Dataset Information

A Prospective Trial Evaluating the Safety and Systemic Response From the Concurrent Use of Radiation Therapy with Checkpoint Inhibitor Immunotherapy in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction/background

This study assessed the safety and systemic (abscopal) response from the addition of local stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Patients/methods

Thirty-five patients with at least 2 sites of measurable disease on PET/CT received standard-of-care CPI immunotherapy alone (n = 19), or in combination with 4 cycles doublet carboplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy (n = 16), and 3 to 5 fractions SBRT to a single extracranial target lesion between cycles 1 to 2 of the systemic therapy. Adverse events were assessed using CTCAE version 5.0. Best systemic objective response rate (ORR) was assessed using iRECIST criteria, excluding any irradiated lesion(s). Additional SBRT to a different target lesion was offered to patients who continued on immunotherapy with unconfirmed progressive disease or mixed response.

Results

Fifteen patients (44%) experienced 22 grade 1 to 2 toxicities potentially attributable to radiation, most commonly pneumonitis (n = 9) and fatigue (n = 6), and no grade 3 to 5 radiation-induced toxicities. Patients undergoing combined CPI-chemotherapy received a lower median biologically effective dose of SBRT than those undergoing CPI monotherapy (43.2 vs. 60Gy), but had a higher rate of radiation-induced toxicity (56% vs. 32%, P < .01). The best systemic ORR was 53%, with 20.5% stable disease and 26.5% progressive disease. Fifteen patients underwent a subsequent course of SBRT based on their response, among which 3 (20%) had progression-free intervals of 12, 16, and 10 months thereafter.

Conclusions

Addition of SBRT to CPI immunotherapy (with/without chemotherapy) is safe. The favorable systemic response observed warrants further assessment with a randomized trial.

SUBMITTER: Mattes MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8310528 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeLocal radiation therapy (RT) combined with systemic anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 immunotherapy may enhance induction of systemic antimelanoma immune responses. The primary objective of the present trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of combining ipilimumab with RT in patients with stage IV melanoma. The secondary objectives included laboratory assessment of induction of antimelanoma immune responses.Methods and materialsIn our prospective clinical trial, 22 patients with stage IV melanoma were treated with palliative RT and ipilimumab for 4 cycles. RT to 1 to 2 disease sites was initiated within 5 days after starting ipilimumab. Patients had ≥1 nonirradiated metastasis measuring ≥1.5 cm available for response assessment. Tumor imaging studies were obtained at baseline, 2 to 4 weeks after cycle 4 of ipilimumab, and every 3 months until progression. Laboratory immune response parameters were measured before and during treatment.ResultsCombination therapy was well-tolerated without unexpected toxicities. Eleven patients (50.0%) experienced clinical benefit from therapy, including complete and partial responses and stable disease at median follow-up of 55 weeks. Three patients (27.3%) achieved an ongoing systemic complete response at a median follow-up of 55 weeks (range 32-65), and 3 (27.3%) had an initial partial response for a median of 40 weeks. Analysis of immune response data suggested a relationship between elevated CD8-activated T-cells and response.ConclusionThis is the second prospective clinical trial of treatment of metastatic melanoma using the combination of RT and systemic immunotherapy and the first using this sequence of therapy. The results from the present trial demonstrate that a subset of patients may benefit from combination therapy, arguing for continued clinical investigation of the use of RT combined with immunotherapy, including programmed cell death 1 inhibitors, which might have the potential to be even more effective in combination with RT.

Project description:Purpose:The objective of this study was to evaluate adverse events (AEs) in patients who received both immune checkpoint inhibitors and thoracic radiation therapy (RT). In particular, we compared the rate of toxicities of concurrent versus sequential delivery of thoracic RT and checkpoint inhibitors. Methods and Materials:Patient and treatment characteristics were collected on all patients at our institution who were treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and/or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors and underwent thoracic RT (n?=?79). Receiving both treatments within 1 month was considered concurrent (n?=?35; 44%), and any treatment up to 6 months apart was considered sequential (n?=?44; 56%). The primary endpoint of this study was the rate of Grade ?2 AEs from combination therapy (immunotherapy and RT), specifically those that are relevant to thoracic RT: Pneumonitis, other pulmonary events, esophagitis, dermatitis, and fatigue. Further univariate analysis was performed to compare AE rates with clinical and therapy-related variables. Results:A total of 79 patients were identified, with lung cancer (n?=?45) and melanoma (n?=?15) being the most common primary histology. Sixty-two (78%) patients were treated with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies, 12 (15%) with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies, and 5 (6%) received both anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. The median follow-up for survivors was 5.9 months (range, 2.4-55.6 months). Grade ?2 AEs included pneumonitis (n?=?5; 6%), esophagitis (n?=?6; 8%), and dermatitis (n?=?8; 10%). No statistically significant correlation was found between these AEs when comparing concurrent versus sequential treatment. The only significant variable was a correlation of immunotherapy drug category with Grade ?2 esophagitis (P?=?.04). Conclusions:Overall, Grade ?2 AE rates of thoracic RT and immunotherapy appeared as expected and acceptable. The lack of significant differences in AE rates with concurrent versus sequential treatment suggests that even concurrent immunotherapy and thoracic RT may be safe.

Project description:Background Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition (CPI) has recently demonstrated impressive outcomes in patients with stage 3 cutaneous melanoma. However, the safety, efficacy, and outcome of neoadjuvant CPI in patients with mucosal melanoma (MM) are not well studied as MM is a rare melanoma subtype. CPI such as combination nivolumab and ipilimumab achieves response rates of 37-43% in unresectable or metastatic MM but there is limited data regarding the efficacy of these agents in the preoperative setting. We hypothesize that neoadjuvant CPI is a safe and feasible approach for patients with resectable MM. Method Under an institutionally approved protocol, we identified adult MM patients with resectable disease who received neoadjuvant anti-PD1 +/- anti-CTLA4 between 2015 to 2019 at our institution. Clinical information include age, gender, presence of nodal involvement or satellitosis, functional status, pre-treatment LDH, tumor mutation status, and treatment data was collected. Outcomes include event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), pathologic response rate (PRR), and grade ≥3 toxicities. Results We identified 36 patients. Median age was 62; 58% were female. Seventy-eight percent of patients received anti-PD1 + anti-CTLA4. Node positive disease or satellite lesions was present at the time of treatment initiation in 47% of patients. Primary sites of disease were anorectal (53%), urogenital (25%), head and neck (17%), and esophageal (6%). A minority of patients did not undergo surgery due to complete response (n=3, 8%) and disease progression (n=6, 17%), respectively. With a median follow up of 37.9 months, the median EFS was 9.2 months with 3-year EFS rate of 29%. Median OS had not been reached and 3-year OS rate was 55%. ORR was 47% and PRR was 35%. EFS was significantly higher for patients with objective response and for patients with pathologic response. OS was significantly higher for patients with pathologic response. Grade 3 toxicities were reported in 39% of patients. Conclusion Neoadjuvant CPI for resectable MM is a feasible approach with signs of efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. As there is currently no standard approach for resectable MM, this study supports further investigations using neoadjuvant therapy for these patients.