Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose of ReviewThe outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged to be the biggest global health threat worldwide, which has now infected over 1.7 million people and claimed more than 100,000 lives around the world. Under these unprecedented circumstances, there are no well-established guidelines for cancer patients.Recent FindingsThe risk for serious disease and death in COVID-19 cases increases with advancing age and presence of comorbid health conditions. Since the emergence of the first case in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, tremendous research efforts have been underway to understand the mechanisms of infectivity and transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a fatal virus responsible for abysmal survival outcomes. To minimize the mortality rate, it becomes prudent to identify symptoms promptly and employ treatments appropriately. Even though no cure has been established, multiple clinical trials are underway to determine the most optimal strategy. Managing cancer patients under these circumstances is rather challenging, given their vulnerable status and the aggressive nature of their underlying disease.SummaryIn this comprehensive review, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 on health and the immune system of those affected, reviewing the latest treatment approaches and ongoing clinical trials. Additionally, we discuss challenges faced while treating cancer patients and propose potential approaches to manage this vulnerable population during this pandemic.

Brain metastases are a common cause of disabling neurologic complications and death in patients with metastatic melanoma. Previous studies of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma have excluded patients with untreated brain metastases. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. In this open-label, multicenter, phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma and at least one measurable, nonirradiated brain metastasis (tumor diameter, 0.5 to 3 cm) and no neurologic symptoms received nivolumab (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was the rate of intracranial clinical benefit, defined as the percentage of patients who had stable disease for at least 6 months, complete response, or partial response. Among 94 patients with a median follow-up of 14.0 months, the rate of intracranial clinical benefit was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47 to 68); the rate of complete response was 26%, the rate of partial response was 30%, and the rate of stable disease for at least 6 months was 2%. The rate of extracranial clinical benefit was 56% (95% CI, 46 to 67). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 55% of patients, including events involving the central nervous system in 7%. One patient died from immune-related myocarditis. The safety profile of the regimen was similar to that reported in patients with melanoma who do not have brain metastases. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab had clinically meaningful intracranial efficacy, concordant with extracranial activity, in patients with melanoma who had untreated brain metastases. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the National Cancer Institute; CheckMate 204 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320058 .).

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized treatment for various cancers; however, durable response is limited to only a subset of patients. Discovery of blood-based biomarkers that reflect dynamic change of the tumor microenvironment, and predict response to ICI, will markedly improve current treatment regimens. Here, we investigate CX3C chemokine receptor 1 (CX3CR1), a marker of T-cell differentiation, as a predictive correlate of response to ICI therapy. Successful treatment of tumor-bearing mice with ICI increases the frequency and T-cell receptor clonality of the peripheral CX3CR1 + CD8 + T-cell subset that includes an enriched repertoire of tumor-specific and tumor-infiltrating CD8 + T cells. Furthermore, an increase in the frequency of the CX3CR1 + subset in circulating CD8 + T cells early after initiation of anti-PD-1 therapy correlates with response and survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Collectively, these data support T-cell CX3CR1 expression as a blood-based dynamic early on-treatment predictor of response to ICI therapy. There is an urgent need to discover blood-based biomarkers to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Here the authors show that effective ICI therapy correlates with increased frequency of circulating CX3CR1 + CD8 + T cells in preclinical tumor models and in a cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with anti-PD-1.

In this single arm study, patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease received one or two doses of tocilizumab (400 mg/dose) in addition to standard therapies used including lopinavir and methylprednisolone as reported in the Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol for Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (6th interim edition) [2]. Better outcomes were observed in non-intubated patients with elevated baseline level of IL-6 CRP, ferritin and LDH. [...]Italian Pharmaceutical Agency (AIFA) approved a Phase II trial in 330 patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS using tocilizumab started on March 19, 2020 (https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/1127901/TOCIVID-19_Protocol_v1.3_18Marzo2020.pdf/6843930d-9f31-185d-9812-29f02ebebd76) identified in USA as NCT04317092. [...]administration of tocilizumab has not prevented influenza vaccination immune response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis [6]. its role in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been fully studied and is awaiting completion of clinical trials under way. [...]that time, it seems plausible to speculate that the anti-IL6R mAb plays a protective role if given at the time of overly elevated immune response to the virus, thus preventing “anaphylactic toxicity”.

