Search

Background Patients with paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are excluded from clinical trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to safety concerns. Moreover, real-world data on efficacy and safety is scarce.Methods In this retrospective study, data were collected on patients with PNS and solid tumors receiving ICI between 2015 and 2022 at nine institutions. Patients were classified into: Cohort 1 (pre-existing PNS before ICI initiation), cohort 2 (PNS during ICI treatment), and cohort 3 (PNS after ICI discontinuation). Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (mNSCLC) from cohort 1 were matched to patients who were PNS-free at each institution up to a 1:3 ratio for age, sex, type of ICI, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and number of lines of systemic therapy prior to ICI initiation. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess overall survival (OS) and time-to-next treatment (TTNT).Results Among 109 patients with PNS treated with ICIs, median age at ICI initiation was 67 years (IQR: 58–74). The most represented cancer type was NSCLC (n=39, 36%). In cohort 1 (n=55), PNS exacerbations occurred in 16 (29%) patients with median time to exacerbation after ICI of 1.1 months (IQR: 0.7–3.3). Exacerbation or de novo PNS prompted temporary/permanent interruption of ICIs in 14 (13%) patients. For cohort 2 (n=16), median time between ICI initiation and de novo PNS was 1.2 months (IQR: 0.4–3.5). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) occurred in 43 (39%) patients. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 18 (17%) patients. PNS-directed immunosuppressive therapy was required in 55 (50%) patients. We matched 18 patients with mNSCLC and PNS (cohort 1) to 40 without PNS, treated with ICIs. There was no significant difference in OS or TTNT between patients with mNSCLC with and without PNS, although a trend was seen towards worse outcomes in patients with PNS. TrAEs occurred in 6/18 (33%) and 14/40 (35%), respectively. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 4 (22%) patients with PNS and 7 (18%) patients without PNS.Conclusions Exacerbations of pre-existing PNS occurred in 29% of patients treated with ICIs and both exacerbations and de novo PNS occur early in the ICI course. TrAE from ICIs were similar between patients with and without PNS. Our data suggest that pre-existing PNS should not preclude consideration of ICI therapy although patients may not derive the same clinical benefit compared with patients without PNS.

BackgroundImmunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy.MethodsThe Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS.ResultsOverall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 – 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 – 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59).ConclusionWe found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

Background: Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSis) abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone and enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the most administered first-line treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). AA and Enza have shown similar overall survival (OS) benefits and there is no consensus upon the best option for mCRPC first-line treatment. Volume of disease may represent a useful biomarker to predict response to therapy in such patients. Objectives: In this study, we seek to evaluate the impact of volume of disease on patients treated with first-line AA versus Enza for mCRPC. Design and methods: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of consecutive patients with mCRPC categorized by volume of disease [high volume (HV) or low volume (LV) per E3805 criteria] at ARSi onset and treatment type (AA or Enza), assessing OS and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), from therapy start, as co-primary endpoints. Results: Of the 420 patients selected, 170 (40.5%) had LV and received AA (LV/AA), 76 (18.1%) LV and had Enza (LV/Enza), 124 (29.5%) HV and were given AA (HV/AA), and 50 (11.9%) HV and received Enza (HV/Enza). Among patients with LV, OS was significantly longer when treated with Enza [57.2 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 52.1–62.2 months] versus AA (51.6 months; 95% CI, 42.6–60.6 months; p = 0.003). Consistently, those with LV receiving Enza showed increased rPFS (40.3 months; 95 CI, 25.0–55.7 months) than those having AA (22.0 months; 95% CI, 18.1–26.0 months; p = 0.004). No significant difference in OS or rPFS was observed in those with HV treated with AA versus Enza ( p = 0.51 and p = 0.73, respectively). In multivariate analysis of patients with LV, treatment with Enza was independently associated with better prognosis than AA. Conclusion: Within the intrinsic limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our report suggests that volume of disease could be a useful predictive biomarker for patients starting first-line ARSi for mCRPC.