Drug Evaluation

Atezolizumab for use in PD-L1-positive unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +49 6221 56 37372; Fax: +49 6221 56 5614;

E-mail Address: athanasios.mavratzas@med.uni-heidelberg.de

National Center for Tumor Disease, Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Julia Seitz

National Center for Tumor Disease, Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Katharina Smetanay

National Center for Tumor Disease, Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Andreas Schneeweiss

National Center for Tumor Disease, Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Dirk Jäger

National Center for Tumor Disease, Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Carlo Fremd

National Center for Tumor Disease, Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:12 Dec 2019https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2019-0468

View article

Abstract

Since the US FDA-approval of the first immune checkpoint inhibitor, anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 monoclonal antibody ipilimumab, for metastatic melanoma on 28 March 2011, another six agents have been granted use among a multitude of tumors, including renal cell cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, urothelial carcinoma and non-small-cell lung cancer. The first anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody to receive the FDA approval, atezolizumab (Tecentriq^®), has yielded promising results among international Phase III trials in triple-negative breast cancer and small-cell lung cancer, expanding the field of cancer immunotherapies. Herein, we review the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of atezolizumab, its safety and efficacy data from early clinical trials and summarize data from Phase III IMpassion130 trial, prompting FDA and EMA approval of atezolizumab in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Finally, implications for clinical use and ongoing research will be briefly discussed.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68(6), 394–424 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Zeichner SB, Herna S, Mani A et al. Survival of patients with de-novo metastatic breast cancer: analysis of data from a large breast cancer-specific private practice, a university-based cancer center and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 153(3), 617–624 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Collignon J, Lousberg L, Schroeder H, Jerusalem G. Triple-negative breast cancer: treatment challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer (Dove Med. Press) 8, 93–107 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Millikan RC, Newman B, Tse CK et al. Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 109(1), 123–139 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Lin NU, Vanderplas A, Hughes ME et al. Clinicopathologic features, patterns of recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer 118(22), 5463–5472 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Gobbini E, Ezzalfani M, Dieras V et al. Time trends of overall survival among metastatic breast cancer patients in the real-life ESME cohort. Eur. J. Cancer 96, 17–24 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Yardley DA, Coleman R, Conte P et al. nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the tnAcity trial. Ann. Oncol. 29(8), 1763–1770 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Miles DW, Dieras V, Cortes J, Duenne AA, Yi J, O'Shaughnessy J. First-line bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: pooled and subgroup analyses of data from 2447 patients. Ann. Oncol. 24(11), 2773–2780 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Schneeweiss A, Denkert C, Fasching PA et al. Diagnosis and therapy of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) – recommendations for daily routine practice. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 79(6), 605–617 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Cortes J, O'Shaughnessy J, Loesch D et al. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a Phase III open-label randomised study. Lancet 377(9769), 914–923 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Brufsky AM, Hurvitz S, Perez E et al. RIBBON-2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for second-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 29(32), 4286–4293 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Timms KM, Liu S et al. Incidence and outcome of BRCA mutations in unselected patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 17(5), 1082–1089 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Griguolo G, Dieci MV, Guarneri V, Conte P. Olaparib for the treatment of breast cancer. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 18(6), 519–530 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO et al. Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95(19), 1482–1485 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Lidereau R, Eisinger F, Champeme MH et al. Major improvement in the efficacy of BRCA1 mutation screening using morphoclinical features of breast cancer. Cancer Res. 60(5), 1206–1210 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(8), 753–763 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Robson M, Goessl C, Domchek S. Olaparib for metastatic germline BRCA-mutated breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(18), 1792–1793 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Robson ME, Tung N, Conte P et al. OlympiAD final overall survival and tolerability results: olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 30(4), 558–566 (2019). • Randomized Phase III trial of olaparib monotherapy versus treatment of physician's choice in germline BRCA-mutated HER-2-negative breast cancer reporting superior progression-free survival for olaparib (7.0 vs 4.2 months) and response rate (59.9 vs 28.8%).