Abstract
With the growing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), case reports of rare yet life‐threatening pituitary‐adrenal dysfunctions, particularly for hypopituitarism, are increasingly being published. In this analysis, we focus on these events by including the most recent publications and reports from early phase I/II and phase III clinical trials and comparing the incidence and risks across different ICI regimens. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to April 2019 for clinical trials that reported on pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction. The rates of events, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using random effects meta‐analysis. The analyses included data from 160 trials involving 40 432 participants. The rate was 2.43% (95% CI, 1.73%‐3.22%) for all‐grade adrenal insufficiency and 3.25% (95% CI, 2.15%‐4.51%) for hypophysitis. Compared with the placebo or other therapeutic regimens, ICI agents were associated with a higher incidence of serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency (OR 3.19, 95% CI, 1.84 to 5.54) and hypophysitis (OR 4.77, 95% CI, 2.60 to 8.78). Among 71 serious‐grade hypopituitarism instances in 12 336 patients, there was a significant association between ICIs and hypopituitarism (OR 3.62, 95% CI, 1.86 to 7.03). Substantial heterogeneity was noted across the studies for the rates of these events, which in part was attributable to the different types of ICIs and varied phases of the clinical trials. Although the rates of these events were low, the risk was increased following ICI‐based treatment, particularly for CTLA‐4 inhibitors, which were associated with a higher incidence of pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction than PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors.
Keywords: adrenal insufficiency, hypophysitis, hypopituitarism, immune checkpoint inhibitors
Although the rates were rare, immune checkpoint inhibitor‐based treatment was associated with a higher incidence of pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction, particularly for CTLA‐4 inhibitors.

1. INTRODUCTION
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte antigen‐4 (CTLA‐4), anti‐programmed cell death 1 (PD‐1), and anti‐programmed death 1 ligand 1 (PD‐L1), have become a mainstay of treatment for many types of cancers.1 As a consequence of the favorable response rates and the improved survival provided by ICIs, these agents continue to undergo extensive evaluation for the treatment of additional tumor types, thus expanding the number of patients exposed to ICIs.2
Antitumor immunotherapies using ICIs target T‐cell‐negative feedback loops, augmenting the immune response to attack cancer cells.3 However, unwanted consequences of their mechanisms of action lead to a unique spectrum of adverse events, most of which are immune‐related adverse events (irAEs).4 irAEs can be observed in most organs, with varying frequencies and severities.5 Endocrine dysfunction following the use of ICIs has emerged as one of the most common irAEs.6, 7 Rare yet life‐threatening pituitary‐adrenal dysfunctions, including hypophysitis, adrenal insufficiency and hypopituitarism, have been constantly reported recently, which raises new concerns around ICIs.8 Although a previous meta‐analysis has been conducted,9, 10, 11 none of these studies reported ICI‐associated hypopituitarism, which is rarely reversible and often requires prolonged or life‐long substitutive hormonal treatment. Given the emergence of substantive new data, we update this review and focus on pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction by including the most recent publications and reports from clinical trials, comparing the incidence and risks of these adverse events across different ICI regimens.
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
2.1. Search methods and study selection
This systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.12 Scientific literature searches were conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from the inception of all searched databases to April 2019. We also searched the https://ClinicalTrials.gov website to identify completed but not yet published reports. Relevant text words that consisted of terms including ‘phase’ and the following terms were used: ipilimumab, MDX‐010, tremelimumab, CP‐675206, nivolumab, BMS‐963558, pembrolizumab, MK‐3475, atezolizumab, MPDL3280A, avelumab, MSB0010718C, durvalumab, MEDI4736, cemiplimab, REGN2810, toripalimab, JS001, sintilimab, and IBI308 (Table S1). Because the aim of this study was to assess the risk of ICI‐associated pituitary‐adrenal adverse events, only studies in the English language that reported adrenal sufficiency, hypophysitis, or hypopituitarism events in adult participants receiving ICIs were included. Two authors screened potentially eligible scientific reports for full‐text review (LL and YL). Three authors (JL, YL and HM) reviewed and selected the full‐text articles for data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.
2.2. Data extraction
For the included studies, data were extracted independently by two of the three authors (JL, LL and YL). Any discrepancies in data extraction were resolved by consensus. The retrieved data included author name, year of publication, registry number of trials, phase, cancer type, type of ICIs, number of patients, and number of patients with all‐grade and serious‐grade pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction (adrenal sufficiency, hypophysitis or hypopituitarism events). Because adverse events were categorized into serious or other in reports from https://ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified grades 3‐5 as serious for data from published reports based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) categorization. If the number of pituitary‐adrenal associated adverse events was not reported in the published reports, but the corresponding registry report from the https://ClinicalTrials.gov website was reported, we used the safety outcome data from the https://ClinicalTrials.gov website. If data were reported from both sources, we used data from reports where the data were more complete. If multiple publications reported the same trial, only the most relevant and complete publications were used.
2.3. Statistical analysis
For event rates, the data were transformed using the Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformation and pooled using a random effects model. We explored the sources of heterogeneity based on subgroup analysis: type of ICIs (PD‐1 inhibitors vs PD‐L1 inhibitors vs CTLA‐4 inhibitors vs combination of ICIs) and phase (phase 1 vs phase 2 vs phase 3). The statistical analyses of event rates were performed using R statistical software (meta package, R Foundation). For the randomized controlled clinical trials, the odds ratio (OR) of pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the ICI group compared with the control group. The individual study ORs were pooled using Peto's method because of the low rates of adverse events. The statistical analyses of ORs were performed using STATA (version 15).
