Interviews.

Purpose: Few studies have specifically targeted symptom management interventions for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. A greater understanding of AYA cancer survivors' experiences with cancer treatment-related symptoms would help develop age-appropriate oncology symptom management interventions. The purpose of this qualitative analysis was to explore AYA cancer survivors' experience with cancer treatment-related symptoms. Methods: Nineteen post-treatment AYA cancer survivors (18-39 years old) who self-reported moderate-severe cancer treatment-related symptom severity participated in video conferencing or telephone interviews. The questions in the interview guide queried participants to share their experience with cancer treatment-related symptoms. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes from the interviews. Results: The themes that emerged from the interviews included (1) cancer treatment-related symptoms negatively affected AYA cancer survivors' quality of life (e.g., symptoms served as a reminder of cancer recurrence possibility); (2) AYA cancer survivors' attitudes and feelings about communicating cancer treatment-related symptom concerns to clinicians (e.g., patient-clinician communication was bolstered when AYAs perceived that symptoms were being taken seriously); (3) AYA cancer survivors are interested in oncology symptom management clinical trials, but logistical challenges are barriers to participation; and (4) AYA cancer survivors are interested in nonpharmacological treatments for symptom management. Conclusion: Results highlight the burden of cancer treatment-related symptoms on day-to-day life among post-treatment AYA cancer survivors. Future work is needed to identify nonpharmacological symptom management interventions, strategies to improve patient-clinician communication about symptoms, and strategies to increase the visibility and accessibility of symptom management clinical trials for AYA cancer survivors.

The impact of cancer metastases on COVID-19 outcomes: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry-based retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can have a particularly detrimental effect on patients with cancer, but no studies to date have examined if the presence, or site, of metastatic cancer is related to COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, the authors identified 10,065 patients with COVID-19 and cancer (2325 with and 7740 without metastasis at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis). The primary ordinal outcome was COVID-19 severity: not hospitalized, hospitalized but did not receive supplemental O2 , hospitalized and received supplemental O2 , admitted to an intensive care unit, received mechanical ventilation, or died from any cause. The authors used ordinal logistic regression models to compare COVID-19 severity by presence and specific site of metastatic cancer. They used logistic regression models to assess 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Compared to patients without metastasis, patients with metastases have increased hospitalization rates (59% vs. 49%) and higher 30 day mortality (18% vs. 9%). Patients with metastasis to bone, lung, liver, lymph nodes, and brain have significantly higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted odds ratios [ORs], 1.38, 1.59, 1.38, 1.00, and 2.21) compared to patients without metastases at those sites. Patients with metastasis to the lung have significantly higher odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.00) when adjusting for COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic cancer, especially with metastasis to the brain, are more likely to have severe outcomes after COVID-19 whereas patients with metastasis to the lung, compared to patients with cancer metastasis to other sites, have the highest 30-day mortality after COVID-19.

COVID-19 severity and cardiovascular outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Background: Data regarding outcomes among patients with cancer and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD)/cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited. Objectives: To compare Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related complications among cancer patients with and without co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from 03/17/2020 to 12/31/2021. CVD/CVRF was defined as established CVD or no established CVD, male ≥ 55 or female ≥ 60 years, and one additional CVRF. The primary endpoint was an ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome including need for hospitalization, supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, ICU or mechanical ventilation plus vasopressors, and death. Secondary endpoints included incident adverse CV events. Ordinal logistic regression models estimated associations of CVD/CVRF with COVID-19 severity. Effect modification by recent cancer therapy was evaluated. Results: Among 10,876 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with cancer (median age 65 [IQR 54-74] years, 53% female, 52% White), 6253 patients (57%) had co-morbid CVD/CVRF. Co-morbid CVD/CVRF was associated with higher COVID-19 severity (adjusted OR: 1.25 [95% CI 1.11-1.40]). Adverse CV events were significantly higher in patients with CVD/CVRF (all p<0.001). CVD/CVRF was associated with worse COVID-19 severity in patients who had not received recent cancer therapy, but not in those undergoing active cancer therapy (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.31-1.74] vs. OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.90-1.20], pinteraction <0.001). Conclusions: Co-morbid CVD/CVRF is associated with higher COVID-19 severity among patients with cancer, particularly those not receiving active cancer therapy. While infrequent, COVID-19 related CV complications were higher in patients with comorbid CVD/CVRF. (COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry [CCC19]; NCT04354701).

A Brain, A Heart, and the Courage: Balancing Benefit and Toxicity of Immunotherapy in Melanoma.

