6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Immune-related ocular toxicities in solid tumor patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Survival, Durable Response, and Long-Term Safety in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Nivolumab.

          Blockade of the programmed death-1 inhibitory cell-surface molecule on immune cells using the fully human immunoglobulin G4 antibody nivolumab mediates tumor regression in a portion of patients with advanced treatment-refractory solid tumors. We report clinical activity, survival, and long-term safety in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with nivolumab in a phase I study with expansion cohorts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone for treatment of metastatic melanoma: a randomized clinical trial.

            Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) blockade with ipilimumab prolongs survival in patients with metastatic melanoma. CTLA-4 blockade and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-secreting tumor vaccine combinations demonstrate therapeutic synergy in preclinical models. A key unanswered question is whether systemic GM-CSF (sargramostim) enhances CTLA-4 blockade. To compare the effect of ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone on overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic melanoma. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a US-based phase 2 randomized clinical trial from December 28, 2010, until July 28, 2011, of patients (N = 245) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, at least 1 prior therapy, no central nervous system metastases, and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomized to receive ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, intravenously on day 1 plus sargramostim, 250 μg subcutaneously, on days 1 to 14 of a 21-day cycle (n = 123) vs ipilimumab alone (n = 122). Ipilimumab treatment included induction for 4 cycles followed by maintenance every fourth cycle. Primary end point: comparison of length of OS. Secondary end point: progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, safety, and tolerability. Median follow-up was 13.3 months (range, 0.03-19.9). Median OS as of December 2012 for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 17.5 months (95% CI, 14.9-not reached) vs 12.7 months (95% CI, 10.0-not reached) for ipilimumab. The 1-year survival rate for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 68.9% (95% CI, 60.6%-85.5%) compared to 52.9% (95% CI, 43.6%-62.2%) for ipilimumab alone (stratified log-rank 1-sided P = .01; mortality hazard ratio 0.64 [1-sided 90% repeated CI, not applicable-0.90]). A planned interim analysis was conducted at 69.8% of expected events (104 observed with 149 expected deaths). Planned interim analysis using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary was crossed for improvement in OS. There was no difference in PFS. Median PFS for ipilimumab plus sargramostim was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.6) vs 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.0) for ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 44.9% (95% CI; 35.8%-54.4%) of patients in the ipilimumab plus sargramostim group vs 58.3% (95% CI, 49.0%-67.2%) of patients in the ipilimumab-alone group (2-sided P = .04). Among patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, treatment with ipilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone resulted in longer OS and lower toxicity, but no difference in PFS. These findings require confirmation in larger studies with longer follow-up. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01134614.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              At the bench: preclinical rationale for CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade as cancer immunotherapy.

              Tumors can avoid immune surveillance by stimulating immune inhibitory receptors that function to turn off established immune responses. By blocking the ability of tumors to stimulate inhibitory receptors on T cells, sustained, anti-tumor immune responses can be generated in animals. Thus, therapeutic blockade of immune inhibitory checkpoints provides a potential method to boost anti-tumor immunity. The CTLA-4 and PD-1Rs represent two T cell-inhibitory receptors with independent mechanisms of action. Preclinical investigations revealed that CTLA-4 enforces an activation threshold and attenuates proliferation of tumor-specific T lymphocytes. In contrast, PD-1 functions primarily as a stop signal that limits T cell effector function within a tumor. The unique mechanisms and sites of action of CTLA-4 and PD-1 suggest that although blockade of either has the potential to promote anti-tumor immune responses, combined blockade of both might offer even more potent anti-tumor activity. See related review At the Bedside: CTLA-4 and PD-1 blocking antibodies in cancer immunotherapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy
                Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy
                Informa UK Limited
                1473-7140
                1744-8328
                March 08 2017
                April 03 2017
                February 24 2017
                April 03 2017
                : 17
                : 4
                : 387-394
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Clinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
                [2 ] Cancer research department, Swiss Cancer Institute, Zurich, Switzerland
                [3 ] Surgery department, Surgical Center Zurich - Hirslanden Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
                [4 ] Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
                [5 ] OncoCentrum Zurich, Swiss Tumor Immunology Institute (SwissTII), Zurich, Switzerland
                [6 ] OncoCentrum Zurich, Gastrointestinal Tumor Center Zurich (GITZ), Zurich, Switzerland
                [7 ] Medical Oncology department, Center of Zug, Switzerland
                Article
                10.1080/14737140.2017.1296765
                28277102
                18d2a7e6-1dcc-467c-b486-1b5e4203ba42
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article