Okay. This post is A LOT!!!
Clearly steroids are potent medications that NOBODY should take lightly. Steroids should NOT be administered if you have a cold - a sore joint - or lots of things medical providers use them for far too frequently. However, when they are truly needed and dosed appropriately, they can not only save lives, but make life much more livable. Back in the day, docs thought that if you took steroids while on immunotherapy you would defeat that entire purpose and fail to gain a beneficial response from that therapy. WRONG!!!! Again, these drugs should be taken only when they are absolutely needed! But, given the unfortunate side effects that can be caused by immunotherapy, steroids and other immunosuppressive drugs are often required in order to deal with life threatening side effects, enable the continuance of life saving therapy and we've learned - those patients CAN ATTAIN A GOOD RESPONSE!!! Here are a zillion articles: Steroids and immunotherapy
Now, there's this:
Early use of high-dose-glucocorticoid for the management
of irAE is associated with poorer survival in patients with advanced melanoma
treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy.
Bai, Hu, Warner, et al. Clin
Cancer Res. August 2021.
Background: Programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1)
inhibitors are front-line therapy in advanced melanoma. Severe immune-related
adverse effects (irAEs) often require immunosuppressive treatment with
glucocorticoids (GCCs), but GCC use and its correlation with patient survival
outcomes during anti-PD-1 monotherapy remains unclear.
Methods: In this multicenter retrospective analysis,
patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019 and detailed
GCC use data were identified from five independent cohorts, with median
follow-up time of 206 weeks. IrAEs were tracked from the initiation of
anti-PD-1 until disease progression, initiation of a new therapy, or last
follow-up. Correlations between irAEs, GCC use, and survival outcomes were
analyzed.
Results: Of the entire cohort of 947 patients, 509(54%)
developed irAEs. In the MGH cohort (irAE(+)n=90), early-onset irAE (within 8
weeks of anti-PD-1 initiation) with high-dose-GCC use ({greater than or equal
to}60mg prednisone equivalent qd) was independently associated with poorer
post-irAE PFS/OS compared to irAE without
early-high-dose-GCC use. These findings were validated in the combined
validation cohort. Similar findings were also
observed in the 26-week landmark analysis for post-irAE-PFS but not for
post-irAE-OS. A sensitivity analysis using accumulated GCC exposure as the
measurement achieved similar results.
Conclusions: Early high-dose-GCC use was associated with poorer PFS and OS after irAE onset. Judicious use of GCC early during anti-PD-1 monotherapy should be considered. Further prospective randomized control clinical trials designed to explore alternative irAE management options are warranted.
Given the title of this article and the data included in the abstract this sounds pretty bad! The authors indicate that the folks who had high dose steroids early in their treatment did not do as well as those who did not take steroids. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks to having super duper friends who can gain access to the whole enchilada (ie the entire report) like my Edster - here's some very important information that the title and abstract fail to share:
"We further tested the correlation between irAEs that led to the use of high-dose-GCC and post irAE OS. Notably, in the 8-week landmark analysis, irAEs that led to high-dose-GCC were associated with poorer post-irAE OS in both cohorts. For patients with and without high-dose-GCC associated within 8 weeks after anti-PD-1 monotherapy...."
"In the 26-week landmark analysis, marginal significant negative correlation between high-dose-GCC associated irAEs and post-irAEs OS was only observed in the MGH exploratory cohort but not in the combined validation cohort."
"The major limitation of this study is that it is a retrospective analysis, making it susceptible to potential selection, measurement, and reporting biases. Although we used objective measurements for most cases, those biases cannot be entirely excluded. Over half of the irAEs that led to early use of high-dose-GCC also led to the early discontinuation of anti-PD-1 monotherapy, which may contribute to the poorer survival."
YOU THINK??????? Oh! EMMMM! Geeeee!!!! Yet you research peeps felt just fine giving it the title you did. Wowsers!!!
