Abstract
Background:
Cardio-oncology and emergency medicine are closely collaborative, as many cardiac events in cancer patients require evaluation and treatment in the emergency department (ED). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a common treatment for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). However, the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) from ICIs can be clinically significant.
Methods:
We reviewed and analyzed cardiovascular diagnoses among HNC patients who received ICI during the period 4/01/2016–12/31/2020 in a large tertiary cancer center. Demographics, clinical and cancer-related data were abstracted, and billing databases were queried for cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related diagnosis using International Classification of Disease-version10 (ICD-10) codes. We recorded receipt of care at the ED as one of the outcome variables.
Results:
A total of 610 HNC patients with a median follow-up time of 12.3 months (median, interquartile range = 5–30 months) comprised our study cohort. Overall, 25.7% of patients had pre-existing CVD prior to ICI treatment. Of the remaining 453 patients without pre-existing CVD, 31.5% (n=143) had at least one CVD-related diagnosis after ICI initiation. Tachyarrhythmias (91 new events) was the most frequent CVD-related diagnosis after ICI. The time to diagnosis of myocarditis from initiation of ICI occurred the earliest (median 2.5 months, 1.5–6.8 months), followed by myocardial infarction (3.7, 0.5–9); cardiomyopathy (4.5, 1.6–7.3) and tachyarrhythmias (4.9, 1.2–11.4). Patients with myocarditis and tachyarrhythmias mainly presented to the ED for care.
Conclusion:
The use of ICI in HNC is still expanding and the spectrum of delayed manifestation of ICI-induced cardiovascular toxicities is yet to be fully defined in HNC survivors.
Keywords: Immunotherapy, Cardiovascular, Head and neck, Cancer, Emergency, Cardiotoxicity, checkpoint inhibitors
1. INTRODUCTION
The Emergency Department (ED) is a frequent site of urgent and emergency care for millions of cancer patients. As of January 2019, there were an estimated 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States (US), and this number is projected to increase to 22.2 million by 2030.1 Cancer treatment is typically delivered on an outpatient basis; therefore, the ED is a frequent site of care for acute manifestations of complications from cancer and treatment-related toxicities. Cardio-oncology and emergency medicine are closely collaborative. The incidence of CVD is higher in patients with cancer than in the general population.2–4 A recent analysis of a Nationwide Emergency Department Sample in the US showed that almost 30 million ED visits were made by patients with cancer for the period January 2006 to December 2012.5 Congestive heart failure, cardiac dysrhythmias, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were among the top 10 reasons for ED visits by cancer patients for both cancer-specific and all visits. Of these visits, adult cancer-related ED visits resulted in inpatient admissions significantly more frequently (59.7%) than non-cancer-related visits (16.3%).5
Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a common malignancy, with an estimated 54,000 new cases in the US in 20226. While a majority of HNC patients present with loco-regionally advanced disease, an estimated 30% of patients present with, or will develop, recurrent or metastatic (R/M) disease.7 The prognosis for patients with R/M HNC is poor, with a median overall survival of 10–13 months.8,9 In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) for R/M HNC.10 ICIs are monoclonal antibodies that target immune checkpoints which prevent immune escape by cancer cells and promote the destruction of cancer cells through the activation of the immune system. Specifically, two programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, pembrolizumab and nivolumab were approved for patients with R/M HNC resistant to platinum chemotherapy.11 In 2019, pembrolizumab either as a single agent or combined with chemotherapy was also adopted as the standard first-line therapy for patients with R/M HNC.10,11
In HNC clinical trials with ICI as monotherapy, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) of any grade ranged from 58% to 64%. Fatigue (13–18%) was the most common trAE, followed by hypothyroidism (9–13%), skin rash (5–8%), and diarrhea (6–8%).12–14 About 13–17% of patients had grade 3–4 (severe) trAEs with pneumonitis, diarrhea, fatigue, and an increase in transaminases being the most common. Many of the trAEs are immune-mediated, and these immune-related adverse events (irAEs), while rare can be fatal. The rate of fatal irAEs was less than 1%, with pneumonitis as the most common cause.15
Recently, studies suggested potential cardiotoxicities associated with ICI therapy.16,17 A retrospective single-center matched cohort study of 672 patients treated with ICIs between 2010 and 2020 assessed the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).18 MACE was a composite of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and stroke. The results showed that as many as 10.3% of patients developed MACE. In 252 lung cancer patients treated with ICI between 2015 and 2018, Chitturi and colleagues found that MACE occurred in 13.3% of ICI patients, with a median time to event of 51 days.19 Another single institution study of 378 patients receiving ICI treatment between 2014 and 2020 (median follow-up of 50.5 months) showed the incidence of cardiovascular events, defined as electrocardiographic alterations (such as prolonged QT, bundle branch or atrioventricular blockades or atrial fibrillation), congestive heart failure, pulmonary embolism, acute coronary syndrome, pericarditis, and myocarditis, may be as high as 16.7%. Using the data from 2011 to 2018 from the largest US insurance claims database of 2,687,301 patients with International Classification of Diseases (ICD 9/10) codes for any cancer, Jain and colleagues found that among patients who received ICI therapy, the incidence proportion of cardiovascular events were as follow: stroke (4.6%), heart failure (3.5%), atrial fibrillation (2.1%), conduction disorders (1.5%), myocardial infarction (0.9%), myocarditis (0.05%), vasculitis (0.05%), and pericarditis (0.2%) 20. Bar and colleagues retrospectively reviewed 1215 non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with ICI and found that approximately 1% of the patients developed a myocardial infarction or stroke within the first 6 months after initiation of ICI therapy.21
While these studies have begun to show that cancer patients treated with ICIs are at risk for cardiovascular irAEs that may be fatal and potentially require emergency care, few studies have characterized the spectrum of CVD-related irAEs presenting to the ED. Filling this knowledge gap will raise awareness and facilitate early detection, resulting in prompt intervention and favorable outcomes. In this study, we characterized the spectrum of CVD in a large sample of HNC patients who received ICI. Using institutional databases, we evaluated the frequency, timing, and emergency care utilization of CVD in ICI-treated R/M HNC patients.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study setting
This is a retrospective cohort study. R/M HNC patients who received ICI between April 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020, were reviewed. This study was conducted at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA in accordance with ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects and adherence to a clinical research protocol approved by the MD Anderson Institutional Review Board (protocol 2022–0359).
2.2. Study population and data collection
All consecutive cancer patients who were treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center with ICI between April 1st, 2016, and December 31st, 2020, were identified by querying the institution’s pharmacy database. Patients with a diagnosis of HNC and aged ≥18 years at the time of ICI initiation were included. Patients who had a second malignancy in addition to their HNC were excluded.
2.3. Study Variables
Demographic characteristics, ED visits, hospital admissions and observations, diagnostic ICD-10 codes, cancer-related clinicopathological data, and vital status data were collected from the institution’s data warehouse, tumor registry database, and the electronic medical records.
2.4. CVD-related diagnosis
The billing database was queried for all CVD-related diagnoses (ICD-10, see Supplementary Table 1) from the patient’s initial presentation to MD Anderson up to 01/01/2022. Using the date of initiation of ICI therapy as the index date, all CVD-related diagnoses documented in the billing database before ICI initiation were considered as pre-existing conditions. New cases of CVD-related diagnoses after ICI initiation were considered as potential CVD-irAEs. CVD-related diagnoses reported within 48 hours of an ED presentation were considered as ED related, otherwise, it was considered non-ED related. Other related comorbidities included hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and dyslipidemia.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The main characteristics of the final cohort were summarized using descriptive statistics. We reported continuous variables as medians and interquartile ranges or means and standard deviations, as appropriate, whereas categorical variables were reported as counts and percentages. The chi-square test was used to compare frequencies for the categorical variables, while Welch’s t-test or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (if the normality assumption was not met) were used to compare continuous variables. We analyzed the reporting of CVD events using a competing risk model, with death as a competing event.22 Cumulative incidence functions, which measure the sub-distribution of the cardiac event were estimated for nivolumab and pembrolizumab. A competing risk analysis of patients with no baseline heart disease who were treated with pembrolizumab was used to investigate a dose-response relationship with the occurrence of CVD, reporting the subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI). All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.1.2, The R Foundation, http://www.r-project.org).
3. RESULTS
A total of 610 adult R/M HNC patients with a median age of 64 years were included in the study (Figure 1 and Table 1). There were more men (n=493; 81%) than women, and the cohort was predominantly white (79%). As many as 26% of patients had pre-existing hypertension. Dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and peripheral vascular disease were reported in 15.4%, 8.5%, and 4.1% of patients, respectively. The median for Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 6 (interquartile range=6–7), and the mean body mass index was 25 (standard deviation= 6.8). Most patients received only one ICI (n= 558), with pembrolizumab (n=373) and nivolumab (n=91) being the most widely prescribed. Concurrent cytotoxic chemotherapy or targeted chemotherapy were ordered in 20.0% and 8.5% of the patients respectively. Almost one third of the patients (35.1%) had previous or concurrent radiotherapy.
Figure 1. Study flow diagram showing the exclusion and eligibility criteria to identify the final cohort for analysis.
Table 1.
Demographics and clinical characteristics for head and neck patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (n=610)
| Characteristic | N (%) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Total | 610 |
| Age, median (IQR), years | 64 (56, 71) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 117 (19.2) |
| Male | 493 (80.8) |
| Race | |
| White or Caucasian | 481 (78.9) |
| Black or African American | 36 (5.9) |
| Asian | 40 (6.6) |
| Others or unknown | 53 (8.6) |
| Ethnicity | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 536 (87.9) |
| Hispanic or Latino | 59 (9.7) |
| Others or unknown | 15 (2.5) |
| Comorbidities | |
| Hypertension | 157 (25.7) |
| Peripheral vascular diseases | 25 (4.1) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 52 (8.5) |
| Dyslipidemia and disorders of lipoprotein metabolism | 94 (15.4) |
| CCI, median (IQR) | 6 (6, 7) |
| Body Mass Index (mean ± SD) | 25±6.8 |
| Number of immune checkpoint inhibitors | |
| 1 | 558 (91.5) |
| 2 or more | 52 (8.5) |
| Concurrent cytotoxic chemotherapy | 122 (20.0) |
| Concurrent targeted chemotherapy | 52 (8.5) |
| Previous or concurrent radiotherapy | 214 (35.1) |
Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; CVD, cardiovascular disease; SD, standard deviation.
Using ICD-10 codes, we found that as many as 25.7% of HNC (n=157) patients had at least one pre-existing CVD-related diagnosis (Supplementary Table 2) and 55% (n=86) of these patients had at least one CVD-related diagnosis after ICI. Of the remaining 453 patients without pre-existing CVD, 35.5% (n=143; p<0.05) had at least one CVD-related diagnosis after ICI initiation (Supplementary Table 3).
Table 2 (Panel A) shows a total of 255 CVD-related diagnoses were made after initiation of ICI among the 453 patients without pre-existing CVD-related diagnoses. The top 5 CVD-related diagnoses were tachyarrhythmias (n=91); other ischemic heart diseases (n=42); other heart diseases (n=19); valvular heart disease (n=19) and conduction disorders (n=18). Myocarditis and cardiac arrest were documented in 6 and 4 patients, respectively. As many as 45% (n= 115) of these diagnoses were ED-related, with a higher proportion of patients receiving a diagnosis of myocarditis and tachyarrhythmias in the ED (Table 2, Panel B). Of the 110 ED visits, 76% were admitted, 13% were observed in an observation unit and 11% were discharged. We also found that 28.6% of those discharged revisited the ED within 72 hours from the time of discharge.
Table 2.
