Dermatitis bullosa caused by the immune checkpoint inhibitor camrelizumab: A case report

Chen P., Fu C., Shen L., Fei Z., Luo M., Chen Y., Li H.

Abstract Background Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China. Methods From the perspective of China’s healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results. Results Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1–3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent. Conclusion Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Wang F., Zhang X., Li Y., Tang L., Qu X., Ying J., Zhang J., Sun L., Lin R., Qiu H., Wang C., Qiu M., Cai M., Wu Q., Liu H., et. al.

There exist differences in the epidemiological characteristics, clinicopathological features, tumor biological characteristics, treatment patterns, and drug selections between gastric cancer patients from the Eastern and Western countries. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) has organized a panel of senior experts specializing in all sub-specialties of gastric cancer to compile a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer since 2016 and renews it annually. Taking into account regional differences, giving full consideration to the accessibility of diagnosis and treatment resources, these experts have conducted expert consensus judgment on relevant evidence and made various grades of recommendations for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer to reflect the value of cancer treatment and meeting health economic indexes in China. The 2021 CSCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer covers the diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and screening of gastric cancer. Based on the 2020 version of the CSCO Chinese Gastric Cancer guidelines, this updated guideline integrates the results of major clinical studies from China and overseas for the past year, focused on the inclusion of research data from the Chinese population for more personalized and clinically relevant recommendations. For the comprehensive treatment of non-metastatic gastric cancer, attentions were paid to neoadjuvant treatment. The value of perioperative chemotherapy is gradually becoming clearer and its recommendation level has been updated. For the comprehensive treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, recommendations for immunotherapy were included, and immune checkpoint inhibitors from third-line to the first-line of treatment for different patient groups with detailed notes are provided.

Haanen J.B., Carbonnel F., Robert C., Kerr K.M., Peters S., Larkin J., Jordan K.

Fang W., Yang Y., Ma Y., Hong S., Lin L., He X., Xiong J., Li P., Zhao H., Huang Y., Zhang Y., Chen L., Zhou N., Zhao Y., Hou X., et. al.

Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy regimens, preferentially gemcitabine plus cisplatin, are generally considered the first-line standard of care for patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. However, no consensus has been reached regarding treatment following progression after first-line therapy. Camrelizumab (SHR-1210) is a humanised anti-programmed death-1 (anti PD-1) antibody. We present safety and preliminary antitumour activity of camrelizumab alone as second-line therapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma and combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin as first-line therapy in this patient population.We report the results from two single-arm, phase 1 trials. Both trials included patients aged 18-70 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed nasopharyngeal carcinoma and confirmed metastatic disease or locoreginal recurrence, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients who received at least one previous line of treatment were enrolled at five academic hospitals in China into the dose-escalation and expansion trial to receive camrelizumab monotherapy intravenously at escalating doses of 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, and 10 mg/kg, and a bridging dose of 200 mg per dose once every 2 weeks (monotherapy trial). Treatment-naive patients were enrolled from a single centre in China to receive six cycles of camrelizumab 200 mg (day 1), gemcitabine 1 g/m2 (days 1 and 8), and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1) every 3 weeks followed by camrelizumab 200 mg maintenance once every 3 weeks (combination trial). The primary endpoint of both trials was the safety and tolerability of the study treatment. Analyses were done per protocol. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02721589 (camrelizumab monotherapy trial) and NCT03121716 (camrelizumab combination trial). Both trials are ongoing, but are no longer enrolling patients.In the camrelizumab monotherapy trial, between March 31, 2016, and Sept 20, 2017, 121 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 93 patients were enrolled across the dose-escalation and expansion cohorts and received at least one dose of camrelizumab (safety population). 15 (16%) of 93 patients had treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4, the most common of which were elevated conjugated bilirubin concentration (three [3%] of 93 patients), stomatitis, anaemia, and increased concentrations of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin, each of which occurred in two (2%) patients. Eight (9%) patients had a treatment-related serious adverse event. No dose-limiting toxic effects were observed during the dose-escalation phase. 31 (34%; 95% CI 24-44) of 91 evaluable patients on camrelizumab monotherapy had an overall response with a median follow-up of 9·9 months (IQR 8·1-11·7). In the camrelizumab combination trial, between April 18, 2017, and Aug 15, 2017, 24 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 23 patients were enrolled and treated (safety population). 20 (87%) of 23 patients had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events: neutropenia (13 [57%] of 23 patients), anaemia (11 [48%] patients), leucopenia (11 [48%] patients), thrombocytopenia (seven [30%] patients), oedema (two [9%] patients), hyponatraemia (two [9%] patients), hypochloraemia (one [4%] patients), and rash (one [4%] patient). Two patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. No treatment-related deaths occurred in these trials. 20 (91% [95% CI 72-97]) of 22 evaluable patients had an overall response with a median follow-up time of 10·2 months (IQR 9·7-10·8).Camrelizumab is a well tolerated, potential treatment option for patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The combination of camrelizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin has a manageable toxicity profile and promising preliminary antitumour activity for this disease in treatment-naive patients. Randomised controlled trials are needed to further establish the role of immune checkpoint inhibition for nasopharyngeal carcinomas.Hengrui Medicine Co, Chinese National Natural Science Foundation project, Science and Technology Program of Guangdong, Pearl River Nova Program of Guangzhou.

Gong J., Chehrazi-Raffle A., Reddi S., Salgia R.