Do I think it is good to take steroids in the midst of immunotherapy? No. Because that means you are having trouble tolerating the very thing you are taking - Not for fun. Not to look cute. Not because you don't have anything better to do with your time - BUT TO SAVE YOUR LIFE!!!! And if we can't tolerate the thing we need to kill melanoma before it kills us - then we have a problem!!! A big one! If we had a way to enable those with serious side effects to tolerate therapy without steroid use - that would be great!!! Many researchers are working on drugs that can be combined with immunotherapy that will help diminish side effects as we currently know them. Hopefully, that research will find options soon. Still, if I were queen of the world, I would make a great deal more use of flexible dosing schedules for folks with side effects. For instance - in my Phase 1 trial back in 2010 - my cohort was given nivolumab (Opdivo) at only 1mg/kg and we did pretty well!!!! Granted, the cohort after me was treated with 3mg/kg and the next was given 10mg/kg. For those of you who aren't aware - phase 1 trials are actually simply dosing studies. They are not created to see response rates and such. Nope. Just how much drug can you take without growing three heads!!! And, indeed - we found that those treated with the most nivo did best, but they also had the most side effects. That's how we ended up with what is the roughly 3mg/kg dose we use today. BUT, that pretty much proves my point, doesn't it? If folks can't tolerate the full dose without impossible side effects, why not see if they can tolerate a lesser one?
Now - what happens to those for whom steroids do not do enough to control their side effects and require infliximab?
Clinical outcomes of patients with corticosteroid
refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced enterocolitis treated with
infliximab. Alexander, Ibraheim,
Sheth, et al. J Immunother Cancer. Jul 2021.
Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have
changed the treatment landscape for many cancers, but also cause severe
inflammatory side effects including enterocolitis. CPI-induced enterocolitis is
treated empirically with corticosteroids, and infliximab (IFX) is used in
corticosteroid-refractory cases. However, robust outcome data for these
patients are scarce.
Methods: We conducted a multicenter (six cancer centers),
cohort study of outcomes in patients treated with IFX for
corticosteroid-refractory CPI-induced enterocolitis between 2007 and 2020. The
primary outcome was corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CFCR) with Common
Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 0 for diarrhea at 12
weeks after IFX initiation. We also assessed cancer outcomes at 1 year using
RECIST V1.1 criteria.
Results: 127 patients (73 male; median age 59 years) were
treated with IFX for corticosteroid-refractory CPI-induced enterocolitis.
Ninety-six (75.6%) patients had diarrhea CTCAE grade greeater than 2 and 115 (90.6%)
required hospitalization for colitis. CFCR was 41.2% at 12 weeks and 50.9% at
26 weeks. In multivariable logistic regression, IFX-resistant enterocolitis was
associated with rectal bleeding and
absence of colonic crypt abscesses.
Cancer non-progression was significantly more common in patients with
IFX-resistant enterocolitis (64.4%) as compared with patients with
IFX-responsive enterocolitis (37.5%).
Conclusion: This is the largest study to date reporting outcomes of IFX therapy in patients with corticosteroid-refractory CPI-induced enterocolitis. Using predefined robust endpoints, we have demonstrated that fewer than half of patients achieved CFCR. Our data also indicate that cancer outcomes may be better in patients developing prolonged and severe inflammatory side effects of CPI therapy.
This is not the first time that researchers have found that folks with side effects - particularly vitiligo, rashes and colitis - are associated with good melanoma outcomes:
From earlier this year ~ This stuff is still weird - Side effects to immunotherapy - Part 11! Heart problems, diabetes, arthritis - Oh MY!!! BUT!!! Colitis may be associated with a favorable response!!!!
Interesting, no? Now, if you have had a bad reaction to immunotherapy can you resume that therapy?
Response to immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge
after high-grade immune related adverse events in patients with advanced melanoma. Shah, Punekar, Pavlick. Melanoma Res. Jun 2021.
