Search

Purpose: Cabozantinib and nivolumab (CaboNivo) alone or with ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi) have shown promising efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), and rare genitourinary (GU) tumors in a dose-escalation phase I study. We report the final data analysis of the safety, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of the phase I patients and seven expansion cohorts., Methods: This is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase I trial. CaboNivo doublet expansion cohorts included (1) mUC, (2) mRCC, and (3) adenocarcinoma of the bladder/urachal; CaboNivoIpi triplet expansion cohorts included (1) mUC, (2) mRCC, (3) penile cancer, and (4) squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder and other rare GU tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02496208)., Results: The study enrolled 120 patients treated with CaboNivo (n = 64) or CaboNivoIpi (n = 56), with a median follow-up of 49.2 months. In 108 evaluable patients (CaboNivo n = 59; CaboNivoIpi n = 49), the ORR was 38% (complete response rate 11%) and the median duration of response was 20 months. The ORR was 42.4% for mUC, 62.5% for mRCC (n = 16), 85.7% for squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder (n = 7), 44.4% for penile cancer (n = 9), and 50.0% for renal medullary carcinoma (n = 2). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 84% of CaboNivo patients and 80% of CaboNivoIpi patients., Conclusion: CaboNivo and CaboNivoIpi demonstrated clinical activity and safety in patients with multiple GU malignancies, especially clear cell RCC, urothelial carcinoma, and rare GU tumors such as squamous cell carcinoma of the bladder, small cell carcinoma of the bladder, adenocarcinoma of the bladder, renal medullary carcinoma, and penile cancer.

Therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has significantly improved the prognosis of metastatic melanoma but is also associated with various immune-related adverse events (AE), including pulmonary toxicity. Herein, we describe the case of a 60-year-old female with metastasized melanoma with BRAF mutation under combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab, who presented with a persistent, nonproductive cough for the last two months. Her CT-scan showed de novo bronchial inflammation and wall thickening in all lung fields. Initial treatment with antimicrobial treatment and inhalation corticosteroids did not resolve her symptoms, nor the radiologic abnormalities. Additional testing with transbronchial cryobiopsy showed a histologic picture of diffuse ill-formed granulomas and the presence of moderate chronic active inflammation of the respiratory epithelium, consistent with medication-related bronchiolitis. Bronchiolitis, as present in this case, has rarely been reported as an immune-related AE. A thorough diagnostic workup is mandatory as it remains a diagnosis of exclusion. Management consists of discontinuing ICIs and administering systemic corticosteroids. The addition of immunosuppressive agents (e, infliximab, cyclophosphamide, or mycophenolate mofetil) can be considered in refractory cases. In our case, clinical and radiologic resolution was achieved after discontinuing the ICI and treatment with high-dose prednisone. This case shows that although bronchiolitis is a rare immune-related side effect of ICIs, oncologists, and pulmonologists should always be aware of this relatively easily treatable AE., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Most patients with advanced gallbladder cancer are treated with multiagent chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors offer the possibility of a durable response with less toxicity. This prospective, multicenter, open-label study was designed to evaluate the anticancer activity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced gallbladder cancer., Methods: Nineteen patients with advanced gallbladder cancer refractory to ≥1 previous therapy received nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was confirmed radiographic overall response rate (ORR) (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR] confirmed on subsequent scan); secondary end points included unconfirmed overall response, clinical benefit rate (confirmed and unconfirmed responses + stable disease >6 months), progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity., Results: The confirmed ORR was 16% (CR, n = 1 [5%]; PR, n = 2 [11%]); all were microsatellite stable, and the confirmed CR had undetectable programmed death-ligand 1 by immunohistochemistry. The unconfirmed ORR and clinical benefit rates were both 32%. The median duration of response was 14.8 months (range, 4-35.1+ months). The 6-month progression-free survival was 26% (95% CI, 12-55). The median overall survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 3.9-19.1). The most common toxicities were fatigue (32%), anemia (26%), and anorexia (26%). Aspartate aminotransferase elevation was the most common grade 3/4 toxicity (11%). There was 1 possibly related death (sepsis with attendant hepatic failure)., Conclusions: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab was well tolerated and showed modest efficacy with durable responses in previously treated patients with advanced gallbladder cancer., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02834013 (ClincialTrials.gov)., Plain Language Summary: This prospective study assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in 19 patients with advanced gallbladder cancer refractory to previous therapy. The combination demonstrated modest efficacy with a 16% confirmed overall response rate, durable responses, and manageable toxicities, suggesting potential benefits for this challenging patient population., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab is a highly effective treatment for metastatic cutaneous melanoma. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common, often necessitating treatment interruption and the use of immunosuppressive agents. There is no data on the impact of resuming nivolumab on survival following recovery from the irAE and completion of immunosuppressive treatment., Patients and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we examined a cohort of patients treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab who developed irAEs requiring treatment interruption and immunosuppressive therapy. The differences in physician practice patterns at our institution allowed us to examine the survival effect of restarting single-agent nivolumab. A multivariate analysis of clinical factors associated with improved survival was performed., Results: We identified 165 patients who were treated with ipilimumab/nivolumab and developed irAEs requiring treatment interruption and immunosuppressive therapy. Patients with the best overall response of progressive disease were excluded. Of the remaining 122 patients, 46 resumed single-agent nivolumab. When stratified by age and adjusted for sex, M-stage, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), therapy duration, and irAE type, the effect of resumption of nivolumab on survival was highly significant (p=0.02). Patients who resumed nivolumab had a 68% reduction in the hazard of death compared with patients who had not yet or never resumed nivolumab (HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.84). Of the patients who resumed nivolumab, 12 (26%) patients had subsequent irAEs, with five patients having grade 3 irAEs. No grade 4 or 5 irAEs were noted., Conclusions: Resuming single-agent nivolumab following a treatment interruption for ipilimumab/nivolumab-associated irAE and completion of immunosuppressive therapy increased overall survival compared with discontinuing nivolumab permanently in patients with metastatic melanoma. Toxicity observed post-resumption of single-agent nivolumab was manageable with no severe irAEs observed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EB consults as an advisory board member for Werewolf pharma, Merck, Iovance, Sanofi, Xilio, Novartis and Instilbio, receives clinical trial support from Lilly, Novartis, Partners therapeutics, Genentech and BVD. FSH reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Surface, personal fees from Compass Therapeutics, personal fees from Apricity, personal fees from 7 Hills Pharma, personal fees from Bicara, personal fees from Checkpoint Therapeutics, personal fees from Genentech/Roche, personal fees from Bioentre, personal fees from Gossamer, personal fees from Iovance, personal fees from Catalym, personal fees from Immunocore, personal fees from Kairos, personal fees from Rheos, personal fees from Zumutor, personal fees from Corner Therapeutics, personal fees from Puretech, personal fees from Curis, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Solu Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; In addition, FSH has a patent Methods for Treating MICA-Related Disorders (#20100111973) with royalties paid, a patent Tumor antigens and uses thereof (#7250291) issued, a patent Angiopoiten-2 Biomarkers Predictive of Anti-immune checkpoint response (#20170248603) pending, a patent Compositions and Methods for Identification, Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Melanoma using PD-L1 Isoforms (#20160340407) pending, a patent Therapeutic peptides (#20160046716) pending, a patent Therapeutic Peptides (#20140004112) pending, a patent Therapeutic Peptides (#20170022275) pending, a patent Therapeutic Peptides (#20170008962) pending, a patent THERAPEUTIC PEPTIDES Therapeutic Peptides- Patent number: 9402905 issued, a patent METHODS OF USING PEMBROLIZUMAB AND TREBANANIB pending, a patent Vaccine compositions and methods for restoring NKG2D pathway function against cancers Patent number: 10279021 issued, a patent Antibodies that bind to MHC class I polypeptide-related sequence A Patent number: 10106611 issued, a patent ÚNTI-GALECTIN ANTIBODY BIOMARKERS PREDICTIVE OF ANTI-IMMUNE CHECKPOINT AND ANTI-ANGIOGENESIS RESPONSES Deduplication number: 20170343552 pending, and a patent Antibodies against EDIL3 and methods of use thereof pending., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The clinical features, liver histology, and genetic variants in 57 patients with moderate to severe immune-mediated liver injury from checkpoint inhibitors (ILICI) are presented., Methods: Between 2010 and 2022, 57 high-causality ILICI cases were enrolled in the Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network. HLA and selected candidate gene variants were tested for association with ILICI risk compared to the general population and other DILI controls., Results: The 57 high-causality cases were attributed to pembrolizumab (16), ipilimumab (15), ipilimumab and nivolumab (13), and other immune checkpoint inhibitors (13) and occurred at a median of 72 days after the first infusion. Median age was 57.8 years, 66% male, and 89% were non-Hispanic Whites. At DILI onset, 53% had hepatocellular, 35% mixed, and 15% cholestatic, with younger patients more likely to have hepatocellular injury. The incidence of ANA, smooth muscle antibody, and elevated IgG levels was low (17%, 23%, and 0%), but corticosteroids were given to 86%. Microgranulomas and hepatic steatosis were seen in 54% and 46% of the 26 liver biopsies, respectively. The HLA alleles associated with autoimmune hepatitis were not over-represented, but 2 host immune response genes (EDIL3 and SAMA5A) and 3 other genes (GABRP, SMAD3, and SLCO1B1) were associated with ILICI (OR: 2.08-2.4, p<0.01)., Conclusions: ILICI typically arises within 12 weeks of initiating immunotherapy and is self-limited in most cases. Genetic variants involved in host T-cell regulation and drug disposition were identified, implicating these pathways in the pathogenesis of ILICI. If validated, these findings could lead to improved diagnostic instruments and possible treatments for ILICI., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Growing evidence suggests that immunotherapy has a positive effect on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases (BMs). However, it remains unclear which type of immunotherapy is more efficient. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of different immunotherapy types and determine the optimal option., Method: Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, Embase, and Web of Science) and ClinicalTrial.gov were searched from inception until January 26, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective nonrandomized trials, or observational studies investigating NSCLC patients with BMs treated by immunotherapy were included. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The efficacy of immunotherapy on NSCLC patients with BMs was evaluated using frequentist random-effects NMA., Result: Eleven studies from 1560 citations, encompassing 1437 participants, were included in this NMA. Statistical analysis showed that pembrolizumab (SMD = 4.35, 95% CI [2.21, 6.60]) and nivolumab+ipilimumab (SMD = 3.81, 95% CI [1.21, 6.40]) could improve overall survival (OS). Pembrolizumab (SMD = 3.32, 95% CI [2.75, 3.90]) demonstrated better effects in improving the overall response rate (ORR). No significant difference in adverse event (AE) was observed between immunotherapy and chemotherapy., Conclusion: Our findings indicated that pembrolizumab was the most promising immunotherapy for NSCLC patients with BMs. Nivolumab+ipilimumab might be an alternative choice to improve OS., Limitation: Inconsistency tests were not performed because of the scarcity of direct comparison. Besides, high heterogeneity was observed in our NMA., (© 2024 The Author(s). The Clinical Respiratory Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: First-line standard-of-care for unresectable, pleural mesothelioma (PM) changed with the phase 3 CheckMate 743 study results, showing that nivolumab plus ipilimumab (Nivo + Ipi) significantly extended overall survival (OS) versus platinum + pemetrexed chemotherapy for PM (median OS 18.1 versus 14.1 months; hazard ratio: 0.74; p = 0.002). Efficacy and safety data in real-world (rw) settings are needed to confirm these results., Methods: This French multicenter, retrospective cohort study was undertaken to assess the outcomes of treatment-naïve PM patients given Nivo + Ipi via an early-access program (EAP). The primary objective was investigator-assessed real world -progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary objectives were the combination's -overall survival (OS) and safety., Results: From 1 April 2021 to 15 Feb 2022, the analysis included 201 of the 305 EAP-enrolled patients treated in 63 centers (79.6 % men; median age: 75 years; 91.8 % Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) 0/1; 74.5 % epithelioid histology). With median (95 % CI) follow-up for all patients of 18.4 (17.7-19.2) months, -PFS and OS were 6.3 (5.3-7.5) and 18.9 (17.6-not reached (NR)) months, with 1-year OS at 66.4 % (60.1-73.3 %). Median OS and 1-year survival rates were 21.0 (18.7-NR) and 70.8 % (63.9 %-780.6 %), and 14.1 (10.9-21.0) months and 54.9 % (42.8 %-70.4 %) for epithelioid and non-epithelioid PM subgroups, respectively. PFS was equal between the two subgroups. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 23.3 % of patients and three deaths were treatment-related., Conclusions: For this unselected PM population, efficacy and safety outcomes compared favorably with CheckMate 743 trial results., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: CDK12 inactivation in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may predict immunotherapy responses. This phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had mCRPC with deleterious CDK12 alterations and any prior therapies except ICI. Cohort A received ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) with nivolumab (3 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to four cycles, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. Cohort C received nivolumab alone 480 mg every 4 weeks. Patients with CDK12-altered nonprostate tumors were enrolled in cohort B and not reported. The primary endpoint was a 50% reduction in PSA (PSA50). Key secondary endpoints included PSA progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and safety., Results: PSA was evaluable in 23 patients in cohort A and 14 in cohort C. Median lines of prior therapy were two in cohorts A and C, including any prior novel hormonal agent (74% and 79%) and chemotherapy (57% and 36%). The PSA50 rate was 9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1%-28%] in cohort A with two responders; neither had microsatellite instability or a tumor mutational burden >10 mutations/megabase. No PSA50 responses occurred in cohort C. Median PSA progression-free survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 3.6-11.4) in cohort A and 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-13.8) in cohort C. Median overall survival was 9.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-12.3) in cohort A and 13.8 months (95% CI, 3.6-not reached) in cohort C., Conclusions: There was minimal activity with ICI therapy in patients with CDK12-altered mCRPC., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Immunotherapy has improved survival outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma. Lower gastrointestinal tract immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are common during treatment; however, gastritis is not frequently observed. Herein, we report a case of severe cytomegalovirus (CMV)-related gastritis in a patient treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab for metastatic melanoma. This report presents a 60-year-old woman with stage IV BRAF wild-type melanoma. After the second course of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the patient reported epigastric discomfort after meals, anorexia, and subsequent nausea, vomiting, epigastric pain, and weight loss. Disease staging with PET/CT scan showed very good partial response and diffuse gastroduodenitis. The patient underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, showing severe esophageal candidiasis and diffuse hemorrhagic, edematous, and ulcerative mucosa in the whole gastric wall. Biopsies of the gastric wall were obtained. Before receipt of the final pathology report, the patient was empirically started on corticosteroids based on the clinical suspicion of immune-related gastritis, without improvement of symptoms. The hematoxylin-eosin staining demonstrated active gastritis with diffuse nuclear cytopathic viral inclusions in epithelial and interstitial cells; CMV infection was confirmed with immunohistochemical staining. The patient started ganciclovir and fluconazole, with rapid improvement of symptoms. This case presents a rare instance of CMV gastritis in a patient receiving combined anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 , in the absence of immune-suppression to manage an irAE. In the case of suggestive symptoms of irAEs, a high index of clinical suspicion is required to rule out concomitant or isolated infective disease. Guidelines for prophylaxis and treatment of these patients are needed, to optimize treatment results., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Multiple common cancers benefit from immunotherapy; however, less is known about efficacy in rare tumors. We report the results of the adrenocortical carcinoma cohort of NCI/SWOG S1609 Dual Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-PD-1 blockade in Rare Tumors., Design/setting: A prospective, phase 2 clinical trial of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was conducted by the SWOG Early Therapeutics and Rare Cancers Committee for multiple rare tumor cohorts across >1,000 National Clinical Trial Network sites., Participants: 21 eligible patients were registered. Median age was 53 years (range 26-69); 16 (76%) were women., Interventions: Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks with nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks was administered until disease progression, symptomatic deterioration, treatment delay for any reason >56 days, unacceptable or immune-related toxicity with inability to decrease prednisone to <10 mg daily, or per patient request., Main Outcome Measures: The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) (RECIST V.1.1). Secondary endpoints include clinical benefit rate (CBR) (includes stable disease (SD)>6 months), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Immune-related outcomes included immune ORR (iORR), immune CBR (iCBR), and immune PFS (iPFS). A two-stage design was used assuming: null=5% alternative=30%, n=6 in the first stage, 16 max, one-sided alpha=13%., Results: The median number of prior therapy lines was 2 (range: 1-9). 3 of 21 patients attained confirmed partial response (PR) (ORR=14%). In addition, one patient had an unconfirmed PR; one, stable disease (SD)>6 months; one, immune-related RECIST (iRECIST) PR (iPR); and one patient attained iSD>6 months: clinical benefit rate (response or SD>6 months)=5/21 (24%), iORR=4/21 (19%), iCBR=7/21 (33%). The 6-month PFS was 24%; 6-month iPFS, 33%. The PFS for patients (N=7) with iRECIST clinical benefit were 57, 52, 18, 15, 13, 7, and 7 months. The 6-month OS was 76%; the median OS, was 15.8 months. The most common toxicities were fatigue (62%) and rash (38%), and the most common grade 3/4 immune-related adverse events were hepatic dysfunction (9.5%) and adrenal insufficiency (9.5%). Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy in four patients (21%). There were no grade 5 adverse events., Conclusions: Ipilimumab plus nivolumab is active in refractory metastatic adrenocortical cancer meeting the primary endpoint of the study, with a 19% iORR and 33% iCBR (includes SD/iSD>6 months) and with the longest PFS/iPFS of 52 and 57 months., Trial Registration Number: NCT02834013 (registered 15 July, 2016; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02834013)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RK has had received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Debiopharm, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Grifols, Guardant, Incyte, Konica Minolta, Medimmune, Merck Serono, Omniseq, Pfizer, Sequenom, Takeda, and TopAlliance and from the NCI; as well as consultant and/or speaker fees and/or advisory board/consultant for Actuate Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bicara Therapeutics, Inc., Biological Dynamics, Caris, Datar Cancer Genetics, Daiichi, EISAI, EOM Pharmaceuticals, Iylon, LabCorp, Merck, NeoGenomics, Neomed, Pfizer, Precirix, Prosperdtx, Regeneron, Roche, TD2/Volastra, Turning Point Therapeutics, X-Biotech; has an equity interest in CureMatch Inc. and IDbyDNA; serves on the Board of CureMatch and CureMetrix, and is a co-founder of CureMatch. SP reports grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, during the conduct of the study; grants from Eli Lilly, Incyte, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Xcovery. Fate Therapeutics, Genocea, Iovance, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Illumina, Tempus, Novartis, outside the submitted work. YKC reports research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Biodesix, Lexent Bio, Freenome; Honoraria/Advisory Boards from Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Foundation Medicine, Counsyl, Guardant Health, Boehringher Ingelheim, Biodesix, Immuneoncia, Lilly Oncology, Merck, and Takeda. ES previously was a full-time employee of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), an arm of the United States government. The NCI negotiated a collaborative research and development agreement (CRADA) with Bristol-Myers Squibb to provide nivolumab and ipilimumab for this clinical trial. MO: Consulting: Merck, Biosight; Data safety monitoring board: Glycomimetics, Grifols, BMS (Celgene). CB, HXC, HS, CM, and GL have no COI disclosures to report. TH: did not respond; assume none to report. BT: research grants from the following: AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Agios, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers, Exelexis, Eisai, Merck Serono, Roche/Genentech, Tvradi. TK: Data monitoring committees-Merck/Bristol Meyers Squibb/SeaGen/Fidid/Engene; Ad Brds-Cardinal Health, Tempus; Royalties-UpToDate; Clinical Trial Grants-Ultimovacs, SeaGen, Bristol Myers Sqjibb, Eisai. CWR: Expert witness for GSK, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim; Research Funding to Institution: Ayala, xynomic, bayer, osi, PF Argentum IP Holidngs llc, rain therapeutics, shasqi, PTC therapeutics, Nikang, merck, nektar, pfizer, karyopharm, Bristol-Meyer Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Exelixis, Genentech, Novartis, MerckNektar, Pfizer, Xynomic, Bayer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Systemic capillary leak syndrome (SCLS) is a rare and life-threatening disorder characterised by leaking of intravascular fluid to extravascular tissues. An association with immunotherapy and COVID-19 vaccination has been reported as potential triggers. A case of a patient in her 70s developing SCLS after the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccination with a history of metastatic melanoma treated with nivolumab (PD-1 monoclonal antibody) and ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody) is reported. The aetiology and management of SCLS are also reviewed in this case context., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains unclear in the immuno-oncology (IO) era. The results of two randomized trials, CARMENA and SURTIME, questioned the role and timing of CN. However, despite the latest advances in the systemic treatment of mRCC, previous trials have only used targeted therapy, and no studies have fully investigated the role of CN in immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) settings, and there is an urgent need for future studies to better define the role and timing of CN., Methods: This study is an open-label, multi-center, parallel, prospective, randomized, interventional clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of CN in combination with CPIs in mRCC patients with International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate- and poor-risk. Synchronous mRCC patients with ≤ 3 IMDC risk features will be randomly allocated to three groups (1, upfront CN; 2, deferred CN; and 3, systemic therapy [ST] only). For ST, the nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination regimen, one of the standard regimens for intermediate- and poor-risk mRCC, is chosen. The primary endpoint is overall survival. The secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, objective response rate, number of participants with treatment-related adverse events, and number of participants with surgical morbidity. We will analyze the genetic mutation profiles of the tumor tissue, circulating tumor DNA, urine tumor DNA, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. The gut and urine microbial communities will be analyzed. The study will begin in 2022 and will enroll 55 patients., Discussion: This study is one of the few prospective randomized trials to evaluate the benefit of CN in the treatment of synchronous mRCC in the IO era. The SEVURO-CN trial will help identify the role and timing of CN, thereby rediscovering the value of CN., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05753839. Registered on 3 March 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Merkel cell carcinoma is a rare skin cancer associated with poor survival. Based on a previous Phase II trial of adults with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma by Kim and colleagues (2022), there is now a strong rationale for combination therapy (i.e., nivolumab and ipilimumab) to become a treatment option for patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. The goal of this paper was to report on the secondary outcome of quality of life (QOL) among patients on this trial., Methods: Patients receiving combined nivolumab and ipilimumab, with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 prior to starting treatment and every 2 weeks thereafter. Changes in QOL during treatment and post-treatment were evaluated using piecewise random-effects mixed models. Exploratory analyses compared changes in QOL between study arms. The original trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03071406)., Results: Study participants (n = 50) reported no changes in overall QOL (ps > 0.05), but emotional functioning improved during treatment (p = 0.01). Cognitive and social functioning worsened post-treatment (ps < 0.01). In general, patients treated with combination therapy only (n = 25) reported no change in QOL over time, whereas patients also treated with SBRT (n = 25) consistently demonstrated worsening QOL post-treatment., Conclusion: QOL is generally preserved in patients treated with combination therapy, but the addition of SBRT may worsen QOL. Combined with clinical efficacy data published previously, results support the use of combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab as a treatment option for patients with advanced Merkel cell carcinoma., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/aim: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy has been extensively explored for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through the pivotal phase III trials CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA. However, the relationship between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and the effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab-based therapy in a real-world clinical setting remains uncertain., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 28 patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC who underwent treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, with or without platinum-doublet chemotherapy, from February 2021 to January 2023. The primary objective was to elucidate the clinical association between irAEs and treatment efficacy associated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab-based therapy., Results: Among the 28 patients, 22 (78.6%) experienced irAEs. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for patients with irAEs than for those without (p=0.0158), as was overall survival (OS) (p=0.000394). The severity of irAEs had no significant influence on PFS or OS. The objective response rate tended to be higher in patients with irAEs than in those without (50.0% versus 0.0%, respectively; p=0.0549). Multivariate analysis indicated that irAE occurrence was an independent factor for improved PFS (hazard ratio=0.2084, p=0.01383) and OS (hazard ratio=0.0857, p=0.001588). Interstitial lung disease was inferior to other irAE profiles for both PFS and OS., Conclusion: Patients with advanced NSCLC experiencing irAEs demonstrated superior clinical outcomes when treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab-based therapy compared with those without irAEs. However, immune-related interstitial lung disease may be less linked with PFS and OS than other irAE profiles., (Copyright © 2024 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 antibody (ipilimumab) plus anti-programmed cell death 1 antibody (nivolumab) in treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is impeded by an elevated risk of severe immune-related adverse events. However, our understanding of associations among pre-existing fibrosis, emphysematous changes, and objective indicators as predictive factors is limited for severe pneumonitis in NSCLC patients receiving this combination therapy. Thus, we retrospectively investigated these associations, including overall tumor burden, before treatment initiation in the Japanese population., Methods: We focused on patients (n = 76) with pre-existing interstitial lung disease (ILD) to identify predictors of severe pneumonitis. Variables included age, sex, smoking status, programmed cell death ligand 1 expression, overall tumor burden, chest computed tomography-confirmed fibrosis, serum markers, and respiratory function test results., Results: Severe pneumonitis was more frequent in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, fibrosis, low diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (%DLCO), and high surfactant protein D (SP-D) level. Notably, squamous cell carcinoma, baseline %DLCO, and SP-D level were significant risk factors. Our findings revealed the nonsignificance of tumor burden (≥85 mm) in predicting severe pneumonitis, emphasizing the importance of pre-existing ILD. Conversely, in cases without pre-existing fibrosis, severe pneumonitis was not associated with %DLCO or SP-D level (93.2% vs. 91.9%, and 63.3 vs. 40.9 ng/mL, respectively) and was more common in patients with a large overall tumor burden (97.5 vs. 70.0 mm)., Conclusion: Vigilant monitoring and early intervention are crucial for patients with squamous cell carcinoma, high SP-D level, or low %DLCO undergoing ipilimumab plus nivolumab therapy., (© 2024 The Author(s). Thoracic Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Purpose: To report a case of severe bilateral multifocal placoid chorioretinitis in a patient receiving ipilimumab and nivolumab therapy for metastatic melanoma., Methods: Retrospective, observational case report., Results: A 31-year-old woman on ipilimumab and nivolumab for metastatic melanoma developed severe multifocal placoid chorioretinitis in both eyes. The patient was started on topical and systemic corticosteroid therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was paused. After resolution of ocular inflammation, the patient was restarted on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy without return of ocular symptoms., Conclusion: Extensive multifocal placoid chorioretinitis may occur in patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Some patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-related uveitis may successfully resume immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy under close collaboration with the treating oncologist.

Background and Purpose: This study was undertaken to raise awareness of a role of B cells in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated neurological immune-related adverse events (nirAE)., Methods: A systematic literature review was made, with case observations of a melanoma and a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient who developed ICI-associated nirAE with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings indicating B cell involvement., Results: Two patients receiving ipilimumab/nivolumab for melanoma and chemotherapy/pembrolizumab for NSCLC developed nirAE in the form of myocarditis/myositis/myasthenia gravis overlap syndrome (triple M) and cerebellitis plus longitudinal transverse myelitis (c-LETM), respectively. Intrathecal inflammation with chemokine C-X-C motif ligand (CXCL13) elevation was present in both patients; the triple M case had acetylcholine receptor antibodies, antititin reactivity, altered CD4/CD8 T cell ratio in blood, and depressed programmed death-1 (PD-1) expression on CSF T cells; the c-LETM case showed intrathecal antibody production and plasma cells. Both patients insufficiently responded to first-line treatment. The NSCLC case improved upon administration of B cell-depleting therapy with rituximab, whereas the melanoma patient died before escalation therapy was initiated. Literature research revealed one additional ICI-associated LETM case with intrathecal CXCL13 elevation, three cases with ICI-associated aquaporin-4 antibody neuromyelitis spectrum disorder, and evidence of B cell-mediated toxicity based on antibody-mediated immune pathologies in ICI-associated immune-related adverse events., Conclusions: The case observations highlight the plethora of uncertainties in diagnosis and treatment of ICI-associated nirAE, exemplify the heterogeneity of immune mechanisms involved, and suggest a role of B cells, which may be underdiagnosed. Intrathecal CXCL13 may serve as a biomarker of B cell involvement in nirAE, supported by intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis, presence of plasma cells, and/or recruitment of cognate immune cells., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Immune-mediated diarrhea represents a serious complication of checkpoint inhibitor therapy, especially following ipilimumab-based treatment. Efficient diagnosis and control of diarrhea remains an ongoing challenge. We developed an accelerated management paradigm for patients with ipilimumab-induced diarrhea. Patients who developed significant diarrhea (>five loose stools/day) were presumed to be developing immune colitis. Therapy was interrupted and patients were treated with a methylprednisolone dose pack. If diarrhea was not completely resolved, high-dose steroids and infliximab were promptly added. Only non-responding patients underwent further evaluation for infection or other causes of diarrhea. A total of 242 patients were treated with ipilimumab-based regimens. Forty-six developed significant diarrhea (19%) and thirty-four (74.4%) had a rapid resolution of diarrhea following glucocorticosteroid and infliximab treatment. The median time to resolution of diarrhea was only 8.5 ± 16.4 days. Accelerated treatment for presumed immune-mediated diarrhea resulted in the rapid control of symptoms in the majority of patients. There were no intestinal complications or deaths. Immunosuppressive therapy for diarrhea did not appear to decrease the remission rate or survival. After the control of diarrhea, most patients were able to continue their planned immunotherapy. Further testing in 11/46 patients with unresponsive diarrhea revealed additional diagnoses, allowing their treatment to be adjusted.

