Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor rechallenge following ribociclib-induced limiting hypertransaminasemia.

ABSTRACT: Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDKIs) and endocrine therapy (ET) are the corner-stone of systemic therapy for patients with hormone-positive (HR+) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, limited data exist regarding rechallenge treatment strategies with CDKIs after limiting toxicity. In this report, we provide evidence of the safety and efficacy of sequential treatment with palbociclib or abemaciclib in 6 HR+/HER- MBC patients who experienced grade ?3 ribociclib-induced hypertransaminasemia. Until results from large observational or randomized studies are communicated, empirical evidence may help make individualized decisions on CDKI rechallenge beyond ribociclib-induced unacceptable liver toxicity.

SUBMITTER: Fuentes-Antras J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7581964 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor rechallenge following ribociclib-induced limiting hypertransaminasemia.

Fuentes-Antrás Jesús J de Luna Alicia A López de Sá Alfonso A Ocaña Alberto A García-Sáenz José Ángel JÁ Moreno Fernando F

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20201017

Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDKIs) and endocrine therapy (ET) are the corner-stone of systemic therapy for patients with hormone-positive (HR+) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, limited data exist regarding rechallenge treatment strategies with CDKIs after limiting toxicity. In this report, we provide evidence of the safety and efficacy of sequential treatment with palbociclib or abemaciclib in 6 HR+/HER- MBC patients who experienced grade ≥3 ribociclib-induced hyper ...[more]

PMID: 33096323

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsWe investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line.MethodsIn this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events.ResultsOf 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively.ConclusionsICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials.Impact and implicationsTherapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundCheckpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis (CIP) induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is one of the most fatal immune-related adverse events (irAE). However, only limited data are available on rechallenge with ICIs after CIP. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of rechallenge after CIP in patients with advanced lung cancer to identify the potential populations that would benefit.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective study of advanced lung cancer patients who received further ICI treatment (rechallenge) or did not undergo re-administration after grade ≥1 CIP between May 2017 and May 2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated from first or second ICI initiation to disease progression (PFS1 and PFS2, respectively), death, or last follow-up (OS1 and OS2, respectively). The recurrence of CIP and new irAEs in these patients after ICI rechallenge were calculated.ResultsAmong 107 patients afflicted with CIP, 45 (42.1%) received ICI rechallenge. Multivariate analysis showed that severe grade (grades ≥3) and ground-glass opacity of pneumonitis lesions were negatively associated with rechallenge. Following rechallenge, 9 (20.0%) patients developed recurrent pneumonitis, and 11 (24.4%) developed a new irAE. Severe grade of CIP and poor performance status at initial CIP as well as levels of interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP), and absolute white blood cell and neutrophil counts at the time of ICI rechallenge were associated with a higher recurrence rate. The median (95% confidence interval) PFS1 and PFS2 were 17.9 (9.9-24.2) and 15.5 (5.5-25.6) months, respectively. The median (95% confidence interval) OS1 and OS2 were 23.5 (16.5-30.5) and 18.4 (10.1-26.7) months, respectively. Lower OS2 was observed in patients with severe grade of CIP and poor performance status at the initial CIP, recurrence of CIP, and in patients with high levels of CRP and IL-6 at rechallenge. Only IL-6 was found to affect OS2 on multivariate analysis.ConclusionsICI rechallenge following CIP may be a promising treatment for patients with advanced lung cancer, particularly in those with low-grade of CIP and good performance status at initial CIP, and low levels of IL-6 and CRP at the time of initial challenge. Prospective studies are needed for further verification.

Project description:BackgroundThe rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is now an optional strategy for patients who discontinued ICI due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or disease progression. However, little data is available for the prognosis and prognostic factors of patients receiving ICI rechallenge treatment in advanced lung cancer patients. Our study aimed to explore the efficacy, prognosis and safety of patients who received anti-programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitor rechallenge.MethodsIn our retrospective cohort study, data of advanced lung cancer patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and discontinued due to irAEs or disease progression were collected from December 2016 to August 2021. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups: rechallenge group (R group) and non-rechallenge group (NR group). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and safety data were analyzed. Cox model and subgroup analysis were analyzed according to baseline characteristics, ICI type, the reason for discontinuing ICI, etc. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), evaluation was performed routinely every 6-8 weeks after initiating treatment with the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. The last follow-up in the study was on September 20, 2021.ResultsEighty-one patients who met our inclusion criteria were enrolled. In the whole cohort, the R group achieved better OS than the NR group [hazard ratio (HR) =0.176; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.065-0.477; P=0.001). In the irAEs group, the survival analyses showed a trend toward improved OS in the rechallenge subgroup (HR =0.287; 95% CI: 0.081-1.025; P=0.055), and a promising DCR of 75% after an ICI rechallenge. Additionally, the exploration of safety outcomes indicated an acceptable recurrence rate (22.5%) of irAEs and an early onset of irAEs after an ICI rechallenge. In the disease progression group, the rechallenge subgroup did not improve OS (HR =0.214; 95% CI: 0.027-1.695; P=0.144), and the DCR of the rechallenge subgroup was 40% after ICI rechallenge.ConclusionsICI rechallenge might be an attractive option for patients who discontinue treatment due to irAEs. For patients with disease progression, further research should be conducted. The recurrence of irAEs and their early onset during the second round of ICI should be considered.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor rechallenge following ribociclib-induced limiting hypertransaminasemia.

Publications

Safety and efficacy of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor rechallenge following ribociclib-induced limiting hypertransaminasemia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets