4.6 Article

The Impact of High-Dose Glucocorticoids on the Outcome of Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor-Related Thyroid Disorders

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 1214-1220

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0613

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [K08 HD070957]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81300698]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thyroid disorders have emerged as one of the most common immune-related adverse events (irAE), yet optimum management and biomarkers to predict vulnerable individuals remain to be explored. High-dose glucocorticoid (HDG) therapy is routinely recommended for irAEs. However, systematic analysis of the impact of glucocorticoid therapy on the outcome of immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-induced thyroid disorders is lacking. We analyzed 151 patients with or without ICI-related thyroid disorders. We divided the patients with ICI-related thyroid disorders into two subgroups: those with and without HDG treatment. Our results showed no significant differences between HDG and no HDG groups in terms of the median duration of thyrotoxicosis: 28 (range, 7-85) and 42 (range, 14-273) days, the median time to conversion from thyrotoxicosis to hypothyroidism: 39 days (range, 14-169) and 42 days (range, 14-315) days, the median time to onset of hypothyroidism: 63 (range, 21-190) and 63 (range, 14-489) days, and the median maintenance dose of levothyroxine: 1.5 (range, 0.4-2.3) mu g/kg/day, and 1.3 (range, 0.3-2.5) mu g/kg/day. The median pretreatment TSH was 2.3 (range, 0.3-5.2) mIU/L and 1.7 (range, 0.5-4.5) mIU/L in patients with and without ICI-related thyroid disorders, respectively. Baseline TSH was significantly higher in patients who developed ICI-related thyroid disorders (P = 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed significantly higher baseline TSH in male but not in female patients with ICI-induced thyroid dysfunction. Our results show that HDG treatment did not improve the outcome of ICI-related thyroid disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据