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Burstein MD, Tsimelzon A, Poage GM et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies novel subtypes and targets of triple-negative breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 21(7), 1688–1698 (2015). • Independently identified molecular subtypes of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) incorporating immune transcripts.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Jezequel P, Loussouarn D, Guerin-Charbonnel C et al. Gene-expression molecular subtyping of triple-negative breast cancer tumours: importance of immune response. Breast Cancer Res. 17, 43 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Lehmann BD, Jovanovic B, Chen X et al. Refinement of triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes: implications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy selection. PLoS ONE 11(6), e0157368 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Stanton SE, Adams S, Disis ML. Variation in the incidence and magnitude of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer subtypes: a systematic review. JAMA Oncol. 2(10), 1354–1360 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Cazet AS, Hui MN, Elsworth BL et al. Targeting stromal remodeling and cancer stem cell plasticity overcomes chemoresistance in triple negative breast cancer. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 2897 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S et al. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis in different subtypes of breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 3771 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lancet Oncol. 19(1), 40–50 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Adams S, Gray RJ, Demaria S et al. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancers from two Phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials: ECOG 2197 and ECOG 1199. J. Clin. Oncol. 32(27), 2959–2966 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Loi S. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, breast cancer subtypes and therapeutic efficacy. Oncoimmunology 2(7), e24720 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Schalper KA, Velcheti V, Carvajal D et al. In situ tumor PD-L1 mRNA expression is associated with increased TILs and better outcome in breast carcinomas. Clin. Cancer Res. 20(10), 2773–2782 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Kroemer G, Senovilla L, Galluzzi L, André F, Zitvogel L. Natural and therapy-induced immunosurveillance in breast cancer. Nat. Med. 21(10), 1128–1138 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5), 646–674 (2011).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Cimino-Mathews A, Ye X, Meeker A, Argani P, Emens LA. Metastatic triple-negative breast cancers at first relapse have fewer tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes than their matched primary breast tumors: a pilot study. Hum. Pathol. 44(10), 2055–2063 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Szekely B, Bossuyt V, Li X et al. Immunological differences between primary and metastatic breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 29(11), 2232–2239 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Oleinika K, Nibbs RJ, Graham GJ, Fraser AR. Suppression, subversion and escape: the role of regulatory T cells in cancer progression. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 171(1), 36–45 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Dong H, Zhu G, Tamada K, Chen L. B7-H1, a third member of the B7 family, co-stimulates T-cell proliferation and interleukin-10 secretion. Nat. Med. 5(12), 1365–1369 (1999).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Muenst S, Schaerli AR, Gao F et al. Expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is associated with poor prognosis in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 146(1), 15–24 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Qin T, Zeng YD, Qin G et al. High PD-L1 expression was associated with poor prognosis in 870 Chinese patients with breast cancer. Oncotarget 6(32), 33972–33981 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Baptista MZ, Sarian LO, Derchain SF, Pinto GA, Vassallo J. Prognostic significance of PD-L1 and PD-L2 in breast cancer. Hum. Pathol. 47(1), 78–84 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Tomioka N, Azuma M, Ikarashi M et al. The therapeutic candidate for immune checkpoint inhibitors elucidated by the status of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Breast Cancer 25(1), 34–42 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Egelston CA, Avalos C, Tu TY et al. Human breast tumor-infiltrating CD8(+) T cells retain polyfunctionality despite PD-1 expression. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 4297 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Chen M, Pockaj B, Andreozzi M et al. JAK2 and PD-L1 amplification enhance the dynamic expression of PD-L1 in triple-negative breast cancer. Clin. Breast Cancer 18(5), e1205–e1215 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Sanmamed MF, Chen L. Inducible expression of B7-H1 (PD-L1) and its selective role in tumor site immune modulation. Cancer J. 20(4), 256–261 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Taube JM, Anders RA, Young GD et al. Colocalization of inflammatory response with B7-h1 expression in human melanocytic lesions supports an adaptive resistance mechanism of immune escape. Sci. Transl. Med. 4(127), 127ra137 (2012).
Google Scholar
