Case report: Successful use of mepolizumab for immune checkpoint inhibitors–induced hypereosinophilic syndrome in two patients with solid malignancies

Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) represents a group of blood disorders characterized by an absolute eosinophil count (AEC) > 1.5 × 103/μl in the peripheral blood, which eventually extravasate and cause organ damage. It can be primary or secondary to infections or tumors. The infiltration of eosinophils in tissue and organs is associated with different disorders and, in some cases, with life-threatening manifestations. Albeit the pathogenesis of HES in patients with solid tumo\rs is not yet clarified; recently, HES has also been described as an immune-related adverse event in patients with solid tumors receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Treatment of HES is still debated, especially in patients with concomitant solid tumors, and different drugs including imatinib, hydroxyurea, interferon-ɑ, glucocorticoids, and the monoclonal antibody targeting circulating IL-5 mepolizumab have been proposed according to the underlying cause and the severity of HES. Herein, we describe, for the first time, the successful use of mepolizumab for the treatment of immune checkpoint–induced HES in two patients with metastatic solid tumor

Neutralizing antibodies to Omicron after the fourth SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in immunocompromised patients highlight the need of additional boosters

IntroductionImmunocompromised patients have been shown to have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccines.MethodsHere we compared the B-cell, T-cell and neutralizing antibody response to WT and Omicron BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 virus after the fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies (HM, n=71), solid tumors (ST, n=39) and immune-rheumatological (IR, n=25) diseases. The humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were analyzed by quantifying the anti-RBD antibodies, their neutralization activity and the IFN-γ released after spike specific stimulation.ResultsWe show that the T-cell response is similarly boosted by the fourth dose across the different subgroups, while the antibody response is improved only in patients not receiving B-cell targeted therapies, independent on the pathology. However, 9% of patients with anti-RBD antibodies did not have neutralizing antibodies to either virus variants, while an additional 5.7% did not have neutralizing antibodies to Omicron BA.2, making these patients particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The increment of neutralizing antibodies was very similar towards Omicron BA.2 and WT virus after the third or fourth dose of vaccine, suggesting that there is no preferential skewing towards either virus variant with the booster dose. The only limited step is the amount of antibodies that are elicited after vaccination, thus increasing the probability of developing neutralizing antibodies to both variants of virus.DiscussionThese data support the recommendation of additional booster doses in frail patients to enhance the development of a B-cell response directed against Omicron and/or to enhance the T-cell response in patients treated with anti-CD20

History of Extensive Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment: Time to Raise the Bar? A Review of the Literature

Several trials have tried for decades to improve the outcome of extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) through attempts to modify the standard treatments. Nevertheless, platinum/etoposide combination and topotecan have remained respectively the first and the second line standard treatments for the last 40 years. With the advent of immunotherapy, this scenario has finally changed. Our review aims to provide an overview of the primary studies on the actual therapeutic strategies available for ED-SCLC patients, and to highlight emerging evidence supporting the use of immunotherapy in SCLC patients

History of Extensive Disease Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment: Time to Raise the Bar? A Review of the Literature

Several trials have tried for decades to improve the outcome of extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) through attempts to modify the standard treatments. Nevertheless, platinum/etoposide combination and topotecan have remained respectively the first and the second line standard treatments for the last 40 years. With the advent of immunotherapy, this scenario has finally changed. Our review aims to provide an overview of the primary studies on the actual therapeutic strategies available for ED-SCLC patients, and to highlight emerging evidence supporting the use of immunotherapy in SCLC patients

Perioperative Pembrolizumab for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Among patients with resectable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a perioperative approach that includes both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition may provide benefit beyond either approach alone.METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate perioperative pembrolizumab in patients with early-stage NSCLC. Participants with resectable stage II, IIIA, or IIIB (N2 stage) NSCLC were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive neoadjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks, each of which was given with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for 4 cycles, followed by surgery and adjuvant pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for up to 13 cycles. The dual primary end points were event-free survival (the time from randomization to the first occurrence of local progression that precluded the planned surgery, unresectable tumor, progression or recurrence, or death) and overall survival. Secondary end points included major pathological response, pathological complete response, and safety.RESULTS A total of 397 participants were assigned to the pembrolizumab group, and 400 to the placebo group. At the prespecified first interim analysis, the median follow-up was 25.2 months. Event-free survival at 24 months was 62.4% in the pembrolizumab group and 40.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression, recurrence, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.72; P<0.001). The estimated 24-month overall survival was 80.9% in the pembrolizumab group and 77.6% in the placebo group (P = 0.02, which did not meet the significance criterion). A major pathological response occurred in 30.2% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and in 11.0% of those in the placebo group (difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 13.9 to 24.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001), and a pathological complete response occurred in 18.1% and 4.0%, respectively (difference, 14.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.1 to 18.7; P<0.0001; threshold, P = 0.0001). Across all treatment phases, 44.9% of the participants in the pembrolizumab group and 37.3% of those in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, including 1.0% and 0.8%, respectively, who had grade 5 events.CONCLUSIONS Among patients with resectable, early-stage NSCLC, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by resection and adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved event-free survival, major pathological response, and pathological complete response as compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone followed by surgery. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the groups in this analysis