Background: Mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors can be found in 10 to 15% of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer. In these patients, the efficacy of chemotherapy is limited. The use of neoadjuvant immunotherapy has shown promising results, but data from studies of this approach are limited., Methods: We conducted a phase 2 study in which patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced, previously untreated dMMR colon cancer were treated with neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab. The two primary end points were safety, defined by timely surgery (i.e., ≤2-week delay of planned surgery owing to treatment-related toxic events), and 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary end points included pathological response and results of genomic analyses., Results: Of 115 enrolled patients, 113 (98%; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 100) underwent timely surgery; 2 patients had surgery delayed by more than 2 weeks. Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (4%), and none of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Among the 111 patients included in the efficacy analysis, a pathological response was observed in 109 (98%; 95% CI, 94 to 100), including 105 (95%) with a major pathological response (defined as ≤10% residual viable tumor) and 75 (68%) with a pathological complete response (0% residual viable tumor). With a median follow-up of 26 months (range, 9 to 65), no patients have had recurrence of disease., Conclusions: In patients with locally advanced dMMR colon cancer, neoadjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab had an acceptable safety profile and led to a pathological response in a high proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb; NICHE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03026140.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Guidelines such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) for the treatment of severe steroid-refractory immune-related hepatotoxicity. Mycophenolic acid (MPA) is an active form of MMF that suppresses T- and B-lymphocyte proliferation and immune-related adverse events caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors. MPA has a narrow therapeutic range (37-70 µg·h/mL) and overexposure increases the risk of leukopenia in transplantation. However, the optimal use of MMF in oncology has not yet been established; thus, monitoring plasma MPA concentrations is necessary to avoid excessive immunosuppression in oncology practice., Case Presentation: We evaluated plasma MPA concentration in a 75-year-old man with immune-related hepatotoxicity following nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy for malignant melanoma. The patient developed severe hepatotoxicity after immunotherapy, and immunosuppressant therapy with corticosteroids was initiated. The patient then developed steroid-refractory immune-related hepatotoxicity; therefore, MMF (1,000 mg twice daily) was co-administered. Seven days after the administration of MMF, the plasma MPA concentration was measured using an enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for MPA from 0 to 12 h was 41.0 µg·h/mL, and the same dose of MMF was continued. Grade 2 lymphocytopenia, which could be attributed to MMF, was observed during the administration period. Unfortunately, the patient was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and died from respiratory failure., Conclusion: Our patient did not exceed the upper limit of MPA levels as an index of the onset of side effects of kidney transplantation and achieved rapid improvement in liver function. Prompt initiation of MMF after assessment of the steroid effect leads to adequate MPA exposure. Therapeutic drug monitoring should be considered when MMF is administered, to avoid overexposure., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) gene, an inhibitor of T-cell priming, are associated with auto and alloimmunity. Studies implied a role for these SNPs as surrogate markers for immunotherapy-outcome in patients with melanoma. However, no predictive SNPs are defined to date. We analyzed different CTLA-4 SNPs in a large multicenter cohort of patients with ipilimumab-treated melanoma and investigated possible correlations with treatment-related outcomes. Archival blood and/or tumor tissue samples were collected from 361 patients with advanced-stage ipilimumab-treated (±nivolumab) in 6 Swiss and Dutch hospitals. Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry based DNA genotyping was performed for 10 different CTLA-4 SNPs: 49A>G, CT60G>A, Jo27T>C, Jo30G>A, Jo31G>T, -658C>T, -1722T>C, -1661A>G, 318C>T, and C>T rs1863800. Associations between different allele genotypes and occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and survival were tested using univariable logistic regressions or Cox proportional hazard models. 262/361 (73%) patients could be analyzed; 65% of those were males, the median age was 58 years, 39% showed a partial or complete response, and 65% had ≥1 AEs. A TT-genotype of -1722T>C SNP was significantly associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥3 AEs ( P = 0.049), whereas the GG-genotype of CT60G>A correlated with a higher incidence of grade ≥3 AEs ( P = 0.026). The TT-genotype of Jo27T>C SNP ( P = 0.056) and GG-genotype of Jo31G>T ( P = 0.046) were associated with overall survival. CTLA-4 SNPs might predict treatment-related outcomes in patients with melanoma receiving ipilimumab. Confirmatory studies are needed to fully exploit those findings as predictive biomarkers for ipilimumab AEs., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become key agents in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer worldwide. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) must be addressed to maximize the efficacy of ICIs. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection is considered as a type of irAE associated with ICIs, but the underlying mechanism is not completely understood. Here, we present a case of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) that developed during administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab for pulmonary adenocarcinoma that recurred just 2 months after completion of anti-TB treatment., Case Description: A 67-year-old man with lung adenocarcinoma was referred to our hospital for chemotherapy. He was a former smoker and had been diagnosed with stage IVA (cT4N1M1a) lung adenocarcinoma. Interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) yielded positive results at the start of treatment. One month after initiating treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab, he presented with productive cough and Mtb complex was cultured from sputum samples. Two months after completing anti-TB treatment, recurrence of TB was observed. The series of strains were found to be identical., Conclusions: This represents the first report of pulmonary TB that developed during nivolumab and ipilimumab treatment, and recurred 2 months after completing anti-TB treatment. Physicians should be mindful of the potential for TB recurrence following the use of ICIs, particularly in patients showing positive results from IGRA.

Background: No head-to-head clinical trials have compared the differences in adverse events (AEs) between nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO-IPI) and nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NIVO-CABO) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Aim: We analysed the two largest real-world databases, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the World Health Organization's VigiBase, to elucidate the differences in AEs between NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO., Method: In total, 40,376 and 38,022 records were extracted from FAERS and VigiBase, and 193 AEs were analysed. The reporting odds ratios (ROR) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using a disproportionality analysis (NIVO-CABO/NIVO-IPI)., Results: The reported numbers of immune-related AEs, including myocarditis, colitis, and hepatitis, were significantly higher with NIVO-IPI (ROR = 0.18 for FAERS and 0.13 for VigiBase). Contrarily, the reported numbers of other AEs, including gastrointestinal disorders (ROR = 2.68 and 2.92) and skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (ROR = 2.94 and 3.55), considered to be potentiated by the combination of NIVO and CABO, were higher with NIVO-CABO., Conclusion: Our findings contribute to the selection and clinical management of NIVO-IPI and NIVO-CABO, which minimizes the risk of AEs for individual patients with mRCC by considering distinctive differences in the AE profiles., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Importance: Studies with nivolumab, an approved therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) after platinum-based chemotherapy, demonstrate improved outcomes with added high-dose ipilimumab., Objective: To assess efficacy and safety of a tailored approach using nivolumab + ipilimumab as an immunotherapeutic boost for mUC., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 2 nonrandomized trial, patients with mUC composed 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 received first-line or second-/third-line nivolumab with escalating doses of ipilimumab, and cohort 2 received second-/third-line nivolumab with high-dose ipilimumab. Recruitment spanned 26 sites in Germany and Austria from August 8, 2017, to February 18, 2021. All patients had a 70% or higher Karnofsky Performance Score and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1., Interventions: All patients initiated 4 doses of 240-mg nivolumab (1× every 2 wk). Week 8 nonresponders received nivolumab + ipilimumab (1× every 3 wk). Cohort 1 received 2 doses of 3-mg/kg nivolumab + 1-mg/kg ipilimumab followed by 2 doses of 1-mg/kg nivolumab + 3-mg/kg ipilimumab if no response. Due to safety concerns, cohort 1 treatment was halted, and first-line cohort 2 treatment was not pursued. Cohort 2 received 2 to 4 doses of 1-mg/kg nivolumab + 3-mg/kg ipilimumab. Responders continued with nivolumab maintenance but could receive nivolumab + ipilimumab for later progression., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was objective response rate., Results: The study comprised 169 patients (118 [69.8%] men; median [range] age, 68 [37-84] years): 86 in cohort 1 (42 first-line; 44 second-/third-line) and 83 in cohort 2. The median (IQR) follow-up times were 10.4 (4.2-23.5) months (first-line cohort 1), 7.5 (3.1-23.8) months (second-/third-line cohort 1), and 6.2 (3.2-22.7) months (cohort 2). Response rates to nivolumab induction were 12/42 (29%, first-line cohort 1), 10/44 (23%, second-/third-line cohort 1), and 17/83 (20%, cohort 2). Response rates to a tailored approach were 20/42 (48% [90% CI, 34%-61%], first-line cohort 1), 12/44 (27% [90% CI, 17%-40%], second-/third-line cohort 1), and 27/83 (33% [90% CI, 23%-42%], cohort 2). Three-year overall survival rates for first-line cohort 1, second-/third-line cohort 1, and cohort 2 using the Kaplan-Meier method were 32% (95% CI, 17%-49%), 19% (95% CI, 8%-33%), and 34% (95% CI, 23%-44%), respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized trial, although first-line cohort 1 treatment improved objective response rates, considerable progression events urge caution with this as a first-line therapy. Second-/third-line cohort 1 treatment did not improve response rates compared with nivolumab monotherapy. However, added high-dose ipilimumab may improve tumor response and survival in patients with mUC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03219775.

Background: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab demonstrated promising clinical activity and durable responses in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the CheckMate 040 study at 30.7-month median follow-up. Here, we present 5-year results from this cohort., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to arm A [nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)] or arm B [nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q3W (four doses)], each followed by nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or arm C (nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg Q6W). The primary objectives were safety, tolerability, investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) per RECIST version 1.1., Results: A total of 148 patients were randomized across treatment arms. At 60-month minimum follow-up (62.6-month median follow-up), the ORR was 34% (n = 17), 27% (n = 13), and 29% (n = 14) in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The median DOR was 51.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.6 months-not estimable (NE)], 15.2 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE), and 21.7 months (95% CI 4.2 months-NE), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 22.2 months (34/50; 95% CI 9.4-54.8 months) in arm A, 12.5 months (38/49; 95% CI 7.6-16.4 months) in arm B, and 12.7 months (40/49; 95% CI 7.4-30.5 months) in arm C; 60-month OS rates were 29%, 19%, and 21%, respectively. In an exploratory analysis of OS by response (6-month landmark), the median OS was meaningfully longer for responders versus nonresponders for all arms. No new safety signals were identified with longer follow-up. There were no new discontinuations due to immune-mediated adverse events since the primary analysis., Conclusions: Consistent with the primary analysis, the arm A regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful responses and long-term survival benefit, with no new safety signals in patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib treatment, further supporting its use as a second-line treatment in these patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure IM reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, F-Star, Genmab, Gossamer Bio, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Numab, PharmaMar, Roche, Tusk Therapeutics, Highlight Therapeutics, Alligator Bioscience, Genentech, CatalYm GmbH, BioLineRx, Boston Pharma, Janssen, HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc., ImmuneSensor Therapeutics, Inc., and Monopteros Therapeutics; honoraria from Alligator Biosciences, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Tusk Therapeutics, Moderna, and CatalYm GmbH; travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche/Genentech; and research grants from Alligator Biosciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Genmab, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. TY reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology. YKK reports consulting fees from ALX Oncology, Amgen, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daehwa, MacroGenics, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Surface Oncology, and Zymeworks. TYK is the founder of IMBdx, Inc. and has received research funds from Bayer Korea. AS reports consulting role at Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier; and speakers’ bureau participation for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Servier, and Takeda. BS reports consultancy fees from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, Sirtex Medical, Terumo; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Ipsen, Roche, Sirtex Medical, and Terumo; and research grants (to institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb and Sirtex Medical. MK reports consultancy fees from Chugai, Roche, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Bayer, Eisai, Chugai, Takeda, and AstraZeneca; research grants (to institution) from Taiho, Otsuka, EA Pharma, AbbVie, Eisai, Chugai, GE Healthcare, and Ono Pharmaceutical Company. AM reports consulting role at Bayer, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Sirtex Medical; and speakers’ bureau participation for Bayer, Boston Biologics, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme. FT reports consultancy role for Ipsen, Eisai, and Roche. JK reports consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Ibsen, Taiho, and Hoffman-La Roche; and research support from AstraZeneca, Merck, Ibsen, and Roche. ARH reports consulting role at Eisai, Genentech/Roche, and Merck; speakers’ bureau participation for Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, and Exelixis; and research grants from Genentech and Merck. BER reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, EUSA Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Merck, Novartis, and Xencor; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Ipsen, NeoGenomics, Roche, and Seagen; and advisory role at Exelixis. HYL reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Eisai, and MSD Oncology; consulting role at AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Eisai; and speakers’ bureau participation for Bayer. SS, JY, JN, and MT report being employees of and owning stock in Bristol Myers Squibb. CH reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, PharmaEngine, Roche, and TTY Biopharm. ABEK reports consultancy fees from ABL Bio, Agenus, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, QED Therapeutics, Qurient, Roche, Senti Biosciences, Servier, and Tallac Therapeutics; honoraria from ABL Bio, Agenus, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Gilead Sciences, Merck, Roche/Genentech, QED Therapeutics, Qurient, Roche, Senti Biosciences, Servier, and Tallac Therapeutics; and research grants from AstraZeneca, Astex Pharmaceuticals, and Fulgent Genetics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors help treat malignant melanoma, but show limited use in treating malignant vaginal melanoma, an aggressive, rare gynecological malignancy. We identified two patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab for vaginal melanoma; both were immunonegative for programmed cell death-ligand 1 and wild-type BRAF. Case 1, a 56-year-old female who underwent radical surgery for stage 1 malignant vaginal melanoma, experienced recurrence 15 months postoperatively. She briefly responded to ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy before showing disease progression. Tumor shrinkage occurred with nivolumab and local radiotherapy and, 45 months postoperatively, she survives with the melanoma. Case 2, a 50-year-old female, presented with a 4-cm blackish polypoid vaginal tumor with metastatic pelvic lymph nodes. She received ipilimumab and nivolumab combination therapy for stage III unresectable malignant vaginal melanoma. The vaginal tumor shrank after the third course of treatment, and the lymphadenopathy disappeared. The patient underwent radical surgery and is currently disease-free, using nivolumab for maintenance therapy. Both patients had immune-related adverse events coinciding with periods of high therapeutic efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Neoadjuvant therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy for immune checkpoint inhibitor resensitization may effectively treat advanced or recurrent vaginal melanoma., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: To date, no studies have compared the treatment outcomes of second-line therapies in patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This study retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line treatments in patients with metastatic ccRCC who previously received immune-oncology combination therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic ccRCC treated with cabozantinib and axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment were identified among 243 patients with RCC treated between August 1, 2018 and January 31, 2022 at 34 institutions belonging to the Japanese Urological Oncology Group. Patients were assessed for treatment outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and incidence rate of treatment-related adverse events (AEs)., Results: Forty-eight patients treated with cabozantinib and 60 treated with axitinib as second-line therapy after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment for metastatic ccRCC were identified. The median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 11.0 months (9.0-16.0) with cabozantinib and 9.5 months (6.0-13.0) with axitinib. The ORRs were 37.5% (cabozantinib) and 38.3% (axitinib). The rates of any-grade AEs and grade ≥3 AEs were 79.2% (cabozantinib) versus 63.3% (axitinib; P = .091) and 35.4% (cabozantinib) versus 23.3% (axitinib; P = .202), respectively. In the poor-risk group, PFS was longer in the cabozantinib group than in the axitinib group (P = .033)., Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and axitinib were comparable. In the poor-risk group, cabozantinib was more effective than axitinib. These findings provide valuable insights into the selection of second-line treatment options after nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment in patients with metastatic ccRCC., Competing Interests: Disclosure HK: Honoraria, Advisory, or Research support: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Takeda. HM: Honoraria: Takeda, MSD, Pfizer, and Ono. JF: Honoraria: Takeda, MSD, and Ono., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma presenting with poor prognostic factors are usually treated with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), consisting of ipilimumab and nivolumab. This combination therapy is associated with severe immune related adverse events (irAEs) in about 60% of patients. In current clinical practice, patients are usually treated with ICIs for up to two years or until disease progression or the occurrence of unacceptable AEs. The incidence of irAEs gradually increases with duration of treatment. While durable tumour responses have been observed after early discontinuation of treatment, no consensus has been reached on optimal treatment duration. The objective of the Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is to evaluate whether early discontinuation of ICIs is safe in patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy., Methods: The Safe Stop IPI-NIVO trial is a nationwide, multicentre, prospective, single-arm, interventional study in the Netherlands. A total of 80 patients with irresectable stage III or metastatic melanoma who are treated with combination therapy of ipilimumab-nivolumab and have a complete or partial response (CR/PR) according to RECIST v1.1 will be included to early discontinue maintenance therapy with anti-PD-1. The primary endpoint is the rate of ongoing response at 12 months after start of ICI. Secondary endpoints include ongoing response at 24 months, disease control at different time points, melanoma specific and overall survival, the incidence of irAEs and health-related quality of life., Discussion: From a medical, healthcare and economic perspective, overtreatment should be prevented and shorter treatment duration of ICIs is preferred. If early discontinuation of ICIs is safe for patients who are treated with the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab, the treatment duration of nivolumab could be shortened in patients with a favourable tumour response., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05652673, registration date: 08-12-2022., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used in cancer treatment; however, they can lead to immune-related adverse events, including immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced type 1 diabetes mellitus (ICI-T1DM). While fulminant T1DM is common in East Asia, ICI-T1DM has predominantly been reported in Western countries. In this report, we present the case of a 66-year-old Japanese man with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing dialysis for diabetic nephropathy. The patient was diagnosed with left upper lobe lung cancer, and treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab was initiated. After 48 days, the patient experienced impaired consciousness and difficulty moving. His blood glucose levels were 815 mg/dL, and metabolic acidosis was detected, leading to a diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis. The patient was subsequently treated with continuous intravenous insulin. However, his C-peptide levels rapidly depleted, and new-onset ICI-T1DM was diagnosed. Although most Japanese patients with ICI-T1DM test negative for glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibodies, this case exhibited a strong positivity. Thus, we reviewed the literature on 15 similar Japanese cases, revealing a mean HbA1c level at onset of 8.7% and a mean time from ICI administration to onset of 9.7 weeks, which was shorter than that in GAD-negative cases. Moreover, human leukocyte antigen typing revealed five cases of DRB1*04:05-DQB1*04:01, including the present case, and one case of DRB1*09:01-DQB1*03:03, both of which were susceptible to T1DM haplotypes. These findings suggest that GAD antibody positivity may be associated with acute onset and disease progression in some cases of Japanese patients with ICI-T1DM. Given that the prediction of new-onset ICI-T1DM is challenging, monitoring GAD antibody levels might be useful. However, further studies with large sample sizes and validation across different racial and ethnic populations are warranted., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Yabuki, Hirai, Moriya, Kusano and Hasegawa.)

A woman in her 70s with metastatic melanoma presenting with refractory hypokalaemia on combined immune checkpoint inhibitors, nivolumab-ipilimumab, was diagnosed with adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-dependent hypercortisolism 11 weeks following the initiation of her immunotherapy. Investigations also demonstrated central hypothyroidism and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. She underwent imaging studies of her abdomen and brain which revealed normal adrenal glands and pituitary, respectively. She was started on levothyroxine replacement and had close pituitary function monitoring. Two weeks later, her cortisol and ACTH levels started to trend down. She finally developed secondary adrenal insufficiency and was started on hydrocortisone replacement 4 weeks thereafter.This report highlights a case of immunotherapy-related hypophysitis with well-documented transient central hypercortisolism followed, within weeks, by profound secondary adrenal insufficiency. Healthcare professionals should remain vigilant in monitoring laboratory progression in these patients. Early recognition of the phase of hypercortisolism and its likely rapid transformation into secondary adrenal insufficiency can facilitate timely hormonal replacement and prevent complications., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in combination. To understand the effects of different ICI categories, we characterized changes in circulating autoantibodies in patients enrolled in the E4412 trial (NCT01896999) of brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus ipilimumab, BV plus nivolumab, or BV plus ipilimumab-nivolumab for Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1) autoantibody levels were compared to pre-treatment baseline. Across 112 autoantibodies tested, we generally observed increases in ipilimumab-containing regimens, with decreases noted in the nivolumab arm. Among 15 autoantibodies with significant changes at C2D1, all nivolumab cases exhibited decreases, with more than 90% of ipilimumab-exposed cases showing increases. Autoantibody profiles also showed differences according to immune-related adverse event (irAE) type, with rash generally featuring increases and liver toxicity demonstrating decreases. We conclude that dynamic autoantibody profiles may differ according to ICI category and irAE type. These findings may have relevance to clinical monitoring and irAE treatment., Competing Interests: H.M-M.: intellectual property (U.S. patent applications 63/386,387, 63/382,972) M.S.v.I.: none F.F.: intellectual property (U.S. patent applications 17/045,482, 63/382,972) J.L.: none C.Z.: none Y.X.: intellectual property (U.S. patent applications 17/045,482) E.K.W.: intellectual property (U.S. patent 11,747,345; U.S. patent applications 17/045,482) J.Y.P.: intellectual property (U.S. patent 11,747,345; U.S. patent applications 17/045,482, 63/382,972; co-founder and Chief Medical Officer, OncoSeer Diagnostics, LLC.) B.S.K.: consulting/advisory boards (Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Seattle Genetics) C.S.D.: grants (Seattle Genetics, BMS, Genentech), advisory boards/consulting (BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Genentch) D.E.G.: research funding (Astra-Zeneca, BerGenBio, Karyopharm, Novocure), stock ownership (Gilead, Medtronic, Walgreens), consulting/advisory Boards (Astra-Zeneca, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Elevation Oncology, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi), intellectual property (U.S. patent 11,747,345; U.S. patent applications 17/045,482, 63/386,387, 63/382,972, 63/382,257; co-founder and Chief Medical Officer, OncoSeer Diagnostics, Inc.), (© 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Background: Nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma)., Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I 2 )., Results: Nine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi., Conclusions: Combining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: In preliminary findings from the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, nivolumab showed durable anti-tumour responses, and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising clinical activity. Here, we report long-term outcomes from this cohort., Methods: CheckMate 358 was a phase 1-2, open-label, multicohort trial. The metastatic cervical cancer cohort enrolled patients from 30 hospitals and cancer centres across ten countries. Female patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recurrent or metastatic disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and up to two previous systemic therapies were enrolled into the nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks group, the randomised groups (nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks [NIVO3 plus IPI1] or nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks [NIVO1 plus IPI3]), or the NIVO1 plus IPI3 expansion group. All doses were given intravenously. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to NIVO3 plus IPI1 or NIVO1 plus IPI3 via an interactive voice response system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal, or for up to 24 months. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate. Anti-tumour activity and safety were analysed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488759) and is now completed., Findings: Between October, 2015, and March, 2020, 193 patients were recruited in the recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer cohort of CheckMate 358, of whom 176 were treated. 19 patients received nivolumab monotherapy, 45 received NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 112 received NIVO1 plus IPI3 (45 in the randomised group and 67 in the expansion group). Median follow-up times were 19·9 months (IQR 8·2-44·8) with nivolumab, 12·6 months (7·8-37·1) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, and 16·7 months (7·2-27·5) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. Objective response rates were 26% (95% CI 9-51; five of 19 patients) with nivolumab, 31% (18-47; 14 of 45 patients) with NIVO3 plus IPI1, 40% (26-56; 18 of 45 patients) with randomised NIVO1 plus IPI3, and 38% (29-48; 43 of 112 patients) with pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, hepatic cytolysis, hyponatraemia, pneumonitis, and syncope (one [5%] patient each; nivolumab group), diarrhoea, increased gamma-glutamyl transferase, increased lipase, and vomiting (two [4%] patients each; NIVO3 plus IPI1 group), and increased lipase (nine [8%] patients) and anaemia (seven [6%] patients; pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in three (16%) patients in the nivolumab group, 12 (27%) patients in the NIVO3 plus IPI1 group, and 47 (42%) patients in the pooled NIVO1 plus IPI3 group. There was one treatment-related death due to immune-mediated colitis in the NIVO1 plus IPI3 group., Interpretation: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy showed promise in the CheckMate 358 study as potential treatment options for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. Future randomised controlled trials of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or other dual immunotherapy regimens are warranted to confirm treatment benefit in this patient population., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AO reports receiving grants from AbbVie, Ability Pharmaceuticals, Advaxis, Agenus, Aprea Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Belgian Gynaecological Oncology Group (BGOG), Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Eisai, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Ovario (GEICO), Immunogen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck Healthcare, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Mundipharma Research, Novartis Farmacéutica, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Seattle Genetics, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro, University Health Network, and Werastem; consultant or advisory fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceutical, Eisai Europe, EMD Serono, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), GOG, Immunogen, Medison Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, Pharma Mar, prIME Oncology, Roche Farma, Sattucklabs, and Sutro Biopharma; honoraria from Edizioni Minerva Medica, ESMO, and Doctaforum Servicios; and travel accommodations from AstraZeneca, Clovis, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche. KM reports receiving research grants from Clovis, Genentech, GSK, Lilly, PTC Therapeutics, and Verastem; consultant or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Alkermes, Addi, Blueprint Pharma, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Genentech/Roche, Hengrui, Immunogen, Inxmed, IMab, Lilly, Mereo, Mersana, Merck, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncXerna, Onconova, Tarveda, VBL Therapeutics, and Verastem; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Great Debates and Updates, GSK, Immunogen, Medscape, PRIME, and RTP; travel accommodations from AstraZeneca; and is a GOG Partners Associate Director. TM reports receiving grants from Bayer Biocompatibles, MSD; and consulting fees from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, and Roche. LAD reports receiving consultant or advisory fees from MSD. AA reports receiving speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb. CDL reports receiving speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Novartis, and Oncosec; and research funding from BMS, Genentech, Novartis, and Oncosec. VB reports receiving institutional financial support for clinical trials from AbbVie, ACEO, Adaptimmune, Amcure, Amgen, Amunix, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bicycle, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Therapeutics, CytomX, Daiichi, DebioPharm, Dynavax, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, GSK, Incyte, Innovio, Ipsen, Janssen, Kura, Lilly, Loxo, Macrogenics, Menarini, Merck, Mersana, Merus, Millennium, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar, Novartis, ORCA, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Principia, PsiOxus, PUMA, Ribbon, Ryvu, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Transgene, Regeneron, Rigontec, Seagen, Spectrum, Synthon, Urogen, and Zenith; consultant or advisory fees from CytomX Therapeutics, Guidepoint, Ideaya Biosciences, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo Therapeutics, Oncoart, and Puma Biotechnology; honoraria from Eli Lilly, Gedefo, Getthi, MSD, SOLTI, and TACTICS; and travel or accommodation support from Bayer. WHS reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, and Novartis; and consultant or advisory fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, ION, Merck, Pfizer, and Regeneron. MT reports receiving grants from Bayer and Ono Pharmaceuticals; consultant or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Merck Biopharma, Ono Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer; and honoraria from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Biopharma, Ono Pharmaceuticals, and Rakuten Medical. SLT reports receiving grants from Bristol Myers Squibb; and consultant or advisory fees from AstraZeneca and PathAI; and reports receipt of research grants from Compugen, and consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Compugen, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals for an immediate family member. MM reports leadership role fees from Centro Oncologico Internacional. AMA reports receiving consultant or advisory fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly; being a Principal Investigator for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and MSD; and speaker's bureau fees from GSK; and other fees from Roche. TAK is an employee and stockholder of Bristol Myers Squibb. CC is an employee and stockholder of Bristol Myers Squibb. ML is an employee of Syneos Health, which provides consulting services to Bristol Myers Squibb. CG-B is an employee and stockholder of Bristol Myers Squibb. XW was previously an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb and reports receiving stock options from Bristol Myers Squibb. RWN reports receiving research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK/Tesaro, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Mersana, and OncoMed Sutro Bio; speaker's bureau from Seagen; and consultant or advisory fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genelux, GOG Partners, GSK/Tesaro, Immunogen, Laekna, MSD, OncoMed, Seagen, and Sutro Bio. JL-PG and JCP declare no competing interests., (© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: The NIPU-trial investigates the effect of adding the telomerase vaccine UV1 to treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab for patients with pleural mesothelioma (PM)., Methods: In this phase 2 open-label trial, patients with PM progressing after first-line chemotherapy were randomised to receive ipilimumab and nivolumab alone (arm B) or combined with UV1 (arm A). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by BICR. It was estimated that 69 PFS events were needed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 with 80% power and a one-sided alpha level of 0.10., Results: 118 patients were randomised. The median PFS determined by blinded independent central review (BICR) was 4.2 months (95%CI 2.9-9.8) in arm A and 4.7 months (95%CI 3.9-7.0) in arm B (HR 1.01, 80%CI 0.75-1.36 P = 0.979), after a median follow-up of 12.5 months (95%CI 9.7-15.6). The investigator-determined median PFS was 4.3 months (95%CI 3.0-6.8) in arm A and 2.9 months (95%CI 2.4-5.5) in arm B (HR 0.60, 80%CI 0.45-0.81 P = 0.025). Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by BICR was 31% in arm A and 16% in arm B (odds ratio 2.44 80%CI 1.35-4.49 P = 0.056). After a median follow-up time of 17.3 months (95%CI 15.8-22.9), the OS was 15.4 months (95%CI 11.1-22.6) in arm A and 11.1 months (95%CI 8.8-18.1) in arm B, (HR 0.73, 80%CI 0.53-1.0, P = 0.197)., Conclusion: The primary endpoint was not met. Predefined analyses of response rates are in favour of adding the vaccine., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Vilde Drageset Haakensen - Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Janssen. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: Novartis, Astra Zeneca, BMS. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: Board member of lung cancer patient organization from 2022. Support from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities, grant number 2021083. Maria Bjaanæs - Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS. Weronika Maria Szejniuk – none declared. Solfrid Thunold - Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: BMS. Susana Cedres - Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: F. Hoffmann La Roche AG, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Amphera, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS Wee L Chin – none declared. Tonje Sofie Dalen – none declared. Saima Farooqi - Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: Merck. Oscar Grundberg – none declared. Åslaug Helland - All support for the present manuscript (e.g., funding, provision of study materials, medical writing, article processing charges, etc.): South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authorities, grant number 202007 and 2016056, Ultimovacs, BMS. Grants or contracts from any entity: Roche, InCyte, Astra Zeneca, Merck, Novartis, Eli Lilly, GSK, Illumina, Nanopore. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Medicovver, Bayer, Eli Lilly, MSD, BMS, Merck, Sanofi, Abbvie, Pfizer, Takeda, Novartis, Roche. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AMGEN (DSMC), AdBoard: Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen, BMS, EliLilly, Abbvie, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Takeda. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid: Board member of lung cancer patient organization until 2022 Marius Lund Iversen – none declared. Anna K Nowak - Grants or contracts from any entity: Astra Zeneca. Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: AstraZeneca, BMS, Douglas Pharmaceuticals Åsa Kristina Öjlert – none declared. Jens Benn Sørensen - Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board: BMS, Merck, Astra Zeneca., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated promising outcomes for adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resected melanoma. Real-life data provide valuable insights to support patient guidance and treatment decisions., Methods: Observational population-based study examining a national cohort of patients with resected stage III-IV melanoma referred for adjuvant therapy. Data were extracted from the Danish Metastatic Melanoma Database (DAMMED)., Results: Between November 2018 and January 2022, 785 patients received adjuvant anti-PD-1. The majority had stage III resected melanoma (87%), normal LDH levels (80%), and performance score 0 (87%). Patients were followed for a median of 25.6 months (95%CI 24-28). The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were not reached. The RFS was 78% (95%CI 75-81), 66% (63-70), and 59% (55-63); MSS was 97% (95-98), 93% (91-95), and 87% (84-90) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year; respectively. Less than half (42%) of the patients finalized planned therapy, 32% discontinued due to toxicity, and 19% due to melanoma recurrence. Patients discontinuing adjuvant treatment prematurely, without recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing therapy. In a multivariable analysis, ipilimumab plus nivolumab did not improve outcomes compared to ipilimumab monotherapy as a first-line metastatic treatment after adjuvant anti-PD-1., Conclusion: Survival outcomes in real-world patients with melanoma treated with adjuvant anti-PD-1 align with results from the randomized controlled trials. Patients discontinuing therapy prematurely, for other reasons than recurrence, had similar outcomes as patients finalizing planned treatment. First-line metastatic treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab post-adjuvant anti-PD-1 did not show improved outcomes compared to ipilimumab/anti-PD-1 monotherapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Within the last two years: RJ has received travel/conference expenses from Pierre Fabre. MD has received proprietary data access from Bristol Myers Squibb and Genentech and is an advisor of Achilles Therapeutics. CR reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation and Helsinn Healthcare SA, and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Helsinn Healthcare SA, and Pharmanovia, outside the submitted work. CAH has received honoraria for lectures from BMS and GSK. IMS has received honoraria for consultancies and lectures from IO Biotech, Novartis, MSD, Pierre Fabre, BMS, Novo Nordisk, TILT Bio; research grants from IO Biotech, BMS, Lytix, Adaptimmune, and TILT Bio. EE received honoraria from BMS, Pierre Fabre, and Novartis for consultancies, lectures, and travel/conference expenses from Pierre Fabre and MSD. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the other author(s)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known., Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM., Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered., Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy., Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Background: First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab both demonstrated significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the CheckMate 648 trial, leading to approvals of both nivolumab-containing regimens in many countries. We report longer-term follow-up data., Methods: This open-label, phase III trial (NCT03143153) enrolled adults with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, recurrent, or metastatic ESCC. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ≥1% and then in the overall population., Results: A total of 970 patients were randomly assigned. After 29 months of minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus chemotherapy continued to demonstrate improvement in OS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.46-0.76]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.65-0.93]) and with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.62 [95% CI: 0.48-0.80]) in patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1% and in the overall population (HR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.65-0.92]). In patients with tumor cell PD-L1 expression of ≥1%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated PFS benefit versus chemotherapy (HR = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51-0.89]); PFS benefit was not observed with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (HR = 1.04 [95% CI: 0.79-1.36]). Among all treated patients (n = 936), Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 151 (49%, nivolumab plus chemotherapy), 105 (32%, nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and 110 (36%, chemotherapy) patients., Conclusions: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful OS benefit versus chemotherapy with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up, further supporting use as first-line standard treatment options for patients with advanced ESCC., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating., Objective: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment., Research Design and Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma., Results: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p  < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p  < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior., Conclusions: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics., Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have expanded the arsenal of cancer therapeutics over the last decade but are associated with a spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including inflammatory arthritis. While these complications are increasingly recognized in the adult population, no cases of inflammatory arthritis irAEs have been reported in the pediatric literature., Case Presentation: A 14-year-old female with metastatic epithelioid mesothelioma was referred to the pediatric rheumatology clinic after developing progressive inflammatory joint pain in her bilateral shoulders, hips, and small joints of hands following the second cycle of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab. Initial examinations showed bilateral shoulder joint line tenderness, positive FABERs test bilaterally, tenderness over bilateral greater trochanters, and bilateral second PIP effusions. Her serological profile was notable for positive HLA-B27, positive anti-CCP, negative Rheumatoid Factor, and negative ANA. PET-CT scan performed for disease response following immunotherapy showed symmetric increased metabolic activity primarily involving the supraspinatus, gluteus medius and minimus, and semimembranosus tendon insertions. Her presentation was consistent with a grade 1 irAE that worsened to a grade 2 irAE despite NSAID therapy, prompting a short course of oral prednisolone. She achieved clinical remission of her mesothelioma following six cycles of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab and her inflammatory arthritis was controlled on Celebrex monotherapy., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first pediatric case of ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis and enthesitis. This case highlights the importance of increasing awareness of diagnosis and management of irAEs in children., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Intravenous immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has shown poor response rates in recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Intraperitoneal (i.p.) ICB may result in enhanced T cell activation and anti-tumor immunity., Methods: In this phase 1b study, registered at Clinical., Trials: gov (NCT03508570), initial cohorts received i.p. nivolumab monotherapy, and subsequent cohorts received combination i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks and i.p. ipilimumab every 6 weeks, guided by a Bayesian design. The primary objective was determination of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination. Secondary outcomes included toxicity, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Findings: The trial enrolled 23 patients: 18 with ovarian cancer, 2 with uterine cancer, and 3 with cervical cancer. Study evaluable patients (n = 16) received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range: 1-8). Partial response was observed in 2 patients (12.5%; 1 ovarian, 1 uterine), and complete response was observed in 1 patient (6.3%) with cervical cancer, for an ORR of 18.8% (95% confidence interval: 4.0%-45.6%). The median duration of response was 14.8 months (range: 4.1-20.8), with one complete response ongoing. Median PFS and OS were 2.7 months and not reached, respectively. Grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events occurred in 2 (8.7%) patients., Conclusions: i.p. administration of dual ICB is safe and demonstrated durable responses in a subset of patients with advanced gynecologic malignancy. The RP2D is 3 mg/kg i.p. nivolumab every 2 weeks plus 1 mg/kg ipilimumab every 6 weeks., Funding: This work was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb (CA209-9C7), an MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant (CA016672), the Ovarian Cancer Moon Shots Program, the Emerson Collective Fund, and a T32 training grant (CA101642)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests S.N.W. reports grants/contracts to the institution from AstraZeneca, Avenge Bio, Bayer, Bio-Path, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mereo, Novartis, Nuvectis, Roche/Genentech, and Zentalis; she also reports consulting with AstraZeneca, Caris, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, EQRX, Gilead, GSK, Immunocore, ImmunoGen, Lilly, Merck, Mereo, Mersana, NGM Bio, Nuvectis, Roche/Genentech, Seagen, Verastem, Vincerx, Zentalis, and ZielBio. A.K.S. reports consulting for Kiyatec, Merck & Co., GSK, Valerio Therapeutics (formerly Onxeo), ImmunoGen, Iylon, and AstraZeneca; being a stockholder in BioPath Holdings; and a licensed patent (EGFL6 antibody). A.A.J. received institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Iovance, Merck, Pfizer, Imunon, Aravive, MacroGenics, AstraZeneca, Avenge Bio, Greenfire Bio, and Break Through Cancer and consulting fees from Guidepoint, Alkermes, Gerson Lehrman Group, Adicet Bio, Theolytics, Avenge Bio, NuProbe, and Greenfire Bio., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As part of a partitioned survival analysis, treatment-free survival (TFS) can characterize the overall survival time patients spend between the cessation of immunotherapy and the start of subsequent therapy; both with and without toxicity. Significant TFS was reported for the nivolumab/ipilimumab arms of the CheckMate 067 and 214 trials for patients with advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), respectively, where immunotherapy was often halted for toxicity rather than a predefined treatment endpoint. We therefore sought to assess TFS in the HCRN GU16-260 trial, which was designed to reduce toxicity and cap immunotherapy duration., Methods: Data were analyzed from 128 patients with clear-cell aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab monotherapy for up to 2 years. Salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab for up to 1 year was provided to eligible patients with disease progression at any point or stable disease at 48 weeks (29% of patients). TFS was defined as the area between Kaplan-Meier curves for a time from registration to protocol therapy cessation and for a time from registration to subsequent systemic therapy initiation or death, estimated from 36-month mean times. The time on or off protocol treatment with grade 3+treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was also captured., Results: At 36 months from enrollment, 68.3% of patients were alive: 96.8% of International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) favorable-risk patients and 56.6% of those with intermediate/poor-risk, respectively. The 36-month mean time on protocol therapy was 11.5 months including 0.6 months with grade 3+TRAEs (16.0 months for favorable-risk patients and 9.6 months for intermediated/poor-risk patients). The 36-month mean TFS for the whole population was 9.4 months (12.9 months including 1.5 months with grade 3+TRAEs for favorable-risk and 8.0 months including 1.0 months with grade 3+TRAEs for intermediate/poor-risk). At 36 months, 65.6% of favorable-risk patients and 27.1% of intermediate/poor-risk patients were alive and subsequent systemic treatment-free., Conclusions: Nivolumab monotherapy with salvage nivolumab/ipilimumab in non-responders is an active treatment approach in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC and, similar to nivolumab/ipilimumab in CheckMate 214, results in substantial TFS and toxicity-free TFS. TFS was greatest in patients with favorable-risk disease, supporting the use of an immunotherapy-only regimen in this population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MBA has/had an advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Exelixis, Aveo, Pfizer, Werewolf, Fathom, Pyxis Oncology, PACT, Elpis, X4Pharma, ValoHealth, ScholarRock, Surface, Takeda, Simcha, Roche, SAB Bio, Pliant Therapeutics, Atreca, OncoRena, Sanofi and GSK and has served as a consultant: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Agenus, Asher Bio, and AstraZeneca. He reports research support to his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck. He holds stock/stock options in Pyxis Oncology, Werewolf and Elpis. OAJ—none. NBH is a paid consultant to BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Merck and Roche Genentech. DFM has acted as a paid consultant for and/or as a member of the advisory boards of BMS, Pfizer, Merck, Alkermes, Inc, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly and Company, Iovance, Eisai Inc., Werewolf Technologies, Calithera Biosciences, Synthekine, Inc., Johnson served on speakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; received institutional research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Aravive, and Surface Oncology; has received reimbursement for travel and accommodations expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Eisai, and Exelixis. MH has served on Advisory Boards for Bristol Myers Squibb, CRISPR Therapeutics, Exelixis, Nektar Therapeutics, Janssen and has received research support to his institution from Alpine, Achilles Therapeutics, Apexigen, Arrowhead, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myer Squibb, CRISPR Therapeutics, Corvus, Eli Lilly, Endocyte, Fate Therapeutics, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Innocrin, Iovance, KSQ, Merck, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Progenics, Sanofi Aventis, SeaGen, Tmunity, Torque, Unum. He also reports Spouse salary from Gamida Cell, Arvinas. DJP holds stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck. DE reports research funding to institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardiff Oncology, Mink Therapeutics, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, and Sanofi, as well as discounted research sequencing from Foundation Medicine and honorarium from OncLive. PJC—none. HH has acted as a paid consultant for and/or as a member of the advisory boards of Exelixis, BMS, Pfizer, Merck, Corvus, Armo Biosciences, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Surface Oncology, Aveo and Novartis and has received grants to his institution from Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Surface Oncology and Aravive for work performed as outside of the current study. MMR reports research funding to institution from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotheranostics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DebioPharm, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, TerSera Therapeutics, all outside of the current study, and a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DebioPharm, Ipsen, TerSera Therapeutics, Tolmar Pharmaceuticals., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: As first-line treatment for stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer, combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, with or without chemotherapy, had demonstrated survival benefits over chemotherapy; however, data on Japanese patients are limited., Methods: LIGHT-NING was a multicenter, observational study and retrospectively collected data. In this interim analysis, we analyzed patients who received combination immunotherapy between 27 November 2020 and 31 August 2021 for the treatment status, safety objectives (treatment-related adverse events and immune-related adverse events incidences), and effectiveness objectives (objective response rate and progression-free survival) to determine the characteristics and early safety information., Results: We analyzed 353 patients, with a median follow-up of 7.1 (interquartile range, 5.0-9.7) months. Overall, 60.1 and 39.9% received nivolumab plus ipilimumab with and without chemotherapy, respectively. In these cohorts, the median age was 67 and 72 years; 10.8 and 35.5% were aged ≥75 years; 80.2 and 79.4% were male; 5.2 and 13.5% had a performance score ≥ 2; 32.1 and 27.0% developed grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events; treatment-related deaths were observed in 6 (2.8%) and 5 (3.5%) patients, respectively. Grade 3-4 immune-related adverse event incidence was the highest within the first month of treatment in both cohorts, although the immune-related adverse event risk persisted throughout. No new safety signals were observed at this interim analysis. The median progression-free survival was 6.0 (95% confidence interval, 5.2-7.6) and 5.8 (4.3-7.0) months in nivolumab plus ipilimumab with and without chemotherapy cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: LIGHT-NING offers valuable insights into combination immunotherapy for untreated patients with stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in Japanese real-world settings., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement Dr Bott has received speaking honorarium and consulting fees from Intuitive Surgical, consulting fees from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, and research support from Obsidian Therapeutics. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.

Background: Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos-associated diseases. Mesothelioma remains an area of unmet need with a 5-year overall survival of 10%. First-line immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab is now a standard of care for unresectable pleural mesothelioma following the CheckMate 743 trial, with supportive data from the later line single-arm MAPS2 trial. RIOMeso evaluates survival and toxicity of this regimen in real-world practice., Methods: Demographic and clinicopathologic data of Australian patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab in first- and subsequent-line settings for pleural mesothelioma were collected retrospectively. Survival was reported using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between subgroups with the log-rank test. Toxicity was investigator assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0., Results: A total of 119 patients were identified from 11 centers. The median age was 72 years, 83% were male, 92% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group less than or equal to 1, 50% were past or current smokers, and 78% had known asbestos exposure. In addition, 50% were epithelioid, 19% sarcomatoid, 14% biphasic, and 17% unavailable. Ipilimumab and nivolumab were used first line in 75% of patients. Median overall survival (mOS) was 14.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.0-not reached [NR]) for the entire cohort. For patients treated first line, mOS was 14.5 months (95% CI: 12.5-NR) and in second- or later-line patients was 15.4 months (95% CI: 11.2-NR). There was no statistically significant difference in mOS for epithelioid patients compared with nonepithelioid (19.1 mo [95% CI: 15.4-NR] versus 13.0 mo [95% CI: 9.7-NR], respectively, p = 0.064). Furthermore, 24% of the patients had a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade greater than or equal to 3 adverse events, including three treatment-related deaths. Colitis was the most frequent adverse event., Conclusions: Combination immunotherapy in real-world practice has poorer survival outcomes and seems more toxic compared with clinical trial data. This is the first detailed report of real-world survival and toxicity outcomes using ipilimumab and nivolumab treatment of pleural mesothelioma., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Chemotherapy plus nivolumab is the standard of care neoadjuvant treatment for patients with resectable stage IB to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer. The influence of dual checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy on surgical outcomes remains unknown. We aimed to determine operative complexity and perioperative outcomes associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab., Methods: A total of 44 patients with stage IB (≥4 cm) to IIIA non-small cell lung cancer were treated on sequential platform arms of the NEOSTAR trial. A total of 22 patients were treated with nivolumab + chemotherapy, and 22 patients were treated with ipilimumab + nivolumab + chemotherapy. The safety of surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy was estimated using 30-day complication rates. Operative reports and surgeons' narratives were evaluated to determine procedural complexity and operative conduct., Results: All 22 of 22 patients (100%) treated with nivolumab + chemotherapy underwent surgical resection: 20 R0 (90.9%), 17 (77.3%) lobectomies, 1 wedge resection, 2 segmentectomies, and 2 pneumonectomies. The majority, 21 of 22 (95%), were performed by thoracotomy. A total of 13 of 22 (59.1%) were rated as challenging resections. A total of 4 of 22 patients (18.2%) experienced grade 3 or greater Clavien-Dindo complication. A total of 20 of 22 patients (90.9%) treated with ipilimumab + nivolumab + chemotherapy underwent surgical resection: 19 R0 (95%), 18 (90%) lobectomies, 1 pneumonectomy, and 1 segmentectomy. A total of 16 of 20 (80%) resections were performed via thoracotomy, 3 of 20 (15%) via robotics, and 1 of 20 (5%) via thoracoscopy. A total of 9 of 20 (45%) resections were considered challenging. A total of 4 of 20 patients (20%) experienced grade 3 or greater Clavien-Dindo complication., Conclusions: Surgical resections are feasible and safe, with high rates of R0 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab. Overall, approximately half of cases (22/42, 52.3%) were considered to be more challenging than a standard lobectomy., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement T.C. reports (over the past 36 months) speaker fees/honoraria from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Medscape, IDEOlogy Health, Physicians' Education Resource LLC, OncLive, PeerView, and Clinical Care Options; advisory role/consulting fees from MedImmune/AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck & Co, Genentech, Ar Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and Regeneron; institutional research funding from MedImmune/AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; and travel, food, or beverage expenses from Physicians' Education Resource LLC, Dava Oncology, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, IDEOlogy Health, OncLive, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. W.N.W. reports consulting or advisory role fees from Clovis Oncology and AstraZeneca; speaker’s fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria from Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly; and research funding from OSI Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Merck. J.V.H. reports Advisory Committees – Genentech, Mirati Therapeutics, Eli Lilly & Co, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, BerGenBio, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Curio Science, Novartis, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, BioAlta, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, EMD Serono, BluePrint Medicine, and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Research Support—AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Spectrum, Mirati, Bristol-Myer Squibb, and Takeda. Licensing/Royalties—Spectrum. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have advanced the therapeutic landscape for malignant melanoma patients. However, they can cause permanent and irreversible dermatologic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that may lead to interruption of ICI treatment or become life-threatening. To assess the risk of severe dermatologic irAEs (grade 3 or higher) among ICIs for advanced melanoma, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA)., Methods: Phase II/III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving ICIs were retrieved from various databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. These trials were published from the inception of databases to October 15, 2022. In addition, the risk of severe dermatologic irAEs associated with ICI types and doses was evaluated and compared by NMA., Results: This study included 20 Phase II/III RCTs with a total of 10 575 patients. The results indicated that ICIs carry a higher risk of severe dermatologic irAEs compared to chemotherapy. Additionally, the combinational therapy of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab was associated with a higher risk than ICI monotherapy. Comparatively, the latest treatment option involving dual ICI therapy with Relatlimab + Nivolumab showed a lower toxicity risk, but higher than Ipilimumab alone. Lastly, Nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, was observed as the lowest-risk dosing regimen for severe dermatologic irAEs in patients with advanced melanoma., Conclusion: The findings suggest that Nivolumab (1 mg/kg) + Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) administered every 3 weeks should be used cautiously in patients with advanced melanoma at high risk for dermatologic irAEs. While we recommend the preferred regimen of Nivolumab (dose = 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks)., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) represent a breakthrough in oncology in terms of prognosis and safety. They now constitute a cornerstone in the management of metastatic melanoma. However, a new kind of adverse event called immune-related adverse events (irAE) has emerged. These irAE could be conceptually considered as an indicator of the antitumoral immune response, but the association between irAE and prognosis is still a matter of debate., Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between the overall survival (OS) and the prevalence of irAE in melanoma., Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, WebofScience, ClinicalTrials, and WHOTrials databases were searched to identify phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing ICI in melanoma and published up to April 2021. A weighted regression was performed to estimate this association according to standard method of surrogacy analysis., Results: A total of 14 RCT including 7646 patients (median age: 59.3 years) with melanoma were included. All types of ICI were represented (ipilimumab, tremelimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, as well as ipilimumab and nivolumab combination). irAE were frequent but rarely fatal. The combination of ICI caused more irAE than anti-PD1 (or PDL1) and anti-CTLA4 monotherapies. No relationship was found between the occurrence of irAE and OS (beta coefficient 0.078, R 2 3%, p = 0.52), nor between cutaneous irAE and OS (beta coefficient 0.080, R 2 6%, p = 0.33)., Conclusion: Although limited by the heterogeneity of ICI included in the regression and the low number of included RCT, the present study suggests an absence of association between irAE and prognosis in melanoma., (© 2023 The Authors. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) marked a revolutionary change in cancer treatment and opened new avenues for cancer therapy, but ICI can also trigger immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Here, we investigated the publicly available US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to gain insight into the possible association between immune checkpoint inhibitors and hypophysitis. Data on adverse events (AEs) due to hypophysitisfor nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab were collected from the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System from the first quarter of 2004 to the second quarter of 2021, and the signals for hypophysitis associated with the four drugs were examined using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) method. The number of reported hypophysitis events ≥ 3 and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ROR > 1 were considered positive for hypophysitis signals. A total of 1252 AE reports of hypophysitis associated with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab were collected, including 419, 149, 643, and 41 cases, respectively. The RORs of hypophysitis were 289.58 (95% CI 258.49-324.40), 171.74 (95% CI 144.91-203.54), 2248.57 (95% CI 2025.31-2496.45), and 97.29 (95% CI 71.28-132.79), respectively. All four drugs were statistically correlated with the target AE, with the correlation being, in descending order, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, and atezolizumab have all been associated with hypophysitis, which can negatively impact quality of life, and early recognition and management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related hypophysitis is critical., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) combination therapy (NIVO + IPI) compared with the sunitinib (SUN) therapy for Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the perspective of a Japanese health insurance payer., Methods: A lifetime horizon was applied, and 2% per annum was set as the discount rate. The threshold was set as $ 75 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the analytical method, we used a partitioned survival analysis model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated by dividing incremental costs by incremental QALYs. Progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death were set as health states. Additionally, cost parameters and utility weights were set as key parameters. We set the intermediate/poor-risk population as the base case. Scenario analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat population and the favorable risk population. Furthermore, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted for each population., Results: In the base-case analysis, the QALYs of NIVO + IPI and SUN were 4.32 and 2.99, respectively. NIVO + IPI conferred 1.34 additional QALYs. Meanwhile, the total costs in the NIVO + IPI and SUN were $692 288 and $475 481, respectively. As a result, the ICER of NIVO + IPI compared with SUN was estimated to be $162 243 per QALY gained. The parameter that greatly affected the ICER was the utility weight of progression-free survival in NIVO + IPI., Conclusions: NIVO + IPI for advanced renal cell carcinoma seems to be not cost-effective compared with the SUN in the Japanese healthcare system., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Links to the individual disclosure forms provided by the authors are available here., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The primary analysis of the phase III NIBIT-M2 study showed a 41% 4-year overall survival (OS) of melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab., Methods: Here, we report the 7-year efficacy outcomes and the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) analyses of the NIBIT-M2 study., Results: As of May 1, 2023, at a median follow-up of 67 months (mo), the median OS was 8.5 (95% CI: 6.6-10.3), 8.2 (95% CI: 2.1-14.3) and 29.2 (95% CI: 0-69.9) mo for the fotemustine (F) Arm A, ipilimumab plus fotemustine Arm B, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab Arm C, respectively. The 7-year OS rate was 10.0% (95% CI: 0-22.5) in Arm A, 10.3% (95% CI: 0-22.6) in Arm B, and 42.8% (95% CI: 23.4-62.2) in Arm C. HRQoL was preserved in all treatment arms. Most functional scales evaluated from baseline to W12 were preserved, with a lower mean score decrease for EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and an increase for EORTC QLQ-Brain neoplasm (BN20) in patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab., Conclusions: With the longest follow-up available to date in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, the NIBIT-M2 study continues to show persistent therapeutic efficacy of I ipilimumab plus nivolumab while preserving HRQoL., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest AMDG has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Incyte, Pierre Fabre, Glaxo Smith Kline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Sunpharma, Immunocore and Sanofi and has received compensated educational activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; VCS has served as advisor to Merk Serono, Novartis, and Pierre Fabre and has received travel accommodation from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pierre Fabre and has received personal fees as invited speaker from Sanofi, Merck Sharp Dohme, and Pierre Fabre; MDV has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, and Roche; PFF has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck Sharp Dohme, Roche and Novartis; MG has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, and Novartis; PQ has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and Igea and has received personal fees as invited speaker from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, and Igea; M Guidoboni has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and has received grant support from Merck Sharp Dohme; PM has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, AstraZeneca and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Celgene, and Roche; LC has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Merck Sharp Dohme, and has received compensated educational activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; RD has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Merck Serono, Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, and has received compensated educational activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Pierre Fabre; MM has served as consultant and/or advisor to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, Sanofi Aventis and Novartis, and has received grant support from Novartis; M Maio has served as a consultant and/or advisor to Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp Dohme, Incyte, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Sciclone, Sanofi, Alfasigma, and Merck Serono; M Maio, RC, and AC own shares in Epigen Therapeutics, Srl. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)