Evidence Hub

Predictive capacity of immune-related adverse events and cytokine profiling in neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor trials for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Alnemri AE, Tekumalla S, Moroco AE, Vathiotis I, Tuluc M, Gargano S, Zhan T, Cognetti DM et al.

Cancer medicine, 2024

113 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Certain low-level immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have been associated with survival benefits in patients with various solid tumors on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to investigate the association between irAEs and response to neoadjuvant ICIs in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and to identify differences in circulating cytokine levels based on irAE status.

METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study including three neoadjuvant clinical trials from July 2017 to January 2022: NCT03238365 (nivolumab ± tadalafil), NCT03854032 (nivolumab ± BMS986205), NCT03618654 (durvalumab ± metformin). The presence and type of irAEs, pathologic treatment response, and survival were compared. Canonical linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was performed to identify combinations of circulating cytokines predictive of irAEs using plasma sample multiplex assay.

RESULTS: Of 113 participants meeting inclusion criteria, 32 (28.3%) developed irAEs during treatment or follow-up. Positive p16 status was associated with irAEs (odds ratio [OR] 2.489; 95% CI 1.069-6.119; p = 0.043). irAEs were associated with pathologic treatment response (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.34-10.35; p = 0.011) and with higher OS in the combined cohort (HR 0.319; 95% CI 0.113-0.906; p = 0.032). Patients with irAEs within the nivolumab cohort had significant elevations of select cytokines pre-treatment. Canonical LDA identified key drivers of irAEs among all trials, which were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 113 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free