Naqash, Abdul Rafeh

Abstract Background There is limited data on immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and known pericardial effusions. Methods This international multi-center observational retrospective study included patients with advanced NSCLC with or without pericardial effusions receiving ICIs. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were graded per CTCAE v5.0. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards multivariable models assessed the association between survival outcomes and clinicopathologic variables, and an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) model compared outcomes between the two groups. Results A total of 1248 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with ICIs across 13 institutions were included. Of these, 85 patients (6.8%) had pre-existing pericardial effusions. Compared to controls, patients with pericardial effusions were younger (median age 63 vs 67 years, P = .007), diagnosed more frequently with PD-L1 positive tumors (96% vs 76%, P < .001), and had a higher median number of baseline metastatic sites (3 vs 1, P < .001). IrAEs were similar between both groups (42% vs 38%), and no cardiac irAEs occurred in patients with pericardial effusions. PFS (median 5.6 vs 4.6 months, P = .3) and OS (median 10.2 vs 14.7 months, P = .50) were not statistically different between patients with pericardial effusions and the controls, respectively. In both multivariable and IPTW models, pericardial effusions were not associated with PFS or OS. Conclusions Among patients with NSCLC and pre-existing pericardial effusions, ICIs demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit similar to those without effusions, with no new cardiac or severe toxicities.

11127 Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) often require treatment discontinuation in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Given limited subsequent treatment options, ICI rechallenge is frequently considered. We aimed to estimate the incidence of recurrent irAEs and objective response rates (ORR) in patients receiving ICI rechallenge following prior irAEs. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for studies evaluating ICI rechallenge in patients with advanced solid tumors who previously suspended treatment due to irAEs. Outcomes included the incidence of grade 1-5 (Gr1-5), Gr1-2, and Gr3-5 irAEs, recurrent irAEs, new irAEs, ORR, and disease control rate (DCR). Random-effects meta-analyses and subgroup analyses by cancer type were performed. Meta-regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of the grade and type of initial irAEs on response outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics (≥50% considered high). Results: Thirty-seven studies comprising 1,126 patients with initial irAEs (Gr1-2: 62.8%, Gr3-4: 37.2%) leading to suspension of ICIs were included. The most common initial irAEs in the pooled cohort were hepatitis/liver enzyme elevations (20.5%), pneumonitis (16.1%), and nephritis/acute kidney injury (14.8%). Pooled incidences of Gr1-5, Gr1-2, and Gr3-5 irAEs after ICI rechallenge were 42.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 35.3-49.3), 27.1% (95% CI: 22.9-31.7), and 18.8% (95% CI: 14.7-23.8), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed overall higher incidences of irAEs in melanoma (Gr1-5: 54.6%, Gr1-2: 23.2%, Gr3-5: 26.4%) than those in lung cancer (Gr1-5: 39.7%, Gr1-2: 27.4%, Gr3-5: 14.0%) and solid tumors (Gr1-5: 36.7%, Gr1-2: 22.8%, Gr3-5: 20.1%). The same type of irAEs recurred in 23.8% (95% CI: 20.1-28.0) of patients, while new types of irAEs developed in 29.3% (95% CI: 25.2-33.7) of patients undergoing ICI rechallenge. The overall ORR was 45.2% (95% CI: 34.5-56.4), with cancer type-specific ORRs of 60.5% (95% CI: 47.9-71.9) in melanoma, 39.1% (95% CI: 17.4-66.2) in lung cancer, and 39.5% (95% CI: 27.7-52.6) from studies investigating solid tumors. DCR was high across cancer types: 77.3% (95% CI: 67.7-84.7) overall, 68.2% (95% CI: 41.3-86.8) in melanoma, 91.2% (95% CI: 67.7-98.1) in lung cancer, and 72.5% (95% CI: 63.3-80.1) in solid tumors. Meta-regression analysis showed that commonly observed initial irAE types or grades of initial irAEs (Gr1-2 vs. Gr3-4) did not significantly impact ORR or DCR. Conclusions: ICI rechallenge after discontinuation due to irAEs demonstrates clinical activity but carries a substantial risk of both recurrent and new irAEs. These findings highlight the need for predictive biomarkers to optimize patient selection and maximize survival without compromising safety.

We previously reported initial results of the pivotal phase II trial of atezolizumab for patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03141684 ). Here, we report on three additional years of observation. Fifty-three patients with ASPS received atezolizumab. Median duration of response increased to 37.0 months. Objective response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) remained essentially as previously reported (35.8% [95% CI, 23.1 to 50.2] and 20.8 months [IQR, 7.6-not reached], respectively). ASPSCR1::TFE3 fusion type was determined for 47/53 patients; ORR and mPFS were higher among the 41 patients expressing type 1 (43.9% [95% CI, 28.5 to 60.2] and 28.3 months [IQR, 9.2-not reached], respectively) than the six patients expressing type 2 (0% [95% CI, 0 to 45.9] and 7.5 months [IQR, 3.9-not reached], respectively, PFS HR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.2]). Eleven patients chose a per-protocol drug holiday (range, 3.5-26.4 months) after ≥2 years of treatment; two experienced disease progression during the holiday. Nine eligible patients elected to receive bevacizumab plus atezolizumab after progressing on monotherapy; ORR was 0% and mPFS was 18.5 months (IQR, 7.9-21.1) in this small cohort. Long-term results support using atezolizumab to treat ASPS, even for several years; a drug holiday with careful monitoring may be an option for some patients.

Importance Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are efficacious in many cancer types but can produce immune-related adverse events (irAEs). As such, patients with preexisting autoimmune disorders are often excluded from clinical trials, although subsequent studies have shown that many of these patients have acceptable ICI tolerance. The safety and efficacy of ICIs among patients with preexisting neurologic autoimmune disorders (NAIDs) is not well characterized. Objective To evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes associated with ICI therapy among patients with NAIDs. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with cancer who were treated with ICIs between October 2013 and May 2023 and had preexisting multiple sclerosis (MS), myasthenia gravis (MG), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and other NAIDs as well as a control cohort of patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Exposure ICI therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures Demographic and clinical characteristics (neurologic disability, active or recent immunosuppression), ICI outcomes (response, progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]), and safety outcomes (NAID exacerbation, irAEs) were collected. Results A total of 135 patients were included; the median (range) age was 72 (40-88) years, 84 (62%) were men, and 51 (38%) were women. A total of 45 patients had MS; 18, MG; 10, GBS; 5, another NAID; and 57, PD. Exacerbations occurred most frequently in MG (12 of 18 patients [67%]), often resulting in hospitalization (6 [50%]) or death (2 [17%]), with much lower rates in the MS cohort (8 of 45 patients [18%]). Ten patients with a history of GBS tolerated ICI without exacerbations, although 1 developed a fatal case of Lambert Eaton myasthenic syndrome following ICI treatment. No differences in response rate, PFS, or OS were observed between NAID groups. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of ICI use in NAIDs, patients with MG had frequent and more severe exacerbations, while those with MS had few exacerbations. No obvious differences in survival between groups were observed. ICI may be an option for many patients with appropriate oncologic indications and preexisting NAIDs.

Abstract Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung tumor marked by significant molecular heterogeneity. In a study of 590 patients across two independent cohorts, we observed comparable overall survival across treatment regimens (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, immunotherapy) without unexpected adverse events. Genomic analysis identified distinct NSCLC-like (KEAP1, KRAS, STK11 mutations) and SCLC-like (RB1, TP53 mutations) LCNEC subtypes, with 80% aligning with SCLC transcriptional profiles. Serial sampling revealed stable mutational but shifting transcriptomic landscapes over time. NSCLC-like LCNECs showed elevated FGL-1 (a LAG-3 ligand) and SPINK1 expression, while SCLC-like subtypes expressed higher levels of DLL3. Immunofluorescence confirmed FGL-1 in NSCLC-like LCNECs, and H&E slide analyses indicated fewer tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in LCNECs versus other lung cancers. These findings highlight LCNEC’s distinct immunogenomic profile, supporting future investigations into LAG-3, SPINK1, and DLL3-targeted therapies.

Background Novel treatment options are required in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Myeloid-derived suppressor cells promote a hostile tumor microenvironment and are associated with worse clinical outcomes in PROC. We evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of PY159, an agonist antibody to Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (TREM1) that reprograms immunosuppressive intratumoral myeloid cells, and PY314, an antagonist antibody to Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-2 (TREM2) that depletes tumor-associated macrophages, as single agents and in combination with pembrolizumab in subjects with PROC. Methods PY159 and PY314 were individually evaluated in patients with PROC. Patients were treated with monotherapy (PY159 3 mg/kg or PY314 10 mg/kg), based on the recommended dose for expansion derived from the phase 1a studies. At the time of first progression, patients could continue study drug and crossover to combination therapy with pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks at the discretion of the investigator. Disease assessment by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor version 1.1 was performed every 6 weeks. Results 17 patients were enrolled in the PY159 study (median age 67, range 22–77; median prior therapies 6, range 2–18) and 16 patients in PY314 (median age 65.5, range 49–81; median prior therapies 4, range 2–10). 7 patients in PY159 and 8 patients in PY314 crossed over to combination therapy. Safety events included the following: treatment-related adverse events occurred in 15 patients (88.2%) in PY159 and 9 patients (56.3%) in PY314. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 6 patients (35.3%) in PY159 and 3 patients (18.8%) in PY314. Immune-related adverse events occurred in 13 patients (76.5%) in PY159 (arthralgias) and 1 patient (6.3%) in PY314 (diarrhea). Serious adverse events occurred in 6 patients (36.3%) in PY159 (1 related) and 12 patients (75%) in PY314 (all unrelated). The best radiographic response in PY159 was stable disease in 8/16 patients (50%; median 16 weeks, range 9–33), and in PY314, it was stable disease in 8/16 patients (50%; median 12 weeks, range 6–36). Median PFS was 2.76 months and 2.69 months in PY159 and PY314, respectively. There were no responses in the crossover arm. Conclusions Both PY159 and PY314 were well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile, as both single agents and in combination with pembrolizumab. Both agents warrant further investigation in heavily pretreated PROC.

Background Data on the safety profiles and clinical outcomes of patients with solid tumors and cardiac metastasis treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. Methods This is an international multicenter retrospective study of patients with cancer and cardiac metastasis at baseline. Patients who had received ≥1 dose of ICI were included. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were graded per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event V.5.0. Objective response rates (ORR) were evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1 when available. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Among 110 pts, median age at ICI initiation was 65 (IQR: 59–75). Median follow-up time since ICI initiation was 36 (95% CI: 26 to 51) months. Melanoma (38%, n=42) and non-small cell lung cancer (24%, n=26) were the most common. 68 (62%) patients received ICIs as first-line, and 29 (26%) patients were treated with combination anti-programmed death-1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. The most common location of cardiac metastasis was in the atria (37%, n=41) and ventricles (35%, n=39). 15 patients (13.6%) had bilateral cardiac/pericardial metastasis, 44 (40%) had left-sided, and 43 (39.8%) had right-sided. At ICI initiation, 21% (n=23) had a cardiac thrombus. Cardiology referrals and cardiac MRIs at the time of cancer diagnosis were completed on 58 (53%) and 52 (47%) patients, respectively. Cardiac events occurred in 40 (36%) patients, including arrhythmias (n=14, 13%), arterial/venous emboli (n=4, 3.6%), and cardiac tamponade (n=3, 2.7%). 53 (47%) patients developed trAEs; most common were colitis/diarrhea (n=16, 15%), dermatitis (n=13, 12%), and hepatitis (n=9, 8.2%). ICI-related major cardiac trAEs occurred in 2 (1.8%) patients. 22 patients (20%) developed grade ≥3 trAE. Patients with multiple cardiac metastases had significantly lower responses to ICI-based regimens compared with patients with single cardiac metastasis (11% vs 63%, p=0.02). For melanoma, ORR, median PFS, and median OS were 38%, 9.0 months, and 28.9 months, respectively. 83% of patients with melanoma had concordant responses in overall disease burden and cardiac disease. 91 patients discontinued ICIs, and the main reason was progression or death in 55 (49%) patients. Conclusions Among patients with pre-existing cardiac metastasis, ICIs demonstrated meaningful clinical efficacy with no increase in safety signals. Most patients had concordant responses in the overall disease burden and cardiac mass. Multidisciplinary teams are crucial for the appropriate management of patients with cardiac metastasis.