Twenty to sixty percent of patients receiving immune
checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) experience high-grade immune-related adverse
events (irAEs) which may prevent the continuation of treatment. Limited
clinical evidence is available to guide treatment for these patients. Patients
with stage IV or unresectable stage III melanoma at NYU Langone Health were
reviewed from 1 January 2014 to 1 July 2019. Patients with first-line ICI
systemic therapy, a high-grade irAE and a rechallenge with ICI therapy were
included. Postrechallenge irAE recurrence, response rate, overall survival (OS)
and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. Postrechallenge irAEs
recurred in 71.9% (n = 23/32) of patients at a median of 5.1 weeks from
rechallenge, with 46.9% (15/32) recurring as high-grade events. Clinical
response was achieved in 46.9% (15/32) of patients, including 40.6% (13/32)
with a complete response and 6.3% (2/32) with partial response. Median OS from
first ICI initiation was 85.4 weeks (45.7-140.7) and
median PFS was 42.9 weeks (29.2-114.2). Patients with a
shorter time to initial irAE and shorter time to postrechallenge irAE were at
greater risk for disease progression. Those with greater duration to rechallenge (greater than 10 weeks) were at
lower risk for disease progression.
ICI rechallenge can be considered in patients with advanced melanoma, as the
risk-benefit profile appears favorable. Treatment toxicity should be
appropriately managed, as longer durations to rechallenge may lower the risk of
disease progression.
That last sentence circles back to my conclusion to the first article (as well as that of the authors within the report) in that the longer we can keep folks on therapy, the better they do. So, if we can control side effects and allow patients to stay on therapy - even if steroids are required - they are less likely to experience progression of their melanoma! Further, if folks have to stop immunotherapy due to side effects - can they return to that therapy? There is this from 2017: Melanoma patients continuing Nivo after having adverse reactions to the ipi/nivo combo??? Yes, you can!
I would suggest that this would be the time to seek the care of a melanoma specialist if you aren't managed by one already. After all, these side effects don't play and resuming that which caused you harm should be done with great care!
Finally, what if you have an autoimmune disease at the start????
Safety and Clinical Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint
Inhibitors in Patients With Cancer and Preexisting Autoimmune Diseases. Yeung, Kartolo, Holstead, et al. J Immunother. Jun 2021.
Immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment outcomes in
numerous cancers. However, clinical trials have largely excluded patients with
autoimmune diseases (ADs) due to the risk of AD flares or predilection for
developing organ-specific inflammation. The objective of this study was to
evaluate the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with cancer and
preexisting ADs. A retrospective, single-center study of patients with cancer
initiated on immune checkpoint inhibitors between 2012 and 2019 was conducted.
The primary outcome was the development of immune-related adverse events
(irAEs) with respect to the presence of AD at baseline. Associations were
assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, bivariate and multivariable analyses. Of
the 417 patients included in this study, 63 patients (15%) had preexisting ADs.
A total of 218 patients (53%) developed at least 1 irAE. There was no
association between the presence of baseline AD on the development, grade, or
number of irAEs; time to irAE or irAE recovery; systemic corticosteroid or
additional immunosuppressant treatment for irAEs; permanent treatment
discontinuation; or overall response rate. Two smaller cohorts were studied,
melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, and there was no effect of baseline AD
on overall survival on either cohort. However, a greater proportion of patients
with baseline ADs had full recovery from their irAE. Furthermore, age
below 65, baseline steroid use, and single-agent immunotherapy regimens were
protective in terms of the development of irAEs. Our study suggests that immune
checkpoint inhibitors have similar safety and efficacy profiles in patients
with preexisting ADs.
"...immune checkpoint inhibitors have similar safety and efficacy profiles in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases." That is a heartening sum-up! A dear one, Jubes on the MRF patient forum, had to take infliximab due to debilitating arthritis - which helped her a great deal and did not cause an adverse flare of her melanoma. This report was written in her honor, but includes many links to articles that address the particulars of folks with pre-existing immune conditions as well as the other points I am covering today: For Jubes...and the rest of us!!! An anti-rheumatic drug that increases the effect of vemurafenib and selumetinib????
Immunotherapy has been a great blessing in melanoma world. However, it is not for sissies! Hope this helps. Wishing you all my best. - c
No comments:
Post a Comment