New CVD-related diagnoses (Panel A) and ED versus Non-ED presentation (Panel B)
| Panel A | Panel B |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis | New events * |
ED, n (%) | Non-ED, n (%) |
|
| |||
| Tachyarrhythmias | 91 | 51 (56.0) | 40 (44.0) |
| Other ischemic heart diseases | 42 | 13 (31.0) | 29 (69.0) |
| Other heart diseases | 19 | 11 (57.9) | 8 (42.1) |
| Valvular heart disease | 19 | 3 (15.8) | 16 (84.2) |
| Conduction disorder | 18 | 3 (16.7) | 15 (83.3) |
| Myocardial infarction | 13 | 8 (61.5) | 5 (38.5) |
| Pericardium diseases including pericarditis | 13 | 5 (38.5) | 8 (61.5) |
| Heart failure | 13 | 7 (53.8) | 6 (46.2) |
| Cardiomyopathy | 10 | 6 (60.0) | 4 (40.0) |
| Endocarditis | 7 | 0 (0) | 7 (100) |
| Myocarditis | 6 | 5 (83.3) | 1 (16.7) |
| Cardiac arrest | 4 | 3 (75.0) | 1 (25.0) |
Patients may have more than one reported
Since cardiovascular events cannot occur after a patient has died, the cumulative incidence for selected CV-related diagnosis was adjusted for overall mortality using competing risk analysis. Supplementary Figure 1 shows there were no statistically significant differences in the cumulative incidence of CV-related diagnoses for pembrolizumab and nivolumab.
Table 3 shows the time to diagnosis of myocarditis from initiation of ICI occurred earliest (median, interquartile range; 2.5, 1.5–6.8 months), followed by myocardial infarction (3.7, 0.5–9); cardiomyopathy (4.5, 1.6–7.3) and tachyarrhythmias (4.9, 1.2–11.4). Whereas the time to diagnosis of heart failure (8.4, 1.1–11.3), valvular heart disease (9.3, 4.2–18.5), and conduction disorder (10, 4.65–13.3) occurred later during the observation period.
Table 3.
Time to reported cardiovascular events (in months) identified using International Classification of Disease-version10 (ICD-10) codes in head and neck cancer patients after immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy (n=610)
| Disease | Range | Median (IQR) | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Myocarditis | 0.7–11.3 | 2.5 (1.5–6.8) | 4.4±4.2 |
| Myocardial infarction | 0.1–33.7 | 3.7 (0.5–9) | 8.1±11.3 |
| Cardiomyopathy | 0.5–16.8 | 4.5 (1.6–7.3) | 5.4±5 |
| Tachyarrhythmias | 0.1–48.7 | 4.9 (1.2–11.4) | 8.1±9.3 |
| Pericardium (including pericarditis) | 0.3–15 | 5.2 (3.1–9.3) | 5.8±4.2 |
| Other heart diseases | 0–14.5 | 5.3 (1.5–9.8) | 5.8±4.7 |
| Other ischemic heart diseases | 0.2–40.3 | 5.3 (1.8–11.9) | 8.1±8.4 |
| Cardiac arrest | 0.5–16.2 | 6.1 (1.3–12) | 7.2±7.5 |
| Endocarditis | 0.1–20.7 | 6.7 (2.5–13.1) | 8.4±8.3 |
| Heart failure | 0.1–41.9 | 8.4 (1.1–11.3) | 11.4±12.3 |
| Valvular heart disease | 0.1–66 | 9.3 (4.2–18.5) | 14.4±15.3 |
| Conduction disorder | 0.2–27.7 | 10 (4.5–13.3) | 9.9±7.7 |
Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation
Supplementary Table 4. shows a comparison of time to diagnosis of CV-related diagnosis between pembrolizumab and nivolumab. The time to diagnosis of myocarditis (pembrolizumab: 5.7± 2.2 months (median ± interquartile range), nivolumab: 11.3± 0 months), conduction disorder (pembrolizumab: 8.5± 5; nivolumab: 10.9± 8.6) and valvular heart disease (pembrolizumab:10± 11.2; nivolumab:27.7± 0) appeared to occur earlier among patients who received pembrolizumab compared with nivolumab. However, cardiac arrest (nivolumab: 0.5± 0; pembrolizumab: 8.9± 7.4); diseases of the pericardium (nivolumab: 1.9± 2.2, pembrolizumab: 5.4± 5.7) and heart failure (nivolumab: 4.6± 8, pembrolizumab: 7.7± 7.8) were observed to occur earlier in patients receiving nivolumab. Tachyarrhythmia (pembrolizumab:4.7± 9.6, nivolumab: 4.8± 9.1); cardiomyopathy (pembrolizumab: 5.4± 4.1; nivolumab: 5.3± 8.1) occurred at the same time for both nivolumab and pembrolizumab.
