Search

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, but are associated with immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis (IMDC). Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) can cause infectious diarrhea with overlapping symptoms. Thus, we sought to elucidate the characteristics of CDI in patients treated with ICI, in the context of IMDC., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of adult cancer patients (N=421) with ICI exposure from 2015-2020 and a positive stool nucleic acid amplification test and/or enzyme immunoassay for CDI. Baseline characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were compared between patients with and without concurrent IMDC., Results: Forty-one eligible patients were included, 27 with concurrent IMDC and 14 without. Twenty-seven patients were taking programmed death-1 or its ligand inhibitors and 14 were taking cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors. Patients with concurrent CDI and IMDC had a longer symptom duration (20 vs. 5 days, P=0.003) and a higher rate of grade 3-4 diarrhea (41% vs. 7%, P=0.033). Among patients with concurrent IMDC, preceding antibiotics (P=0.050) and proton pump inhibitors (PPI) (P=0.038) were used more frequently among individuals who developed CDI after immunosuppressant exposure. Thirty-eight patients received antibiotics for CDI, while 5 required fecal microbiota transplantation for concurrent CDI & IMDC., Conclusions: CDI is common in ICI-treated cancer patients, especially those with IMDC requiring immunosuppressants. Antibiotics did not alter the need for immunosuppressants in those with concurrent IMDC. Use of PPI and antibiotics while receiving immunosuppressants for IMDC was associated with a greater risk of CDI. Further large-scale studies are warranted to clarify the role of CDI, antibiotics and immunosuppression treatment in IMDC patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: P. Grivas provided consulting to AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dyania Health, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Gilead Sciences, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lucence Health, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, UroGen, SilverBack Therapeutics, 4D Pharma PLC. His institution has received grants from Bavarian Nordic, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Debiopharm, EMD Serono, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics. Dr. Wang has disclosed serving as a consultant for Tillotts Pharma, and AzurRx Pharma., (Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.)

Purpose: Precision oncology is widely discussed, but cohort studies are limited. We previously reported our prospective experience of precision oncology in solid tumors, and here we report our longitudinal experience, focusing on therapeutic impact., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 600 consecutive patients seen at Cleveland Clinic from 2013 to 2016 for treatment of incurable solid tumor malignancies for whom tumor genomic profiling was ordered using FoundationOne (Cambridge, MA). Results were discussed at our multidisciplinary genomics tumor board. Data analyzed included subsequent therapy and overall survival (OS)., Results: Median age was 59 years (range, 18 to 94 years), 308 (51.3%) were female, and 533 (88.8%) were white. Targeted therapy was recommended in 310 patients (51.7%). After results, 313 patients (52.2%) started any subsequent therapy; of these, 95 (30%; 15.8% overall) received genomics-driven therapy (G), and 218 (70%) received non-genomics-driven treatment (NG). For the G versus NG group, the on-label, off-label, and clinical trial therapy breakdowns were 23% versus 88%, 47% versus 3%, and 30% versus 9%, respectively. Median OS for patients receiving no therapy after tumor genomic profiling was 5.5 months; for the G and NG groups, it was 18 ( P < .001) and 14.4 ( P < .001) months, respectively ( P = NS for G v NG). The use of G increased from 10% in the first 250-patient cohort (reported earlier) to 20% in the subsequent 350-patient cohort., Conclusion: Tumor genomic profiling influenced treatment in 15.8% of patients. More patients received treatment via clinical trials in the G cohort, and although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward increased OS in the G ( v NG) group. These data can further guide real-world applications of precision oncology.