Radiographic features of pneumonitis in patients treated with immunotherapy compared to traditional chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonitis has been described as a side effect of immunotherapy as well as traditional chemotherapy. Although immune-related adverse event (IRAE) pneumonitis has been extensively characterized, the relationship between IRAE pneumonitis and pneumonitis secondary to chemotherapy is less clear. Here, we present the first analysis of radiographic features of pneumonitis secondary to immunotherapy compared to chemotherapy. METHODS: Using our radiology records system, we searched chest computed tomography (CT) reports for the term "pneumonitis". We evaluated medical records to establish chronicity of pneumonitis occurring after medication administration and excluded cases where radiation therapy appeared to be the cause of pneumonitis. We also obtained information regarding demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics for comparison. RESULTS: Patients treated with immunotherapy demonstrated more specific features of pneumonitis including consolidation, ground glass opacities, septal thickening, traction bronchiectasis, and pulmonary nodules compared to those treated with chemotherapy. Immunotherapy treatment correlated with the development of pulmonary nodules (p = 0.048), and administration of more than one immunotherapy agent correlated with a greater incidence of development of nodules (p = 0.050). Radiographic features in patients treated with immunotherapy all decreased over time. Conversely, in patients treated with chemotherapy the incidence of ground glass opacities, traction bronchiectasis, pulmonary nodules, and mediastinal/hilar adenopathy increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: IRAE-pneumonitis has distinct features and a distinct clinical course compared to pneumonitis secondary to chemotherapy. Importantly, IRAE-pneumonitis features decreased over time, suggesting that careful consideration of the benefit-risk ratio may allow for continuation of immunotherapy in some patients who develop pneumonitis.

Novel Targets, Novel Treatments: The Changing Landscape of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has undergone a paradigm shift. Once a disease with limited potential therapies, treatment options for patients have exploded with the availability of molecular testing to direct management and targeted therapies to treat tumors with specific driver mutations. New in vitro diagnostics allow for the early and non-invasive detection of disease, and emerging in vivo imaging techniques allow for better detection and monitoring. The development of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy has arguably been the biggest advance in lung cancer treatment, given that the vast majority of NSCLC tumors can be treated with these therapies. Specific targeted therapies, including those against KRAS, EGFR, RTK, and others have also improved the outcomes for those individuals bearing an actionable mutation. New and emerging therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, CAR T cell therapy, and molecular targeted radiotherapy, offer promise to patients for whom none of the existing therapies have proved effective. In this review, we provide the most up-to-date survey to our knowledge regarding emerging diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for lung cancer to provide clinicians with a comprehensive reference of the options for treatment available now and those which are soon to come.

Advances in PET/CT Imaging for Breast Cancer.

One out of eight women will be affected by breast cancer during her lifetime. Imaging plays a key role in breast cancer detection and management, providing physicians with information about tumor location, heterogeneity, and dissemination. In this review, we describe the latest advances in PET/CT imaging of breast cancer, including novel applications of 18F-FDG PET/CT and the development and testing of new agents for primary and metastatic breast tumor imaging and therapy. Ultimately, these radiopharmaceuticals may guide personalized approaches to optimize treatment based on the patient's specific tumor profile, and may become a new standard of care. In addition, they may enhance the assessment of treatment efficacy and lead to improved outcomes for patients with a breast cancer diagnosis.

Imaging the Side Effects of CAR T Cell Therapy: A Primer for the Practicing Radiologist.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is a revolutionary form of immunotherapy that has proven to be efficacious in the treatment of many hematologic cancers. CARs are modified T lymphocytes that express an artificial receptor specific to a tumor-associated antigen. These engineered cells are then reintroduced to upregulate the host immune responses and eradicate malignant cells. While the use of CAR T cell therapy is rapidly expanding, little is known about how common side effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity (ICANS) present radiographically. Here we provide a comprehensive review of how side effects present in different organ systems and how they can be optimally imaged. Early and accurate recognition of the radiographic presentation of these side effects is critical to the practicing radiologist and their patients so that these side effects can be promptly identified and treated.

Immunotherapy related pericardial effusion on chest CT.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has become a critical class of anticancer therapy in recent years, functioning by releasing brakes on the immune system that ultimately results in immune cell activation which eliminates cancer cells. Immune related adverse events (IRAEs) are a specific type of adverse event described in patients taking checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy which results from unrestrained immune activation. Immune related pericardial effusion has been described however has not been comprehensively characterized. Here, we present the most extensive report to date detailing this adverse event. METHODS: We queried our medical record system to retrospectively identify patients on checkpoint inhibitor therapy for lung cancer who subsequently developed pericardial effusion. We analyzed the clinical and radiographic characteristics, prior therapies, treatment for the effusion, and outcomes in patients with immune related pericardial effusion and compared them to similar patients with pericardial effusion not attributable to checkpoint inhibitor therapy. RESULTS: Our data demonstrate that most of these pericardial effusions were small and not clinically significant. The majority were successfully treated with steroids or resolved spontaneously. Anti-PD-1 inhibitors were the most common checkpoint inhibitor preceding pericardial effusion, and a significant number of patients who went on to develop IRAE pericardial effusion previously had treatment with carboplatin for their cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that IRAE pericardial effusion is not a clinically significant adverse event however it sometimes leads to permanent discontinuation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy which is not necessary.

Translating Molecules into Imaging-The Development of New PET Tracers for Patients with Melanoma.

Melanoma is a deadly disease that often exhibits relentless progression and can have both early and late metastases. Recent advances in immunotherapy and targeted therapy have dramatically increased patient survival for patients with melanoma. Similar advances in molecular targeted PET imaging can identify molecular pathways that promote disease progression and therefore offer physiological information. Thus, they can be used to assess prognosis, tumor heterogeneity, and identify instances of treatment failure. Numerous agents tested preclinically and clinically demonstrate promising results with high tumor-to-background ratios in both primary and metastatic melanoma tumors. Here, we detail the development and testing of multiple molecular targeted PET-imaging agents, including agents for general oncological imaging and those specifically for PET imaging of melanoma. Of the numerous radiopharmaceuticals evaluated for this purpose, several have made it to clinical trials and showed promising results. Ultimately, these agents may become the standard of care for melanoma imaging if they are able to demonstrate micrometastatic disease and thus provide more accurate information for staging. Furthermore, these agents provide a more accurate way to monitor response to therapy. Patients will be able to receive treatment based on tumor uptake characteristics and may be able to be treated earlier for lesions that with traditional imaging would be subclinical, overall leading to improved outcomes for patients.

Multi-agent neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in early-stage pancreatic cancer: A National Cancer Database analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare overall survival (OS) in patients who underwent surgery for early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma (rPca) based on sequence (NAT, neoadjuvant therapy and/or AT, adjuvant therapy) and type (SA, single-agent or MA, multi-agent) of chemotherapy received. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients with clinical stage I/II rPca diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 were identified and five comparison matches (1: NAT vs. upfront resection (UR); 2: multi-agent neoadjuvant (MA NAT) vs. single-agent adjuvant therapy (SA AT), single-agent neoadjuvant therapy (SA NAT), multi-agent adjuvant therapy (MA AT); 3: MA NAT vs. MA AT; 4: NAT + AT vs NAT; 5: NAT + AT vs AT) were constructed using minimum distance matching strategy. Median OS (mOS) was analysed using Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: A total of 18,470 patients with stage I/II rPca were eligible for analysis. NAT showed a 5 month (mo.) improved OS compared with UR (3271 patients/group, 28.1 vs 23.2 mo. P < 0.0001 hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79). MA-NAT was shown to be superior to other chemotherapy approaches SA AT, SA NAT, and MA AT (1349 patients/group: 30 vs. 25.9 mo., P = 0.0001 [HR: 0.82]). MA NAT showed a survival advantage over MA-AT (1349 patients/group, 30 vs 26.1 mo., P = 0.0008 [HR: 0.86]). The combination of NAT and AT showed a better outcome when compared with NAT alone (1128 patients/group, 31.6 vs 27.4 mo., P = 0.0011 [HR: 0.81]) or AT alone (1128 patients/group, 31.6 vs. 25.2 mo., P < 0.0001 [HR: 0.76]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stage I/II rPca, MA NAT showed improved mOS compared to UR and all other chemotherapy sequences except both NAT plus AT. These findings support the use of MA NAT in stage I/II rPca patients and warrant prospective trials evaluating MA NAT and post-resection maintenance therapies.

Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in cancer patients. This review summarizes some of the most current knowledge of the epidemiology, risk factors, risk models, prophylaxis, and treatment of VTE in cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed; the search terms were venous thromboembolism, anticoagulation, and cancer. The bibliographies of pertinent studies and review articles were reviewed for additional references. RESULTS: Venous thromboembolism is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. Cancer patients with VTE have poorer outcomes compared with noncancer patients with VTE. Many risk factors have been identified for VTE in patients with cancer that are patient-related, cancer-related, or treatment-related. Several biomarkers have been identified as potentially predictive of VTE risk. Risk assessment models such as the Khorana Risk Score stratify cancer patients with low, intermediate, and high risk of developing VTE based on baseline clinical and laboratory variables. Currently, enoxaparin is the preferred anticoagulant for initial VTE treatment in cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended for both initial and long-term management of cancer-related VTE. Because the optimal duration of anticoagulation in cancer patients with VTE is unknown, the decision to extend anticoagulation requires weighing the risk of recurrent thrombosis against the risk of major bleeding. Patients with recurrent VTE can be bridged with LMWH, transitioned to full-dose LMWH or treated with LMWH dose escalation. While there is insufficient data to determine whether anticoagulation should be held in the setting of thrombocytopenia, full-dose anticoagulation is typically considered unsafe when platelets are < 50 000/µL. Inferior vena cava filters are currently recommended only for patients with acute VTE and contraindications to anticoagulation. Although management of catheter-associated thrombosis has not been well studied in cancer patients, it is recommended that cancer patients with catheter-associated thrombosis be treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for ≥ 3 months. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with UFH, LMWH, or fondaparinux is recommended in all hospitalized nonsurgical cancer patients and cancer patients undergoing major cancer surgery. Primary thromboprophylaxis is only currently recommended in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients such as multiple myeloma patients receiving thalidomide- or lenalidomide- based therapy. CONCLUSION: Cancer-associated thrombosis is a common problem. As we begin to better understand the risk factors and biomarkers for cancer-associated VTE, we can further refine and develop risk-assessment models to determine those patients who would most likely benefit from anticoagulation. While LMWH products are generally preferred in cancer-related VTE, more research will continue to evolve our understanding of treatment and thrombopprophylaxis in cancer-associated VTE.