In the univariate competing risk sub-analysis of patients with no baseline heart disease and were treated with pembrolizumab, we found that patients who had a high (400 mg or more) cumulative dose of pembrolizumab had an increased risk of CVD compared to patients with a low cumulative dose, however, the association was not significantly different (SHR [95%CI]: 2.15 [0.85, 5.42]; P=0.110). Higher body mass index and concurrent chemotherapy were found to be significantly associated with CVD (SHR [95%CI]: 1.05 [1.00, 1.10]; P=0.033 and SHR [95%CI]: 1.72 [1.04, 2.83]; P=0.033, respectively (Supplementary Table 5). The same trend was observed in the multivariable analysis for the high vs. low cumulative dose (SHR [95%CI]: 1.92 [0.76, 4.89]; P=0.170) (Supplementary Table 6).
4. DISCUSSION
ICI has significantly improved the overall survival of patients with R/M HNC, and although overall well tolerated, IRAEs can occur and may lead to long-term or permanent toxicities/morbidities that affect the quality of life of HNC patients. We found that one in four of our patients had pre-existing CVD-comorbidity, which is consistent with other studies of cancer patients.23,24 After excluding these patients from our cohort, we found that a third of our patients received a diagnosis of potential CVD-irAE after receiving ICI therapy.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate potential CVD-irAEs in a large sample of HNC patients. In our previous systematic review,25 we found only 11 published studies (6 case reports/series, 4 clinical trials, and 1 prospective study) on irAEs in HNC patients. We found from case reports/case series a total of 8 patients with serious irAEs. Enterocolitis, pneumonitis,26 autoimmune encephalitis,27,28 autoimmune hepatitis,27,29 oral mucositis,30 Stevens-Johnson syndrome-related conjunctivitis,30 lichenoid dermatitis,31 psoriasis,26 and arthritis,26 were reported. From the pooled 791 patients who participated in clinical trials of PD-1 inhibitors,11,14,15,32 we identified 46 trAEs, with the most frequent potential irAEs involving the endocrine, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal systems. To date, studies of potential CVD-irAEs in HNC patients are from case reports of myocarditis.33,34
Patients with myocarditis and tachyarrhythmias mainly presented to the ED for care. This is not surprising since the symptomatology of these conditions predominantly have acute or subacute onset with changes in vital signs that can be life-threatening. Consistent with other studies, we found that myocarditis presented relatively early after the use of ICIs. While rare, myocarditis is associated with a nearly 50% mortality rate and serious cardiovascular sequelae in up to 46% of patients.35,36 Of the patients who presented to the ED, 76% were admitted, 13% were observed in an observation unit and 11% were discharged. We also found that 28.6% of those discharged presented to the ED within 72 hours from the time of discharge. The high rates of hospitalization and ED revisit attest to the high acuity and potentially serious nature of CV-irAEs. At our institution, patients present to the clinic for routine follow-up, and when new CV symptoms or abnormal vital signs are noted, they are sent to the ED for a full diagnostic workup and management. For the other CVD diagnoses, the cardiology clinic provides comprehensive cardiac care to patients who have co-existing heart disease and who develop cardiotoxicities.
We did not find significant differences in the timing and frequency of occurrence of CV-irAES between pembrolizumab and nivolumab. This is consistent with data from clinical trials.36 Moreover, a recent study of 736 melanoma patients treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab confirmed no statistically significant differences in toxicity between the two drugs.37 Pembrolizumab monotherapy has a more favorable safety/toxicity profile than pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy owing to the added toxicity profiles of individual agents.7
As expected, we found a higher percentage of CVD-related diagnoses after ICI among those with pre-existing CVD. Those with prior history may have other underlying genetic or non-genetic risk factors and are at higher risk of additional CV events.17–20 Several mechanisms by which ICIs cause CV-irAEs have been proposed: 1) Antigens common to tumor cells and cardiomyocytes may lead to cross-reactivity;38,39 2) ICIs promote the formation of autoantibodies (e,g., autoantibodies reacting to cardiac troponin I;40,41 3) ICIs can lead to increased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, some of which can upregulate PD-L1 on cardiomyocytes to protect from immune-mediated cardiac injury; 4) disruption of PD-1/PD-L1 signaling may promote the development of cardiotoxicity;41,42 5) Blocking PD1/PDL1 signaling will inhibit Treg cells, and disrupting the immune homeostasis between cytotoxic T cells and Treg cells in normal myocardial tissue can lead to cardiotoxicity;43–45 6) Theoretically, the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies binding to PD-L1 at the surface in cardiomyocytes may mediate killing of cardiomyocytes by NK cells through antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity;46,47 and 7) ICIs may accelerate atherosclerosis; blockading CTLA-4 increases T cells abundance in vascular plaques and exacerbates atherosclerosis in a mouse model.48 Abe et al. found that ICIs can induce senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) to aggravate atherosclerosis.49,50 Most of these mechanisms will lead to clinical manifestation in the short term (days to months) but atherosclerosis may lead to delayed CVD and CV events that occur years later. There is evidence to suggest that ICIs may contribute to plaques progression and coronary events by altering the type of inflammation in atherosclerotic plaques. For example, a matched cohort study including 2842 patient pairs explored whether ICIs are associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and showed that patients receiving ICIs have a 3-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events.51 ICIs are a recent advance in the treatment of HNC, the extent of morbidity and early mortality due to accelerated ICI-induced accelerated atherosclerosis is yet to be fully examined.
