Neurotoxicity from immune-checkpoint inhibition in the treatment of melanoma: a single centre experience and review of the literature.

Background: Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPi) has greatly improved survival for patients with advanced melanoma in recent years. Anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD1 antibodies have been approved following large Phase III trials. Immune-related neurological toxicity of varying severity has been reported in the literature. The cumulative incidence of neurotoxicity among ipilimumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab is reported as <1% in published clinical trials. We aimed to identify the incidence of neurotoxicity in our institution across anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies, including the combination of ipilimumab with nivolumab. We also review the existing literature and propose an investigation and management algorithm. Methods: All patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab or the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab (ipi + nivo), managed at the Royal Marsden Hospital between September 2010 and December 2015, including patients on (published) clinical trials were included. Medical records for each patient were reviewed and information on neurotoxicity recorded. A systematic search strategy was performed to collate existing reports of neurological toxicity. Results: In total, 413 immunotherapy treatment episodes in 352 patients were included, with median follow-up of 26.7 months. Ten cases of neurotoxicity were recorded, affecting 2.8% of patients overall, ranging from grade 1 to 4, affecting both central and peripheral nervous systems. A rate of 14% was noted with ipi + nivo. Three of five patients commenced on corticosteroids responded to these. Six patients had made a full recovery at the time of reporting. A favorable radiological response was found in 7 of the 10 cases. Unusual presentations are described in detail. Conclusions: Neurological toxicity is not uncommon, and may be more frequent in patients treated with combination ipi + nivo. Patterns of presentation and response to treatment are varied. A prompt and considered approach is required to optimize outcomes in this group of patients.

Prognostic and predictive value of ERß1 and ERß2 in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)-first results from PathIES†.

BACKGROUND: Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) was a randomised study that showed a survival benefit of switching adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2-3 years from tamoxifen to exemestane. PathIES aimed to assess the potential prognostic and predictive value of ERß1 and ERß2 expression in primary tumours in order to determine benefit in the two treatment arms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary tumour samples were available for 1256 patients (27% IES population). ERß1 and ERß2 expression was dichotomised at the median IHC score (high if ERß1 ≥ 191, ERß2 ≥ 164). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for clinicopathological factors. Treatment effects with biomarker expressions were determined by interaction tests. Analysis explored effects of markers both as a continuous variable and with dichotomised cut-offs. RESULTS: Neither ERß1 nor ERß2 were associated with disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) in the whole cohort. In patients treated with continued tamoxifen, high ERß1 expression compared with low was associated with better DFS [HR = 0.38:95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.68, P = 0.001]. DFS benefit of exemestane over tamoxifen (HR = 0.40:95% CI 0.22-0.70) was found in the low ERß1 subgroup (interaction P = 0.01). No significant difference with treatment was observed for ERß2 expression in either DFS or OS. CONCLUSION: In the PathIES population, exemestane appeared to be superior to tamoxifen among patients with low ERß1 expression but not in those with high ERß1 expression. This is the first trial of its kind to report a parameter potentially predicting benefit of an aromatase inhibitor when compared with tamoxifen and an independent validation is warranted.

Two-stage method to remove population- and individual-level outliers from longitudinal data in a primary care database.

PURPOSE: In the UK, primary care databases include repeated measurements of health indicators at the individual level. As these databases encompass a large population, some individuals have extreme values, but some values may also be recorded incorrectly. The challenge for researchers is to distinguish between records that are due to incorrect recording and those which represent true but extreme values. This study evaluated different methods to identify outliers. METHODS: Ten percent of practices were selected at random to evaluate the recording of 513,367 height measurements. Population-level outliers were identified using boundaries defined using Health Survey for England data. Individual-level outliers were identified by fitting a random-effects model with subject-specific slopes for height measurements adjusted for age and sex. Any height measurements with a patient-level standardised residual more extreme than ±10 were identified as an outlier and excluded. The model was subsequently refitted twice after removing outliers at each stage. This method was compared with existing methods of removing outliers. RESULTS: Most outliers were identified at the population level using the boundaries defined using Health Survey for England (1550 of 1643). Once these were removed from the database, fitting the random-effects model to the remaining data successfully identified only 75 further outliers. This method was more efficient at identifying true outliers compared with existing methods. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a new, two-stage approach in identifying outliers in longitudinal data and show that it can successfully identify outliers at both population and individual level. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Group art therapy as an adjunctive treatment for people with schizophrenia: a randomised controlled trial (MATISSE).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of referral to group art therapy plus standard care, compared with referral to an activity group plus standard care and standard care alone, among people with schizophrenia. DESIGN: A three-arm, parallel group, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised via an independent and remote telephone randomisation service using permuted blocks, stratified by study centre. SETTING: Study participants were recruited from secondary care mental health and social services in four UK centres. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants were aged 18 years or over, had a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia, confirmed by an examination of case notes, and provided written informed consent. We excluded those who were unable to speak sufficient English to complete the baseline assessment, those with severe cognitive impairment and those already receiving arts therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Group art therapy was delivered by registered art therapists according to nationally agreed standards. Groups had up to eight members, lasted for 90 minutes and ran for 12 months. Members were given access to a range of art materials and encouraged to use these to express themselves freely. Activity groups were designed to control for the non-specific effects of group art therapy. Group facilitators offered various activities and encouraged participants to collectively select those they wanted to pursue. Standard care involved follow-up from secondary care mental health services and the option of referral to other services, except arts therapies, as required. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Our co-primary outcomes were global functioning (measured using the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale - GAF) and mental health symptoms (measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - PANSS) at 24 months. The main secondary outcomes were level of group attendance, social functioning, well-being, health-related quality of life, service utilisation and other costs measured 12 and 24 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventeen people were recruited, of whom 355 (85%) were followed up at 2 years. Eighty-six (61%) of those randomised to art therapy and 73 (52%) of those randomised to activity groups attended at least one group. No differences in primary outcomes were found between the three study arms. The adjusted mean difference between art therapy and standard care at 24 months was -0.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to 2.1] on the GAF Scale and 0.7 (95% CI -3.1 to 4.6) on the PANSS Scale. Differences in secondary outcomes were not found, except that those referred to an activity group had fewer positive symptoms of schizophrenia at 24 months than those randomised to art therapy. Secondary analysis indicated that attendance at art therapy groups was not associated with improvements in global functioning or mental health. Although the total cost of the art therapy group was lower than the cost of the two comparison groups, referral to group art therapy did not appear to provide a cost-effective use of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Referring people with established schizophrenia to group art therapy as delivered in this randomised trial does not appear to improve global functioning or mental health of patients or provide a more cost-effective use of resources than standard care alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 46150447. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 8. See the HTA programme website for further project information.