4.6 Article

Anti-PD-1-Induced Pneumonitis Is Associated with Persistent Imaging Abnormalities in Melanoma Patients

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 7, 期 11, 页码 1755-1759

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0717

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI/NIHK23 [CA204726]
  2. Melanoma Research Foundation/Bristol-Myers Squibb Young Investigator Award
  3. James C. Bradford Jr. Melanoma Fund
  4. NCI Skin SPORE [5P50CA168536]
  5. American Cancer Society Institutional Resource Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pneumonitis may complicate anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) therapy, although symptoms usually resolve with steroids. The long-term effects on respiratory function, however, are not well defined. We screened melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1, with and without ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4), and identified 31 patients with pneumonitis. Median time to radiographic findings was 4.8 months. Twenty-three patients (74%) presented with respiratory symptoms, whereas 8 (26%) were asymptomatic, and 11 (35%) were hospitalized. With 22.1 months median follow-up, 27 patients (87%) had resolution of symptoms, whereas 4 had persistent cough, dyspnea, and/or wheezing. By contrast, the rate of radiographic resolution was lower: Only 11 (35%) had complete radiographic resolution, whereas 14 (45%) had improvement of pneumonitis with persistent scarring or opacities, and 6 (19%) had persistent or worsened ground-glass opacities and/or nodular densities. Persistence (vs. resolution) of radiographic findings was associated with older age and initial need for steroids but not with need for hospitalization, timing of onset, or treatment regimen (combination vs. monotherapy). Among patients with serial pulmonary function tests, lung function improved with time. Although symptoms of anti-PD-1-induced pneumonitis resolved quickly, scarring or inflammation frequently persisted on computerized tomography. Therefore, further study of subclinical pulmonary effects of anti-PD-1 is needed.

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