Enhancing Precision in Detecting Severe Immune-Related Adverse Events: Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and International Classification of Disease Codes in Patient Records.

PURPOSE: Current approaches to accurately identify immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in large retrospective studies are limited. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential solution to this challenge, given their high performance in natural language comprehension tasks. Therefore, we investigated the use of an LLM to identify irAEs among hospitalized patients, comparing its performance with manual adjudication and International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes. METHODS: Hospital admissions of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy at a single institution from February 5, 2011, to September 5, 2023, were individually reviewed and adjudicated for the presence of irAEs. ICD codes and an LLM with retrieval-augmented generation were applied to detect frequent irAEs (ICI-induced colitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis) and the most fatal irAE (ICI-myocarditis) from electronic health records. The performance between ICD codes and LLM was compared via sensitivity and specificity with an α = .05, relative to the gold standard of manual adjudication. External validation was performed using a data set of hospital admissions from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, from a second institution. RESULTS: Of the 7,555 admissions for patients on ICI therapy in the initial cohort, 2.0% were adjudicated to be due to ICI-colitis, 1.1% ICI-hepatitis, 0.7% ICI-pneumonitis, and 0.8% ICI-myocarditis. The LLM demonstrated higher sensitivity than ICD codes (94.7% v 68.7%), achieving significance for ICI-hepatitis (P < .001), myocarditis (P < .001), and pneumonitis (P = .003) while yielding similar specificities (93.7% v 92.4%). The LLM spent an average of 9.53 seconds/chart in comparison with an estimated 15 minutes for adjudication. In the validation cohort (N = 1,270), the mean LLM sensitivity and specificity were 98.1% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: LLMs are a useful tool for the detection of irAEs, outperforming ICD codes in sensitivity and adjudication in efficiency.

Spatially resolved niche and tumor microenvironmental alterations in gastric cancer peritoneal metastases.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peritoneal metastasis (PM) in gastric cancer (GC) is associated with poor prognosis and significant morbidity. We sought to understand the genomic, transcriptomic, and tumor microenvironment (TME) features that contribute to peritoneal organotropism in GC. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive multi-omic analysis of 548 samples from 326 patients, including primary tumors, matched normal tissues, peritoneal metastases, and adjacent-normal peritoneal tissues. We employed whole exome sequencing, whole transcriptome sequencing, and digital spatial profiling to investigate molecular alterations, gene expression patterns, and TME characteristics associated with PM. RESULTS: Our analysis identified specific genomic alterations in primary tumors, including mutations in ELF3, CDH1, and PIGR, and TME signatures, such as stromal infiltration and M2 macrophage enrichment, associated with increased risk of PM. We observed distinct transcriptional programs and immune compositions in GCPM compared to liver metastases, highlighting the importance of the TME in transcoelomic metastasis. We found differential expression of therapeutic targets between primary tumors and PM, with lower CLDN18.2 and FGFR2b expression in PM. We unravel the roles of the TME in niche reprogramming within the peritoneum, and provide evidence of pre-metastatic niche conditioning even in early GC without clinical PM. These findings were further validated using a humanized mouse model, which demonstrated niche remodeling in the peritoneum during transcoelomic metastasis. CONCLUSION: Our study provides a comprehensive molecular characterization of GCPM and unveils key biological principles underlying transcoelomic metastasis. The identified predictive markers, therapeutic targets, and TME alterations offer potential avenues for targeted interventions and improved patient outcomes.

Dosimetric evaluation of adaptive planning for five-fraction gynecologic template-based interstitial brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate whether inter-fraction imaging and replanning enhance treatment delivery adherence to clinical planning objectives in the context of a 5-fraction template-based interstitial brachytherapy (TISB) approach for gynecologic cancer treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective study analyzed nineteen patients who underwent 5 fractions of interstitial brachytherapy over 3 days using the Syed-Neblett template. A verification CT scan was acquired for applicator assessment and reviewed by a radiation oncologist and medical physicist before each fraction. Eleven patients required replanning at least once during the treatment course. Replanning on the verification CT scan consisted of generating new target and organ-at-risk contours, digitizing catheter positions, and optimizing source dwell times to meet planning objectives. Dwell times and positions from the initial treatment plan were evaluated on the new contours to assess the dose that would have been delivered without replanning (nonadapted). Significance of nonadapted versus adapted dose differences were evaluated using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sum rank test. RESULTS: The average (min, max) change in dose (Gy) between the clinically delivered plans and the nonadapted plans were HR-CTV D90%: -6.5 (-0.6, -15.1), HR-CTV D98%: -6.5 (-0.4, -12.6), Bladder D2cc: -0.5 (0.0, -2.8), Bowel D2cc: -0.8 (0.0, -3.2), Rectum D2cc: -1.1 (0.0, -11.5), Sigmoid D2cc: -1.4 (-0.1, -5.4). Dosimetric changes in HR-CTV coverage were significantly improved with replanning while organ-at-risk differences were nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Fraction 3 was the most common fraction indicated for replanning. CONCLUSIONS: Replanning template-based interstitial brachytherapy can improve target coverage and adherence to planning goals.

Perioperative Nivolumab in Resectable Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy significantly improves outcomes in patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Perioperative treatment (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy) with nivolumab may further improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned adults with resectable stage IIA to IIIB NSCLC to receive neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was event-free survival according to blinded independent review. Secondary outcomes were pathological complete response and major pathological response according to blinded independent review, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: At this prespecified interim analysis (median follow-up, 25.4 months), the percentage of patients with 18-month event-free survival was 70.2% in the nivolumab group and 50.0% in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or recurrence, abandoned surgery, or death, 0.58; 97.36% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.81; P<0.001). A pathological complete response occurred in 25.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 4.7% of those in the chemotherapy group (odds ratio, 6.64; 95% CI, 3.40 to 12.97); a major pathological response occurred in 35.4% and 12.1%, respectively (odds ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.48 to 6.49). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32.5% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 25.2% of those in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer event-free survival than chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC. No new safety signals were observed. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; CheckMate 77T ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04025879.).

The Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses. RESULTS: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSION: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749.

Patient-derived exosomes facilitate therapeutic targeting of oncogenic MET in advanced gastric cancer.

Gastric cancer (GC) with peritoneal metastases and malignant ascites continues to have poor prognosis. Exosomes mediate intercellular communication during cancer progression and promote therapeutic resistance. Here, we report the significance of exosomes derived from malignant ascites (EXOAscites) in cancer progression and use modified exosomes as resources for cancer therapy. EXOAscites from patients with GC stimulated invasiveness and angiogenesis in an ex vivo three-dimensional autologous tumor spheroid microfluidic system. EXOAscites concentration increased invasiveness, and blockade of their secretion suppressed tumor progression. In MET-amplified GC, EXOAscites contain abundant MET; their selective delivery to tumor cells enhanced angiogenesis and invasiveness. Exosomal MET depletion substantially reduced invasiveness; an additive therapeutic effect was induced when combined with MET and/or VEGFR2 inhibition in a patient-derived MET-amplified GC model. Allogeneic MET-harboring exosome delivery induced invasion and angiogenesis in a MET non-amplified GC model. MET-amplified patient tissues showed higher exosome concentration than their adjacent normal tissues. Manipulating exosome content and production may be a promising complementary strategy against GC.

Immune Responses in Checkpoint Myocarditis Across Heart, Blood, and Tumor.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used anti-cancer therapies that can cause morbid and potentially fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs). ICI-related myocarditis (irMyocarditis) is uncommon but has the highest mortality of any irAE. The pathogenesis of irMyocarditis and its relationship to anti-tumor immunity remain poorly understood. We sought to define immune responses in heart, tumor, and blood during irMyocarditis and identify biomarkers of clinical severity by leveraging single-cell (sc)RNA-seq coupled with T cell receptor (TCR) sequencing, microscopy, and proteomics analysis of 28 irMyocarditis patients and 23 controls. Our analysis of 284,360 cells from heart and blood specimens identified cytotoxic T cells, inflammatory macrophages, conventional dendritic cells (cDCs), and fibroblasts enriched in irMyocarditis heart tissue. Additionally, potentially targetable, pro-inflammatory transcriptional programs were upregulated across multiple cell types. TCR clones enriched in heart and paired tumor tissue were largely non-overlapping, suggesting distinct T cell responses within these tissues. We also identify the presence of cardiac-expanded TCRs in a circulating, cycling CD8 T cell population as a novel peripheral biomarker of fatality. Collectively, these findings highlight critical biology driving irMyocarditis and putative biomarkers for therapeutic intervention.

Health-Related Quality of Life With Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma From CheckMate 649.

PURPOSE: In CheckMate 649, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced/metastatic non-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: In patients (N = 1,581) concurrently randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy and in those with tumor PD-L1 expression at a combined positive score (CPS) of ≥5, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the EQ-5D and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga), which included the FACT-General (FACT-G) and Gastric Cancer subscale (GaCS). The FACT-G GP5 item assessed treatment-related symptom burden. Longitudinal changes in HRQoL were assessed using mixed models for repeated measures in the PRO analysis population (randomly assigned patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessments). Time to symptom or definitive deterioration analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: In the PRO analysis population (n = 1,360), PRO questionnaire completion rates were mostly >80% during treatment. Patient-reported symptom burden was not increased with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. Mean improved changes from baseline were greater with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for FACT-Ga total, GaCS, and EQ-5D visual analog scale in patients with a CPS of ≥5; results were similar for the overall PRO analysis population. In CPS ≥5 and all randomly assigned populations, nivolumab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk of symptom deterioration versus chemotherapy, on the basis of FACT-Ga total score and GaCS; time to definitive deterioration was longer, and the risk of definitive deterioration in HRQoL was reduced with nivolumab plus chemotherapy across EQ-5D and most FACT-Ga measures (hazard ratio [95% CI] <1). CONCLUSION: Compared with chemotherapy alone, first-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy showed stable or better on-treatment HRQoL in patients with advanced/metastatic non-HER2-positive GC/GEJC/EAC and also showed decreased risk of definitive HRQoL deterioration.

Effects of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and their treatment on antitumor immune responses.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are potentially life-saving cancer therapies that can trigger immune-related adverse events (irAEs). irAEs can impact any organ and range in their presentation from mild side effects to life-threatening complications. The relationship between irAEs and antitumor immune responses is nuanced and may depend on the irAE organ, the tumor histology, and the patient. While some irAEs likely represent an immune response against antigens shared between tumor cells and healthy tissues, other irAEs may be entirely unrelated to antitumor immune responses. Clinical observations suggest that low-grade irAEs have a positive association with responses to ICIs, but the correlation between severe irAEs and clinical benefit is less clear. Currently, severe irAEs are typically treated by interrupting or permanently discontinuing ICI treatment and administering empirically selected systemic immunosuppressive agents. However, these interventions could potentially diminish the antitumor effects of ICIs. Efforts to understand the mechanistic relationship between irAEs and the tumor microenvironment have yielded meaningful insights and nominated therapeutic targets for irAE management that may preserve or even boost ICI efficacy. We explore the clinical and molecular relationship between irAEs and antitumor immunity as well as the role that irAE treatments may play in shaping antitumor immune responses.

Toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic study.

BACKGROUND: Available evidence shows that the incidence of toxicities associated with cancer immunotherapy, such as programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-related toxicities, is estimated to be between 0.3 and 1.3%. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to investigate cancer patients' susceptibility to toxicities associated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and establish a clinically relevant landscape of side effects of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. DATA SOURCES: Relevant publications from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) between 2014 and 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting treatment-related toxicities associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of cancers. The primary endpoint was to assess the difference in the incidences of toxicities between cancer patients who did and did not receive PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. A total of 29 RCTs, incorporating 8576 patients, met the eligibility criteria. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We calculated the pooled relative risks and corresponding 95% CIs using a random-effects model and assessed the heterogeneity between different groups. The subgroup analyses were conducted based on cancer type, toxicity grade (severity), system and organ, treatment regimens in the intervention arm and the control arm, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor drug type, and cancer type. RESULTS: A total of 11 categories (e.g. endocrine toxicity), and 39 toxicity types (e.g. hyperthyroidism) were identified. For toxicities at any grade, those treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were at lower risks for gastrointestinal toxicity, hematologic toxicity, and treatment event leading to discontinuation; and were at higher risks for respiratory toxicity (all P <0.05). Those treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were at lower risks for fatigue, asthenia, and peripheral edema and were at higher risks for pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, pneumonitis, and pruritus. LIMITATIONS: The present research is a meta-analysis at the study level rather than at the patient level; insights on risk factors associated with the development of toxicities cannot be found in our study. There was a possible overlap in Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) definitions which prevents understanding the true rates of specific toxicities. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: For most toxicity types based on system and organ, the incidence proportions for patients in the intervention arm were lower than those in the control arm, which suggested the general safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors against conventional chemotherapy and cytotoxic t-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors. Future research should focus on taking effective targeted measures to decrease the risks of different toxicities for different patient populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: We registered the research protocol with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019135113).

General population reference values for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and PROMIS-29.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances in lung cancer have turned attention toward patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as important clinical outcomes. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a common endpoint in lung cancer trials. This study calculated FACT-L reference values for the United States (US) general population. METHODS: Adults from the US general population (N = 2001) were surveyed between September 2020 and November 2020. Surveys contained 126 questions, including the FACT-L [36 items; FACT-G and four subscales (Physical Well-Being [PWB], Social Well-Being [SWB], Emotional Well-Being [EWB], and Functional Well-Being [FWB]) and the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), and a Trial Outcome Index (TOI)]. Reference values for each FACT-L scale were calculated with means for the total sample and separately for participants with: no comorbidities, COVID-19 as only comorbidity, no COVID-19. RESULTS: In the total sample, the reference scores were as follows: PWB = 23.1; SWB = 16.8; EWB = 18.5; FWB = 17.6; FACT-G = 76.0; LCS = 23.0, TOI = 63.7, and FACT-L Total = 99.0. Scores were lower for those reporting a prior diagnosis of COVID-19, especially for SWB (15.7) and FWB (15.3). SWB scores were lower than previous references values. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide US general adult population reference value set for FACT-L. While some of the subscale results were lower than those found in the reference data for other PROMs, these data were obtained in a more contemporaneous time frame juxtaposed with the COVID-19 pandemic and may represent a new peri-pandemic norm. Thus, these reference values will be useful for future clinical research.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years). METHODS: In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures. CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

A Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) have not been assessed in head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and HRQoL outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level data for nivolumab plus cabozantinib from the CheckMate 9ER trial and published data for pembrolizumab plus axitinib from the KEYNOTE-426 trial were used. CheckMate 9ER data were reweighted to match the key baseline characteristics as reported in KEYNOTE-426. INTERVENTION: Nivolumab (240 mg every 2 wk) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 wk) plus axitinib (5 mg twice daily, initially). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and deterioration in HRQoL were assessed using weighted Cox proportional-hazard models, with sunitinib as a common anchor. Objective response rates (ORRs) and changes in HRQoL scores from baseline were assessed as difference-in-differences for the two treatments relative to sunitinib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After balancing patient characteristics between the trials, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.70 [0.53-0.93]; p = 0.01) and a significantly decreased risk of confirmed deterioration in HRQoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-related Symptoms: HR [95% CI] 0.48 [0.34-0.69]) versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib. OS was similar between treatments (HR [95% CI] 0.99 [0.67-1.44]; p = 0.94). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with numerically greater ORRs (difference-in-difference [95% CI] 8.4% [-1.7 to 18.4]; p = 0.10) and longer duration of response (HR [95% CI] 0.79 [0.47-1.31]; p = 0.36) than pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Comparative studies using data with a longer duration of follow-up are warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly improved PFS and HRQoL compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for aRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study was conducted to indirectly compare the results of two immunotherapy-based combinations-nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus pembrolizumab plus axitinib-for patients who have not received any treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients who received nivolumab plus cabozantinib had a significant improvement in the length of time without worsening of their disease and in their perceived physical and mental health compared with pembrolizumab plus axitinib; patients remained alive for a similar length of time from the start of either treatment. This analysis further adds to our current knowledge of the relative benefits of these two treatment regimens and will help with physician and patient treatment decisions.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in young adults with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The integration of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for the treatment of melanoma has resulted in remarkable and durable responses. Given the potential role of immunosenescence, age may contribute to differential ICI efficacy and toxicity. While older patients have been studied in detail, outcomes from ICI in young patients (≤40 years) are not well characterised. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or ICI combination (ipilimumab and anti-PD-1). Response rates, survival, and toxicities were examined based on age comparing those under 40 years of age with older patients (age 41-70 and ≥ 71 years). RESULTS: A total of 676 patients were included: 190 patients (28%) aged ≤40 years, 313 (46%) between ages 41-70, and 173 patients (26%) aged ≥71. Patients ≤40 years had higher response rates (53% vs 38%, p = 0.035) and improved progression-free survival (median 13.7 vs 4.0 months, p = 0.032) with combination ICI compared to monotherapy. Progression-free survival was similar among groups while overall survival was inferior in patients >70 years, who had low response rates to combination therapy (28%). ICIs had a similar incidence of severe toxicities, though hepatotoxicity was particularly common in younger patients vs. patients >40 with monotherapy (9% vs. 2%, p = 0.007) or combination ICI (37% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ICIs had comparable efficacy between younger and older patients, although outcomes were superior with combination ICI compared to monotherapy in patients aged ≤40 years. Toxicity incidence was similar across age groups, though organs affected were substantially different.

