| Literature DB >> 35015699 |
Hanna Karhapää1,2, Siru Mäkelä1,2, Hanna Laurén1,3, Marjut Jaakkola1,3, Camilla Schalin-Jäntti1,4, Micaela Hernberg1,2.
Abstract
Objective: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can cause endocrine adverse events. However, endocrine adverse events (AEs). 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.Entities:
Keywords: CTLA-4; PD-1; endocrine adverse event; immune checkpoint inhibitor; toxicity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35015699 PMCID: PMC8859941 DOI: 10.1530/EC-21-0562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endocr Connect ISSN: 2049-3614 Impact factor: 3.335
Background characteristics of all patients and the patient subgroups treated with different immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI): nivolumab (nivo), pembrolizumab (pembro), ipilimumab (ipi), and nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo+ipi). Data are presented as median (range) or as n (%). Some patients had many lines of chemotherapy.
| Variable | All patients | Nivo | Pembro | Ipi | Nivo + ipi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 140 | 46 | 67 | 21 | 6 | |
| Male | 75 (54%) | 21 (46%) | 40 (60%) | 11 (52%) | 3 (50%) |
| Female | 65 (46%) | 25 (54%) | 27 (40%) | 10 (48%) | 3 (50%) |
| Age (years) | 65 (29–84) | 66 (32–84) | 65 (31–80) | 58 (29–76) | 50 (37–69) |
| ECOG PS | |||||
| 0 | 80 (57%) | 25 (54%) | 46 (69%) | 8 (38%) | 1 (17%) |
| 1 | 60 (43%) | 21 (46%) | 21 (31%) | 13 (62%) | 5 (83%) |
| LDH | |||||
| ≤ULN | 71 (51%) | 23 (50%) | 36 (54%) | 7 (33%) | 4 (67%) |
| >ULN | 69 (49%) | 23 (50%) | 31 (46%) | 14 (67%) | 2 (33%) |
| BRAFV600 | 54 (39%) | 16 (35%) | 2 (3%) | 4 (19%) | 2 (33%) |
| NRAS | 27 (19%) | 8 (17%) | 19 (28%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Disease stage | |||||
| Stage III | 3 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Stage IV M1a (0) | 10 (7%) | 4 (9%) | 5 (8%) | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Stage IV M1a (1) | 17 (12%) | 3 (7%) | 8 (12%) | 6 (29%) | 0 (0%) |
| Stage IV M1b (0) | 7 (5%) | 1 (2%) | 4 (6%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (17%) |
| Stage IV M1b (1) | 22 (16%) | 8 (17%) | 11 (16%) | 3 (14%) | 0 (0%) |
| Stage IV M1c (0) | 42 (30%) | 15 (33%) | 21 (31%) | 4 (19%) | 2 (33%) |
| Stage IV M1c(1) | 24 (17%) | 11 (24%) | 8 (12%) | 5 (24%) | 0 (0%) |
| Stage IV M1d (0) | 10 (7%) | 3 (7%) | 5 (8%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (17%) |
| Stage IV M1d (1) | 5 (4%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (33%) |
| Brain metastases | 15 (11%) | 4 (9%) | 7 (10%) | 1 (5%) | 3 (50%) |
| Lines of treatment | |||||
| None | 113 (81%) | 41 (89%) | 58 (87%) | 10 (48%) | 4 (67%) |
| One | 17 (12%) | 4 (9%) | 8 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (33%) |
| Two or more | 10 (7%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 8 (38%) | 0 (0%) |
| Prev. treatments | |||||
| BRAFi ± MEKi | 10 (7%) | 2 (4%) | 2 (3%) | 4 (19%) | 2 (33%) |
| Chemotherapy | 27 (19%) | 3 (7%) | 7 (10%) | 7 (33%) | 0 (0%) |
| Prior hypothyr. | 19 (14%) | 2 (4%) | 14 (21%) | 3 (14%) | 0 (0%) |
BRAFi, BRAF inhibitor; BRAFV600, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma; ECOG PS, Eastern cooperative oncology group performance status; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MEKi, MEK inhibitor; NRAS, NRAS mutation-positive melanoma; Prev. treatments, previous treatments; Prior hypothyr., prior hypothyreosis; ULN, upper limit of normal.
Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of all patients and the patient subgroups treated with different immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI): nivolumab (nivo), pembrolizumab (pembro), ipilimumab (ipi), and nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo+ipi). Data are presented as n (%). Three patients had two endocrine AEs and multiple patients had more than one other AEs.
| Variable | All patients | Nivo | Pembro | Ipi | Nivo + ipi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any AE in total | 319 | 100 | 148 | 50 | 21 |
| Any AE/patient | 111 (79%) | 35 (76%) | 53 (79%) | 18 (86%) | 5 (83%) |
| Grade 3–4 | 44 (31%) | 11 (24%) | 16 (24%) | 12 (57%) | 5 (83%) |
| Led to cessation | 25 (23%) | 7 (15%) | 13 (19%) | 4 (19%) | 1 (17%) |
| End. AE in total | 44 (31%) | 11 (24%) | 27 (40%) | 3 (14%) | 3 (50%) |
| End. AE/patient | 41 (29%) | 10 (22%) | 25 (37%) | 3 (14%) | 3 (50%) |
| Grade 3–4 | 7 (16%) | 2 (4%) | 5 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Led to cessation | 3 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Required med. | 22 (50%) | 6 (13%) | 14 (21%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (17%) |
| Levothyroxine | 11 (25%) | 4 (9%) | 6 (9%) | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Carbimazole | 2 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Prednisone | 9 (21%) | 1 (2%) | 7 (11%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (17%) |
| Hydrocortisone | 5 (11%) | 1 (2%) | 4 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Methylpredn. | 2 (5%) | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (17%) |
| Insulin | 3 (7%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Thyroid AE | 36 (82%) | 9 (20%) | 22 (33%) | 2 (10%) | 3 (50%) |
| Grade 3–4 | 3 (7%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Hypothyroidism | 8 (22%) | 2 (4%) | 4 (6%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (17%) |
| Grade 3–4 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Thyrotoxicosis | 14 (39%) | 2 (4%) | 9 (13%) | 1 (5%) | 2 (33%) |
| Grade 3–4 | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Thyrotoxicosis | 14 (39%) | 5 (11%) | 9 (13%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| f. by hypot. | |||||
| Grade 3–4 | 2 (6%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Hypophysitis | 5 (11%)a | 1 (2%) | 3 (5%) | 1 (5%) | 0 (0%) |
| Grade 3–4 | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Autoimmune d. | 3 (7%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Grade 3–4 | 3 (7%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
aTwo males/three females; hypopitituitarism due to impaired ACTH/cortisol (n = 3), gonadotropin/testosterone (n = 1), TSH/T4 (n = 1) secretion.
AE, adverse event; autoimmune d., autoimmune diabetes; end. AE, endocrine AE; required med., required medication; thyrotoxicosis f. by hypot., thyrotoxicosis followed by hypothyroidism.
Figure 1The reduction of pancreas in two of the patients developing autoimmune diabetes. The second patient had such extensive metastases in the pancreas that the reduction of the pancreas was hard to capture in a picture.
Figure 2Treatment responses in patients with and without endocrine adverse events. CR: complete response; PR: partial response; SD: stable disease; PD: progressive disease.
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier curves of (A) overall survival and (B) progression-free survival in patients with- and without endocrine adverse events (AE).