Search

Despite their anti-tumor efficacy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are associated with a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Grade ≥ 2 irAEs require ICI discontinuation. The decision to resume ICI treatment often remains challenging.We retrospectively studied 1051 adult patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ICIs at a single institution between January 2015 and December 2020, and identified 99 (9.4%) patients with grade≥2 irAEs necessitating treatment interruption. Forty patients underwent retreatment (rechallenged group), while 59 discontinued the treatment (discontinued group).Baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 groups were similar. Initial irAEs were less severe in the rechallenged group. After rechallenging, 24 of 40 (60%) patients had recurrence of the same or de-novo irAEs. Twenty (50%) developed second grade≥ 2 irAEs. No grade 4 irAE or irAE-related death occurred after rechallenging. Using multivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.57-2.15, P = .77) or progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.45-1.71, P = .69) were noted between the 2 groups, while the best objective response prior to the initial irAEs was the only variable affecting OS and PFS.Rechallenge was associated with a relative high risk of second grade≥ 2 irAEs. The risk was less if the initial irAEs were resolved. No differences were seen in survival outcomes of patients who had ICI rechallenge and those who did not. Permanent ICI discontinuation is an appropriate strategy after grade≥ 2 irAEs, especially severe irAEs.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause a variety of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which may affect the outcome of irAEs. Data are limited regarding the impact of COVID-19 on irAEs in ICI-treated cancer patients. Hence, in this study, we retrospectively analyzed ICI-treated adult patients with malignant solid tumors at a single institution between August 2020 and August 2021. Patients who had the most recent ICI treatment over 1-month before or after the positive COVID-19 test were excluded from the study. For the COVID-19 positive group, only the irAEs that developed after COVID-19 infection were considered as events. A total of 579 patients were included in our study, with 46 (7.9%) in the COVID-19 positive group and 533 (92.1%) in the COVID-19 negative group. The baseline characteristics of patients in the 2 groups were similar. With a median follow-up of 331 days (range: 21-2226), we noticed a nonsignificant higher incidence of all-grade irAEs in the COVID-19 positive group (30.4% vs. 19.9%, P =0.18). The incidence of grade 3 and 4 irAEs was significantly higher in the COVID-19 positive group (10.9% vs. 3.2%, P =0.02). Multivariate analysis confirmed the association between COVID-19 infection and increased risk of severe irAE development (odds ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.14, P =0.01). Our study suggested that COVID-19 may pose a risk of severe irAEs in cancer patients receiving ICIs. Close monitoring and possibly delaying ICI administration could be considered when cancer patients are infected with COVID-19.

Primary breast lymphoma (PBL) is an uncommon type of breast malignancy. Its clinical presentation and radiographic findings are non-specific and overlap with breast carcinoma. The treatment of PBL differs significantly from breast carcinomas. Here we present a middle-aged woman who presented with an enlarging palpable right breast mass. Mammogram showed breast imaging-reporting and data system 4 findings. Breast mass biopsy pathology confirmed diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Although uncommon, clinicians should be cognisant of the possibility of PBL when patients present with a breast mass. Accurate diagnosis is essential to avoid unnecessary mastectomies.

Conditioning intensity contributes significantly to outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). We evaluated two myeloablative conditioning dosing ranges of intravenous (IV) busulfan (Bu) in combination with fludarabine in 70 patients. In 2015, our practice changed to target busulfan area under the curve (AUC) of ≥ 19.7 mg*h/L. We assessed responses in patients receiving busulfan AUCs of 19.7 mg*h/L (Low-Bu) and ≥ 19.7 mg*h/L (High-Bu). At 18-month median follow-up, no differences in overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were found between Low-Bu and High-Bu groups (p = 0.35 and p = 0.29, respectively). Relapses occurred in 25.7% of patients. No differences in median time to relapse were noted. Minimal residual disease (MRD)-positive patients had a shorter median OS and RFS than MRD-negative patients. No differences were found in OS and RFS between Low-Bu and High-Bu groups in MRD-positive patients (p = 0.86 and p = 0.83, respectively), or MRD-negative patients (p = 0.56 and p = 0.38, respectively). Non-relapsed mortality (NRM) at 100 days was 3.4% vs. 4.1% in the Low-Bu vs. High-Bu groups. There were no significant differences in the incidence of acute-graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) (71.4% vs. 63.4%) or chronic GVHD (cGVHD) (48.3% vs. 43.9%) between the groups. The cumulative incidence of grades III-IV aGVHD was 24.1% in Low-Bu group and 22.4% in High-Bu group. In conclusion, targeting a busulfan AUC of 19.7 mg*h/L with fludarabine does not appear to add an advantage in OS and RFS.