2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical Features, Survival, and Burden of Toxicities in Survivors More Than One Year After Lung Cancer Immunotherapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Anti-PD-(L)1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) improve survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). The clinical features, survival, and burden of toxicities of patients with aNSCLC alive >1 year from ICI initiation are poorly understood.

          Materials and Methods

          We defined ICI survivors as patients alive >1 year after ICI start and retrospectively reviewed demographics, treatment, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Long-term irAEs were defined as ongoing irAEs lasting >1 year; burden of toxicity measures were based on percentage of days a patient experienced toxicity. Using linear and logistic regression, we evaluated association between demographics and disease characteristics with burden of toxicity.

          Results

          We identified 114 ICI survivors from 317 patients with aNSCLC. Half (52%) experienced an irAE of any grade, and 23.7% developed long-term irAEs. More ICI survivors with irAES in the first year had never smoked ( P = .018) or received ICIs as frontline therapy ( P = .015). The burden of toxicity in the first year significantly correlated with the burden of toxicity afterward ( ρ = 0.72; P < .001). No patients with progressive disease had a high burden of toxicity, and they experienced 30.6% fewer days with toxicity than those with stable disease. Increased duration of therapy was associated with higher odds of experiencing toxicity. Half of ICI survivors with irAEs were still receiving treatment for unresolved irAEs at time of death or last follow-up.

          Conclusion

          Significant proportions of ICI survivors have unresolved long-term toxicities. These data support a growing need to understand long-term toxicity to optimize management of those treated with ICIs.

          Abstract

          Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment landscape for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, contributing to a growing population of survivors; however, immune-related adverse events are a concern. This article focuses on the burden of toxicity, bridging the gap in knowledge of the long-term management of immune-related adverse events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pembrolizumab versus Chemotherapy for PD-L1–Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

            Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against programmed death 1 (PD-1) that has antitumor activity in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with increased activity in tumors that express programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

              Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, disrupts PD-1-mediated signaling and may restore antitumor immunity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Oncologist
                Oncologist
                oncolo
                The Oncologist
                Oxford University Press (US )
                1083-7159
                1549-490X
                November 2022
                16 August 2022
                16 August 2022
                : 27
                : 11
                : 971-981
                Affiliations
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Beaumont Hospital Dublin and RCSI University of Health Sciences , Dublin, Ireland
                Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Bloomberg-Kimmel institute for Cancer Immunotherapy , Baltimore, MD, USA
                Author notes

                Present affiliation for MLH: Division of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

                Corresponding author: Josephine Feliciano, MD, Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins Bayview, 301 Mason Lord Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. Tel: +1 410 550 1711; Fax: +1 410 550 1116. Email: jfelici4@ 123456jhmi.edu

                Contributed equally as senior authors.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0200-1579
                Article
                oyac140
                10.1093/oncolo/oyac140
                9632301
                35972337
                09d4368a-b1b0-4981-b937-f2f68eb6a463
                © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 04 February 2022
                : 01 June 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Categories
                Lung Cancer
                AcademicSubjects/MED00010

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                non-small cell lung cancer,survivorship,immune checkpoint inhibitors,immune-related adverse events,toxicities

                Comments

                Comment on this article