Jonathan J Lo1, Meghan M Heberton2, Omar Pacha2, Auris O Huen2, Anisha B Patel3. 1. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Department of Dermatology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1452, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA. 3. Department of Dermatology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1452, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA. APatel11@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment options for corticosteroid-refractory and/or high-grade checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-induced cutaneous adverse events (CAEs) are limited; however, anecdotal reports of biologic therapies have been successful. We aim to characterize the appropriate treatment scenarios and safety and efficacy profiles of biologics used to treat patients with CPI-induced CAEs at a single institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of patients from January 1st, 2015 to October 20th, 2020, with CPI-induced CAEs who were treated with biologics at a single cancer center. Patients were identified using institutional electronic medical record who underwent CPI therapy with subsequent CAEs that necessitated biologic therapy. Diagnostic criteria utilized for CAEs were based on documentation by four board-certified dermatologists, in combination with detailed chart reviews and pathology findings. Primary study outcome measurements include CAE response, tumor response, and adverse events during biologics treatment. RESULTS: We identified 17 patients who fit study criteria. Sixteen patients experienced some degree of CAE improvement on biologics, with 10 of 10 patients reaching CAE resolution at 6 months post biologics. Eight patients needed new systemic treatment post biologics treatment, while 9 patients received no further treatment or stayed on the CPI. Thirteen patients tolerated biologics well with no significant adverse events or blood abnormalities, with only 2 patients experiencing biologic dose delays. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, biologics appear to be extremely efficacious in the treatment of severe-grade and/or steroid refractory CAEs. They also appeared to be well-tolerated without overtly negative effects on tumor response. In patients with limited cancer treatment options and good tumor response to CPIs, biologics should be considered for severe-grade and/or refractory CAEs.
PURPOSE: Treatment options for corticosteroid-refractory and/or high-grade checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-induced cutaneous adverse events (CAEs) are limited; however, anecdotal reports of biologic therapies have been successful. We aim to characterize the appropriate treatment scenarios and safety and efficacy profiles of biologics used to treat patients with CPI-induced CAEs at a single institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of patients from January 1st, 2015 to October 20th, 2020, with CPI-induced CAEs who were treated with biologics at a single cancer center. Patients were identified using institutional electronic medical record who underwent CPI therapy with subsequent CAEs that necessitated biologic therapy. Diagnostic criteria utilized for CAEs were based on documentation by four board-certified dermatologists, in combination with detailed chart reviews and pathology findings. Primary study outcome measurements include CAE response, tumor response, and adverse events during biologics treatment. RESULTS: We identified 17 patients who fit study criteria. Sixteen patients experienced some degree of CAE improvement on biologics, with 10 of 10 patients reaching CAE resolution at 6 months post biologics. Eight patients needed new systemic treatment post biologics treatment, while 9 patients received no further treatment or stayed on the CPI. Thirteen patients tolerated biologics well with no significant adverse events or blood abnormalities, with only 2 patients experiencing biologic dose delays. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, biologics appear to be extremely efficacious in the treatment of severe-grade and/or steroid refractory CAEs. They also appeared to be well-tolerated without overtly negative effects on tumor response. In patients with limited cancer treatment options and good tumor response to CPIs, biologics should be considered for severe-grade and/or refractory CAEs.
Authors: Emily Coleman; Christine Ko; Feng Dai; Mary M Tomayko; Harriet Kluger; Jonathan S Leventhal Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Alexander M M Eggermont; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Jean-Jacques Grob; Reinhard Dummer; Jedd D Wolchok; Henrik Schmidt; Omid Hamid; Caroline Robert; Paolo A Ascierto; Jon M Richards; Céleste Lebbé; Virginia Ferraresi; Michael Smylie; Jeffrey S Weber; Michele Maio; Cyril Konto; Axel Hoos; Veerle de Pril; Ravichandra Karra Gurunath; Gaetan de Schaetzen; Stefan Suciu; Alessandro Testori Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Steven J O'Day; David F McDermott; Robert W Weber; Jeffrey A Sosman; John B Haanen; Rene Gonzalez; Caroline Robert; Dirk Schadendorf; Jessica C Hassel; Wallace Akerley; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jose Lutzky; Paul Lorigan; Julia M Vaubel; Gerald P Linette; David Hogg; Christian H Ottensmeier; Celeste Lebbé; Christian Peschel; Ian Quirt; Joseph I Clark; Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Jason Tian; Michael J Yellin; Geoffrey M Nichol; Axel Hoos; Walter J Urba Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jacob Siegel; Mariam Totonchy; William Damsky; Juliana Berk-Krauss; Frank Castiglione; Mario Sznol; Daniel P Petrylak; Neal Fischbach; Sarah B Goldberg; Roy H Decker; Angeliki M Stamatouli; Navid Hafez; Earl J Glusac; Mary M Tomayko; Jonathan S Leventhal Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Jonathan L Curry; Adi Diab; Daniel Johnson; Anisha B Patel; Marc I Uemura; Van A Trinh; Natalie Jackson; Chrystia M Zobniw; Michael T Tetzlaff; Patrick Hwu Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 11.151