Abstract Aims We aimed to perform a retrospective cohort study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database to analyse the trends in cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) from 1999 to 2020. Methods and results We analysed the death certificate data from the CDC WONDER database from 1999 to 2020 for CVD with co-morbid myeloproliferative disorders in the US population. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed per 1 million population by standardizing crude mortality rates to the 2000 US census population. To assess annual national mortality trends, we employed the Joinpoint regression model, calculating the annual per cent change in AAMR and corresponding 95% CIs. A total of 15 269 deaths related to CVD occurred in patients with co-morbid MPNs from 1999 to 2020. Overall, there was a decreasing trend in CVD-related AAMRs throughout these years. Males contributed to 51% of total deaths, and their AAMR was persistently higher than women throughout the study. Non-Hispanic (NH) Whites had the highest overall AAMR, followed by NH Blacks, NH American Indians or Alaska Natives, Hispanics or Latinos, and NH Asian or Pacific Islanders. Conclusion Our findings indicate a significant decline with notable gender, racial/ethnic, and regional differences in CVD-related mortality among patients with MPN over the past two decades. We emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach between oncologists and cardiologists in managing these patients, highlighting the potential benefits of integrating cardio-oncology services to enhance patient outcomes.

8106 Background: Due to lack of prospective data, the optimal first line treatment approach for patients (pts) with pure LCNEC histology remains uncertain. Methods: Across 17 centers, we conducted a retrospective analysis of metastatic pure LCNEC (diagnosed at local institutions) who received 1st-line systemic therapy between 2015-2023. Pts were either treated with chemotherapy (chemo), immunotherapy (IO), or a combination (chemoIO). Clinical outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (trAE) as defined using CTCAE 5.0. Survival analysis by genomic alteration status ( TP53, RB1, STK11, KEAP1, KRAS) and PD-L1 status were performed. Results: We identified 161 pts with median age of 67 years (IQR: 58-83) at 1st line systemic therapy; 54% (n = 87) were males. Median follow-up was 55 months (mo), 62 mo, and 29 mo for the chemo, IO, and chemoIO groups, respectively. 79% (n = 127) were former or current smokers. 1st-line treatments were chemo (n = 94), IO (n = 11), or chemoIO (n = 56). Of 85 pts with PD-L1 status, 58 (68%) were 0% and 27 (32%) were ≥1%. The most common chemo regimen was platinum-etoposide (n = 72, 78%). ChemoIO regimens included carboplatin/etoposide/atezolizumab (n = 23, 43%) and carboplatin/pemetrexed/pembrolizumab (n = 17, 31%). In the IO group, 1 patient received dual IO. Lung (n = 74, 46%) and liver (n = 71, 41%) were the most common sites of metastasisThere was no significant difference in PFS across the groups (median PFS [mPFS] chemoIO: 5.7 mo, 95% CI: 5.0-6.3, chemo: 5.1 mo, 95% CI: 3.1-5.9; IO: 3.6 mo, 95% CI: 1.7-6.5) on multivariable analysis adjusting for ECOG and “M” stage (p = 0.2 and 0.24 for chemoIO-chemo and chemoIO-IO comparisons, respectively). There was no difference in OS (mOS chemo: 11 mo, 95% CI: 7.6-17.4; IO: 13.6 mo, 95% CI: 5.9-not reached; chemoIO: 12.2 mo, 95% CI: 7.4-20.6, p = 0.5 and 0.8 for chemoIO-chemo and chemoIO-IO comparisons, respectively). ORR was 35.2% (31/88) in chemo, 25% (2/8) in IO, and 35.7% (20/56) in chemoIO ( p= 0.46). There were no significant differences in PFS and OS outcomes by treatment group when divided by genetic profile (n = 79, methods), or by PD-L1 status (0% vs ≥1%). Any grade trAE occurred in 48 (51%), 5 (45%), and 28 (50%) pts treated with chemo, IO, and chemoIO, respectively. Grade ≥3 toxicity profiles are shown (table). Conclusions: For 1st-line treatment of LCNEC, similar PFS, OS, and ORR were seen for chemo, IO, and chemoIO. This questions the added benefit of chemoIO compared to chemo alone, and warrants future clinical trials to discern the optimal 1st line treatment. [Table: see text]