There are limitations to our study. First, this is a retrospective, single-center study which may limit the generalizability of our findings. The retrospective study design may have led to the misclassification of potential CVD-irAEs. We did not collect data on diagnostic tests or potential biomarkers. Patients may have visited other EDs and are not a part of our sample. We were also not able to assess CVD-related diagnosis for mono versus combination therapy due to a small sample size. Using ICD-10 codes, while valid, may not be reliable since its use is primarily for billing purposes. Further, our retrospective cohort study only consisted of patients who were treated with ICIs for failing first-line or second-line cancer treatment, lacking a comparison group. However, with the current shift in using ICI to be a first line of treatment for some patients, a future study comparing the risk of CVD in HNC patients treated with ICI to similar patients who were not treated with ICI, can better define the risk of CVD that is attributable to the use of ICI. We also have a small number of patients to enable sub-group analyses for specific CVD diagnoses. Prospective studies with larger cohorts of patients are needed to address causality. Nonetheless, the use of ICI in HNC is still expanding and early and delayed manifestations of CV irAEs are yet to be defined in HNC survivors. Our study is the first to characterize the spectrum of potential CV-irAEs in HNC patients on ICI therapy and CV-related ED visits. Current clinical guidelines addressing cancer treatment-related cardiotoxicity are broad and are primarily based on anthracycline and anti-HER2 agent toxicities. While recent clinical guidelines for diagnosis, grading, and management of irAEs include CV-irAEs, data are lacking to support more comprehensive coverage of all types of CV-irAEs. Given the heterogeneity among HNC patients with respect to cardiotoxicity risk, the timing of onset, clinical presentation, and outcome, efforts for personalized risk stratification, early detection, prevention, monitoring, and management of CV-irAEs during treatment and survivorship are of utmost importance.
Supplementary Material
Funding
This work was partially supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Drs. Reyes-Gibby, Yeung, Shete, Qdaisat, Bischof, Coyne (1R01CA267856-01). This work was also partially supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Dr. Abe (HL-163857and AI-156921), and the National Institutes of Health through M. D. Anderson’s Cancer Center Support Grant CA016672, the NCI’s Research Specialist 1 R50 CA243707-01A1. Dr. Ferrarotto’s research work is supported by research funds (Inst): Prelude, Ayala, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Rakuten, Nanobiotix, EMD Serono, ISA, Viracta, and Gilead in the past 24 months.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Dr. Ferrarotto has consulting or advisory roles in Regeneron, Sanofi, Ayala Pharmaceuticals, Prelude Therapeutics, Elevar Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Guidepoint, Expert Connect, Remix, Eisai, Bioatlas in the past 24 months. Dr. Yeung was a member of an expert panel for Celgene, Inc. and received funding support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inc., and DepoMed, Inc. Dr. Bischof receives funding support from Abbott and Beckman Coulter Life Sciences.
Footnotes
Ethics statement: The study was reviewed and approved by The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Written informed consent for participation was waived for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Data availability statement:
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author (Cielito C Reyes-Gibby, DrPH; E-mail: creyes@mdanderson.org).
