Explore the vast range of titles available.

Key Points CTLA-4 regulates T-cell activation upon initiation of an immune response, in the lymphoid organs, where naive T cells are primed, and potentially in the periphery via regulatory T-cell (T REG ) depletion This diverse role of CTLA-4 in initiating and mounting immune responses might explain the plethora of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) experienced by patients receiving treatment with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies PD-1 suppresses T-cell activity, mostly within the peripheral tissues and in the tumour microenvironment, which might explain the distinct spectrum and reduced incidence of adverse effects of anti-PD-1 antibodies Thyroid disorders are more frequent adverse effects of treatment with anti-PD-1 antibodies (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) whereas colitis and hypophysitis are more frequent with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies (ipilimumab) General guidelines on the management of irAEs recommend treatment of symptoms; corticosteroids are generally indicated together with dose skipping or discontinuation in patients with persistent grade ≥2 adverse events Immune checkpoint inhibition is a novel approach to cancer treatment with enormous potential to improve the outcomes of patients with a range of malignancies. However, owing to this novel approach, a range of adverse events have emerged with different aetiologies to those of more conventional cancer treatments. In this Review, the authors describe the occurrence, and optimal management of adverse events resulting from use of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Inhibition of immune checkpoints using anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) or anti cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibodies has revolutionized the management of patients with advanced-stage melanoma and is among the most promising treatment approaches for many other cancers. Use of CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors, either as single agents, or in combination, has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Treatment with these novel immunotherapies results in a unique and distinct spectrum of adverse events, which are mostly related to activation of the immune system and are, therefore, an unwanted consequence of their mechanisms of action. Adverse effects of CTLA-4 and/or PD-1 inhibition are most commonly observed in the skin, gastrointestinal tract, liver and endocrine systems and include pruritus, rash, nausea, diarrhoea and thyroid disorders. In this Review, the authors describe the adverse event profile of checkpoint inhibitors targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1, used both as monotherapies and in combination and aim to provide some general guidelines, based upon the mechanisms of action of these therapies and on the management of these immune-related adverse events.

Background Immuno-radiotherapy may improve outcomes for patients with advanced solid tumors, although optimized combination modalities remain unclear. Here, we report the colorectal (CRC) cohort analysis from the SABR-PDL1 trial that evaluated the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in combination with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in advanced cancer patients. Methods Eligible patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until progression or unmanageable toxicity, together with ablative SBRT delivered concurrently with the 2nd cycle (recommended dose of 45 Gy in 3 fractions, adapted upon normal tissue tolerance constraint). SBRT was delivered to at least one tumor site, with at least one additional measurable lesion being kept from the radiation field. The primary efficacy endpoint was one-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate from the start of atezolizumab. Sequential tumor biopsies were collected for deep multi-feature immune profiling. Results Sixty pretreated (median of 2 prior lines) advanced CRC patients (38 men [63%]; median age, 59 years [range, 20–81 years]; 77% with liver metastases) were enrolled in five centers (France: n  = 4, Spain: n  = 1) from 11/2016 to 04/2019. All but one (98%) received atezolizumab and 54/60 (90%) received SBRT. The most frequently irradiated site was lung ( n  = 30/54; 56.3%). Treatment-related G3 (no G4-5) toxicity was observed in 3 (5%) patients. Median OS and PFS were respectively 8.4 [95%CI:5.9–11.6] and 1.4 months [95%CI:1.2–2.6], including five (9%) patients with PFS > 1 year (median time to progression: 19.2 months, including 2/5 MMR-proficient). Best overall responses consisted of stable disease ( n  = 38; 64%), partial ( n  = 3; 5%) and complete response ( n  = 1; 2%). Immune-centric multiplex IHC and RNAseq showed that SBRT redirected immune cells towards tumor lesions, even in the case of radio-induced lymphopenia. Baseline tumor PD-L1 and IRF1 nuclear expression (both in CD3 + T cells and in CD68 + cells) were higher in responding patients. Upregulation of genes that encode for proteins known to increase T and B cell trafficking to tumors (CCL19, CXCL9), migration (MACF1) and tumor cell killing (GZMB) correlated with responses. Conclusions This study provides new data on the feasibility, efficacy, and immune context of tumors that may help identifying advanced CRC patients most likely to respond to immuno-radiotherapy. Trial registration EudraCT N°: 2015–005464-42; Clinicaltrial.gov number: NCT02992912.

