Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Studying Outcomes after Steroid-Sparing Immunosuppressive Agent vs. Steroid-Only Treatment for Immune-Related Adverse Events in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and Melanoma: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.
Syed, Sharjeel; Hines, Jacobi; Baccile, Rachel; Rouhani, Sherin; Reid, Pankti.
Affiliation
  • Syed S; Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
  • Hines J; Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
  • Baccile R; Center for Health and The Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
  • Rouhani S; Mass General Cancer Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
  • Reid P; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
Cancers (Basel) ; 16(10)2024 May 16.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38791970
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The effects of steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents (SSIAs), used for the treatment of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), on immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antitumor activity is not well known. We compared tumor outcomes of patients who received corticosteroid monotherapy (CS) versus a corticosteroid plus SSIA (CS-SSIA) for irAE treatment, using statistical methods to address immortal time bias.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective case-control study on patients ≥ 18 years with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ≥1 ICI at a quaternary care center between 1 January 2016 and 11 January 2021. Patients were divided into two cohorts CS or CS-SSIA. We used propensity score nearest-neighbor matching to match on tumor type, stage, and prior lines of therapy. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included the time from the start of the irAE treatment to the irAE resolution. Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression method with both (1) the time to the steroid and SSIA as time-varying covariates and (2) a binary exposure classification not accounting for the time to the treatment.

RESULTS:

A total of 167 patients were included after matching (132 in the CS cohort and 35 in the CS-SSIA cohort). Sixty-six percent of all the patients had melanoma. The most common irAEs requiring treatment were gastroenterocolitis and hepatitis. In an adjusted analysis not accounting for immortal time bias, there were no significant differences in PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI [0.46-1.23]) or OS (HR 0.82, 95% CI [0.46-1.47]). In analyses using a time-varying treatment indicator, there was a trend toward improved PFS in patients treated with SSIAs (HR 0.54, CI 0.26-1.10). There was no difference in OS (HR 1.11, CI 0.55-2.23). Patients with melanoma who specifically received infliximab had improved PFS compared to patients with CS only, after adjusting for immortal time bias (HR 0.32, CI 0.24-0.43).

CONCLUSIONS:

The use of SSIAs with CS did not have worse outcomes than CS monotherapy. In melanoma, our findings showed improved PFS for the use of infliximab versus steroid monotherapy for irAEs. Large, prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and guide the optimal treatment of irAEs.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Cancers (Basel) Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Cancers (Basel) Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Estados Unidos