The overall survival of advanced melanoma has improved dramatically. Immunotherapies, specifically checkpoint inhibitors, have played a large role in this improvement. These agents have also shown benefit in the adjuvant setting, are approved for treatment of resected stage II, III, and IV melanoma, and play an evolving role in the neoadjuvant setting. Although generally well tolerated, immune-related adverse events occur and can be severe. Here we focus on some severe and potentially long term toxicities, including cardiovascular and neurologic toxicities. Our understanding of the acute and long-term toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors continues to evolve. Oncologists must continue to balance cancer risk and treatment-related toxicities.

Adjuvant Nivolumab versus Ipilimumab in Resected Stage III/IV Melanoma: 5-Year Efficacy and Biomarker Results from CheckMate 238.

PURPOSE: In the phase III CheckMate 238 study, adjuvant nivolumab significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival versus ipilimumab in patients with resected stage IIIB-C or stage IV melanoma, with benefit sustained at 4 years. We report updated 5-year efficacy and biomarker findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage IIIB-C/IV melanoma were stratified by stage and baseline programmed death cell ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously for 1 year until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was RFS. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 62 months, RFS with nivolumab remained superior to ipilimumab (HR = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.86; 5-year rates of 50% vs. 39%). Five-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 58% with nivolumab versus 51% with ipilimumab. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 76% with nivolumab and 72% with ipilimumab (75% data maturity: 228 of 302 planned events). Higher levels of tumor mutational burden (TMB), tumor PD-L1, intratumoral CD8+ T cells and IFNγ-associated gene expression signature, and lower levels of peripheral serum C-reactive protein were associated with improved RFS and OS with both nivolumab and ipilimumab, albeit with limited clinically meaningful predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a proven adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence, with sustained, long-term improvement in RFS and DMFS compared with ipilimumab and high OS rates. Identification of additional biomarkers is needed to better predict treatment outcome. See related commentary by Augustin and Luke, p. 3253.

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. RESULTS: Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

Intersection of immune and oncometabolic pathways drives cancer hyperprogression during immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) can produce durable responses against cancer. We and others have found that a subset of patients experiences paradoxical rapid cancer progression during immunotherapy. It is poorly understood how tumors can accelerate their progression during ICB. In some preclinical models, ICB causes hyperprogressive disease (HPD). While immune exclusion drives resistance to ICB, counterintuitively, patients with HPD and complete response (CR) following ICB manifest comparable levels of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells and interferon γ (IFNγ) gene signature. Interestingly, patients with HPD but not CR exhibit elevated tumoral fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) and ß-catenin signaling. In animal models, T cell-derived IFNγ promotes tumor FGF2 signaling, thereby suppressing PKM2 activity and decreasing NAD+, resulting in reduction of SIRT1-mediated ß-catenin deacetylation and enhanced ß-catenin acetylation, consequently reprograming tumor stemness. Targeting the IFNγ-PKM2-ß-catenin axis prevents HPD in preclinical models. Thus, the crosstalk of core immunogenic, metabolic, and oncogenic pathways via the IFNγ-PKM2-ß-catenin cascade underlies ICB-associated HPD.

Metastatic melanoma of the heart: Retrospective cohort study and systematic review of prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac metastasis of melanoma is rare and typically diagnosed post-mortem. Here we perform a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of patients with metastatic melanoma to characterize prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of cardiac metastasis. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical records of all outpatients with metastatic melanoma who underwent evaluation at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor from January 2009 to January 2022, identifying patients with a clinical or histopathologic diagnosis of cardiac metastasis. We performed a systematic review of the literature to summarize the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with melanoma and cardiac metastasis. RESULTS: Overall, 23 of 1254 (1.8%) patients with metastatic melanoma were diagnosed with cardiac metastasis. Cardiac metastasis was reported in the right ventricle (65%), left ventricle (35%), and right atrium (35%). A total of 11 (48%) patients experienced at least one cardiovascular complication after the diagnosis of cardiac metastasis, the most common being arrhythmia (30%), heart failure (22%), and pericardial effusion (17%). Immunotherapy was more commonly used in patients with cardiac metastasis (80% vs 65%; p = 0.005). Mortality at 2-years post-diagnosis was higher for patients with cardiac metastasis compared to those without (59% vs 37%; p = 0.034). Progression of malignancy was the underlying cause of death of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac metastasis occurs in <2% of patients with metastatic melanoma, can affect all cardiac structures, and is associated with various cardiovascular complications and high mortality.

Interplay of Immunosuppression and Immunotherapy Among Patients With Cancer and COVID-19.

Importance: Cytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation. Objective: To determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings. Exposures: Immunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm. Results: The median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701.