Over the past two decades, targeted therapies have become cornerstone treatments for numerous cancers with oncogene addiction. Unfortunately, their effectiveness reduces over time and most patients who receive targeted therapies relapse within 12 months. The emergence of drug-resistance mechanisms in tumours paved the way for next-generation inhibitors. However, insufficient concentration of targeted therapy is a frequent but poorly explored mechanism of treatment failure. Additionally, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is not always reached in phase studies, and the recommended phase 2 dose is mostly based on benefit–risk ratio and pharmacokinetic considerations, which could result in a suboptimal dose. This scenario has led us to propose a new concept in clinical drug development: the late phase 1 study. The primary goal of this type of trial is to define an alternative MTD of a drug in patients who are chronically exposed and had an initial benefit from targeted therapy but subsequently progressed without an identified resistance alteration. Intrapatient dose escalation might increase drug concentration and restore drug activity or efficacy.

Immunoradiotherapy holds promise for improving outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumors, including in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). However, the ideal combination of treatment modalities remains to be determined, and reliable biomarkers to predict which patients will benefit are lacking. Here, we report the results of the STS cohort of the SABR-PDL1 phase II trial that evaluated the anti-PDL1 atezolizumab combined with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered concurrently with the 2nd cycle to at least one tumor site. Eligible patients received atezolizumab until progression or unmanageable toxicity, with SBRT at 45 Gy in 3 fractions). The primary endpoint was one-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate with success defined as 13 patients achieving 1-year PFS. Sixty-one heavily pretreated patients with STS (median 5 prior lines; 52% men; median age 54 years; 28% leiomyosarcoma) were enrolled across two centers (France, Spain). SBRT was delivered to 55 patients (90%), with the lung being the most commonly irradiated site (50%). After a median follow-up of 45 months, the one-year PFS rate was 8.3% [95% CI: 3.6–18.1]. Median PFS and overall survival were 2.5 and 8.6 months, respectively. Best responses included partial responses (5%) and stable disease (60%). Immune profiling revealed increased immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages (e.g., IL4I1, HES1) and monocyte-recruiting chemokines in non-responders. Higher monocyte/lymphocyte ratios (MonoLR) in tumor and blood correlated with progression. PD-L1 status, lymphoid infiltration, and tertiary-lymphoid structures were not predictive. Although the primary endpoint was not met, this study highlights MonoLR imbalance as a potential biomarker to identify STS patients likely to benefit from immunoradiotherapy. EudraCT No. 2015-005464-42; Clinicaltrial.gov number: NCT02992912.

BackgroundWe report the results from the advanced malignant mesothelioma (aMM) expansion cohort of the PEMBIB Phase Ib trial (NCT02856425) evaluating the safety, efficacy & biomarkers of an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor (nintedanib) with an anti-PD1 immunotherapy (pembrolizumab).MethodsPatients with aMM relapsing after at least one line of platinum doublet chemotherapy and not previously pre-exposed to IO were treated with a combination of oral nintedanib (150mg BID) & IV pembrolizumab (200mg Q3W) with a 7 days nintedanib lead-in preceding pembrolizumab initiation. Baseline and on-treatment (cycle D2, day 1 [C2D1]) fresh tumor & blood samples were prospectively phenotyped by flow cytometry (FC). RNAseq was run on tumor samples. Immune factors were titrated on tumor secretome and plasma.Results30 aMM patients were treated and 29 evaluable for response. Median age was 68 years old (38–85) and 86% of aMM were epithelioid. The most frequent adverse events (AE) (grades 1–3) related to the combination were liver enzymes increase, fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea. 4 (13.3%) patients developed grade 3–5 immune- related AE. Patients died of cancer progression (n=14, 46.7%), myocarditis with thrombo-embolic event (n=1, 3.3%) and COVID-19 (n=1, 3.3%). Median follow-up was 14.8 months (95%CI [9.70–18.2]). Best Overall Response Rates (BORR) per RECISTv1.1 were Partial Response (PR, n=7/29; 24.1%), Stable Disease (SD, n=17/29; 58.6%) and Progressive Disease (n=5/29; 17.2%). Disease Control Rate (DCR) (defined as PR + SD) was 46.6% at 6 months. Patients with DCR at 6 months had significantly higher percentage of PDL1 expression on tumor cells (by Immuno-Histo-Chemistry, antibody clone SP263) and higher CD8+ T cells infiltrate in tumor biopsies (by FC) at screening. Upon treatment, soluble plasma rate of CXCL9 and CXCL13 increased in all patients, as well as tumor immune infiltrates estimated by deconvolution of tumor biopsies RNA-seq. But deconvoluted estimates of NK cells, T cells and myeloid dendritic cells infiltrates on baseline tumors and C2D1 biopsies were higher in patients with DCR at 6 months. Pre & on-treatment IL6 and IL8 rates in tumor secretome & plasma were higher in patients without DCR. Gene Set Enrichment Analyses on RNA-seq from screening biopsies highlighted an enrichment in E2F, MYC and KRAS gene pathways and lower expression of type 1 interferon signature in patients without DCR than those with DCR at 6 months.ConclusionsWith a BORR of 24% and a DCR of 47% at 6 months, pembrolizumab and nintedanib combination provided valuable therapeutic benefits for patients with aMM.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrialsgov, NCT02856425. Registered August 4, 2016 — Prospectively registered,https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02856425?term=PEMBIB&draw=2&rank=1.Ethics ApprovalThe protocol was first approved by the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament (ANSM) on June 24th 2016 (Ref #160371A-12). The protocol was also approved by the Ethical Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France 1) on Jul 12th 2016 (Ref #2016-mai-14236ND).

