29 research outputs found
Re: Laurence Albiges, Tom Powles, Michael Staehler, et al. Updated European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Is the New Backbone in First-line Treatment of Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol 2019;76:151–6: Active Surveillance in Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: M
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as neoadjuvant treatment in primary advanced renal cell tumors: Cutting edges for cutting-edge surgery
Review – The impact of pharmacogenetics on the outcome of immune checkpoint inhibitors
The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has a tremendous effect on the treatment options for multiple types of cancer. Nonetheless, there is a large interpatient variability in response, survival, and the development of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Pharmacogenetics is the general term for germline genetic variations, which may cause the observed interindividual differences in response or toxicity to treatment. These genetic variations can either be single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or structural variants, such as gene deletions, amplifications or rearrangements. For ICIs, pharmacogenetic variation in the human leukocyte antigen molecules has also been studied with regard to treatment outcome. This review presents a summary of the literature regarding the pharmacogenetics of ICI treatment, discusses the most important known genetic variations and offers recommendations on the application of pharmacogenetics for ICI treatment.</p
Experiences of resuming life after immunotherapy and associated survivorship care needs:A qualitative study among patients with metastatic melanoma
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have significantly improved the overall survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. It is unclear how the growing group of metastatic melanoma survivors resume their lives after treatment, and which needs they have regarding survivorship care (SSC). OBJECTIVES: To gain an in-depth understanding of metastatic melanoma survivors' experiences of resuming life after ICIs and their associated SSC needs. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among 20 patients with metastatic melanoma in whom ICIs had been discontinued after ongoing tumour response. One focus group (n = 9) was held, which was complemented by 11 individual interviews. Purposive sampling was used to select a variable sample in terms of sex, age, time since discontinuation of ICIs, and perceived impact of the disease. A topic guide was used to structure the (group) interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and analysed in a thematic content analysis, using several phases of coding. RESULTS: In resuming life after ICIs, the prognosis switch often caused mixed feelings among patients, mainly because of the uncertainty about the future. Demands and expectations from self and others, persistent complaints and new problems in different life domains often make it challenging to proceed with life as it was prior to metastatic cancer. Patients indicated they needed to find a new balance, which included learning to cope with uncertainty and a changed perspective on life and close relationships. In terms of SSC needs, patients particularly stressed the need for more tailored patient information, available at one location. In addition, they emphasized the need to know who to turn to in case of questions and indicated the need for psychosocial support, also for their close relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic melanoma survivors face various challenges in resuming life after ICIs and are left with several unmet SSC needs. Efforts should be focused on offering psychosocial supportive care in addition to medical care, from diagnosis onwards, taking into account the patient's close relatives. A single point of contact and personalized survivorship care plan (SCP) could be of added value in guiding them through the patient journey, which is, given its multidisciplinary nature, particularly important in melanoma care. What is already known about this topic? Since the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) the overall survival of patients with metastatic melanoma has improved significantly, leading to a growing group of melanoma survivors. Melanoma survivors may face various problems and challenges in resuming life after treatment, which may be associated with unmet survivorship care (SSC) needs. An in-depth understanding of their experiences with resuming life and the associated SSC needs is currently lacking. What does this study add? Metastatic melanoma survivors experience various challenges after immunotherapy, from the uncertain prognosis switch to the struggle of finding a new balance in life. Besides negative aspects, such as complaints in different life domains, the patient journey is often accompanied by positive outcomes, for example a changed perspective on life. They stress the need for tailored patient information and broader supportive care, also for their close relatives. What are the clinical implications of this work? In addition to medical care, efforts should be focused on offering psychosocial supportive care, including return-to-work issues, from diagnosis onwards, ideally taking into account the patient's close relatives. To guide them through the patient journey, a single point of contact and a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP) could be of added value. The latter is particularly important in melanoma care, given its multidisciplinary nature
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as neoadjuvant treatment in primary advanced renal cell tumors: Cutting edges for cutting-edge surgery
From decision to reflection:understanding the experiences and unmet care needs of patients treated with immunotherapy for melanoma in the adjuvant or metastatic setting
