Risk of cardiovascular toxicity with combination of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and angiogenesis inhibitors: a meta-analysis

IntroductionCombinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) have been investigated for the treatment of several tumor types. Both ICIs and AIs may lead to cardiovascular adverse events, and their combination may potentially increase the risk for cardiovascular toxicity. In the present meta-analysis, we aim to assess the cardiovascular toxicity of ICIs plus AIs vs. AIs alone. Secondary objectives are non-cardiovascular adverse events and efficacy.MethodsSystematic review was performed according to PRISMA statement. Phase II and III randomized clinical trials were identified by searching the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library and ASCO Meeting abstracts, from inception to June 2022. The pooled risks for overall response rate (ORR), 1-year progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), immune-related AEs, (irAEs), hypertension, and vascular events defined as stroke, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolisms, were calculated.ResultsIn terms of cardiovascular toxicity, we found higher risk for severe hypertension among patients treated with ICIs plus AIs as compared with those receiving AIs (OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01–1.53), but no significant difference was found for any-grade hypertension, and for vascular events. There was also no difference in terms of overall AEs, whereas the incidence of irAEs was increased in the ICIs plus AIs arm, as expected. In terms of efficacy, ICIs plus AIs achieved better ORR (OR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.70–2.97) and PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39–0.63) as compared to AIs alone.ConclusionThe addition of ICIs to AIs significantly increased the risk of high-grade hypertension, but not that of acute vascular events

Safety of extended interval dosing immune checkpoint inhibitors:a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND: Real-life spectrum and survival implications of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with extended interval dosing (ED) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are unknown. METHODS: Characteristics of 812 consecutive solid cancer patients who received at least 1 cycle of ED monotherapy (pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W or nivolumab 480 mg Q4W) after switching from canonical interval dosing (CD; pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W or nivolumab 240 mg Q2W) or treated upfront with ED were retrieved. The primary objective was to compare irAEs patterns within the same population (before and after switch to ED). irAEs spectrum in patients treated upfront with ED and association between irAEs and overall survival were also described. RESULTS: A total of 550 (68%) patients started ICIs with CD and switched to ED. During CD, 225 (41%) patients developed any grade and 17 (3%) G3 or G4 irAEs; after switching to ED, any grade and G3 or G4 irAEs were experienced by 155 (36%) and 20 (5%) patients. Switching to ED was associated with a lower probability of any grade irAEs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.99; P = .047), whereas no difference for G3 or G4 events was noted (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.94; P = .18). Among patients who started upfront with ED (n = 232, 32%), 107 (41%) developed any grade and 14 (5%) G3 or G4 irAEs during ED. Patients with irAEs during ED had improved overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.82; P = .004 after switching; aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.93; P = .025 upfront). CONCLUSIONS: Switching ICI treatment from CD and ED did not increase the incidence of irAEs and represents a safe option also outside clinical trials.</p

Serial 18F-choline-PET imaging in patients receiving enzalutamide for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: response assessment and imaging biomarkers

High rate of non-target lesions in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer usually limits applicability of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, and this has led to a growing interest in using PET/computed tomography (CT). We prospectively investigated the role of (18)F-choline (FCH)-PET/CT in patients receiving enzalutamide after docetaxel

SCLC Treatment in the Immuno-Oncology Era: Current Evidence and Unmet Needs

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents about 13%–15% of all lung cancers. It has a particularly unfavorable prognosis and in about 70% of cases occurs in the advanced stage (extended disease). Three phase III studies tested the combination of immunotherapy (atezolizumab, durvalumab with or without tremelimumab, and pembrolizumab) with double platinum chemotherapy, with practice-changing results. However, despite the high tumor mutational load and the chronic pro-inflammatory state induced by prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke, the benefit observed with immunotherapy is very modest and most patients experience disease recurrence. Unfortunately, biological, clinical, or molecular factors that can predict this risk have not yet been identified. Thanks to these clinically meaningful steps forward, SCLC is no longer considered an “orphan” disease. Innovative treatment strategies and combinations are currently under investigation to further improve the expected prognosis of patients with SCLC. Following the recent therapeutic innovations, we have reviewed the available literature data about SCLC management, with a focus on current unmet needs and potential predictive factors. In detail, the role of radiotherapy; fragile populations, such as elderly or low-performance status patients (ECOG PS 2), usually excluded from randomized studies; predictive factors of response useful to optimize and guide therapeutic choices; and new molecular targets and future combinations have been explored and revised