Background: Concomitant medications are known to impact on clinical outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed weighing the role of different concomitant baseline medications to create a drug-based prognostic score. Methods: We evaluated concomitant baseline medications at immunotherapy initiation for their impact on objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a single-institution cohort of patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs (training cohort, N = 217), and a drug-based prognostic score with the drugs resulting significantly impacting the OS was computed. Secondly, we externally validated the score in a large multicenter external cohort (n = 1012). Results: In the training cohort (n = 217), the median age was 69 years (range: 32–89), and the primary tumours were non–small-cell lung cancer (70%), melanoma (14.7%), renal cell carcinoma (9.2%) and others (6%). Among baseline medications, corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60–3.30), systemic antibiotics (HR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.31–3.25) and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) (HR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.13–2.18) were significantly associated with OS. The prognostic score was calculated using these three drug classes, defining good, intermediate and poor prognosis patients. Within the training cohort, OS (p < 0.0001), PFS (p < 0.0001) and ORR (p = 0.0297) were significantly distinguished by the score stratification. The prognostic value of the score was also demonstrated in terms of OS (p < 0.0001), PFS (p < 0.0001) and ORR (p = 0.0006) within the external cohort. Conclusion: Cumulative exposure to corticosteroids, antibiotics and PPIs (three likely microbiota-modulating drugs) leads to progressively worse outcomes after ICI therapy. We propose a simple score that can help stratifying patients in routine practice and clinical trials of ICIs.

Effect of concomitant medications with immune-modulatory properties on the outcomes of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: development and validation of a novel prognostic index / Buti, S., Bersanelli, M., Perrone, F., Tiseo, M., Tucci, M., Adamo, V., Stucci, L.S., Russo, A., Tanda, E.T., Spagnolo, F., Rastelli, F., Pergolesi, F., Santini, D., Russano, M., Anesi, C., Giusti, R., Filetti, M., Marchetti, P., Botticelli, A., Gelibter, A., et al.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0959-8049. - 142:(2021), pp. 18-28. [10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.033]

Effect of concomitant medications with immune-modulatory properties on the outcomes of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: development and validation of a novel prognostic index

Santini D.;Filetti M.;Marchetti P.;Botticelli A.;Gelibter A.;Occhipinti M.;Macrini S.;Zoratto F.;
2021

Abstract

Background: Concomitant medications are known to impact on clinical outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed weighing the role of different concomitant baseline medications to create a drug-based prognostic score. Methods: We evaluated concomitant baseline medications at immunotherapy initiation for their impact on objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a single-institution cohort of patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs (training cohort, N = 217), and a drug-based prognostic score with the drugs resulting significantly impacting the OS was computed. Secondly, we externally validated the score in a large multicenter external cohort (n = 1012). Results: In the training cohort (n = 217), the median age was 69 years (range: 32–89), and the primary tumours were non–small-cell lung cancer (70%), melanoma (14.7%), renal cell carcinoma (9.2%) and others (6%). Among baseline medications, corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60–3.30), systemic antibiotics (HR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.31–3.25) and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) (HR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.13–2.18) were significantly associated with OS. The prognostic score was calculated using these three drug classes, defining good, intermediate and poor prognosis patients. Within the training cohort, OS (p < 0.0001), PFS (p < 0.0001) and ORR (p = 0.0297) were significantly distinguished by the score stratification. The prognostic value of the score was also demonstrated in terms of OS (p < 0.0001), PFS (p < 0.0001) and ORR (p = 0.0006) within the external cohort. Conclusion: Cumulative exposure to corticosteroids, antibiotics and PPIs (three likely microbiota-modulating drugs) leads to progressively worse outcomes after ICI therapy. We propose a simple score that can help stratifying patients in routine practice and clinical trials of ICIs.
2021
antibiotics; cancer patients; concomitant medications; corticosteroids; drugs; immune checkpoint inhibitors; immunotherapy; index; prognostic; proton-pump inhibitors; score
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Effect of concomitant medications with immune-modulatory properties on the outcomes of patients with advanced cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: development and validation of a novel prognostic index / Buti, S., Bersanelli, M., Perrone, F., Tiseo, M., Tucci, M., Adamo, V., Stucci, L.S., Russo, A., Tanda, E.T., Spagnolo, F., Rastelli, F., Pergolesi, F., Santini, D., Russano, M., Anesi, C., Giusti, R., Filetti, M., Marchetti, P., Botticelli, A., Gelibter, A., et al.. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0959-8049. - 142:(2021), pp. 18-28. [10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.033]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Buti_Effect-of-concomitant_2021.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 701.08 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
701.08 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1484353
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 66
  • Scopus 106
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 100
social impact