Background Platinum-sensitivity is a phenotypic biomarker of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) sensitivity in histotypes where PARPi are approved. Approximately one-third of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) are platinum-sensitive. The double-blind, randomized phase II PIPSeN (NCT02679963) study evaluated olaparib, a PARPi, as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced NSCLC. Methods Chemonaïve patients with ECOG performance status of 0–1, platinum-sensitive, EGFR - and ALK -wild-type, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC were randomized (R) to receive either olaparib (O) maintenance or a placebo (P). The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) from R. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and safety. With an anticipated hazard ratio of 0.65, 144 patients were required to be randomized, and approximately 500 patients enrolled. Results The trial was prematurely terminated because anti-PD(L)1 therapy was approved during the trial recruitment. A total of 182 patients were enrolled, with 60 patients randomized: 33 and 27 in the O and P arms, respectively. Patient and tumor characteristics were well-balanced between arms, except for alcohol intake (33% vs 11% in the O and P arms, respectively, p  = 0.043). The median PFS was 2.9 and 2.0 months in the O and P arms, respectively (logrank p  = 0.99). The median OS was 9.4 and 9.5 months in the O and P arms, respectively ( p  = 0.28). Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 15 and 8 patients in O and P arms, with no new safety concerns. Conclusion PIPSeN was terminated early after enrollment of only 50% of the pre-planned population, thus being statistically underpowered. Olaparib maintenance did neither improve median PFS nor OS in this patient population.

Academic Clinical Trial Units frequently face fragmented statistical workflows, leading to duplicated effort, limited collaboration, and inconsistent analytical practices. To address these challenges within an oncology Clinical Trial Unit, we developed grstat, an R package providing a standardised set of tools for routine statistical analyses. Beyond the software itself, the development of grstat is embedded in a structured organisational framework combining formal request tracking, peer-reviewed development, automated testing, and staged validation of new functionalities. The package is intentionally opinionated, reflecting shared practices agreed upon within the unit, and evolves through iterative use in real-world projects. Its development as an open-source project on GitHub supports transparent workflows, collective code ownership, and traceable decision-making. While primarily designed for internal use, this work illustrates a transferable approach to organising, validating, and maintaining a shared analytical toolbox in an academic setting. By coupling technical implementation with governance and validation principles, grstat supports efficiency, reproducibility, and long-term maintainability of biostatistical workflows, and may serve as a source of inspiration for other Clinical Trial Units facing similar organisational challenges.

Background Multiprofessional practice is a key component in primary care. Examining general practitioner (GP) referral frequency to non-physician health professionals (NPHP) can provide information about how primary care is organised and works which is useful for policymakers. Our study aimed to describe French GP referral frequency to various NPHPs in France and identify associated factors. Methods This is an ancillary study to the observational, cross-sectional (ECOGEN) study conducted in 2011/2012 in France among 128 GPs. Data about consultations using the standardised International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2), and patient and GP characteristics were collected from 20,613 GP consultations. Referrals were identified through inductive and deductive approaches using ICPC-2 codes, keywords, and deep, open manual searches. Referral frequency was described overall and per NPHP. Patient, GP, and consultation-related factors associated with referral rates were described for the three most frequently identified NPHPs. To minimise potential sources of bias, this observational study followed the STROBE guidelines. Results French GPs referred 6.8% of patients to NPHPs, with physiotherapists, podiatrists, and nurses accounting for 85.2% of referrals. Older patients, retired patients, multiple health problems managed, and longer consultation durations were found to be associated with higher referral rates ( p  < 0.001). Specific trends were observed for nurse, physiotherapist, and podiatrist referrals. Women ( p  < 0.001) and regular patients ( p  = 0.002) were more likely to receive physiotherapy referrals while people with no professional activity were less likely ( p  < 0.001). Female GPs and those working in urban practices were more likely to issue a physiotherapy referral ( p  < 0.001), while GPs working in rural practices ( p  < 0.001) and those with higher annual consultation numbers ( p  = 0.002) were more likely to refer to a nurse. Working in multiprofessional centres appeared to have little impact on referral rates, being only slightly associated with podiatrist referrals ( p  = 0.003). Conclusions Referral frequency is more associated with patient characteristics and clinical situations than GP-related factors suggesting patients needing referral most are most often referred. Furthermore, the three NPHPs that GPs refer to the most are those for which a referral is required for reimbursement in France, suggesting that health system legislation and NPHP reimbursement are strong determinants for referrals.