8602 Background: LCNECs are a rare subtype of lung cancer, with limited clinical trial data and an unclear consensus on first-line treatment. Even less is known about the optimal treatment approach for pts with mixed LCNECs, a pathologic subtype where tumors contain both LCNEC histology as well as features of adenocarcinoma, squamous cell, or small cell lung cancer. Methods: We conducted an international multi-institutional retrospective analysis (n=13 institutions) of pts with advanced or metastatic mixed LCNECs who received 1st-line systemic therapy with either chemotherapy alone (chemo) or chemo-immunotherapy (chemoIO) between 2010-2023. Clinical outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (trAEs). Survival comparisons were made via the log-rank test. Results: Seventy-three pts with mixed LCNECs received either chemo (n=42, 57.5%) or chemoIO (n=31, 42.5%). The most common chemo regimens were carboplatin/etoposide (n=27) and cisplatin/etoposide (n=8), while the most common chemoIO was carboplatin/etoposide/atezolizumab (n=19). Median age at 1st-line therapy initiation was 65 (IQR: 60-72). 64% of pts were male (n=47). The majority were former smokers (n=41, 56.2%), with 22 current smokers (30.1%), and 10 non-smokers (13.7%). Mixed histologies included LCNEC/NSCLC (n=45, 56.2%), LCNEC/SCLC (n=17), LCNEC/carcinoid (n=1), and unspecified mixed LCNEC (n=10). Median PFS for chemo was 5 months (95% CI 2.7-9.2) vs. 6 months (95% CI 4.4-8.3) for chemoIO ( p=0.86). Median OS for chemo was 14.2 months (95% CI 10.4-22.5) vs. 17.2 months (95% CI 9.4-27.2) for chemoIO ( p=0.66). The ORR did not differ between chemo (n=18, 45%) and chemoIO (n=15, 48.4%) ( p=0.81). In the chemo group, 60% (n=25) experienced trAEs of any grade, with 23.8% (n=10) experiencing grade 3+ events and four requiring hospitalizations. For chemoIO pts, 61% (n=19) experienced trAEs, with 25.8% (n=8) experiencing grade 3+ events and six requiring hospitalizations. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3+ trAE for both chemo (n=5) and chemoIO (n=4). Overall, there were no significant differences between chemo or chemoIO groups for ORR ( p=0.81), all-grade trAEs ( p=0.88), grade 3+ trAEs ( p=0.84), PFS ( p=0.86), or median OS ( p=0.66). There were no significant differences in median PFS ( p=0.46) or OS ( p=0.99) for pts with mixed LCNEC/NSCLC vs. LCNEC/SCLC. Conclusions: For mixed LCNECs, there was no significant difference in PFS or OS between first-line treatment with chemo vs. chemoIO, suggesting limited benefit from immunotherapy for these pts. Additionally, survival outcomes did not differ between mixed LCNEC/NSCLC and LCNEC/SCLC, suggesting a biology primarily driven by their neuroendocrine component.