42. Freeman GJ, Long AJ, Iwai Y et al. Engagement of the PD-1 immunoinhibitory receptor by a novel B7 family member leads to negative regulation of lymphocyte activation. J. Exp. Med. 192(7), 1027–1034 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Blank C, Gajewski TF, Mackensen A. Interaction of PD-L1 on tumor cells with PD-1 on tumor-specific T cells as a mechanism of immune evasion: implications for tumor immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 54(4), 307–314 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Dong H, Strome SE, Salomao DR et al. Tumor-associated B7-H1 promotes T-cell apoptosis: a potential mechanism of immune evasion. Nat. Med. 8(8), 793–800 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Nishimura H, Nose M, Hiai H, Minato N, Honjo T. Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying immunoreceptor. Immunity 11(2), 141–151 (1999).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Keir ME, Butte MJ, Freeman GJ, Sharpe AH. PD-1 and its ligands in tolerance and immunity. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 26, 677–704 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Wei SC, Duffy CR, Allison JP. Fundamental mechanisms of immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Cancer Discov. 8(9), 1069–1086 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Deng R, Bumbaca D, Pastuskovas CV et al. Preclinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, tissue distribution, and tumor penetration of anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, an immune checkpoint inhibitor. mAbs 8(3), 593–603 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Herbst RS, Soria JC, Kowanetz M et al. Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients. Nature 515(7528), 563–567 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Akbari O, Stock P, Singh AK et al. PD-L1 and PD-L2 modulate airway inflammation and iNKT-cell-dependent airway hyperreactivity in opposing directions. Mucosal. Immunol. 3(1), 81–91 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Matsumoto K, Fukuyama S, Eguchi-Tsuda M et al. B7-DC induced by IL-13 works as a feedback regulator in the effector phase of allergic asthma. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 365(1), 170–175 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Powles T, Eder JP, Fine GD et al. MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer. Nature 515(7528), 558–562 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53. Mizugaki H, Yamamoto N, Murakami H et al. Phase I dose-finding study of monotherapy with atezolizumab, an engineered immunoglobulin monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1, in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Invest. New Drugs 34(5), 596–603 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Bai S, Jorga K, Xin Y et al. A guide to rational dosing of monoclonal antibodies. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 51(2), 119–135 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55. Emens LA, Cruz C, Eder JP et al. Long-term clinical outcomes and biomarker analyses of atezolizumab therapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a Phase I study. JAMA Oncol. 5(1), 74–82 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
56. Schmid PC, Braiteh FS, Eder JP et al. Atezolizumab in metastatic TNBC (mTNBC): long-term clinical outcomes and biomarker analyses. Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017 Apr 1–5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR. Cancer Res. 2017, 77 (2017). • First Phase II study evaluating atezolizumab in metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) implicating higher response rates in earlier lines of treatment.
Google Scholar
57. Dirix LY, Takacs I, Jerusalem G et al. Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a Phase Ib JAVELIN Solid Tumor study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 167(3), 671–686 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Nanda R, Chow LQ, Dees EC et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer: Phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(21), 2460–2467 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Adams SL, Toppmeyer DL, Cescon DW et al. KEYNOTE-086 cohort B: pembrolizumab monotherapy for PD-L1–positive, previously untreated, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5–9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR. Cancer Res. 2018, 78 (2018).
Google Scholar
60. Adams S, Schmid P, Rugo HS et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort A of the Phase II KEYNOTE-086 study. Ann. Oncol. 30(3), 397–404 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Adams S, Loi S, Toppmeyer D et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-positive, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: cohort B of the Phase II KEYNOTE-086 study. Ann. Oncol. 30(3), 405–411 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Winer E, Dang T, Karantza V, Su SC. KEYNOTE-119: A randomized Phase III study of single-agent pembrolizumab (MK-3475) vs single-agent chemotherapy per physician's choice for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 34 (2017).
Google Scholar
63. Merck. Update on Phase III KEYNOTE-119 study of KEYTRUDA^® (pembrolizumab) monotherapy in previously-treated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (2019). https://bit.ly/2WYCRjO
Google Scholar
64. Galluzzi L, Buque A, Kepp O, Zitvogel L, Kroemer G. Immunological effects of conventional chemotherapy and targeted anticancer agents. Cancer Cell 28(6), 690–714 (2015). •• Excellent review summarizing immunological effects of conventional cytostatic therapies supporting the biological rationale to combine immune checkpoint inhibition with conventional chemotherapies.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
65. Carson WE 3rd, Shapiro CL, Crespin TR, Thornton LM, Andersen BL. Cellular immunity in breast cancer patients completing taxane treatment. Clin. Cancer Res. 10(10), 3401–3409 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
66. Scurr M, Pembroke T, Bloom A et al. Low-dose cyclophosphamide induces antitumor T-cell responses, which associate with survival in metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 23(22), 6771–6780 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
67. de Biasi AR, Villena-Vargas J, Adusumilli PS. Cisplatin-induced antitumor immunomodulation: a review of preclinical and clinical evidence. Clin. Cancer Res. 20(21), 5384–5391 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
68. Alizadeh D, Trad M, Hanke NT et al. Doxorubicin eliminates myeloid-derived suppressor cells and enhances the efficacy of adoptive T-cell transfer in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 74(1), 104–118 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
69. Adams S, Diamond JR, Hamilton E et al. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with 2-year survival follow-up: a Phase Ib clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 5(3), 334–342 (2018).
Google Scholar
70. Tolaney S, Savulsky C, Aktan G, Xing D, Karantza V, Diab S. Phase Ib/II study to evaluate eribulin mesylate in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. AACR, San Antonio, TX, USA, 6–10 December 2016. Cancer Res. 77, Abstract nr OT3-04-05 (2017).
Google Scholar
71. Voorwerk L, Slagter M, Horlings HM et al. Publisher Correction: immune induction strategies in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer to enhance the sensitivity to PD-1 blockade: the TONIC trial. Nat. Med. 25(7), 1175 (2019). • First noncomparative Phase II trial of mTNBC demonstrating short-term induction treatment with either doxorubicin or cisplatin to be effective in expansion of T-cell clonality and subsequent response to anti-PD-1 treatment.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
72. Jiao S, Xia W, Yamaguchi H et al. PARP inhibitor upregulates PD-L1 expression and enhances cancer-associated immunosuppression. Clin. Cancer Res. 23(14), 3711–3720 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
73. Wang S, Sun K, Xiao Y et al. Evaluation of niraparib in combination with anti-PD1/anti-PD-L1 in preclinical models. Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018. AACR, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–18 April 2018. Cancer Res. 78 (2018).
Google Scholar
74. Vinayak S, Tolaney SM, Schwartzberg L et al. Open-label clinical trial of niraparib combined with pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 5(8), 1132–1140 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
75. Lee JM, Cimino-Mathews A, Peer CJ et al. Safety and clinical activity of the programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor durvalumab in combination with poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1–3 inhibitor cediranib in women's cancers: a dose-escalation, Phase I Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(19), 2193–2202 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
76. Domchek S, Bang YJ, Park YH et al. An open-label, multitumor, Phase II basket study of olaparib and durvalumab (MEDIOLA): results in germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. AACR, San Antonio, TX, USA, 5–9 December 2017. Cancer Res. 2018, 78 (2018).
Google Scholar
77. Dent R, Kim SB, Traina T et al. The DORA trial: a non-comparator randomised Phase II multi-center maintenance study of olaparib alone or olaparib in combination with durvalumab in platinum treated advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. AACR, San Antonio, TX, USA, 5–9 December 2017. Cancer Res. 2018, 78 (2018).
Google Scholar
78. Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS et al. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(22), 2108–2121 (2018). •• Pivotal Phase III study to demonstrate clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive (IC) mTNBC patients.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
79. Schmid PA, Rugo HS, Schneeweiss A et al. IMpassion130: updated overall survival (OS) from a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of atezolizumab (atezo) + nab-paclitaxel (nP) in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). J. Clin. Oncol. 37, 1003–1003 (2019).
Google Scholar
80. Emens LA, Rugo HS, Schneeweiss A et al. IMpassion130: efficacy in immune biomarker subgroups from the global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel in patients with treatment-naïve, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Presented at: SABCS. Abstract GS01-04, San Antonio, TX, USA, 4–8 December 2018.
Google Scholar
81. Rugo HS, Adams S, Schmid P et al. Performance of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays in unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC): post-hoc analysis of Impassion130. Ann. Oncol. 30(Suppl. 5), v851–v934 (2019).
Google Scholar
82. Socinski MA, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F et al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(24), 2288–2301 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
83. Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczesna A et al. First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379(23), 2220–2229 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
84. Kirkwood JM, Bender C, Agarwala S et al. Mechanisms and management of toxicities associated with high-dose interferon alfa-2b therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 20(17), 3703–3718 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
85. Naidoo J, Page DB, Li BT et al. Toxicities of the anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint antibodies. Ann. Oncol. 26(12), 2375–2391 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
86. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(1), 23–34 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
87. Joshi MN, Whitelaw BC, Palomar MT, Wu Y, Carroll PV. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related hypophysitis and endocrine dysfunction: clinical review. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.) 85(3), 331–339 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
88. Chow LQ. Exploring novel immune-related toxicities and endpoints with immune-checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book e280–286 (2013).
Google Scholar
89. Su Q, Zhu EC, Wu JB et al. Risk of pneumonitis and pneumonia associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Immunol. 10, 108 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
90. Xiao Y, Yu S, Zhu B et al. RGMb is a novel binding partner for PD-L2 and its engagement with PD-L2 promotes respiratory tolerance. J. Exp. Med. 211(5), 943–959 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
91. Suzman DL, Pelosof L, Rosenberg A, Avigan MI. Hepatotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: an evolving picture of risk associated with a vital class of immunotherapy agents. Liver Int 38(6), 976–987 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
92. Zen Y, Yeh MM. Hepatotoxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a histology study of seven cases in comparison with autoimmune hepatitis and idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury. Mod. Pathol. 31(6), 965–973 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
93. Abu-Sbeih H, Ali FS, Alsaadi D et al. Outcomes of vedolizumab therapy in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis: a multi-center study. J. Immunother. Cancer 6(1), 142 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
94. Geukes Foppen MH, Rozeman EA, van Wilpe S et al. Immune checkpoint inhibition-related colitis: symptoms, endoscopic features, histology and response to management. ESMO Open 3(1), e000278 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
95. Brahmer JR, Lacchetti C, Thompson JA. Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline summary. J. Oncol. Pract. 14(4), 247–249 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
96. Min L. Immune-related endocrine disorders in novel immune checkpoint inhibition therapy. Genes Dis. 3(4), 252–256 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
97. Iwama S, De Remigis A, Callahan MK, Slovin SF, Wolchok JD, Caturegli P. Pituitary expression of CTLA-4 mediates hypophysitis secondary to administration of CTLA-4 blocking antibody. Sci. Transl. Med. 6(230), 230ra245 (2014).
Google Scholar
98. Narita T, Oiso N, Taketomo Y et al. Serological aggravation of autoimmune thyroid disease in two cases receiving nivolumab. J. Dermatol. 43(2), 210–214 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
99. Sznol M, Postow MA, Davies MJ et al. Endocrine-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade and expert insights on their management. Cancer Treat. Rev. 58, 70–76 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
100. Curry JL, Tetzlaff MT, Nagarajan P et al. Diverse types of dermatologic toxicities from immune checkpoint blockade therapy. J. Cutan. Pathol. 44(2), 158–176 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
101. Lacouture ME, Wolchok JD, Yosipovitch G, Kahler KC, Busam KJ, Hauschild A. Ipilimumab in patients with cancer and the management of dermatologic adverse events. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 71(1), 161–169 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
102. Brahmer JR, Lacchetti C, Schneider BJ et al. Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(17), 1714–1768 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
103. Pollack MH, Betof A, Dearden H et al. Safety of resuming anti-PD-1 in patients with immune-related adverse events (irAEs) during combined anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD1 in metastatic melanoma. Ann. Oncol. 29(1), 250–255 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
104. Naidoo J, Wang X, Woo KM et al. Pneumonitis in patients treated with anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(7), 709–717 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
105. Schadendorf D, Hodi FS, Robert C et al. Pooled analysis of long-term survival data from Phase II and Phase III trials of ipilimumab in unresectable or metastatic melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(17), 1889–1894 (2015). • Long-term analysis of melanoma patients and first evidence of long-term immune checkpoint inhibition-mediated survival in cancer patients
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
106. Hassel JC. 5-year results for pembrolizumab treatment of advanced melanoma. Lancet Oncol. 20(9), 1187–1189 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
107. Schmid PC, Dent R, Pusztai L et al. KEYNOTE-522: Phase III study of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus placebo + chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment, followed by pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant treatment for early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Ann. Oncol. 30(Suppl. 5), v851–v934 (2019). •• Substantial increase of pathologic complete response rate by adding anti-PD-1 treatment as an adjunct to standard of care neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early TNBC patients.
Google Scholar
108. Esteva FJ, Hubbard-Lucey VM, Tang J, Pusztai L. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy combinations in metastatic breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 20(3), e175–e186 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
109. Fremd C, Jaeger D, Schneeweiss A. Targeted and immuno-biology driven treatment strategies for triple-negative breast cancer: current knowledge and future perspectives. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 19(1), 29–42 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
110. Chretien S, Zerdes I, Bergh J, Matikas A, Foukakis T. Beyond PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition: what the future holds for breast cancer immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 11(5), 1–58 (2019).
Google Scholar

Vol. 16, No. 3

Metrics

Downloaded 674 times

History

Received 2 August 2019

Accepted 22 November 2019

Published online 12 December 2019

Published in print January 2020

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

All the authors contributed significantly to literature review and writing of this Review and approved the final draft. A Mavratzas designed the article, A Mavratzas and C Fremd performed literature research and wrote the manuscript. J Seitz, K Smetanay, A Schneeweiss and D Jäger reviewed the article. All the authors approved the final version.

Acknowledgments

The authors apologize to those researchers whose original research could not be mentioned due to a limited numbers of references.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

A Schneeweiss received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. A Mavratzas received travel sponsoring from Pfizer, Eisai and Celgene, as well as honoraria from Roche. C Fremd has received honoraria from Roche and Celgene. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download