BACKGROUND: Despite increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma, little is known about patient experiences during this treatment. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of experiences and unmet care needs of patients treated in the adjuvant or metastatic setting for advanced melanoma regarding their ICI treatment trajectory.METHODS:Interviews and focus groups were conducted among 35 patients treated with ICIs in the adjuvant setting for completely resected stage III (n = 14), or in the metastatic setting for irresectable stage IV (n = 21) melanoma. A thorough thematic content analysis was conducted.RESULTS: Three main themes were identified. When (1) dealing with uncertainty in the decision-making process, adjuvant patients explored the pros and cons, whereas metastatic patients considered immunotherapy their only viable option. Both groups expressed the need for additional guidance. In (2) navigating the immunotherapy course, both perceived the trajectory as intense, experienced a major impact on their and their (close) relatives' lives, and felt the need to (re)gain control. When (3) looking back on the immunotherapy experience, metastatic patients generally felt relieved, while among adjuvant patients, feelings of doubt regarding their choice for ICIs were also reported.CONCLUSIONS: ICI treatment is perceived as intensive for both patient groups, facing both comparable and distinct challenges throughout the treatment trajectory, underscoring the need for stage-specific, individualised guidance. Options regarding flexible follow-ups, low-threshold contact and psychosocial support throughout the treatment trajectory should be explored.</p
From decision to reflection:understanding the experiences and unmet care needs of patients treated with immunotherapy for melanoma in the adjuvant or metastatic setting
BACKGROUND: Despite increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma, little is known about patient experiences during this treatment. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of experiences and unmet care needs of patients treated in the adjuvant or metastatic setting for advanced melanoma regarding their ICI treatment trajectory.METHODS:Interviews and focus groups were conducted among 35 patients treated with ICIs in the adjuvant setting for completely resected stage III (n = 14), or in the metastatic setting for irresectable stage IV (n = 21) melanoma. A thorough thematic content analysis was conducted.RESULTS: Three main themes were identified. When (1) dealing with uncertainty in the decision-making process, adjuvant patients explored the pros and cons, whereas metastatic patients considered immunotherapy their only viable option. Both groups expressed the need for additional guidance. In (2) navigating the immunotherapy course, both perceived the trajectory as intense, experienced a major impact on their and their (close) relatives' lives, and felt the need to (re)gain control. When (3) looking back on the immunotherapy experience, metastatic patients generally felt relieved, while among adjuvant patients, feelings of doubt regarding their choice for ICIs were also reported.CONCLUSIONS: ICI treatment is perceived as intensive for both patient groups, facing both comparable and distinct challenges throughout the treatment trajectory, underscoring the need for stage-specific, individualised guidance. Options regarding flexible follow-ups, low-threshold contact and psychosocial support throughout the treatment trajectory should be explored.</p
Multi-omic analysis identifies hypoalbuminemia as independent biomarker of poor outcome upon PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma
We evaluated the prognostic value of hypoalbuminemia in context of various biomarkers at baseline, including clinical, genomic, transcriptomic, and blood-based markers, in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (n = 178). An independent validation cohort (n = 79) was used to validate the performance of hypoalbuminemia compared to serum LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Pre-treatment hypoalbuminemia emerged as the strongest predictor of poor outcome for both OS (HR = 4.01, 95% CI 2.10–7.67, Cox P = 2.63e−05) and PFS (HR = 3.72, 95% CI 2.06–6.73, Cox P = 1.38e−05) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, the association of hypoalbuminemia with PFS was independent of serum LDH, IFN-γ signature expression, TMB, age, ECOG PS, treatment line, treatment type (combination or monotherapy), brain and liver metastasis (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.24–6.13, Cox P = 0.0131). Our validation cohort confirmed the prognostic power of hypoalbuminemia for OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.16–3.38; Cox P = 0.0127) and was complementary to serum LDH in analyses for both OS (LDH-adjusted HR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.2–3.72, Cox P = 0.00925) and PFS (LDH-adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.08–3.38, Cox P = 0.0261). In conclusion, pretreatment hypoalbuminemia was a powerful predictor of outcome in ICI in melanoma and showed remarkable complementarity to previously established biomarkers, including high LDH.</p
Multi-omic analysis identifies hypoalbuminemia as independent biomarker of poor outcome upon PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma
We evaluated the prognostic value of hypoalbuminemia in context of various biomarkers at baseline, including clinical, genomic, transcriptomic, and blood-based markers, in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy or anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy (n = 178). An independent validation cohort (n = 79) was used to validate the performance of hypoalbuminemia compared to serum LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels. Pre-treatment hypoalbuminemia emerged as the strongest predictor of poor outcome for both OS (HR = 4.01, 95% CI 2.10–7.67, Cox P = 2.63e−05) and PFS (HR = 3.72, 95% CI 2.06–6.73, Cox P = 1.38e−05) in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, the association of hypoalbuminemia with PFS was independent of serum LDH, IFN-γ signature expression, TMB, age, ECOG PS, treatment line, treatment type (combination or monotherapy), brain and liver metastasis (HR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.24–6.13, Cox P = 0.0131). Our validation cohort confirmed the prognostic power of hypoalbuminemia for OS (HR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.16–3.38; Cox P = 0.0127) and was complementary to serum LDH in analyses for both OS (LDH-adjusted HR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.2–3.72, Cox P = 0.00925) and PFS (LDH-adjusted HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.08–3.38, Cox P = 0.0261). In conclusion, pretreatment hypoalbuminemia was a powerful predictor of outcome in ICI in melanoma and showed remarkable complementarity to previously established biomarkers, including high LDH.</p
Life-prolonging treatment restrictions and outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19:an update from the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium
AIM OF THE STUDY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19. METHODS: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account. RESULTS: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life-prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic