Will Pass

Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) and BRAF^V600-targeted therapy in 2011, survival times for patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) have significantly improved, with a 91% increase in 4-year overall survival (OS) from 7.4% to 14.1%.

“The management of advanced melanoma has traditionally been tempered by limited responses to conventional therapies, resulting in a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year,” wrote J. Bryan Iorgulescu, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues. The report was published in Cancer Immunology Research. “The landscape of advanced melanoma treatment was revolutionized” by the approval of immunotherapy agents, beginning in 2011.

The current, retrospective study involved 2,753 patients with stage IV melanoma. Patient data were drawn from the National Cancer Database, with diagnoses made between 2010 and 2015. Patient management, overall survival, and disease characteristics were evaluated.

During initial review, the researchers found that 35.8% of patients with stage IV melanoma had brain involvement. These patients were further categorized by those with MBM only (39.7%) versus those with extracranial metastatic disease (60.3%), which included involvement of lung (82.9%), liver (8.1%), bone (6.0%), and lymph nodes or distant subcutaneous skin (3%). MBM-only disease was independently predicted by both younger age and geographic location.

Patients receiving first-line CBI therapy demonstrated improved 4-year OS (28.1% vs. 11.1%; P less than.001) and median OS (12.4 months vs. 5.2 months; P less than .001).

Improvements with CBI were most dramatic in patients with MBM-only disease. In these cases, 4-year OS improved from 16.9% to 51.5% (P less than .001), while median OS jumped from 7.7 months to 56.4 months (P less than .001).

Improved OS was also associated with fewer comorbidities, younger age, management at an academic cancer center, single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery, and resection of the MBM.

“Our findings help bridge the gaps in early clinical trials of CBIs that largely excluded stage IV melanoma patients with MBMs, with checkpoint immunotherapy demonstrating a more than doubling of the median and 4-year OS of MBMs,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018 July 12 doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067.

Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) and BRAF^V600-targeted therapy in 2011, survival times for patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) have significantly improved, with a 91% increase in 4-year overall survival (OS) from 7.4% to 14.1%.

“The management of advanced melanoma has traditionally been tempered by limited responses to conventional therapies, resulting in a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year,” wrote J. Bryan Iorgulescu, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues. The report was published in Cancer Immunology Research. “The landscape of advanced melanoma treatment was revolutionized” by the approval of immunotherapy agents, beginning in 2011.

The current, retrospective study involved 2,753 patients with stage IV melanoma. Patient data were drawn from the National Cancer Database, with diagnoses made between 2010 and 2015. Patient management, overall survival, and disease characteristics were evaluated.

During initial review, the researchers found that 35.8% of patients with stage IV melanoma had brain involvement. These patients were further categorized by those with MBM only (39.7%) versus those with extracranial metastatic disease (60.3%), which included involvement of lung (82.9%), liver (8.1%), bone (6.0%), and lymph nodes or distant subcutaneous skin (3%). MBM-only disease was independently predicted by both younger age and geographic location.

Patients receiving first-line CBI therapy demonstrated improved 4-year OS (28.1% vs. 11.1%; P less than.001) and median OS (12.4 months vs. 5.2 months; P less than .001).

Improvements with CBI were most dramatic in patients with MBM-only disease. In these cases, 4-year OS improved from 16.9% to 51.5% (P less than .001), while median OS jumped from 7.7 months to 56.4 months (P less than .001).

Improved OS was also associated with fewer comorbidities, younger age, management at an academic cancer center, single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery, and resection of the MBM.

“Our findings help bridge the gaps in early clinical trials of CBIs that largely excluded stage IV melanoma patients with MBMs, with checkpoint immunotherapy demonstrating a more than doubling of the median and 4-year OS of MBMs,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018 July 12 doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067.

Since the Food and Drug Administration first approved checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) and BRAF^V600-targeted therapy in 2011, survival times for patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBMs) have significantly improved, with a 91% increase in 4-year overall survival (OS) from 7.4% to 14.1%.

