4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

          The flagship journal of the Society for Endocrinology. Learn more

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Immune checkpoint inhibitors, endocrine adverse events, and outcomes of melanoma

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can cause endocrine adverse events. However, endocrine AEs could be related to better treatment outcomes. Our aim was to investigate whether this holds true in a real-world setting of metastatic melanoma patients.

          Design

          A retrospective single-institution study.

          Methods

          We included 140 consecutive metastatic melanoma patients treated with ICI between January 2012 and May 2019. We assessed the endocrine toxicity and the best possible treatment outcomes from electronic patient records, including laboratory parameters and radiological images.

          Results

          Of the treated patients, 21 patients (15%) were treated with ipilimumab, 46 (33%) with nivolumab, 67 (48%) with pembrolizumab, and 6 (4%) with combination therapy (ipilimumab + nivolumab). Endocrine AEs appeared in 29% (41/140) patients. Three patients had two different endocrine AEs. Thyroid disorders were the most common: 26% (36/140), followed by hypophysitis: 4% (5/140). Three subjects (2%, 3/140) were diagnosed with autoimmune diabetes. Three patients had to terminate treatment due to endocrine toxicity. Radiological manifestations of endocrine AEs were found in 16 patients (39%, 16/41). Endocrine toxicity was associated with significantly better treatment outcomes. Median progression-free survival (8.1 months, range 5.1–11.1 months vs 2.7 months, range 2.4–3.0 months, P < 0.001), and median overall survival (47.5 months, range 15.5–79.5 months vs 23.7 months, range 15.3–32.1 months, P = 0.035) were longer for patients experiencing endocrine AEs.

          Conclusions

          The higher number of endocrine AEs suggest that regular laboratory monitoring aids in AE detection. Endocrine AEs in metastatic melanoma may correlate with better treatment outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

          An improvement in overall survival among patients with metastatic melanoma has been an elusive goal. In this phase 3 study, ipilimumab--which blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 to potentiate an antitumor T-cell response--administered with or without a glycoprotein 100 (gp100) peptide vaccine was compared with gp100 alone in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. A total of 676 HLA-A*0201-positive patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, whose disease had progressed while they were receiving therapy for metastatic disease, were randomly assigned, in a 3:1:1 ratio, to receive ipilimumab plus gp100 (403 patients), ipilimumab alone (137), or gp100 alone (136). Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight, was administered with or without gp100 every 3 weeks for up to four treatments (induction). Eligible patients could receive reinduction therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. The median overall survival was 10.0 months among patients receiving ipilimumab plus gp100, as compared with 6.4 months among patients receiving gp100 alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; P<0.001). The median overall survival with ipilimumab alone was 10.1 months (hazard ratio for death in the comparison with gp100 alone, 0.66; P=0.003). No difference in overall survival was detected between the ipilimumab groups (hazard ratio with ipilimumab plus gp100, 1.04; P=0.76). Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 10 to 15% of patients treated with ipilimumab and in 3% treated with gp100 alone. There were 14 deaths related to the study drugs (2.1%), and 7 were associated with immune-related adverse events. Ipilimumab, with or without a gp100 peptide vaccine, as compared with gp100 alone, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. Adverse events can be severe, long-lasting, or both, but most are reversible with appropriate treatment. (Funded by Medarex and Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094653.)
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma

            New England Journal of Medicine, 373(1), 23-34
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nivolumab in Previously Untreated Melanoma withoutBRAFMutation

              Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endocr Connect
                Endocr Connect
                EC
                Endocrine Connections
                Bioscientifica Ltd (Bristol )
                2049-3614
                11 January 2022
                01 February 2022
                : 11
                : 2
                : e210562
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Medical Faculty , University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
                [2 ]Department of Oncology , Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
                [3 ]Department of Radiology , HUS Medical Imaging Centre, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
                [4 ]Endocrinology , Abdominal Centre, University of Helsinki and HUS, Helsinki, Finland
                Author notes
                Correspondence should be addressed to H Karhapää: hanna.karhapaa@ 123456hus.fi
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6009-5027
                Article
                EC-21-0562
                10.1530/EC-21-0562
                8859941
                35015699
                da5b3ef1-cde4-4bb2-9c6d-a97287ec853d
                © The authors

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 23 December 2021
                : 11 January 2022
                Categories
                Research

                ctla-4,endocrine adverse event,immune checkpoint inhibitor,pd-1,toxicity

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log