Prognostic Hematologic Biomarkers Following Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

Background: There is no standardized treatment for metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) but immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used. While ICI has transformed the survival of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, MUM patients do not equally benefit. Factors known to affect ICI response include the hematologic markers, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR). We evaluated the prognostic value of LDH and NLR at the start of ICI and on treatment in MUM. Methods: MUM patients were treated between August 2006 and May 2022 with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab or ipilimumab/nivolumab/pembrolizumab single-agent therapy. Univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) analyses were used to assess the prognostic value of predefined baseline factors on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: In forty-six patients with MUM treated with ICI, elevated baseline and on-treatment LDH was prognostic for OS (start of ICI, HR (95% CI): 3.6 (1.9−7.0), p < 0.01; on-treatment, HR (95% CI): 3.7 (1.6−8.8), p < 0.01) and PFS (start of ICI, (HR (95% CI): 2.8 (1.5−5.4), p < 0.0001); on-treatment LDH (HR (95% CI): 2.2 (1.1−4.3), p < 0.01). On-treatment NLR was prognostic for PFS (HR (95% CI): 1.9 (1.0−3.9), p < 0.01). On-treatment LDH remained an important contributor to survival on MVA (OS: HR (95% CI): 1.001 (1.00−1.002), p < 0.05); PFS: HR (95% CI): 1.001 (1.00−1.002), p < 0.01). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that LDH and NLR could be useful in the prognostication of MUM patients treated with ICI. Additional studies are needed to confirm the importance of these and other prognostic biomarkers.

Treatment related toxicities with combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy in resected stage III melanoma.

Combination dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) is an FDA approved adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III BRAF-mutant melanoma. We describe treatment-related toxicities with adjuvant D+T in a real-world population through a retrospective case series. The primary endpoint was development of toxicities. Results: Eighteen of the 20 patients (90%) required at least one treatment interruption due to adverse events (AEs), 11 patients (55%) required a dose reduction and 13 (65%) permanently discontinued therapy due to an AE. The nine patients who did not require dose reduction had been initiated on a lower starting dose of dabrafenib. The most common treatment-limiting AEs were recurrent pyrexia and chills (85%) and liver laboratory abnormalities (50%). The median total time on therapy was 148.5 days (range 19-383), 40.7% (range 5.2-100%) of the intended one-year duration. Conclusion: Adjuvant treatment of melanoma with combination D+T is associated with treatment-limiting toxicities in the majority of this patient group. Patients should be carefully monitored throughout therapy.

Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab (CheckMate 238 trial): Reassessment of 4-year efficacy outcomes in patients with stage III melanoma per AJCC-8 staging criteria.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab was approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma based on data from CheckMate 238, which enrolled patients per American Joint Committee on Cancer version 7 (AJCC-7) criteria. Here, we analyse long-term outcomes per AJCC-8 staging criteria compared with AJCC-7 results to inform clinical decisions for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, phase 3 trial (NCT02388906), patients aged ≥15 years with resected, histologically confirmed AJCC-7 stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma were randomised to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses and then every 12 weeks, both intravenously ≤1 year. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed in patients with stage III disease, per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8. RESULTS: Per AJCC-7 staging, 42.4% and 57.3% of patients were in substage IIIB and IIIC, respectively; per AJCC-8, 1.1%, 30.4%, 62.8%, and 5.0% were in IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, and IIID. After 4 years' minimum follow-up, the AJCC-7 superior efficacy of nivolumab over ipilimumab in patients with resected stage III melanoma was preserved per AJCC-8 analysis. No statistically significant difference in RFS between stage III substage hazard ratios was observed per AJCC-7 or -8 staging criteria (interaction test: AJCC-7, P = 0.8115; AJCC-8, P = 0.1051; P = 0.8392 ((AJCC-7) and P = 0.8678 (AJCC-8) for DMFS). CONCLUSIONS: CheckMate 238 4-year RFS and DMFS outcomes are consistent per AJCC-7 and AJCC-8 staging criteria. Outcome benefits can therefore be translated for patients diagnosed per AJCC-8.

Early Response Assessment in Advanced Stage Melanoma Treated with Combination Ipilimumab/Nivolumab.

Background: Standard combination ipilimumab/nivolumab (I/N) is given as 4 induction doses for advanced stage melanoma followed by nivolumab single-agent maintenance therapy. While many patients receive less than 4 doses due to immune-related toxicities, it is unclear if fewer doses of I/N may still provide long term clinical benefit. Our aim is to determine if response assessment after 1 or 2 doses of I/N can predict long-term survival and assess if fewer doses of I/N can lead to similar survival outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis on a cohort of patients with advanced melanoma who w0ere treated with standard I/N. Cox regression of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) models were performed to assess the relationship between response after 1 or 2 doses of I/N and risk of progression and/or death. Clinical benefit response (CBR) was assessed, defined as SD (stable disease) + PR (partial response) + CR (complete response) by imaging. Among patients who achieved a CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N, a multivariable Cox regression of survival was used to compare 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4 doses of I/N adjusted by known prognostic variables in advanced melanoma. Results: 199 patients were evaluated. Patients with CBR after 1 dose of I/N had improved PFS (HR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.33; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.12, 0.05-0.32; p<0.001) compared to progressive disease (PD). Patients with CBR (vs PD) after 2 doses of I/N also had improved PFS (HR: 0.09, 0.05-0.16; p<0.001) and OS (HR: 0.07, 0.03-0.14; p<0.001). There was no survival risk difference comparing 1 or 2 vs 3 or 4 doses of I/N for PFS (HR: 0.95, 0.37-2.48; p=0.921) and OS (HR: 1.04, 0.22-4.78; p=0.965). Conclusions: Early interval imaging with response during induction with I/N may be predictive of long-term survival in advanced stage melanoma. CBR after 1 or 2 doses of I/N is associated with favorable survival outcomes, even in the setting of fewer I/N doses received. Further studies are warranted to evaluate if electively administering fewer combination I/N doses despite tolerance in select patients may balance the benefits of therapy while decreasing toxicities.

The Role of Tissue Biopsy in the Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicity.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of cancer and are now omnipresent. However, immune-related adverse events can present with varying phenotypes and timing, which can pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for the treating oncologist as well as subspecialty consultants. Biopsies of affected organs may provide insight into biologic mechanisms as well as potentially guide management in certain circumstances.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Disease State Clinical Review: Evaluation and Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Mediated Endocrinopathies: A Practical Case-Based Clinical Approach.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this case-based clinical review was to provide a practical approach for clinicians regarding the management of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-mediated endocrinopathies. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted using appropriate keywords. The discussions and strategies for the diagnosis and management of ICI-mediated endocrinopathies are based on evidence available from prospective, randomized clinical studies; cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; case-based studies; and an expert consensus. RESULTS: Immunotherapy with ICIs has transformed the treatment landscape of diverse types of cancers but frequently results in immune-mediated endocrinopathies that can cause acute and persistent morbidity and, rarely, death. The patterns of endocrinopathies differ between the inhibitors of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed cell death protein 1 ligand pathways but most often involve the thyroid and pituitary glands. The less common but important presentations include insulin-deficient diabetes mellitus, primary adrenal insufficiency, primary hypoparathyroidism, central diabetes insipidus, primary hypogonadism, and pancreatitis, with or without subsequent progression to diabetes mellitus or exocrine insufficiency. CONCLUSION: In recent years, with increasing numbers of patients with cancer being treated with ICIs, more clinicians in a variety of specialties have been called upon to diagnose and treat ICI-mediated endocrinopathies. Herein, we reviewed case scenarios of various clinical manifestations and emphasized the need for a high index of clinical suspicion by all clinicians caring for these patients, including endocrinologists, oncologists, primary care providers, and emergency department physicians. We also provided diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for ICI-induced endocrinopathies and proposed that patients on ICI therapy be evaluated and treated by a multidisciplinary team in collaboration with endocrinologists.

Successful use of secukinumab in two melanoma patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthropathy.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are a major concern when treating cancer patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Selecting the most appropriate management of irAEs remains an ongoing challenge because prolonged use of glucocorticoids come with their own side effects and may counteract the antineoplastic effects from immunotherapy. In this case report, we present two patients with metastatic melanoma who developed symptoms of inflammatory arthritis attributed to ICI therapy. We found that treatment with secukinumab, an anti-IL-17A inhibitor, effectively managed their symptoms and did not lead to tumor progression. Our study suggests that secukinumab can be a safe and effective treatment option for ICI-induced inflammatory arthropathy.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are unwanted side effects commonly seen in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. A frequently underreported irAE is inflammation of the joints (ankles, knees, shoulders, etc.), which is known as inflammatory arthropathy. Inflammatory arthropathy is frequently treated with steroids, but there is concern that it may counteract the anticancer effect from immunotherapy. Alternative treatments are needed to better treat this irAE without compromising the benefit of immunotherapy. In this case report, we present two patients with stage 4 melanoma who developed immunotherapy-induced inflammatory arthropathy and were successfully treated with secukinumab. We found that treating the inflammatory arthropathy was safe, effective, and did not lead to cancer progression in either patient.

Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Black and White Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Non-Hispanic Black individuals experience a higher burden of COVID-19 than the general population; hence, there is an urgent need to characterize the unique clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer. Objective: To investigate racial disparities in severity of COVID-19 presentation, clinical complications, and outcomes between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients with cancer and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry from March 17, 2020, to November 18, 2020, to examine the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in Black patients with cancer. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to February 2021. Exposures: Black and White race recorded in patient's electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: An a priori 5-level ordinal scale including hospitalization intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause death. Results: Among 3506 included patients (1768 women [50%]; median [IQR] age, 67 [58-77] years), 1068 (30%) were Black and 2438 (70%) were White. Black patients had higher rates of preexisting comorbidities compared with White patients, including obesity (480 Black patients [45%] vs 925 White patients [38%]), diabetes (411 Black patients [38%] vs 574 White patients [24%]), and kidney disease (248 Black patients [23%] vs 392 White patients [16%]). Despite the similar distribution of cancer type, cancer status, and anticancer therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, Black patients presented with worse illness and had significantly worse COVID-19 severity (unweighted odds ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.15-1.58]; weighted odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.11-1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that Black patients with cancer experience worse COVID-19 outcomes compared with White patients. Understanding and addressing racial inequities within the causal framework of structural racism is essential to reduce the disproportionate burden of diseases, such as COVID-19 and cancer, in Black patients.

Assessment of Regional Variability in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Patients With Cancer in the United States.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a distinct spatiotemporal pattern in the United States. Patients with cancer are at higher risk of severe complications from COVID-19, but it is not well known whether COVID-19 outcomes in this patient population were associated with geography. Objective: To quantify spatiotemporal variation in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients with a historical diagnosis of invasive malignant neoplasm and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March and November 2020. Data were collected from cancer care delivery centers in the United States. Exposures: Patient residence was categorized into 9 US census divisions. Cancer center characteristics included academic or community classification, rural-urban continuum code (RUCC), and social vulnerability index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary composite outcome consisted of receipt of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and all-cause death. Multilevel mixed-effects models estimated associations of center-level and census division-level exposures with outcomes after adjustment for patient-level risk factors and quantified variation in adjusted outcomes across centers, census divisions, and calendar time. Results: Data for 4749 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [56-76] years; 2439 [51.4%] female individuals, 1079 [22.7%] non-Hispanic Black individuals, and 690 [14.5%] Hispanic individuals) were reported from 83 centers in the Northeast (1564 patients [32.9%]), Midwest (1638 [34.5%]), South (894 [18.8%]), and West (653 [13.8%]). After adjustment for patient characteristics, including month of COVID-19 diagnosis, estimated 30-day mortality rates ranged from 5.2% to 26.6% across centers. Patients from centers located in metropolitan areas with population less than 250 000 (RUCC 3) had lower odds of 30-day mortality compared with patients from centers in metropolitan areas with population at least 1 million (RUCC 1) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.84). The type of center was not significantly associated with primary or secondary outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome rates across the 9 census divisions, but adjusted mortality rates significantly improved over time (eg, September to November vs March to May: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this registry-based cohort study, significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes across US census divisions were not observed. However, substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes across cancer care delivery centers was found. Attention to implementing standardized guidelines for the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 could improve outcomes for these vulnerable patients.

Biomarker Trends, Incidence, and Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Myocarditis.

Background: Myocarditis is a dreaded and unpredictable complication of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We sought to determine whether routinely measured biomarkers could be helpful in monitoring for ICI myocarditis. Objectives: The authors examined biomarker trends of patients on ICI and their association with the incidence of ICI myocarditis and outcomes. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults who received at least one dose of ICI at Michigan Medicine between June 2014 and December 2021 and underwent systematic serial testing for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and lactate dehydrogenase during ICI therapy. Results: Among 2,606 patients (mean age 64 ± 13 years; 60.7% men), 27 (1.0%) were diagnosed with ICI myocarditis. At diagnosis, patients with myocarditis had an elevated high-sensitivity troponin T (100%), ALT (88.9%), AST (85.2%), CPK (88.9%), and lactate dehydrogenase (92.6%). Findings were confirmed in an independent cohort of 30 patients with biopsy-confirmed ICI myocarditis. A total of 95% of patients with ICI myocarditis had elevations in at least 3 biomarkers compared with 5% of patients without myocarditis. Among the noncardiac biomarkers, only CPK was associated (per 100% increase) with the development of myocarditis (HR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.59-2.10) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01-1.20) in multivariable analysis. Elevations in CPK had a sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 23% for identifying myocarditis. Conclusions: ICI myocarditis is associated with changes in AST, ALT, and CPK. An increase in noncardiac biomarkers during ICI treatment, notably CPK, should prompt further evaluation for ICI myocarditis.