“The management of advanced melanoma has traditionally been tempered by limited responses to conventional therapies, resulting in a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year,” wrote J. Bryan Iorgulescu, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and his colleagues. The report was published in Cancer Immunology Research. “The landscape of advanced melanoma treatment was revolutionized” by the approval of immunotherapy agents, beginning in 2011.

The current, retrospective study involved 2,753 patients with stage IV melanoma. Patient data were drawn from the National Cancer Database, with diagnoses made between 2010 and 2015. Patient management, overall survival, and disease characteristics were evaluated.

During initial review, the researchers found that 35.8% of patients with stage IV melanoma had brain involvement. These patients were further categorized by those with MBM only (39.7%) versus those with extracranial metastatic disease (60.3%), which included involvement of lung (82.9%), liver (8.1%), bone (6.0%), and lymph nodes or distant subcutaneous skin (3%). MBM-only disease was independently predicted by both younger age and geographic location.

Patients receiving first-line CBI therapy demonstrated improved 4-year OS (28.1% vs. 11.1%; P less than.001) and median OS (12.4 months vs. 5.2 months; P less than .001).

Improvements with CBI were most dramatic in patients with MBM-only disease. In these cases, 4-year OS improved from 16.9% to 51.5% (P less than .001), while median OS jumped from 7.7 months to 56.4 months (P less than .001).

Improved OS was also associated with fewer comorbidities, younger age, management at an academic cancer center, single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery, and resection of the MBM.

“Our findings help bridge the gaps in early clinical trials of CBIs that largely excluded stage IV melanoma patients with MBMs, with checkpoint immunotherapy demonstrating a more than doubling of the median and 4-year OS of MBMs,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE: Iorgulescu et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018 July 12 doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0067.

Rural cancer survivors reported more timely care than did urban cancer survivors in a survey of 6,826 Medicare beneficiaries.

Taken as a whole, a similar quality of care was reported between the two groups, but the picture changed when racial/ethnic subgroups were considered. Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients in rural locations reported inferior care to their urban counterparts, investigators wrote in Cancer.

“Cancer patients living in rural areas are vulnerable and have unique health care needs,” wrote lead author Michelle A. Mollica, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, and her colleagues. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the patient’s perception of the timeliness of care in such a large, multiregion sample of cancer patients.”

In 2003, the National Academy of Medicine concluded that living in a rural environment was associated with poorer health. Existing research surrounding cancer has echoed this concern, showing that rural patients have higher rates of cancer and mortality, longer delays in diagnosis, and limited access to care.

The current, retrospective study involved 6,140 urban and 686 rural Medicare beneficiaries who were aged at least 65 years when diagnosed with either breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys were conducted between 1998 and 2013, then linked with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry program.

Surveys were conducted within 12 months of diagnosis, during which time patients were asked about their access to care as defined by two composites: “Getting Needed Care” and “Getting Care Quickly.” Getting Needed Care included ease of making appointments and receiving treatments and Getting Care Quickly questions asked about appointment delays and time spent waiting at the doctor’s office. Answers were converted to a numerical score from 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst and 100 being the best.

For both composites, mean scores for urban and rural locations were greater than 85 out of 100.

In contrast to previous studies, urban patients reported longer delays in care, scoring Getting Care Quickly 2.27 points lower than rural patients (P = .02). Pacific Islanders and non-Hispanic Asian patients from rural places reported even faster care, ranking about 8 points higher than urban patients of the same race/ethnicity.

Locality did not have a significant impact on Getting Needed Care unless race/ethnicity was also considered (P = .04). Non-Hispanic white patients from rural locations scored Getting Needed Care about 2 points higher than urban white patients, while Hispanic and non-Hispanic black patients had an opposite trend, with this rural cohort ranking Getting Needed Care lower than urban patients of the same race/ethnicity.

“Geographic residence is but one important factor in cancer care delivery,” the authors noted. “There is a need for fine-grained research looking at specific barriers for urban residents, experiences of racial/ethnic minority survivors residing in rural areas, and rural-urban differences in the clinic settings in which medical care is delivered.”

The authors had no disclosures to report.

SOURCE: Mollica MA et al. Cancer. 2018 Jun 7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31541.

Rural cancer survivors reported more timely care than did urban cancer survivors in a survey of 6,826 Medicare beneficiaries.

Taken as a whole, a similar quality of care was reported between the two groups, but the picture changed when racial/ethnic subgroups were considered. Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients in rural locations reported inferior care to their urban counterparts, investigators wrote in Cancer.

“Cancer patients living in rural areas are vulnerable and have unique health care needs,” wrote lead author Michelle A. Mollica, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, and her colleagues. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the patient’s perception of the timeliness of care in such a large, multiregion sample of cancer patients.”

In 2003, the National Academy of Medicine concluded that living in a rural environment was associated with poorer health. Existing research surrounding cancer has echoed this concern, showing that rural patients have higher rates of cancer and mortality, longer delays in diagnosis, and limited access to care.

The current, retrospective study involved 6,140 urban and 686 rural Medicare beneficiaries who were aged at least 65 years when diagnosed with either breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys were conducted between 1998 and 2013, then linked with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry program.

Surveys were conducted within 12 months of diagnosis, during which time patients were asked about their access to care as defined by two composites: “Getting Needed Care” and “Getting Care Quickly.” Getting Needed Care included ease of making appointments and receiving treatments and Getting Care Quickly questions asked about appointment delays and time spent waiting at the doctor’s office. Answers were converted to a numerical score from 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst and 100 being the best.

For both composites, mean scores for urban and rural locations were greater than 85 out of 100.

In contrast to previous studies, urban patients reported longer delays in care, scoring Getting Care Quickly 2.27 points lower than rural patients (P = .02). Pacific Islanders and non-Hispanic Asian patients from rural places reported even faster care, ranking about 8 points higher than urban patients of the same race/ethnicity.

Locality did not have a significant impact on Getting Needed Care unless race/ethnicity was also considered (P = .04). Non-Hispanic white patients from rural locations scored Getting Needed Care about 2 points higher than urban white patients, while Hispanic and non-Hispanic black patients had an opposite trend, with this rural cohort ranking Getting Needed Care lower than urban patients of the same race/ethnicity.

“Geographic residence is but one important factor in cancer care delivery,” the authors noted. “There is a need for fine-grained research looking at specific barriers for urban residents, experiences of racial/ethnic minority survivors residing in rural areas, and rural-urban differences in the clinic settings in which medical care is delivered.”

The authors had no disclosures to report.

SOURCE: Mollica MA et al. Cancer. 2018 Jun 7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31541.

Rural cancer survivors reported more timely care than did urban cancer survivors in a survey of 6,826 Medicare beneficiaries.

Taken as a whole, a similar quality of care was reported between the two groups, but the picture changed when racial/ethnic subgroups were considered. Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients in rural locations reported inferior care to their urban counterparts, investigators wrote in Cancer.

“Cancer patients living in rural areas are vulnerable and have unique health care needs,” wrote lead author Michelle A. Mollica, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute, and her colleagues. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the patient’s perception of the timeliness of care in such a large, multiregion sample of cancer patients.”

In 2003, the National Academy of Medicine concluded that living in a rural environment was associated with poorer health. Existing research surrounding cancer has echoed this concern, showing that rural patients have higher rates of cancer and mortality, longer delays in diagnosis, and limited access to care.

The current, retrospective study involved 6,140 urban and 686 rural Medicare beneficiaries who were aged at least 65 years when diagnosed with either breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys were conducted between 1998 and 2013, then linked with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry program.

Surveys were conducted within 12 months of diagnosis, during which time patients were asked about their access to care as defined by two composites: “Getting Needed Care” and “Getting Care Quickly.” Getting Needed Care included ease of making appointments and receiving treatments and Getting Care Quickly questions asked about appointment delays and time spent waiting at the doctor’s office. Answers were converted to a numerical score from 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst and 100 being the best.

For both composites, mean scores for urban and rural locations were greater than 85 out of 100.

In contrast to previous studies, urban patients reported longer delays in care, scoring Getting Care Quickly 2.27 points lower than rural patients (P = .02). Pacific Islanders and non-Hispanic Asian patients from rural places reported even faster care, ranking about 8 points higher than urban patients of the same race/ethnicity.

Locality did not have a significant impact on Getting Needed Care unless race/ethnicity was also considered (P = .04). Non-Hispanic white patients from rural locations scored Getting Needed Care about 2 points higher than urban white patients, while Hispanic and non-Hispanic black patients had an opposite trend, with this rural cohort ranking Getting Needed Care lower than urban patients of the same race/ethnicity.

“Geographic residence is but one important factor in cancer care delivery,” the authors noted. “There is a need for fine-grained research looking at specific barriers for urban residents, experiences of racial/ethnic minority survivors residing in rural areas, and rural-urban differences in the clinic settings in which medical care is delivered.”

The authors had no disclosures to report.

SOURCE: Mollica MA et al. Cancer. 2018 Jun 7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31541.

In patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable mutations, the addition of pembrolizumab to first-line combination chemotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival, according to results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 trial.

The researchers found that while patients in all subgroups benefited from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, patients with a tumor proportion score of at least 50% benefited the most.

In 2017, accelerated approval was granted for pembrolizumab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed as first-line therapy for patients with NSCLC lacking EGFR and ALK mutations. This approval was based on response rates and progression-free survival from the KEYNOTE-024 phase 2 trial.

KEYNOTE-189 solidifies these findings, according to investigators. “Together with the results from KEYNOTE-024, the data from KEYNOTE-189 suggest that introducing immunotherapy as a first-line therapy may have a favorable long-term effect on outcomes,” wrote lead author Leena Gandhi, MD, director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, and her colleagues. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The double-blind, phase 3 trial assessed 616 treatment-naive patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without ALK or EGFR mutations. Patients received a platinum-based drug and pemetrexed plus placebo or 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for four cycles. After this, patients received placebo or pembrolizumab with pemetrexed maintenance therapy for up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were overall and progression-free survival, determined by a blinded radiologist.

At 12 months, the estimated overall survival was 69.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 49.4% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. For patients treated with the pembrolizumab combination, median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, compared with 4.9 months for those treated with just chemotherapy. Median follow-up time was 10.5 months.

“The survival benefit associated with the pembrolizumab combination was observed in all subgroups of PD-L1 tumor proportion scores,” the authors wrote, “including patients with a score of less than 1%, a population for which single-agent PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition have a small chance of benefit.” As with previous studies, the subgroup of patients with a tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% received the greatest benefit when pembrolizumab was added.

The authors noted that further research is needed to determine whether patients with high PD-L1 expression (TMS ≥ 50%) would benefit more from pembrolizumab combination therapy compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy, which is currently indicated.

SOURCE: Gandhi et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005.

In patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable mutations, the addition of pembrolizumab to first-line combination chemotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival, according to results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 trial.

The researchers found that while patients in all subgroups benefited from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, patients with a tumor proportion score of at least 50% benefited the most.

In 2017, accelerated approval was granted for pembrolizumab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed as first-line therapy for patients with NSCLC lacking EGFR and ALK mutations. This approval was based on response rates and progression-free survival from the KEYNOTE-024 phase 2 trial.

KEYNOTE-189 solidifies these findings, according to investigators. “Together with the results from KEYNOTE-024, the data from KEYNOTE-189 suggest that introducing immunotherapy as a first-line therapy may have a favorable long-term effect on outcomes,” wrote lead author Leena Gandhi, MD, director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, and her colleagues. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The double-blind, phase 3 trial assessed 616 treatment-naive patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without ALK or EGFR mutations. Patients received a platinum-based drug and pemetrexed plus placebo or 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for four cycles. After this, patients received placebo or pembrolizumab with pemetrexed maintenance therapy for up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were overall and progression-free survival, determined by a blinded radiologist.

At 12 months, the estimated overall survival was 69.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 49.4% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. For patients treated with the pembrolizumab combination, median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, compared with 4.9 months for those treated with just chemotherapy. Median follow-up time was 10.5 months.

