Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy For Cancer Research Articles

A systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab for advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric cancer.

e16060 Background: Esophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric cancers make up about 1% of the cancer cases in the United States and most patients are diagnosed at advanced stages. Despite treatment options available, these patients have a median survival of about one year. Due to the advancement in treatment using immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy, this class of medications were recently approved for their use in patients with esophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric cancer. A literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of use of nivolumab in these group of patients. Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases using pre-specified search terms. We included only RCTs comparing Nivolumab with/without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, in patients with advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal, or gastric cancer. Co-primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). We also reported response rates, sensitivity analysis and adverse effects (AE), using fixed effects model via RevMan 5.4 software. Results: Three RCTs were included with a total of 2,645 patient and a median follow-up of 13 months. The patients’ mean age was 62±22 years, 75% were males, 79% were stage IV metastatic disease, and 29% had ≥1% PD-L1 expression. Compared to the chemotherapy group, Nivolumab group had a significantly favorable OS and PFS [HR 0.78;95% CI (0.69, 0.87), P < 0.001], [HR 0.83;95% CI (0.75, 0.92), P < 0.001] respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed significant effect of Nivolumab only in patients with ≥1 % PD L1 expression [HR 0.71; 95% CI (0.64, 0.80), P < 0.001]. Chemotherapy group had a significantly favorable outcome regarding serious AE [OR 1.57;95% CI (1.28, 1.93), P < 0.001], and diarrhea [OR 1.29;95% CI (1.07, 1.56), P = 0.007], with no difference regarding AE leading to death [OR 1.75;95% CI (0.88, 3.47), P = 0.11]. Conclusions: The use of nivolumab in patients with advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric cancers is associated with improved disease-free survival and overall survival compared to treatment with chemotherapy, albeit at an increased risk of serious adverse effects. The improvement in survival was significant in patients with ≥1% PD L1 expression.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy.

The discovery of immune checkpoint proteins such as PD-1/PDL-1 and CTLA-4 represents a significant breakthrough in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Therefore, humanized monoclonal antibodies, targeting these immune checkpoint proteins have been utilized successfully in patients with metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck cancers and non-small lung cancer. The US FDA has successfully approved three different categories of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as PD-1 inhibitors (Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, and Cemiplimab), PDL-1 inhibitors (Atezolimumab, Durvalumab and Avelumab), and CTLA-4 inhibitor (Ipilimumab). Unfortunately, not all patients respond favourably to these drugs, highlighting the role of biomarkers such as Tumour mutation burden (TMB), PDL-1 expression, microbiome, hypoxia, interferon-γ, and ECM in predicting responses to ICIs-based immunotherapy. The current study aims to review the literature and updates on ICIs in cancer therapy.

Distinct molecular and immune hallmarks of inflammatory arthritis induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including arthritis (arthritis-irAE). Management of arthritis-irAE is challenging because immunomodulatory therapy for arthritis should not impede antitumor immunity. Understanding of the mechanisms of arthritis-irAE is critical to overcome this challenge, but the pathophysiology remains unknown. Here, we comprehensively analyze peripheral blood and/or synovial fluid samples from 20 patients with arthritis-irAE, and unmask a prominent Th1-CD8+ T cell axis in both blood and inflamed joints. CX3CR1hi CD8+ T cells in blood and CXCR3hi CD8+ T cells in synovial fluid, the most clonally expanded T cells, significantly share TCR repertoires. The migration of blood CX3CR1hi CD8+ T cells into joints is possibly mediated by CXCL9/10/11/16 expressed by myeloid cells. Furthermore, arthritis after combined CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitor therapy preferentially has enhanced Th17 and transient Th1/Th17 cell signatures. Our data provide insights into the mechanisms, predictive biomarkers, and therapeutic targets for arthritis-irAE.

The True Mechanisms Behind Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Cancer

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) therapy is the most exciting development in cancer treatments in recent years. As of the end of 2021, more than a hundred of clinical trials have been carried out by several major drug makers and research hospitals all over the world just to explore the use of ICI antibodies in almost every type of cancer and under various clinical settings. These clinical trials have resulted waves of good news in every year’s major academic conferences and FDA approvals, and now ICI therapy is in the move to take over traditional therapy to become the major player in clinical management of cancer. On the other hand, most of these clinical trials have failed to show clear benefits in most cancer patients, and only few have been reported in public. In real-world clinical setting, ICI antibodies are being massively and sometimes abusively prescribed for almost every desperate situation with clear clinical benefit in only a few (<10%). Yet, the enthusiasm behind ICI therapy is not dampened by the massive clinical failure but has been growing. The reason for the consistent enthusiasm among clinicians and patients is the miracle-like clinical responses seen in some of the responders that even including late-stage hopeless cases. Every clinician wants to repeat this miracle in the next seemingly identical patient, and every patient and their family members want to believe that they are in line for that miracle. But the reality is disheartening in that clinicians do not see the predictable repeat of miracle-like responses in seemingly identical patients and most patients selecting ICI therapy as the last straw in life did not benefit from it, if not hurt by it. What then are the reasons that ICI therapy is so impressive when working and so unpredictable in responses? This review attempts to draw some mechanistic aspects based on our own experiences in ICI therapy and to come up with a different explanation for the unexplained clinical observations. The goal of this review is to alert the clinical field about the danger and irreversible damages that wrongly used ICI antibodies may cause, and at the same time to introduce some preliminary criteria to select proper patient for the benefits and to avoid the harms of ICI therapy.

Radical benefits and harms associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in cancer and the true mechanisms behind

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) therapy is the most exciting development in cancer treatments in recent years. As of the end of 2021, more than a hundred of clinical trials have been carried out by several major drug makers and research hospitals all over the world just to explore the use of ICI antibodies in almost every type of cancer and under various clinical settings. These clinical trials have resulted waves of good news in every year’s major academic conferences and FDA approvals, and now ICI therapy is in the move to take over traditional therapy to become the major player in clinical management of cancer. On the other hand, most of these clinical trials have failed to show clear benefits in most cancer patients, and only few have been reported in public. In real-world clinical setting, ICI antibodies are being massively and sometimes abusively prescribed for almost every desperate situation with clear clinical benefit in only a few (<10%). Yet, the enthusiasm behind ICI therapy is not dampened by the massive clinical failure but has been growing. The reason for the consistent enthusiasm among clinicians and patients is the miracle-like clinical responses seen in some of the responders that even including late-stage hopeless cases. Every clinician wants to repeat this miracle in the next seemingly identical patient, and every patient and their family members want to believe that they are in line for that miracle. But the reality is disheartening in that clinicians do not see the predictable repeat of miracle-like responses in seemingly identical patients and most patients selecting ICI therapy as the last straw in life did not benefit from it, if not hurt by it. What then are the reasons that ICI therapy is so impressive when working and so unpredictable in responses? This review attempts to draw some mechanistic aspects based on our own experiences in ICI therapy and to come up with a different explanation for the unexplained clinical observations. The goal of this review is to alert the clinical field about the danger and irreversible damages that wrongly used ICI antibodies may cause, and at the same time to introduce some preliminary criteria to select proper patient for the benefits and to avoid the harms of ICI therapy

20P Identifying novel biomarkers with deep proteomics profiling and survival analysis in NSCLC patients treated with anti-PD-1-blockade

Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy has significantly improved response and survival rates of patients with various cancer types including NSCLC. However, only a fraction of patients experienced clinical benefit. Existing predictive biomarkers are suboptimal especially when outcomes such as progression free survival (PFS) or overall survival are applied. Hence, the use of novel tools in precision medicine such as state-of-the-art proteomics using data independent acquisition mass spectrometry (DIA-MS) could address some of these drawbacks.

Unsatisfied Reporting Quality of Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Cancer.

BackgroundMore and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.MethodsThe PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.ResultsOf the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).ConclusionImmune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.

