Aminochlorthenoxazin (ICI 350)

Association between immune-related side effects and efficacy and benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has become standard therapy in many tumor sites. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature to determine whether the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) after the use of ICIs is associated with clinical outcomes in all solid malignancies. Methods: Embase and PubMed were searched from January 1st, 2000 until March 14, 2020 for relevant studies assessing the relationship between irAEs and treatment efficacy. Outcome measures of interest included: incidence of irAEs, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 3384 unique citations, 51 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies included melanoma (n = 21), lung (n = 19), renal (n = 4), urothelial (n = 1), head and neck (n = 2) and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 1). In patients with metastatic melanoma (n = 1474), the development of irAEs (irAE + versus irAE-) was associated with better weighted average OS (15.24 months (95% CI 9.95 to 20.5) versus 8.94 months (95% CI 7.76 to 10.1), HR = 0.46 (n = 640, CI 0.35-0.62, p < 0.00001), PFS (17.61 months (95% CI 10.1 to 25.1) versus 2.23 months (95% CI 1.77 to 2.68), HR = 0.51 (n = 1763, CI 0.42-0.63, p < 0.00001), and ORR (37.67% (95% CI 32.8 to 42.5) versus. 23.44% (95% CI 17.8 to 29.1). Similarly, in lung cancer patients, the ORR (irAE + versus. irAE-) was 41.49% (95% CI 36.5 to 46.5) versus 18.01% (95% CI 13.5 to 22.6). The weighted average PFS and OS were 8.97 months (95% CI 7.14 to 10.8) versus 3.06 months (95% CI 2.4 to 3.72) with HR = 0.46 (n = 1575, CI 0.39-0.54, p < 0.00001) and 19.07 months (95% CI 14.3 to 23.8) versus 7.45 months (95% CI 5.34 to 9.56) HR = 0.40 (n = 1085, CI 0.30-0.51, p < 0.00001), respectively. Improved treatment efficacy in patients who developed irAEs was also seen in renal cell carcinoma, urothelial and head and neck cancers. Notably, grade 3 or 4 irAEs were associated with increased ORR but worse OS. Conclusion: A positive association was noted between the development of irAEs and ORR, PFS, and OS in patients treated with ICIs, irrespective of disease site, type of ICI and irAE. Grade 3 or higher toxicities resulted in better ORR, but worse OS.

ZFHX3 mutation as a protective biomarker for immune checkpoint blockade in non-small cell lung cancer

To date, immunotherapy has opened a new chapter in the treatment of lung cancer. Precise biomarkers can help to screen subpopulations of lung cancer to provide the best treatment. Multiple studies suggest that specific gene mutations may be predictive markers in guiding non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. A published immunotherapy cohort with mutational and survival data for 350 NSCLC patients was used. First, the mutational data of the immunotherapy cohort were used to identify gene mutations related to the prognosis of ICI therapy. The immunotherapy cohort and TCGA-NSCLC cohort were further studied to elucidate the relationships between specific gene mutations and tumor immunogenicity, antitumor immune response capabilities, and immune cell and mutation counts in the DNA damage response (DDR) pathway. In the immunotherapy cohort (N = 350), ZFHX3 mutations were an independent predictive biomarker for NSCLC patients receiving ICI treatment. Significant differences were observed between ZFHX3-mutant (ZFHX3-MT) and ZFHX3-wild type (ZFHX3-WT) patients regarding the overall survival (OS) time (P < 0.001, HR = 0.26, 95% Cl 0.17-0.41). ZFHX3-MT is significantly associated with higher tumor mutation burden (TMB) and neoantigen load (NAL), and ZFHX3-MT positively correlates with known immunotherapy response biomarkers, including T-cell infiltration, immune-related gene expression, and mutation counts in the DDR pathway in NSCLC. ZFHX3-MT is closely related to longer OS in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, suggesting that ZFHX3 mutations be used as a novel predictive marker in guiding NSCLC ICI treatment.

The effect of foot orthoses with forefoot cushioning or metatarsal pad on forefoot peak plantar pressure in running

Background: Foot orthoses are frequently used in sports for the treatment of overuse complaints with sufficient evidence available for certain foot-related overuse pathologies like plantar fasciitis, rheumatoid arthritis and foot pain (e.g., metatarsalgia). One important aim is to reduce plantar pressure under prominent areas like metatarsal heads. For the forefoot region, mainly two common strategies exist: metatarsal pad (MP) and forefoot cushioning (FC). The aim of this study was to evaluate which of these orthosis concepts is superior in reducing plantar pressure in the forefoot during running.
Methods: Twenty-three (13 female, 10 male) asymptomatic runners participated in this cross-sectional experimental trial. Participants ran in a randomised order under the two experimental (MP, FC) conditions and a control (C) condition on a treadmill (2.78 ms^-1) for 2 min, respectively. Plantar pressure was measured with the in-shoe plantar pressure measurement device pedar-x?-System and mean peak pressure averaged from ten steps in the forefoot (primary outcome) and total foot was analysed. Insole comfort was measured with the Insole Comfort Index (ICI, sum score 0-100) after each running trial. The primary outcome was tested using the Friedman test (α = 0.05). Secondary outcomes were analysed descriptively (mean ± SD, lower & upper 95%-CI, median and interquartile-range (IQR)).
Results: Peak pressure [kPa] in the forefoot was significantly lower wearing FC (281 ± 80, 95%-CI: 246-315) compared to both C (313 ± 69, 95%-CI: 283-343; p = .003) and MP (315 ± 80, 95%-CI: 280-350; p = .001). No significant difference was found between C and MP (p = .858). Peak pressures under the total foot were: C: 364 ± 82, 95%-CI: 328-399; MP: 357 ± 80, 95%-CI: 326-387; FC: 333 ± 81 95%-CI: 298-368. Median ICI sum scores were: C 50, MP 49, FC 64.
Conclusions: In contrast to the metatarsal pad orthosis, the forefoot cushioning orthosis achieved a significant reduction of peak pressure in the forefoot of recreational runners. Consequently, the use of a prefabricated forefoot cushioning orthosis should be favoured over a prefabricated orthosis with an incorporated metatarsal pad in recreational runners with normal height arches.

CCND1 Amplification Profiling Identifies a Subtype of Melanoma Associated With Poor Survival and an Immunosuppressive Tumor Microenvironment

Background: Although melanoma is generally regarded as an immunogenic cancer that will respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), melanomas with CCND1 amplification respond poorly to these therapies. Further understanding how CCND1 amplification impacts the effectiveness of ICI therapy is important for the design of future clinical trials.
Methods: We used data from tumor samples taken from Chinese patients with melanoma analyzed at the Geneplus Institute (n=302), as well as data from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database (n=367) and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) database (n=350) to estimate the prevalence of CCND1 amplification in melanoma, interrogate the relationship between CCND1 amplification and survival in patients with melanoma, and explore the molecular mechanisms of CCND1 amplification. We also established a murine model of melanoma harboring CCND1 amplification and utilized RNA-seq to verify the findings from human tissue samples.
Results: Data from all three sources revealed a low frequency of CCND1 amplification co-occurring with BRAF V600, NRAS, NF1, and KIT mutations. Data from TCGA did not show a statistically significant correlation between CCND1 amplification and prognosis, irrespective of ICI use. In contrast, the MSKCC cohort showed that CCND1 amplification was an unfavorable prognostic factor for patients with melanoma, especially for patients who received ICIs and had a high tumor mutation burden (TMB). The TCGA data showed that CCND1 amplification was associated with a higher proportion of immunosuppressive cells (Treg cells and M2 macrophages) and a lower proportion of immune boosting cells (follicular helper T cells na?ve B cells, CD8⁺ T cells). Murine models supported the association between a suppressive immune microenvironment and CCND1 amplification; tumors with CCND1 amplification had reduced mRNA expression of CD8, Gzm, B2m and Tap1, significantly higher proportions of resting CD4 memory T cells and significantly lower proportions of plasma cells, CD8 T cells, and T follicular helper cells. Furthermore, a Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) analysis of data from the TCGA database suggested that signaling pathways involved in oxidative phosphorylation, reactive oxygen species, adipogenesis, fatty acid metabolism, DNA repair, and Myc targets were differentially enriched in melanoma tumors with CCND1 amplification. Finally, we observed a notable reduction in levels of angiogenesis-related molecules (encoded by HIF1A, VEGFA, VEGFR1, FGF2, FGFR1, FGFR4, HGF, PDGFA, PDGFRA, ANGPT1, and ANGPT2) in a high CCND1 amplification group from the TCGA database.
Conclusions: Melanoma with CCND1 amplification is an independent genomic subtype associated with a poor prognosis, an immunosuppressive TME, activated oxidative and lipid metabolism, and down-regulated angiogenesis. Therefore, avoiding ICIs and antiangiogenic agents, while employing CDK4/6 inhibitors alone or in combination with ICIs, and targeting oxidative and lipid metabolism pathways, may be effective therapeutic strategies for melanoma patients harboring CCND1 amplification.

Are immune-related adverse events associated with the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: A number of studies have reported an association between the occurrence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and clinical efficacy in patients undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the results remain controversial.
Methods: Under the guidance of a predefined protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement, this meta-analysis included cohort studies investigating the association of irAEs and efficacy of ICIs in patients with cancer. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analyses involving the cancer type, class of ICIs, combination therapy, sample size, model, landmark analysis, and approach used to extract the data were performed. Specific analyses of the type and grade of irAEs were also performed.
Results: This meta-analysis included 30 studies including 4971 individuals. Patients with cancer who developed irAEs experienced both an OS benefit and a PFS benefit from ICI therapy compared to patients who did not develop irAEs (OS: hazard ratio (HR), 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.65; p < 0.001; PFS: HR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.44-0.61, p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of the study quality characteristics and cancer types recapitulated these findings. Specific analyses of endocrine irAEs (OS: HR, 0.52, 95% CI, 0.44-0.62, p < 0.001), dermatological irAEs (OS: HR, 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35-0.59, p < 0.001), and low-grade irAEs (OS: HR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.43-0.75; p < 0.001) yielded similar results. The association between irAE development and a favorable benefit on survival was significant in patients with cancer who were undergoing treatment with programmed cell death-1 inhibitors (OS: HR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.42-0.62; p < 0.001), but not cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 inhibitors (OS: HR, 0.89, 95% CI, 0.49-1.61; p = 0.706). Additionally, the association was significant in patients with cancer who were treated with ICIs as a monotherapy (OS: HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.43-0.65; p < 0.001), but not as a combination therapy (OS: HR, 0.62, 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; p = 0.073).
Conclusions: The occurrence of irAEs was significantly associated with a better ICI efficacy in patients with cancer, particularly endocrine, dermatological, and low-grade irAEs. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings.
Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019129310.