Search

Introduction In a multicenter, open-label randomized phase 3 clinical trial conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark, treatment with ex vivo-expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL-NKI/CCIT) from autologous melanoma tumor compared with ipilimumab improved progression-free survival in patients with unresectable stage IIIC–IV melanoma after failure of first-line or second-line treatment. Based on this trial, we conducted a cost-utility analysis.Methods A Markov decision model was constructed to estimate expected costs (expressed in 2021€) and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of TIL-NKI/CCIT versus ipilimumab in the Netherlands. The Danish setting was assessed in a scenario analysis. A modified societal perspective was applied over a lifetime horizon. TIL-NKI/CCIT production costs were estimated via activity-based costing. Through sensitivity analyses, uncertainties and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were assessed.Results Mean total undiscounted lifetime benefits were 4.47 life years (LYs) and 3.52 QALYs for TIL-NKI/CCIT and 3.33 LYs and 2.46 QALYs for ipilimumab. Total lifetime undiscounted costs in the Netherlands were €347,168 for TIL-NKI/CCIT (including €67,547 for production costs) compared with €433,634 for ipilimumab. Undiscounted lifetime cost in the Danish scenario were €337,309 and €436,135, respectively. This resulted in a dominant situation for TIL-NKI/CCIT compared with ipilimumab in both countries, meaning incremental QALYs were gained at lower costs. Survival probabilities, and utility in progressive disease affected the ICER most.Conclusion Based on the data of a randomized phase 3 trial, treatment with TIL-NKI/CCIT in patients with unresectable stage IIIC–IV melanoma is cost-effective and cost-saving, both in the current Dutch and Danish setting. These findings led to inclusion of TIL-NKI/CCIT as insured care and treatment guidelines. Publicly funded development of the TIL-NKI/CCIT cell therapy shows realistic promise to further explore development of effective personalized treatment while warranting economic sustainability of healthcare systems.

Adoptive cell therapy with autologous, ex vivo-expanded, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is being investigated for treatment of solid tumors and has shown robust responses in clinical trials. Based on the encouraging efficacy, tolerable safety profile, and advancements in a central manufacturing process, lifileucel is now the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved TIL cell therapy product. To this end, treatment management and delivery practice guidance is needed to ensure successful integration of this modality into clinical care. This review includes clinical and toxicity management guidelines pertaining to the TIL cell therapy regimen prepared by the TIL Working Group, composed of internationally recognized hematologists and oncologists with expertize in TIL cell therapy, and relates to patient care and operational aspects. Expert consensus recommendations for patient management, including patient eligibility, screening tests, and clinical and toxicity management with TIL cell therapy, including tumor tissue procurement surgery, non-myeloablative lymphodepletion, TIL infusion, and IL-2 administration, are discussed in the context of potential standard of care TIL use. These recommendations provide practical guidelines for optimal clinical management during administration of the TIL cell therapy regimen, and recognition of subsequent management of toxicities. These guidelines are focused on multidisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses, and stakeholders involved in the care of these patients.

Background The role of antibiotics in malignancies treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) remains unclear. Several studies suggested a detrimental impact of antibiotic use on the response to ICI, but were susceptible to confounding by indication. Our objective was therefore to assess whether the relationship between antibiotic use and ICI response is causative or merely associative.Methods A large, single-center observational cohort study was performed with individuals treated for either non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) or metastatic melanoma. An effect modification approach was used, aiming to estimate the association between antibiotic use and overall survival (OS) and compare these estimates between individuals receiving first-line ICI treatment versus those receiving first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Exposure of interest was antibiotic use within 30 days before the start of anticancer treatment. HRs for OS were estimated for antibiotics versus no antibiotics in each cohort using multivariable propensity adjusted analysis. The “true antibiotic effect” within the ICI versus TKI cohort was modeled using an interaction term.Results A total of 4534 patients were included, of which 1908 in the ICI cohort and 817 in the TKI cohort. Approximately 10% of patients in each cohort used antibiotics within 30 days before the start of anticancer treatment. Our results demonstrate a lack of synergistic interaction between current antibiotic use and ICI therapy in relation to OS: although antibiotic use was significantly associated with OS decline in the ICI cohort (HR=1.26 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.51)), a similar magnitude in OS decline was found within the TKI cohort (HR=1.24 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.62)). This was reflected by the synergy index (HR=0.96 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.31)), which implied no synergistic interaction between current antibiotic use and ICI.Conclusion This study strongly suggests that there is no causal detrimental association between antibiotic use and ICI therapy outcome when looking at OS in individuals with malignant melanoma or NSCLC. The frequently observed inverse association between antibiotics and ICI response in previous studies is most likely driven by confounding by indication, which was confirmed by the findings in our reference TKI cohort.

Abstract Background Treatment with tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL) is an innovative therapy for advanced melanoma with promising clinical phase I/II study results and likely beneficial cost-effectiveness. As a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of TIL therapy in advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab is still ongoing, adoption of TIL therapy by the field is confronted with uncertainty. To deal with this, scenario drafting can be used to identify potential barriers and enables the subsequent anticipation on these barriers. This study aims to inform adoption decisions of TIL by evaluating various scenarios and evaluate their effect on the cost-effectiveness. Methods First, 14 adoption scenarios for TIL-therapy were drafted using a Delphi approach with a group of involved experts. Second, the likelihood of the scenarios taking place within 5 years was surveyed among international experts using a web-based questionnaire. Third, based on the questionnaire results and recent literature, scenarios were labeled as being either “likely” or “-unlikely”. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of TIL treatment involving the “likely” scored scenarios was calculated. Results Twenty-nine experts from 12 countries completed the questionnaire. The scenarios showed an average likelihood ranging from 29 to 58%, indicating that future developments of TIL-therapy were surrounded with quite some uncertainty. Eight of the 14 scenarios were labeled as “likely”. The net monetary benefit per patient is presented as a measure of cost-effectiveness, where a positive value means that a scenario is cost-effective. For six of these scenarios the cost-effectiveness was calculated: “Commercialization of TIL production” (the price was assumed to be 3 times the manufacturing costs in the academic setting) (−€51,550), “Pharmaceutical companies lowering the prices of ipilimumab” (€11,420), “Using TIL-therapy combined with ipilimumab” (−€10,840), “Automatic TIL production” (€22,670), “TIL more effective” (€23,270), “Less Interleukin-2” (€20,370). Conclusions Incorporating possible future developments, TIL-therapy was calculated to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab in the majority of “likely” scenarios. These scenarios could function as facilitators for adoption. Contrary, TIL therapy was expected to not be cost-effective when sold at commercial prices, or when combined with ipilimumab. These scenarios should be considered in the adoption decision as these may act as crucial barriers.

Summary: Autotaxin (ATX; ENPP2) produces lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) that regulates multiple biological functions via cognate G protein-coupled receptors LPAR1-6. ATX/LPA promotes tumor cell migration and metastasis via LPAR1 and T cell motility via LPAR2, yet its actions in the tumor immune microenvironment remain unclear. Here, we show that ATX secreted by melanoma cells is chemorepulsive for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and circulating CD8+ T cells ex vivo, with ATX functioning as an LPA-producing chaperone. Mechanistically, T cell repulsion predominantly involves Gα12/13-coupled LPAR6. Upon anti-cancer vaccination of tumor-bearing mice, ATX does not affect the induction of systemic T cell responses but, importantly, suppresses tumor infiltration of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells and thereby impairs tumor regression. Moreover, single-cell data from melanoma tumors are consistent with intratumoral ATX acting as a T cell repellent. These findings highlight an unexpected role for the pro-metastatic ATX-LPAR axis in suppressing CD8+ T cell infiltration to impede anti-tumor immunity, suggesting new therapeutic opportunities.

Background Usual vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (uVIN) is a premalignancy caused by persistent infection with high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV), mainly type 16. Even though different treatment modalities are available (eg, surgical excision, laser evaporation or topical application of imiquimod), these treatments can be mutilating, patients often have recurrences and 2%–8% of patients develop vulvar carcinoma. Therefore, immunotherapeutic strategies targeting the pivotal oncogenic HPV proteins E6 and E7 are being explored to repress carcinogenesis.Method In this phase I/II clinical trial, 14 patients with HPV16+ uVIN were treated with a genetically enhanced DNA vaccine targeting E6 and E7. Safety, clinical responses and immunogenicity were assessed. Patients received four intradermal HPV-16 E6/E7 DNA tattoo vaccinations, with a 2-week interval, alternating between both upper legs. Biopsies of the uVIN lesions were taken at screening and +3 months after last vaccination. Digital photography of the vulva was performed at every check-up until 12 months of follow-up for measurement of the lesions. HPV16-specific T-cell responses were measured in blood over time in ex vivo reactivity assays.Results Vaccinations were well tolerated, although one grade 3 suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was observed. Clinical responses were observed in 6/14 (43%) patients, with 2 complete responses and 4 partial responses (PR). 5/14 patients showed HPV-specific T-cell responses in blood, measured in ex vivo reactivity assays. Notably, all five patients with HPV-specific T-cell responses had a clinical response.Conclusions Our results indicate that HPV-16 E6/E7 DNA tattoo vaccination is a biologically active and safe treatment strategy in patients with uVIN, and suggest that T-cell reactivity against the HPV oncogenes is associated with clinical benefit.Trial registration number NTR4607.

The clinical and immunologic implications of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic for patients with cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy have introduced a multitude of clinical challenges and academic controversies. This review summarizes the current evidence, discussion points, and recommendations regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with a focus on patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). More specifically, we summarize the theoretical concepts and available objective data regarding the relationships between ICIs and the antiviral immune response, along with recommended clinical approaches to the management of melanoma and RCC patient cohorts receiving ICIs throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional insights regarding the use of ICIs in the setting of current and upcoming COVID-19 vaccines and broader implications toward future pandemics are also discussed.

Background Patients with cancer who are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to develop severe illness and die compared with those without cancer. The impact of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) on the severity of COVID-19 illness is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ICI confers an additional risk for severe COVID-19 in patients with cancer.Methods We analyzed data from 110 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 while on treatment with ICI without chemotherapy in 19 hospitals in North America, Europe and Australia. The primary objective was to describe the clinical course and to identify factors associated with hospital and intensive care (ICU) admission and mortality.Findings Thirty-five (32%) patients were admitted to hospital and 18 (16%) died. All patients who died had advanced cancer, and only four were admitted to ICU. COVID-19 was the primary cause of death in 8 (7%) patients. Factors independently associated with an increased risk for hospital admission were ECOG ≥2 (OR 39.25, 95% CI 4.17 to 369.2, p=0.0013), treatment with combination ICI (OR 5.68, 95% CI 1.58 to 20.36, p=0.0273) and presence of COVID-19 symptoms (OR 5.30, 95% CI 1.57 to 17.89, p=0.0073). Seventy-six (73%) patients interrupted ICI due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, 43 (57%) of whom had resumed at data cut-off.Interpretation COVID-19–related mortality in the ICI-treated population does not appear to be higher than previously published mortality rates for patients with cancer. Inpatient mortality of patients with cancer treated with ICI was high in comparison with previously reported rates for hospitalized patients with cancer and was due to COVID-19 in almost half of the cases. We identified factors associated with adverse outcomes in ICI-treated patients with COVID-19.

In the evolving immune-oncology landscape, numerous patients with cancer are constantly treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) but among them, only sporadic cases with pre-existing hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are recorded. Despite the global dissemination of HBV and HCV infections, viral hepatitis-infected patients with cancer were traditionally excluded from ICPIs containing trials and current evidence is particularly limited in case reports, retrospective cohort studies and in few clinical trials on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, many concerns still remain about the overall oncological management of this special subpopulation, including questions about the efficacy, toxicity and reactivation risks induced by ICPIs. Here, we examine the natural course of both HBV and HCV in cancer environment, review the latest antiviral guidelines for patients undergoing systematic cancer therapies, estimating treatment-related immunosuppression and relocate immunotherapy in this therapeutic panel. Among the ICPIs-treated cases with prior viral hepatitis, we focus further on those experienced HBV or HCV reactivation and discuss their host, tumor and serological risk factors, their antiviral and immunological management as well as their hepatitis and tumor outcome. Based on a low level of evidence, immunotherapy in these specific cancer cases seems to be associated with no inferior efficacy and with a relevantly low reactivation rate. However, hepatitis reactivation and subsequent irreversible complications appeared to have poor response to deferred antiviral treatment. While, the prophylactic use of modern antiviral drugs could eliminate or diminish up front the viral load in most cases, leading to cure or long-term hepatitis control. Taking together the clinical significance of preventive therapy, the low but existing reactivation risk and the potential immune-related hepatotoxicity, a comprehensive baseline assessment of liver status, including viral hepatitis screening, before the onset of immunotherapy should be suggested as a reasonable and maybe cost-effective strategy but the decision to administer ICPIs and the necessity of prophylaxis should always be weighed at a multidisciplinary level and be individualized in each case, up to be established by future clinical trials.

Patients with cancer who developed severe, grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors are at risk for developing severe toxicities again on rechallenge with checkpoint inhibitors. Consequently, medical oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are hesitant to retreat in this scenario, despite the fact that a number of patients may derive clinical benefit from this approach. Balancing such clinical benefit and treatment-related toxicities for each patient is becoming increasingly challenging as more and more patients with cancer are being treated with checkpoint inhibitors. In this manuscript, we provide an extensive overview of the relevant literature on retreatment after toxicity, and suggest prophylactic approaches to minimize the risk of severe irAE following rechallenge with immune checkpoint blockade, since treatment may be lifesaving in a number of occasions.