“The survival benefit associated with the pembrolizumab combination was observed in all subgroups of PD-L1 tumor proportion scores,” the authors wrote, “including patients with a score of less than 1%, a population for which single-agent PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition have a small chance of benefit.” As with previous studies, the subgroup of patients with a tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% received the greatest benefit when pembrolizumab was added.

The authors noted that further research is needed to determine whether patients with high PD-L1 expression (TMS ≥ 50%) would benefit more from pembrolizumab combination therapy compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy, which is currently indicated.

SOURCE: Gandhi et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005.

In patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable mutations, the addition of pembrolizumab to first-line combination chemotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival, according to results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-189 trial.

The researchers found that while patients in all subgroups benefited from the addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy, patients with a tumor proportion score of at least 50% benefited the most.

In 2017, accelerated approval was granted for pembrolizumab in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed as first-line therapy for patients with NSCLC lacking EGFR and ALK mutations. This approval was based on response rates and progression-free survival from the KEYNOTE-024 phase 2 trial.

KEYNOTE-189 solidifies these findings, according to investigators. “Together with the results from KEYNOTE-024, the data from KEYNOTE-189 suggest that introducing immunotherapy as a first-line therapy may have a favorable long-term effect on outcomes,” wrote lead author Leena Gandhi, MD, director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University, and her colleagues. The report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The double-blind, phase 3 trial assessed 616 treatment-naive patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without ALK or EGFR mutations. Patients received a platinum-based drug and pemetrexed plus placebo or 200 mg of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks for four cycles. After this, patients received placebo or pembrolizumab with pemetrexed maintenance therapy for up to 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were overall and progression-free survival, determined by a blinded radiologist.

At 12 months, the estimated overall survival was 69.2% for patients treated with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 49.4% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. For patients treated with the pembrolizumab combination, median progression-free survival was 8.8 months, compared with 4.9 months for those treated with just chemotherapy. Median follow-up time was 10.5 months.

“The survival benefit associated with the pembrolizumab combination was observed in all subgroups of PD-L1 tumor proportion scores,” the authors wrote, “including patients with a score of less than 1%, a population for which single-agent PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition have a small chance of benefit.” As with previous studies, the subgroup of patients with a tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% received the greatest benefit when pembrolizumab was added.

The authors noted that further research is needed to determine whether patients with high PD-L1 expression (TMS ≥ 50%) would benefit more from pembrolizumab combination therapy compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy, which is currently indicated.

SOURCE: Gandhi et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005.

For patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), preexisting autoimmune disease (AID) does not increase the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with checkpoint inhibitor therapy, according to investigators.

Flares of AID during therapy were generally mild, and toxicity rates were only slightly increased in patients with AID, they wrote in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approximately 14%-25% of patients with lung cancer also have AID, but patients with AID are typically excluded from clinical trials. “This presents a tremendous knowledge gap,” wrote lead author Giulia C. Leonardi, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and coauthors.

The retrospective study comprised 56 patients with NSCLC and preexisting autoimmune disease from five academic cancer centers. Almost half of the patients had a rheumatologic disorder, 29% had a dermatologic disorder, 16% had an endocrine disorder, 11% had inflammatory bowel disease, 5% had a neurologic condition, 3% had rheumatic fever, and one patient (2%) had autoimmune hemolytic anemia.

Patients received either a programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor as monotherapy. Median treatment time was 3.1 months, and median follow-up time after starting therapy was 17.5 months.

Eleven percent of patients with preexisting AID developed grade 3 or 4 irAEs, which is similar to 7%-15% of patients in clinical trials. Although 23% of patients experienced a flare of their preexisting AID, these flares were generally mild – no patients discontinued immunotherapy because of a flare. In contrast, 14% of patients halted therapy because of toxicity, a marginally higher number than 3%-8% of patients in trials.

Checkpoint inhibitors are now a mainstay treatment for a lung cancer, including three approved drugs: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. “Almost every patient with advanced NSCLC will likely receive a [checkpoint] inhibitor at some point over the course of their disease,” the authors noted. As checkpoint inhibitors may lead to fatal irAEs, the possible interplay between these immunotherapies and AID requires investigation.