In a basket trial that included patients with a variety of cancers, all of which contained a BRAF V600 mutation, the rate of response to vemurafenib was highly variable. The histologic context influences the response to BRAF inhibition. BRAF V600 mutations occur in approximately 50% of cutaneous melanomas and result in constitutive activation of downstream signaling through the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. 1 , 2 Vemurafenib (Zelboraf, F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech) is a selective oral inhibitor of the BRAF V600 kinase and is associated with a response rate of approximately 50% and improved survival among patients with BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. 3 Efforts by the Cancer Genome Atlas 4 and other initiatives to characterize the genetic landscape of most tumor types have identified BRAF V600 mutations in nonmelanoma cancers, including colorectal cancer, 5 , 6 non–small-cell lung cancer, 7 papillary thyroid cancer, 8 diffuse gliomas, . . .

Combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab was efficacious in patients with asymptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in CheckMate 204, but showed low efficacy in patients with symptomatic MBM. Here, we provide final 3-year follow-up data from the trial. This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study (CheckMate 204) included adults (aged ≥18 years) with measurable MBM (0·5–3·0 cm in diameter). Asymptomatic patients (cohort A) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and no neurological symptoms or baseline corticosteroid use; symptomatic patients (cohort B) had an ECOG performance status of 0–2 with stable neurological symptoms and could be receiving low-dose dexamethasone. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg was given intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for up to 2 years, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was intracranial clinical benefit rate (complete responses, partial responses, or stable disease lasting ≥6 months) assessed in all treated patients. Intracranial progression-free survival and overall survival were key secondary endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320058. Between Feb 19, 2015, and Nov 1, 2017, 119 (72%) of 165 screened patients were enrolled and treated: 101 patients were asymptomatic (cohort A; median follow-up 34·3 months [IQR 14·7–36·4]) and 18 were symptomatic (cohort B; median follow-up 7·5 months [1·2–35·2]). Investigator-assessed intracranial clinical benefit was observed in 58 (57·4% [95% CI 47·2–67·2]) of 101 patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6–41·4]) of 18 patients in cohort B; investigator-assessed objective response was observed in 54 (53·5% [43·3–63·5]) patients in cohort A and three (16·7% [3·6–41·4]) patients in cohort B. 33 (33%) patients in cohort A and three (17%) patients in cohort B had an investigator-assessed intracranial complete response. For patients in cohort A, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 54·1% (95% CI 42·7–64·1) and overall survival was 71·9% (61·8–79·8). For patients in cohort B, 36-month intracranial progression-free survival was 18·9% (95% CI 4·6–40·5) and overall survival was 36·6% (14·0–59·8). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase (15 [15%] of 101 patients each) in cohort A; no grade 3 TRAEs occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B, and no grade 4 events occurred. The most common serious TRAEs were colitis, diarrhoea, hypophysitis, and increased alanine aminotransferase (five [5%] of each among the 101 patients in cohort A); no serious TRAE occurred in more than one patient each in cohort B. There was one treatment-related death (myocarditis in cohort A). The durable 3-year response, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates for asymptomatic patients support first-line use of nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Symptomatic disease in patients with MBM remains difficult to treat, but some patients achieve a long-term response with the combination. Bristol Myers Squibb.

