Immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause a number of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of various degrees of severity, such as colitis, pneumonitis, hypothyroidism, liver problems and skin rashes. A recent multi-centre, retrospective study published in Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer investigated the safety and efficacy of re-treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as nivolumab and ipilimumab after the patient has experienced a clinically significant immune-related adverse event.

The study included 499 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Eighty (80) patients had at least a week without treatment because of an immune-related adverse event. Patients were grouped according to whether they were re-treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor, or stopped treatment altogether.

Of the 80 patients who developed immune-related adverse events warranting treatment interruption, 36 (45%) restarted immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment and 44 (55%) stopped treatment. Time to initial immune-related adverse event and the type and grade of adverse event were similar between the two groups of patients. However, fewer patients in the re-treatment group needed corticosteroids and hospitalisation for the management of their immune-related adverse event compared with patients who stopped treatment.

After re-treatment, 50% (18 patients) experienced subsequent immune-related adverse events (12 new, 6 recurrent) with 7 (19%) adverse events being graded as severe and 13 drug interruptions. Median time to recurrence of an immune-related adverse event after re-treatment was 2.8 months. Re-treatment resulted in 6 (23.1%) additional responses in 26 patients whose disease had not previously responded, and 2-year overall survival was 76% and 66% in the re-treatment and discontinuation groups, respectively.

Despite a high recurrence rate of immune-related adverse events when patients are re-treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, most were low grade and controllable. Further studies are needed to confirm whether survival outcomes justify the safety risks in these patients.

Read more in UroToday here