Effect of a multidisciplinary Severe Immunotherapy Complications Service on outcomes for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer

BackgroundIn 2017, Massachusetts General Hospital implemented the Severe Immunotherapy Complications (SIC) Service, a multidisciplinary care team for patients hospitalized with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), a unique spectrum of toxicities associated...

Developing and characterizing a single-domain antibody (nanobody) against human cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (hCTLA-4).

Objective(s):Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) is the most important human immune checkpoint that modulates T cells activity and brings about immune-homeostasis. Accordingly, checkpoint inhibitor cancer therapy has been approved as a growing method to block over-expressed immune checkpoints, such as CTLA-4 receptors. Considering the competitive characteristics of single-domain antibodies with monoclonal antibodies, we tried to develop a camelid Nanobody against human CTLA-4. Materials and Methods:We have constructed the VHH gene library by using immunized-camel peripheral blood mononuclear cells and carrying out the Nested-PCR technique. VHH-library was screened by phage display technique and specific nanobodies against CTLA-4 protein were selected and amplified with bio-panning steps. Stronger binders were screened by Periplasmic Extract-ELISA, followed by estimating the complexity of the library. Specific anti-CTLA-4 Nanobody and 3hCTL55, with longer CDR3 and a higher binding rate, were selected for more assays. Results:Results revealed the existence of two different clones in the library with 108 binders. In comparison with seven different antigens, using the ELISA technique confirmed the specificity of Nanobody 3hCTL55 against human CTLA-4 antigen. We calculated Nanobody 3hCTL55 affinity for human CTLA-4 antigen at 50×10-9 M, approximately. Performing western blot and Flow-cytometry techniques showed that Nanobody 3hCTL55 was able to specifically detect and attach both commercial human CTLA-4 protein and human CTLA-4 antigen on the cell surface and in the cell lysate. Conclusion:Taken together, this developed camelid-specific anti-CTLA-4 Nanobody 3hCTL55, selected from a high-quality immune library by phage display technique, may be effective for further study about cancer diagnosis and cancer-therapy purposes.

Prolonged estrogen deprivation triggers a broad immunosuppressive phenotype in breast cancer cells.

Among others, expression levels of programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD‐L1) have been explored as biomarkers of the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy. Here, we present the results of a chemical screen that interrogated how medically approved drugs influence PD‐L1 expression. As expected, corticosteroids and inhibitors of Janus kinases were among the top PD‐L1 downregulators. In addition, we identified that PD‐L1 expression is induced by antiestrogenic compounds. Transcriptomic analyses indicate that chronic estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) inhibition triggers a broad immunosuppressive program in ER‐positive breast cancer cells, which is subsequent to their growth arrest and involves the activation of multiple immune checkpoints together with the silencing of the antigen‐presenting machinery. Accordingly, estrogen‐deprived MCF7 cells are resistant to T‐cell‐mediated cell killing, in a manner that is independent of PD‐L1, but which is reverted by estradiol. Our study reveals that while antiestrogen therapies efficiently limit the growth of ER‐positive breast cancer cells, they concomitantly trigger a transcriptional program that favors their immune evasion.

The role of gut microbiome in modulating response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in cancer

Immunotherapy has led to a paradigm shift in the treatment of several cancers. There have been significant efforts to identify biomarkers that can predict response and toxicities related to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPI) therapy. Despite these advances, it has been challenging to tease out why a subset of patients benefit more than others or why certain patients experience immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Although the immune-modulating properties of the human gut bacterial ecosystem are yet to be fully elucidated, there has been growing interest in evaluating the role of the gut microbiome in shaping the therapeutic response to cancer immunotherapy. Considerable research efforts are currently directed to utilizing metagenomic and metabolic profiling of stool microbiota in patients on ICPI-based therapies. Dysbiosis or loss of microbial diversity has been associated with a poor treatment response to ICPIs and worse survival outcomes in cancer patients. Emerging data have shown that certain bacterial strains, such as Faecalibacterium that confer sensitivity to ICPI, also have a higher propensity to increase the risk of irAEs. Additionally, the microbiome can modulate the local immune response at the intestinal interface and influence the trafficking of bacterial peptide primed T-cells distally, influencing the toxicity patterns to ICPI. Antibiotic or diet induced alterations in composition of the microbiome can also indirectly alter the production of certain bacterial metabolites such as deoxycholate and short chain fatty acids that can influence the anti-tumor tolerogenesis. Gaining sufficient understanding of the exact mechanisms underpinning the interplay between ICPI induced anti-tumor immunity and the immune modulatory role gut microbiome can be vital in identifying potential avenues of improving outcomes to cancer immunotherapy. In the current review, we have summarized and highlighted the key emerging data supporting the role of gut microbiome in regulating response to ICPIs in cancer.