REFERENCES
- 1.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(1):7–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wang L, Wang F, Chen L, Geng Y, Yu S, Chen Z. Long-term cardiovascular disease mortality among 160 834 5-year survivors of adolescent and young adult cancer: an American population-based cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(1):101–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zöller B, Ji J, Sundquist J, Sundquist K. Risk of coronary heart disease in patients with cancer: a nationwide follow-up study from Sweden. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(1):121–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Abe JI, Sood AK, Martin JF. Editorial: Cardio-Oncology: From Bench to Bedside. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2019;6:37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rivera DR, Gallicchio L, Brown J, Liu B, Kyriacou DN, Shelburne N. Trends in Adult Cancer-Related Emergency Department Utilization: An Analysis of Data From the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(10):e172450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.de Sousa LG, Ferrarotto R. Pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of advanced head and neck cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2021;21(12):1321–1331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Vermorken JB, Mesia R, Rivera F, et al. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(11):1116–1127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.León X, Hitt R, Constenla M, et al. A retrospective analysis of the outcome of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck refractory to a platinum-based chemotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2005;17(6):418–424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Administration USFaD. Devices@FDA. 2023; https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm. Accessed 2/22/2023, 2023.
- 11.Seiwert TY, Burtness B, Mehra R, et al. Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-012): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):956–965. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Burtness B, Harrington KJ, Greil R, et al. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1915–1928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Cohen EEW, Soulières D, Le Tourneau C, et al. Pembrolizumab versus methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab for recurrent or metastatic head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-040): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;393(10167):156–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mehra R, Seiwert TY, Gupta S, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: pooled analyses after long-term follow-up in KEYNOTE-012. Br J Cancer. 2018;119(2):153–159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr., Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856–1867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lyon AR, Yousaf N, Battisti NML, Moslehi J, Larkin J. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiovascular toxicity. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):e447–e458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sun JY, Qu Q, Lou YX, et al. Cardiotoxicity in cancer immune-checkpoint therapy: Mechanisms, clinical evidence, and management strategies. Int J Cardiol. 2021;344:170–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Laenens D, Yu Y, Santens B, et al. Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(29):3430–3438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chitturi KR, Xu J, Araujo-Gutierrez R, et al. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Related Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Lung Cancer. JACC: CardioOncology. 2019;1(2):182–192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jain P, Gutierrez Bugarin J, Guha A, et al. Cardiovascular adverse events are associated with usage of immune checkpoint inhibitors in real-world clinical data across the United States. ESMO Open. 2021;6(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bar J, Markel G, Gottfried T, et al. Acute vascular events as a possibly related adverse event of immunotherapy: a single-institute retrospective study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;120:122–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhang MJ, Zhang X, Scheike TH. Modeling cumulative incidence function for competing risks data. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2008;1(3):391–400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Strongman H, Gadd S, Matthews A, et al. Medium and long-term risks of specific cardiovascular diseases in survivors of 20 adult cancers: a population-based cohort study using multiple linked UK electronic health records databases. Lancet. 2019;394(10203):1041–1054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.O’Neill C, Donnelly DW, Harbinson M, et al. Survival of cancer patients with pre-existing heart disease. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Shah M, Jomaa MK, Ferrarotto R, Yeung SJ, Hanna EY, Reyes-Gibby CC. Serious immune-related adverse events in patients with head and neck cancer after checkpoint blockade: Systematic review. Head Neck. 2019;41(11):4036–4050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kaunitz GJ, Loss M, Rizvi H, et al. Cutaneous Eruptions in Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Blockade: Clinicopathologic Analysis of the Nonlichenoid Histologic Pattern. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(10):1381–1389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Ge JFM. Case report: pembrolizumab induced hepatotoxicity attenuated by low dose external-beam radiation. Hepatology. 2017;66:416A.28073164 [Google Scholar]
- 28.Mian NRL, Choucair A. Nivolumab induced auto-immune encephalitis. Ann Neurol. 2017;82:S124–S125. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Nagasaka MSA. Transaminitis on PD-1/L1 inhibitors; the difficulties in distinguishing among progression, tumor flare and autoimmune hepatitis. J ImmunoTher Cancer Conf. 2016;4:107–221. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Saw S, Lee HY, Ng QS. Pembrolizumab-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome in non-melanoma patients. Eur J Cancer. 2017;81:237–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Schaberg KB, Novoa RA, Wakelee HA, et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of lichenoid reactions in patients treated with anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 therapy. J Cutan Pathol. 2016;43(4):339–346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Chow LQM, Haddad R, Gupta S, et al. Antitumor Activity of Pembrolizumab in Biomarker-Unselected Patients With Recurrent and/or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 Expansion Cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(32):3838–3845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wang Q, Hu B. Successful therapy for autoimmune myocarditis with pembrolizumab treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(11):247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Su L, Liu C, Wu W, Cui Y, Wu M, Chen H. Successful Therapy for Myocarditis Concomitant With Complete Heart Block After Pembrolizumab Treatment for Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Case Report With Literature Review. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:898756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Mahmood SS, Fradley MG, Cohen JV, et al. Myocarditis in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(16):1755–1764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Anquetil C, Salem JE, Lebrun-Vignes B, et al. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Myositis: Expanding the Spectrum of Cardiac Complications of the Immunotherapy Revolution. Circulation. 2018;138(7):743–745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Cybulska-Stopa B, Zietek M, Czarnecka AM, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and toxicity of anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (nivolumab versus pembrolizumab) in treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(15_suppl):e21514–e21514. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Johnson DB, Balko JM, Compton ML, et al. Fulminant Myocarditis with Combination Immune Checkpoint Blockade. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1749–1755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):711–723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Nishimura H, Okazaki T, Tanaka Y, et al. Autoimmune dilated cardiomyopathy in PD-1 receptor-deficient mice. Science. 2001;291(5502):319–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Okazaki T, Tanaka Y, Nishio R, et al. Autoantibodies against cardiac troponin I are responsible for dilated cardiomyopathy in PD-1-deficient mice. Nat Med. 2003;9(12):1477–1483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Grabie N, Gotsman I, DaCosta R, et al. Endothelial programmed death-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) regulates CD8+ T-cell mediated injury in the heart. Circulation. 2007;116(18):2062–2071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Kumar P, Bhattacharya P, Prabhakar BS. A comprehensive review on the role of co-signaling receptors and Treg homeostasis in autoimmunity and tumor immunity. J Autoimmun. 2018;95:77–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Alissafi T, Hatzioannou A, Legaki AI, Varveri A, Verginis P. Balancing cancer immunotherapy and immune-related adverse events: The emerging role of regulatory T cells. J Autoimmun. 2019;104:102310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Kumar P, Saini S, Prabhakar BS. Cancer immunotherapy with check point inhibitor can cause autoimmune adverse events due to loss of Treg homeostasis. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020;64:29–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Boyerinas B, Jochems C, Fantini M, et al. Antibody-Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity Activity of a Novel Anti-PD-L1 Antibody Avelumab (MSB0010718C) on Human Tumor Cells. Cancer Immunol Res. 2015;3(10):1148–1157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Khanna S, Thomas A, Abate-Daga D, et al. Malignant Mesothelioma Effusions Are Infiltrated by CD3(+) T Cells Highly Expressing PD-L1 and the PD-L1(+) Tumor Cells within These Effusions Are Susceptible to ADCC by the Anti-PD-L1 Antibody Avelumab. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(11):1993–2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Seijkens TTP, van Tiel CM, Kusters PJH, et al. Targeting CD40-Induced TRAF6 Signaling in Macrophages Reduces Atherosclerosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(5):527–542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Dominic A, Banerjee P, Hamilton DJ, Le NT, Abe JI. Time-dependent replicative senescence vs. disturbed flow-induced pre-mature aging in atherosclerosis. Redox Biol. 2020;37:101614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Banerjee P, Kotla S, Reddy Velatooru L, et al. Senescence-Associated Secretory Phenotype as a Hinge Between Cardiovascular Diseases and Cancer. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:763930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Drobni ZD, Alvi RM, Taron J, et al. Association Between Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors With Cardiovascular Events and Atherosclerotic Plaque. Circulation. 2020;142(24):2299–2311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author (Cielito C Reyes-Gibby, DrPH; E-mail: creyes@mdanderson.org).