9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Early Use of High-Dose Glucocorticoid for the Management of irAE Is Associated with Poorer Survival in Patients with Advanced Melanoma Treated with Anti–PD-1 Monotherapy

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 5 , 5 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 7 , 7 , 8 , 8 , , , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 9 , 9 , 2 , 10 , 8 , 10 , 7 , 10 , 7 , 10 , 1 , 10 , 4 , 10 , 5 , 10 , 2 , 10 , 9 , 10 , * ,
      Clinical Cancer Research
      American Association for Cancer Research

      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

          Purpose:

          Programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors are frontline therapy in advanced melanoma. Severe immune-related adverse effects (irAEs) often require immunosuppressive treatment with glucocorticoids (GCCs), but GCC use and its correlation with patient survival outcomes during anti–PD-1 monotherapy remains unclear.

          Experimental Design:

          In this multicenter retrospective analysis, patients treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019 and detailed GCC use, data were identified from five independent cohorts, with median follow-up time of 206 weeks. IrAEs were tracked from the initiation of anti–PD-1 until disease progression, initiation of a new therapy, or last follow-up. Correlations between irAEs, GCC use, and survival outcomes were analyzed.

          Results:

          Of the entire cohort of 947 patients, 509 (54%) developed irAEs. In the MGH cohort [irAE(+) n = 90], early-onset irAE (within 8 weeks of anti–PD-1 initiation) with high-dose GCC use (≥60-mg prednisone equivalent once a day) was independently associated with poorer post-irAE PFS/OS (progression-free survival/overall survival) [post-irAE PFS: HR, 5.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.10–13.70; P < 0.001; post-irAE OS: HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.20–16.09; P < 0.001] compared with irAEs without early high-dose GCC use. These findings were validated in the combined validation cohort [irAE(+) n = 419, post-irAE PFS: HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.04–2.76; P = 0.04; post-irAE OS: HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.15–3.39; P = 0.01]. Similar findings were also observed in the 26-week landmark analysis for post–irAE-PFS but not for post–irAE-OS. A sensitivity analysis using accumulated GCC exposure as the measurement achieved similar results.

          Conclusions:

          Early high-dose GCC use was associated with poorer PFS and OS after irAE onset. Judicious use of GCC early during anti–PD-1 monotherapy should be considered. Further prospective randomized control clinical trials designed to explore alternative irAE management options are warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

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

          Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma

          New England Journal of Medicine, 373(1), 23-34
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.

            The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab is the standard-of-care treatment for patients with advanced melanoma. Pembrolizumab inhibits the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint and has antitumor activity in patients with advanced melanoma. In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 study, we assigned 834 patients with advanced melanoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight) every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of ipilimumab (at 3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks. Primary end points were progression-free and overall survival. The estimated 6-month progression-free-survival rates were 47.3% for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 46.4% for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, and 26.5% for ipilimumab (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.58; P<0.001 for both pembrolizumab regimens versus ipilimumab; 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.46 to 0.72 and 0.47 to 0.72, respectively). Estimated 12-month survival rates were 74.1%, 68.4%, and 58.2%, respectively (hazard ratio for death for pembrolizumab every 2 weeks, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.0005; hazard ratio for pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; P=0.0036). The response rate was improved with pembrolizumab administered every 2 weeks (33.7%) and every 3 weeks (32.9%), as compared with ipilimumab (11.9%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Responses were ongoing in 89.4%, 96.7%, and 87.9% of patients, respectively, after a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Efficacy was similar in the two pembrolizumab groups. Rates of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 to 5 severity were lower in the pembrolizumab groups (13.3% and 10.1%) than in the ipilimumab group (19.9%). The anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nivolumab in Previously Untreated Melanoma withoutBRAFMutation

              Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clin Cancer Res
                Clinical Cancer Research
                American Association for Cancer Research
                1078-0432
                1557-3265
                01 November 2021
                10 August 2021
                : 27
                : 21
                : 5993-6000
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Melanoma and Sarcoma, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education, Beijing), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China.
                [2 ]Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [3 ]Department of Data Sciences (Division of Biostatistics), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [4 ]Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
                [5 ]Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
                [6 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi, China.
                [7 ]Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, Australia.
                [8 ]Center for Immune-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [9 ]Department of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
                [10 ]Senior authors at each site.
                Author notes

                Prior Presentation: This study has been partially presented as posters in SITC annual meeting 2018, ASCO annual meeting 2019, and SMR (Society for Melanoma Research) annual meeting 2019.

                [* ] Corresponding Author: Genevieve M. Boland, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Phone: 617-724-9913; Fax: 617-724-3895, E-mail: gmboland@ 123456partners.org
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6422-2997
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9142-6397
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2123-3906
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8894-3545
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8065-4412
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5344-6645
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7522-6173
                Article
                CCR-21-1283
                10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1283
                9401488
                34376536
                0e096153-6fa1-47c0-9d81-c7a6ffdebdf2
                ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research

                This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

                History
                : 07 April 2021
                : 25 May 2021
                : 05 August 2021
                Page count
                Pages: 8
                Categories
                Translational Cancer Mechanisms and Therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article