Early preclinical evidence provided the rationale for programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade as a potential form of cancer immunotherapy given that activation of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis putatively served as a mechanism for tumor evasion of host tumor antigen-specific T-cell immunity. Early-phase studies investigating several humanized monoclonal IgG4 antibodies targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 in advanced solid tumors paved way for the development of the first PD-1 inhibitors, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014. The number of FDA-approved agents of this class is rapidly enlarging with indications for treatment spanning across a spectrum of malignancies. The purpose of this review is to highlight the clinical development of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer therapy to date. In particular, we focus on detailing the registration trials that have led to FDA-approved indications of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapies in cancer. As the number of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors continues to grow, predictive biomarkers, mechanisms of resistance, hyperprogressors, treatment duration and treatment beyond progression, immune-related toxicities, and clinical trial design are key concepts in need of further consideration to optimize the anticancer potential of this class of immunotherapy.

LaFleur M.W., Muroyama Y., Drake C.G., Sharpe A.H.

Abstract The programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway delivers inhibitory signals that function as a brake for immune responses. This pathway limits the initiation and duration of immune responses, thereby protecting tissues from immune-mediated damage and autoimmune diseases. However, the PD-1 pathway also inhibits immune responses to tumors. The critical role of PD-1 in preventing antitumor immunity is demonstrated by the transformative effects of PD-1 pathway blockade in a broad range of cancers with the hallmark of durability of response. Despite this success, most patients do not respond to PD-1 monotherapy, and some patients experience adverse events. In this review, we discuss the functions of the PD-1 pathway and its translation to cancer immunotherapy. We also consider current challenges and opportunities for PD-1 cancer immunotherapy, including mechanisms of response and resistance, identification of biomarkers of response to PD-1 therapy, characterization and treatment of PD-1 therapy–related adverse events, and development of safe and effective combination therapies.

Puzanov I., Diab A., Abdallah K., Bingham C.O., Brogdon C., Dadu R., Hamad L., Kim S., Lacouture M.E., LeBoeuf N.R., Lenihan D., Onofrei C., Shannon V., Sharma R., Silk A.W., et. al.

Cancer immunotherapy has transformed the treatment of cancer. However, increasing use of immune-based therapies, including the widely used class of agents known as immune checkpoint inhibitors, has exposed a discrete group of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Many of these are driven by the same immunologic mechanisms responsible for the drugs’ therapeutic effects, namely blockade of inhibitory mechanisms that suppress the immune system and protect body tissues from an unconstrained acute or chronic immune response. Skin, gut, endocrine, lung and musculoskeletal irAEs are relatively common, whereas cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, neurologic and ophthalmologic irAEs occur much less frequently. The majority of irAEs are mild to moderate in severity; however, serious and occasionally life-threatening irAEs are reported in the literature, and treatment-related deaths occur in up to 2% of patients, varying by ICI. Immunotherapy-related irAEs typically have a delayed onset and prolonged duration compared to adverse events from chemotherapy, and effective management depends on early recognition and prompt intervention with immune suppression and/or immunomodulatory strategies. There is an urgent need for multidisciplinary guidance reflecting broad-based perspectives on how to recognize, report and manage organ-specific toxicities until evidence-based data are available to inform clinical decision-making. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) established a multidisciplinary Toxicity Management Working Group, which met for a full-day workshop to develop recommendations to standardize management of irAEs. Here we present their consensus recommendations on managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Lee H.T., Lee J.Y., Lim H., Lee S.H., Moon Y.J., Pyo H.J., Ryu S.E., Shin W., Heo Y.

In 2016 and 2017, monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-L1, including atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab, were approved by the FDA for the treatment of multiple advanced cancers. And many other anti-PD-L1 antibodies are under clinical trials. Recently, the crystal structures of PD-L1 in complex with BMS-936559 and avelumab have been determined, revealing details of the antigen-antibody interactions. However, it is still unknown how atezolizumab and durvalumab specifically recognize PD-L1, although this is important for investigating novel binding sites on PD-L1 targeted by other therapeutic antibodies for the design and improvement of anti-PD-L1 agents. Here, we report the crystal structures of PD-L1 in complex with atezolizumab and durvalumab to elucidate the precise epitopes involved and the structural basis for PD-1/PD-L1 blockade by these antibodies. A comprehensive comparison of PD-L1 interactions with anti-PD-L1 antibodies provides a better understanding of the mechanism of PD-L1 blockade as well as new insights into the rational design of improved anti-PD-L1 therapeutics.

Medina P.J., Adams V.R.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are designed to restore a patient's own antitumor immune response that has been suppressed during tumor development. The first monoclonal antibodies against the immune checkpoint programmed death 1 (PD-1) receptor, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, are now approved for clinical use. Both agents are indicated for the treatment of advanced melanoma, as well as for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nivolumab is also approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. In patients with melanoma, these agents result in objective response rates of ~25-40%, with durable responses lasting more than 2 years in some cases. Results from phase III trials have shown improved survival with nivolumab versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in both patients with advanced melanoma and those with advanced NSCLC. In patients with advanced melanoma, both PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) have shown improved survival versus ipilimumab. PD-1 inhibitors are associated with adverse events that have immune etiologies, with grade greater than 3 adverse events typically reported in 16% or less of patients. However, most immune-mediated adverse events (including grade 3-4 adverse events) can be managed by using published management algorithms without permanent discontinuation of the agent. As nivolumab and pembrolizumab enter the clinic, and with more PD-1 pathway agents in development for a range of tumor types, this review aims to provide pharmacists with a basic understanding of the role of PD-1 in modulating the immune system and their use in the cancer treatment. The most recent clinical efficacy and safety data are discussed, highlighting the response characteristics distinctive to immune checkpoint inhibitors, along with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and cost considerations.