“Our study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of immunotherapy in patients with cancer with preexisting AID, albeit with close monitoring for adverse events,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE: Leonardi GC et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018* May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.0305.

*Correction, 5/22/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the year in this citation.

For patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), preexisting autoimmune disease (AID) does not increase the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with checkpoint inhibitor therapy, according to investigators.

Flares of AID during therapy were generally mild, and toxicity rates were only slightly increased in patients with AID, they wrote in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approximately 14%-25% of patients with lung cancer also have AID, but patients with AID are typically excluded from clinical trials. “This presents a tremendous knowledge gap,” wrote lead author Giulia C. Leonardi, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and coauthors.

The retrospective study comprised 56 patients with NSCLC and preexisting autoimmune disease from five academic cancer centers. Almost half of the patients had a rheumatologic disorder, 29% had a dermatologic disorder, 16% had an endocrine disorder, 11% had inflammatory bowel disease, 5% had a neurologic condition, 3% had rheumatic fever, and one patient (2%) had autoimmune hemolytic anemia.

Patients received either a programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor as monotherapy. Median treatment time was 3.1 months, and median follow-up time after starting therapy was 17.5 months.

Eleven percent of patients with preexisting AID developed grade 3 or 4 irAEs, which is similar to 7%-15% of patients in clinical trials. Although 23% of patients experienced a flare of their preexisting AID, these flares were generally mild – no patients discontinued immunotherapy because of a flare. In contrast, 14% of patients halted therapy because of toxicity, a marginally higher number than 3%-8% of patients in trials.

Checkpoint inhibitors are now a mainstay treatment for a lung cancer, including three approved drugs: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. “Almost every patient with advanced NSCLC will likely receive a [checkpoint] inhibitor at some point over the course of their disease,” the authors noted. As checkpoint inhibitors may lead to fatal irAEs, the possible interplay between these immunotherapies and AID requires investigation.

“Our study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of immunotherapy in patients with cancer with preexisting AID, albeit with close monitoring for adverse events,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE: Leonardi GC et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018* May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.0305.

*Correction, 5/22/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the year in this citation.

For patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), preexisting autoimmune disease (AID) does not increase the risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with checkpoint inhibitor therapy, according to investigators.

Flares of AID during therapy were generally mild, and toxicity rates were only slightly increased in patients with AID, they wrote in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Approximately 14%-25% of patients with lung cancer also have AID, but patients with AID are typically excluded from clinical trials. “This presents a tremendous knowledge gap,” wrote lead author Giulia C. Leonardi, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and coauthors.

The retrospective study comprised 56 patients with NSCLC and preexisting autoimmune disease from five academic cancer centers. Almost half of the patients had a rheumatologic disorder, 29% had a dermatologic disorder, 16% had an endocrine disorder, 11% had inflammatory bowel disease, 5% had a neurologic condition, 3% had rheumatic fever, and one patient (2%) had autoimmune hemolytic anemia.

Patients received either a programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor as monotherapy. Median treatment time was 3.1 months, and median follow-up time after starting therapy was 17.5 months.

Eleven percent of patients with preexisting AID developed grade 3 or 4 irAEs, which is similar to 7%-15% of patients in clinical trials. Although 23% of patients experienced a flare of their preexisting AID, these flares were generally mild – no patients discontinued immunotherapy because of a flare. In contrast, 14% of patients halted therapy because of toxicity, a marginally higher number than 3%-8% of patients in trials.

Checkpoint inhibitors are now a mainstay treatment for a lung cancer, including three approved drugs: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. “Almost every patient with advanced NSCLC will likely receive a [checkpoint] inhibitor at some point over the course of their disease,” the authors noted. As checkpoint inhibitors may lead to fatal irAEs, the possible interplay between these immunotherapies and AID requires investigation.

“Our study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of immunotherapy in patients with cancer with preexisting AID, albeit with close monitoring for adverse events,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE: Leonardi GC et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018* May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.0305.

*Correction, 5/22/18: An earlier version of this article misstated the year in this citation.