The combination of a BRAF inhibitor (dabrafenib) and a MEK inhibitor (trametinib) in patients with metastatic melanoma produced a significantly higher response rate than dabrafenib alone. Median progression-free survival was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months with dabrafenib alone. Pharmacologic inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway has proved to be a major advance in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. The use of vemurafenib and dabrafenib, agents that block MAPK signaling in patients with melanoma and the BRAF V600E mutation, has been associated with prolonged survival and progression-free survival, respectively, in randomized phase 3 trials involving patients with previously untreated melanoma. 1 – 6 Trametinib mediates blockade of MAPK kinase (MEK), which is downstream of BRAF in the MAPK pathway and has been associated with improved progression-free and overall survival in BRAF V600 melanoma (comprising both V600E and V600K mutations). . . .

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for the treatment of several cancers. While these immunotherapies have improved patient outcomes in many clinical settings, they bring accompanying risks of toxicity, specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs). There is a need for clear, effective guidelines for the management of irAEs during ICI treatment, motivating the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) to convene an expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline. The panel discussed the recognition and management of single and combination ICI irAEs and ultimately developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to assist medical professionals in clinical decision-making and to improve outcomes for patients.

Previous studies combining PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with tyrosine kinase inhibitors of the VEGF pathway have been characterised by excess toxicity, precluding further development. We hypothesised that axitinib, a more selective VEGF inhibitor than others previously tested, could be combined safely with pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) and yield antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this ongoing, open-label, phase 1b study, which was done at ten centres in the USA, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had advanced renal cell carcinoma (predominantly clear cell subtype) with their primary tumour resected, and at least one measureable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, controlled hypertension, and no previous systemic therapy for renal cell carcinoma. Eligible patients received axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a dose-finding phase to estimate the maximum tolerated dose, and additional patients were enrolled into a dose-expansion phase to further establish safety and determine preliminary efficacy. Axitinib 5 mg was administered orally twice per day with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg given intravenously every 3 weeks. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib or pembrolizumab; antitumour activity was assessed in all patients who received study treatment and had an adequate baseline tumour assessment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed dose-limiting toxicity during the first two cycles (6 weeks) to estimate the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02133742. Between Sept 23, 2014, and March 25, 2015, we enrolled 11 patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma to the dose-finding phase and between June 3, 2015, and Oct 13, 2015, we enrolled 41 patients to the dose-expansion phase. All 52 patients were analysed together. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Three dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the 11 patients treated during the 6-week observation period (dose-finding phase): one patient had a transient ischaemic attack and two patients were only able to complete less than 75% of the planned axitinib dose because of treatment-related toxicity. At the data cutoff date (March 31, 2017), 25 (48%) patients were still receiving study treatment. Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34 (65%) patients; the most common included hypertension (n=12 [23%]), diarrhoea (n=5 [10%]), fatigue (n=5 [10%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=4 [8%]). The most common potentially immune-related adverse events (probably related to pembrolizumab) included diarrhoea (n=15 [29%]), increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (n=9 [17%]) or aspartate aminotransferase concentration (n=7 [13%]), hypothyroidism (n=7 [13%]), and fatigue (n=6 [12%]). 28 (54%) patients had treatment-related serious adverse events. At data cutoff, 38 (73%; 95% CI 59·0–84·4) patients achieved an objective response (complete or partial response). The treatment combination of axitinib plus pembrolizumab is tolerable and shows promising antitumour activity in patients with treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma. Whether or not the combination works better than a sequence of VEGF pathway inhibition followed by an anti-PD-1 therapy awaits the completion of a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib monotherapy (NCT02853331). Pfizer Inc.

Patients with cancer who developed severe, grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors are at risk for developing severe toxicities again on rechallenge with checkpoint inhibitors. Consequently, medical oncologists and multidisciplinary teams are hesitant to retreat in this scenario, despite the fact that a number of patients may derive clinical benefit from this approach. Balancing such clinical benefit and treatment-related toxicities for each patient is becoming increasingly challenging as more and more patients with cancer are being treated with checkpoint inhibitors. In this manuscript, we provide an extensive overview of the relevant literature on retreatment after toxicity, and suggest prophylactic approaches to minimize the risk of severe irAE following rechallenge with immune checkpoint blockade, since treatment may be lifesaving in a number of occasions.