Hyperprogression after Immunotherapy: Nivolumab. Analysis of Imaging Findings Associated with Hyperprogression and Tumor Growth Kinetics.

Introduction The increased use of new checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy has led to the discovery of new unconventional responses, like pseudoprogression and hyperprogression disease (HPD). The study documents imaging findings of HPD and analyzes the growth kinetics in advanced metastatic cancers patients treated with immunotherapy. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with anti-PD-1 (anti-progressive disease-1) antibody therapy (nivolumab) between January 2017 and December 2017 at our institute. The patients who exhibited early and rapid progression rates after initiation of immunotherapy were further analyzed for tumor growth kinetics (TGKs) and imaging findings. All prebaseline, baseline, and post nivolumab imaging were retrospectively reviewed to assess the TGKs, time to treatment failure (TTF), and rate of progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. Results Four patients with HPD had peculiar imaging appearance of unilateral circumferential nodular pleural thickening along with conglomerate pleural masses and effusions. Both primary and secondary sites progressed along with the appearance of new lesions in all these patients. The mean progression-free survival (PFS) was 32 days using Kaplan Meier analysis. Conclusion The unique and recurring imaging pattern of disease progression in patients with HPD as reported in our case series in addition to TGK ratio, and TTF may prove to be of additional help in early identification of this unique and ghastly outcome.

Considerations for Use of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy for Patients with Co-Existing Thyroid Eye Disease.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionised the field of oncology. While most ICIs are well-tolerated, severe and fatal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been documented, likely related to the strengthened immunity harnessed by ICIs against tumours. Endocrinopathies are some of the most common irAEs, with both hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism encountered after ICI use. As such, patients with pre-existing autoimmune conditions, such as Graves’ disease (GD) with clinically active thyroid eye disease (TED), are excluded from most clinical trials studying ICIs due to concerns of exacerbating pre-existing autoimmune conditions or of increasing the potential for irAE development. The limited information currently available on the safety and efficacy of ICIs in this population poses a clinical challenge for oncologists. The objective of this commentary is to highlight these challenges and provide treatment recommendations pertaining to two specific cohorts of patients with GD, namely GD patients with minimal eye complications and GD patients with previous TED who underwent radiotherapy, surgery or pulse methylprednisolone and whose disease is now quiescent, and to patients with subclinical autoimmune thyroid disease.

NIVOLUMAB-INDUCED DIABETIC KETOACIDOSIS

SESSION TITLE: Medical Student/Resident Critical Care Posters SESSION TYPE: Med Student/Res Case Rep Postr PRESENTED ON: October 18-21, 2020 INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab are used to treat a diverse spectrum of malignancies. There has been an increased percentage of patients eligible for the use of checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy over recent years. With the increased use of these medications, more immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been identified and are becoming more common in clinical practice, raising the importance of early recognition. We present a case of a 62-year-old male with a history of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus type II who presented with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) after 2 cycles of nivolumab. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient is a 62-year-old male with a past medical history of stage III C melanoma, non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. He had been started on nivolumab for malignant melanoma and completed 2 cycles. Approximately 10 days after his second cycle, the patient developed progressive confusion, polydipsia, and weakness, and presented to the emergency room. On arrival the patient had lab abnormalities consistent with DKA including glucose 773 mg/dL, anion gap 34, HCO3 < 5 mmol/L, pH 7.071, and beta-hydroxybutyrate 135 mg/dL. The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit and started on an insulin drip, which was transitioned to subcutaneous insulin before discharge. The patient decided to stop nivolumab given the irAE. DISCUSSION: With the increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, physicians should be familiar with the common irAEs that have been reported, including in the gastrointestinal system (colitis, hepatitis, pancreatitis), endocrine system (DKA, type I diabetes, hypoparathyroidism), cardiovascular system (myocarditis, cardiac arrest, heart failure), pulmonary system (pneumonitis), and renal system (AKI). It has been shown in a small cohort study that DKA from nivolumab tends to occur within the first five cycles of therapy. In addition to causing DKA, nivolumab has also been shown to worsen glycemic control in patients with existing type II diabetes, leading to increased insulin requirements. Patients with a known history of diabetes who are starting nivolumab therapy should be made aware of this irAE in order to closely monitor for signs of hyperglycemia during the first few cycles of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Checkpoint inhibitors are being more frequently used to treat certain types of malignancies. Practitioners should be aware of potentially serious complications including DKA and worsening glycemic control, such as reported with this patient. Monitoring blood glucose and HbA1C levels before and after initiation of an immune checkpoint inhibitor should be discussed with patients prior to initiating therapy, in order to help monitor for potentially serious complications, especially if the patient has diabetes. Reference #1: Bajwa R, Cheema A, Khan T, et al. Adverse Effects of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (Programmed Death-1 Inhibitors and Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte-Associated Protein-4 Inhibitors): Results of a Retrospective Study. J Clin Med Res. 2019;11(4):225-236. doi:10.14740/jocmr3750 Reference #2: Kotwal A, Haddox C, Block M, Kudva YC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors: an emerging cause of insulin-dependent diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019;7(1):e000591. Published 2019 Feb 13. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2018-000591 DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Jonathan Burgei, source=Web Response

Understanding Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy, Mechanisms of Action, Resistance and Future Challenges

The immune system is the human body’s natural defence against mutated cells produced as the result of DNA replicative error or by the effect of carcinogens, a process rereferred to as immune surveillance. ‘Escaping’ of cancer cells from immune surveillance leads to tumor development, metastasis and progression. Avoiding detection and destruction by the immune system are the result of cancer cells evolution, caused primarily by cancer cells’ genomic instability. On the other hand, scientists attempted for decades to exploit the anticancer effect of the immune system with limited success. However, better understanding of the mechanisms behind the cancer cells’ ability to avoid detection and suppression by the immune system resulted in the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, a form of immunotherapy, first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011. This article reviews the pathways involved in anticancer immune response, evading and supressing of the immune system by cancer cells mechanisms of action and successes of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), particularly programmed death1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand (PD-L1) inhibitors as well as mechanisms that result in resistance of cancer cells to ICI.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer Therapy in the COVID-19 Era.

The potential immune intersection between COVID-19 disease and cancer therapy raises important practical clinical questions and highlights multiple scientific gaps to be filled. Among available therapeutic approaches to be considered, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) seem to require major attention as they may act at the crossroads between cancer treatment and COVID-19 disease, due to their profound immunomodulatory activity. On the basis of available literature evidence, we suggest guidance to consider for treating physicians, and propose areas of clinical and preclinical investigation. Comprehensively, although with the necessary caution, ICI therapy seems to remain a suitable therapeutic option for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peripheral cytokine levels as predictive biomarkers of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy

Currently, only a small subset of cancer patients can benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, indicating that further predictive biomarkers are needed. In the retrospective study, plasma samples were collected before anti-PD-L1/PD-L1 treatment in two subsets of patients. A total of 59 immunological factors, including cytokines, chemokines, and soluble immune checkpoints, were measured by using a multiplex immunoassay kit. Moreover, multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) was performed in a subgroup of patients. In the discovery cohort, multiplex immunoassay profiling data revealed that both soluble PD-L1 and C-C motif chemokine 5 (CCL5/RANTES) showed rising trends across the three subgroups PD, SD and CR/PR. Further investigation demonstrated the predictive and prognostic value of the pre-treatment levels of PD-L1, CCL5/RANTES, and their combinatorial signature the “2-cytokine signature”. As expected, the signature-high patients displayed a remarkably increased disease control rate (DCR) and prolonged survival versus that of the lower subgroup. More importantly, the relevance between the three signatures and the efficiency of immunotherapy was confirmed in the pan-cancer validation cohort. Notably, the significant association between the “2-cytokine signature” and longer survival was validated. Further quantitative analyses of the tumor microenvironment composition suggested a link between the “2-cytokine signature” and NK cell infiltration. In conclusion, a combined peripheral signature comprising CCL5/RANTES and soluble PD-L1 appears to be an effective biomarker to predict benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. Our study underscores that peripheral immunological features may play an essential role in guiding patient selection and are worthy of future prospective investigations.

Phase Ib study of a novel bivalent IAP antagonist APG-1387 in combination of pembrolizumab for patients with advanced solid tumors.

3508 Background: APG-1387 is an IAP (inhibitor of apoptosis proteins) antagonist that has strong antitumor activity in multiple xenograft cancer models and acts as a host immune modulator, supporting its exploration for use in combination with checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy. Methods: This “3+3” dose escalation and dose expansion study evaluated APG-1387 combined with pembrolizumab in patients with refractory or intolerant advanced solid tumors (NCT03386526). APG-1387 was administered IV once weekly with pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Study aims were to assess safety/tolerability, recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and efficacy. Results: As of December 25, 2019, total 28 patients had been treated in 3 dose cohorts of APG-1387: 20 mg (n = 4), 30 mg (n = 3), and 45 mg (n = 21, 18 in dose expansion). The median line of prior systemic cancer therapies was 3.0 (1-12). No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs; ≥10%) were fatigue (28.6%), arthralgia (14.3%), headache (14.3%), and tumor pain (10.7%). One patient in the 45-mg cohort had grade 2 Bell’s Palsy. G3+ TRAEs were autoimmune colitis, hypoxia, increased lipase, mucosal inflammation, pneumonitis, and tumor pain in 1 patient each (3.6%). Treatment-related SAEs were 1 G3 autoimmune colitis, 1 G2 myocarditis, and 1 G3 pneumonitis. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/RP2D for APG-1387 was 45 mg. Among 25 efficacy-evaluable patients, 1 with ER+, HER2‒ breast cancer receiving APG-1387 30 mg after failing 5 lines of therapy (PD-1 treatment-naïve, microsatellite stable) achieved confirmed PR (-79.2%) for 6 cycles but discontinued due to pneumonitis; another patient with PD-L1‒ non‒small-cell lung cancer treated at 45 mg had confirmed PR (-65.0%) for 6 cycles (ongoing). Other 11 patients had SD for 2-11 cycles. The disease control rate was 52%. Preliminary PK data showed a dose-proportional increase in APG-1387 exposure from 20 mg to 45 mg. Preliminary PD data showed that APG-1387 induced rapid degradation of cellular IAP1 and X-linked IAP in peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples; Increased serum release of interleukins (IL-12, IL-10) and monocyte chemotactic protein 4 was dose and time dependent. Conclusions: APG-1387 combined with pembrolizumab is well tolerated. Encouraging antitumor effects were observed in patients with several tumor types. The ongoing study will further evaluate the efficacy of this combination. Clinical trial information: NCT03386526 .

SAT-674 Anti PD1 Induced Type 1 Diabetes

Introduction: Pembrolizumab t is used to treat various cancers. It is associated with immune related adverse events (IRAEs) that can be life threatening [1,4]. We describe a patient who presented autoimmune Diabetes after the use of Pembrolizumab. Case: 64 y/o African American female PMHX of lung non-small cell lung cancer diagnosed in 2017 Clinical stage IV with gluteal metastasis, and dementia. Pt was referred by Oncology. The patient had a family history of Type 1 DM. and complained of dizziness, and unintentional weight loss (30 pounds) over a year. She had received 2 cycles of Pembrolizumab. The last cycle given 5 weeks before presentation to Endocrinology.Physical examination revealed cachectic female (weight 35 kg, height 147cm), dry mouth, BP 135/82, Plasma glucose 383mg%, A1c 7, negative Islet cell antibodies, positive anti-GAD, undetectableserum C-peptide. Cortisol 27, Acth 21 at 8 am and TSH 2.3. Discussion: In a systematic literature review, the early pattern of Diabetes onset with the use of checkpoint inhibitors was evaluated and on average after 4.5 treatment cycles [4].The incidence of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced Type 1 Diabetes is estimated at 1% [3].This appeared to be earlier for the combination of anti-cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody and PD-1 therapy. The onset of β cell inflammation is often fulminant, suggested by the relatively low glycated hemoglobin levels, while C-peptide levels are usually low or undetectable at diagnosis and mostly positive GAD antibodies [5]. This side effect is predominantly found in patients exposed to blockade of the PD-1/PD-Ligand pathway. The IRAEs are primarily managed by immunosuppression with corticosteroids and discontinuation of immunotherapy except in autoimmune Diabetes which is irreversible. Physicians should be aware of and patients educated about the important multiorgan side effects since a growing number of patients are treated with checkpoint blockade.Azoury SC, Straughan DM, Shukla V. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy: clinical efficacy and safety. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2015;15: 452-462Weber JS, Postow M, Lao CD, et al. Management of adverse events following treatment with anti-programmed death-1 agents. Oncologist 2016;21:1230-40Stamatouli AM, Quandt Z, Perdigoto AL, Clark PL, Kluger H,Weiss SA et al Collateral damage: insulin-dependent diabetes induced with checkpoint inhibitors. Diabetes 2018;67(8):1471-1480de Filette JMK, Pen JJ, Decoster L, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and Type 1 Diabetes mellitus: a case report and systematic review. Eur J Endocrinol. 2019;181(3):363–374.Akturk HK, Kahramangil D, Sarwal A, Hoffecker L, Murad MH, Michels AW. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced Type 1 Diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2019;36(9):1075–1081.

Peripheral Cytokine Levels as Predictive Biomarkers of Benefit from Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy

Background : Currently, only a small subset of cancer patients can benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, indicating that further predictive biomarkers are needed. Methods: In the retrospective study, plasma samples were collected before anti-PD-L1/PD-L1 treatment in two subset of patients. A total of 59 immunological factors, including cytokines, chemokines, and soluble immune checkpoints, were measured by using a multiplex immunoassay kit. Moreover, multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) was performed in a subgroup of patients. Findings: In the discovery cohort, multiplex immunoassay profiling data revealed that both soluble PD-L1 and C-C motif chemokine 5 (CCL5/RANTES) showed rising trends across the three subgroups PD, SD and CR/PR. Further investigation demonstrated the predictive and prognostic value of the pre-treatment levels of PD-L1, CCL5/RANTES, and their combinatorial signature the “2-cytokine signature”. As expected, the signature-high patients displayed a remarkably increased disease control rate (DCR) and prolonged survival versus that of the lower subgroup. More importantly, the relevance between the three signatures and the efficiency of immunotherapy was confirmed in the pan-cancer validation cohort. Notably, the significant association between the “2-cytokine signature” and longer survival was validated. Further quantitative analyses of the tumor microenvironment composition suggested a link between the “2-cytokine signature” and NK cell infiltration. Interpretation: A combined peripheral signature comprising CCL5/RANTES and soluble PD-L1 appears to be an effective biomarker to predict benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. Our study underscores that peripheral immunological features may play an essential role in guiding patient selection and are worthy of future prospective investigations. Funding: This work was supported by The National Key Sci-Tech Special Project of China (No. 2018ZX10302207). Declaration of Interests: HZ has received research funding from The National Key Sci-Tech Special Project of China. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the Internal Review and the Ethics Boards of the Fifth Medical Center, General Hospital of the PLA and were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient.