scholarly journals Immune checkpoint inhibitors in neuroendocrine tumors: A single institution experience with review of literature

Oncotarget ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 8801-8809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aman Chauhan ◽  
Millicent Horn ◽  
Gray Magee ◽  
Kurt Hodges ◽  
Mark Evers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Single Institution

scholarly journals Angiosarcoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a case series of seven patients from a single institution

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaia Florou ◽  
Andrew E. Rosenberg ◽  
Eric Wieder ◽  
Krishna V. Komanduri ◽  
Despina Kolonias ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Single Institution

Examining the real-world utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors in genitourinary oncology: A single-institution retrospective.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17112-e17112
Author(s):  
Lydia Glick ◽  
Cassra Clark ◽  
Timothy M. Han ◽  
James Ryan Mark ◽  
Leonard G. Gomella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Real World ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Number Of Patients

e17112 Background: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly utilized for genitourinary (GU) malignancies. However, data is lacking on the efficacy of these drugs in “real-world” populations - patients who do not fit the strict clinical trial criteria, but may still benefit from therapy. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients receiving ICI at a single tertiary-care institution, with special attention to clinical trial enrollment, adverse events, progression and survival. Methods: Patients receiving ICI for GU malignancies at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital from January 2017 to January 2019 were identified. Descriptive statistics of treatment and pathologies were performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from start of ICI to documentation of progression or last follow-up. PFS and overall survival were assessed using Kaplan Meier log-rank test, stratified by trial enrollment. Results: 111 patients were included: 37 on ICI clinical trial, 70 received ICI “off-trial” and 4 received ICI in both settings. 11 patients (10%) underwent multiple courses of ICI throughout treatment. The number of patients initiating ICI increased annually; by 2018, the number of patients initiated on ICI “off-trial” exceeded those initiating ICI “on-trial” (79% vs 21%). Treated pathology included Urothelial Carcinoma (UC; 42%), Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC; 28%), and Prostate Adenocarcinoma (PCa; 20%). “Off-trial” ICI was more often administered later in the disease course, compared to a more even distribution of “on-trial” ICI administration. Mean PFS and OS for both cohorts can be seen in Table. Conclusions: As seen in our single-institution referral center, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has significantly increased – and is now more commonly used off-trial than on-trial. As their use becomes more common, their efficacy in “off-trial” populations must be further investigated. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Correction to: Angiosarcoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a case series of seven patients from a single institution

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaia Florou ◽  
Andrew E. Rosenberg ◽  
Eric Wieder ◽  
Krishna V. Komanduri ◽  
Despina Kolonias ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Single Institution
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document