Posttreatment Exposure Rates for 90Y-Microsphere Patients: A Comparison of Products.

There has been a significant increase in the use of 90Y-microspheres in treating liver malignancies. This increase could be seen over the last 30 y, and Food and Drug Administration approval of 2 products-Sirtex SIR-Spheres and Boston Scientific TheraSphere-has helped in the proliferation of these treatments. As the increase in use of both products rose at our institution, there was a need to determine whether there should be special considerations for patients who receive one product compared with patients who receive the other product. This determination was made by measuring exposure rates for several regions of the patient before and after implantation. An independent-samples t test analysis (ɑ = 0.05) was performed for 50 patients (25 TheraSphere and 25 SIR-Spheres) to determine whether the products behaved similarly to the extent that exposure to others was minimized and that as-low-as-reasonably-achievable principles were kept. The results showed that the products exhibited no significant differences in exposure rates, suggesting that no special considerations are needed for the procedure for one product compared with the other.

Five-Year Survival Outcomes With Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in CheckMate 227.

PURPOSE: We present 5-year results from CheckMate 227 Part 1, in which nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. METHODS: Adults with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations and with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% or < 1% (n = 1739) were randomly assigned. Patients with tumor PD-L1 ≥ 1% were randomly assigned to first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. Patients with tumor PD-L1 < 1% were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. End points included exploratory 5-year results for efficacy, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 61.3 months, 5-year OS rates were 24% versus 14% for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19% versus 7% (PD-L1 < 1%). The median duration of response was 24.5 versus 6.7 months (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 19.4 versus 4.8 months (PD-L1 < 1%). Among patients surviving 5 years, 66% (PD-L1 ≥ 1%) and 64% (PD-L1 < 1%) were off nivolumab plus ipilimumab without initiating subsequent systemic anticancer treatment by the 5-year time point. Survival benefit continued after nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinuation because of treatment-related adverse events, with a 5-year OS rate of 39% (combined PD-L1 ≥ 1% and < 1% populations). Quality of life in 5-year survivors treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was similar to that in the general US population through the 5-year follow-up. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: With all patients off immunotherapy treatment for ≥ 3 years, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased 5-year survivorship versus chemotherapy, including long-term, durable clinical benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. These data support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as an effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Detection of Bile Acids in Complex Matrices Using a Transcription Factor-Based Biosensor.

Bile acids play an important role in digestion and human health, are found throughout the gastrointestinal tract, and are excreted in feces. Therefore, bile acids are promising biomarkers for monitoring health and detecting fecal contamination in water sources. Here, we engineered a bile acid sensor by expressing the transcription factor BreR, a TetR-like repressor from Vibrio cholorae, in Escherichia coli. The sensor was further optimized by screening a promoter library. To further characterize the BreR sensor and increase its utility, we moved expression to a cell-free expression (CFE) system, resulting in an approximately 3 orders of magnitude increase in deoxycholic acid sensitivity. We next optimized this sensor to detect bile acids in fecal water, wastewater, and serum and transferred the CFE sensor to a paper-based assay to enhance fieldability.

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test-retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures.

PURPOSE: Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test-retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) and current state (patient global impression of severity [PGIS]) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test-retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures. METHODS: The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8 + 3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported "no change" between timepoints for each anchor. RESULTS: ICCs using the PGIS "no change" group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC "no change" group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85). CONCLUSION: When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test-retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures.

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in CheckMate 9ER: an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.