The heterogeneity across the trials for each outcome was estimated using the I 2 statistic and by calculating the P value. An I 2 statistic of 0%‐25%, 26%‐75% and 76%‐100% was considered to reflect low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. A P value of less than .05 was defined as significant heterogeneity. Publication bias and small study effects were assessed using Egger's test and the Begg correlation test, and a P value less than .1 was defined as significant publication bias.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Eligible studies and characteristics
The search of literature and review of references yielded 9622 potentially eligible studies. After excluding duplicates and references that did not describe clinical trials assessing ICIs for cancers, 461 references were retrieved for further assessment. A total of 122 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria were included in the analyses. In addition, 38 clinical trials with results from https://ClinicalTrials.gov were identified and included. Overall, we included a total of 160 clinical trials involving 40 432 patients in the meta‐analysis (Figure 1, Table S2).13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172 The trials include 37 phase 3 studies with 25 084 patients; 1 phase 2/3 study with 1033 patients; 66 phase 2 studies with 8529 patients; 11 phase 1/2 studies with 1263 patients; and 45 phase 1 studies with 4523 patients. The ICIs used included PD‐1 inhibitors (n = 88 cohorts; n = 13 519 patients), PD‐L1 inhibitors (n = 29 cohorts; n = 4532 patients), CTLA‐4 inhibitors (n = 102 cohorts; n = 9000 patients), and combination with PD‐1/PD‐L1 plus CTLA‐4 inhibitors (n = 37 cohorts; n = 2952 patients). The most common disease types were melanoma (n = 60 studies; n = 14 073 patients) and non‐small‐cell lung cancer (n = 29 studies; n = 12 082 patients) (Table 1).
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the literature search
Table 1.
Study and patient characteristics
| Study Characteristic | Studies, No. | Patients, No |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 160 | 40 432 |
| Phase | ||
| 1 | 45 | 4523 |
| 1/2 | 11 | 1263 |
| 2 | 66 | 8529 |
| 2/3 | 1 | 1033 |
| 3 | 37 | 25 084 |
| ICI type (cohort) | ||
| PD‐1 inhibitors | 88 | 13 519 |
| PD‐L1 inhibitors | 29 | 4532 |
| CTLA‐4 inhibitors | 102 | 9000 |
| Combination | 37 | 2952 |
| Common cancer type | ||
| Melanoma | 60 | 14 073 |
| Non‐small‐cell lung cancer | 29 | 12 082 |
| Sponsorship | ||
| Pharmaceutical companies | 139 | 39 274 |
| Others | 21 | 1158 |
| Reporting year | ||
| 2015 or before | 48 | 10 308 |
| 2016 | 17 | 5008 |
| 2017 | 28 | 8014 |
| 2018 | 45 | 10 416 |
| 2019 (up to May) | 22 | 6686 |
3.2. Rates of adrenal insufficiency
The rate of all‐grade adrenal insufficiency ranged from 0% to 64%, and the rate of serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency ranged from 0% to 33.3%. One study did not report the number of events125; across the other studies, 289 cases of any‐grade adrenal insufficiency were observed among 12 295 patients, and 176 cases of serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency were observed among 22 103 patients. Using a random effects model, the rates of all‐grade and serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency were 2.43% (95% CI, 1.73%‐3.22%) and 0.15% (95% CI, 0.05%‐0.29%), respectively (Table 2). There was some evidence of heterogeneity as quantified by I 2 statistics of 73.6% and 42.3% for all‐grade and serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency, respectively (Table 2). In this analysis, publication bias was evident (Table S3).
Table 2.
Incidence of immune checkpoint inhibitor‐associated pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction
| Type | All‐grade adrenal insufficiency | Serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency | All‐grade hypophysitis | Serious‐grade hypophysitis | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | E/n | Rate | I2% | N | E/n | Rate | I2% | N | E/n | Rate | I2% | N | E/n | Rate | I2% | |
| Overall | 118 | 289/12 295 | 2.43 (1.73‐3.22) | 73.6 | 159 | 176/22 103 | 0.15 (0.05‐0.29) | 42.3 | 97 | 484/11 893 | 3.25 (2.15‐4.51) | 87.0 | 126 | 240/17 389 | 0.44 (0.21‐0.74) | 59.3 |
| PD‐1 inhibitors | 32 | 50/5113 | 0.49 (0.16‐0.93) | 9.1 | 54 | 44/9296 | 0.03 (0.00‐0.11) | 2.1 | 24 | 48/5983 | 0.41 (0.22‐0.66) | 5.3 | 39 | 33/8271 | 0.06 (0.00‐0.17) | 0.0 |
| PD‐L1 inhibitors | 15 | 18/1826 | 0.43 (0.02‐1.20) | 34.6 | 26 | 17/4280 | 0.01 (0.00‐0.16) | 13.6 | 1 | 1/88 | / | / | 0 | 0 | / | / |
| CTLA‐4 inhibitors | 48 | 136/3610 | 5.32 (3.30‐7.68) | 79.4 | 53 | 71/6008 | 0.42 (0.07‐0.98) | 56.5 | 54 | 304/4265 | 4.53 (2.62‐6.82) | 83.5 | 64 | 155/6852 | 0.78 (0.29‐1.44) | 60.1 |
| Combination therapy | 23 | 85/1746 | 4.05 (2.81‐5.45) | 27.3 | 21 | 38/2182 | 0.89 (0.43‐1.47) | 0.0 | 18 | 131/1557 | 7.68 (5.99‐9.54) | 28.8 | 23 | 52/2266 | 1.66 (1.07‐2.34) | 0.0 |
| Phase 1 | 32 | 50/2071 | 2.25 (1.00‐3.85) | 58.1 | 36 | 23/2317 | 0.25 (0.00‐0.88) | 36.7 | 22 | 54/1439 | 4.53 (1.79‐8.11) | 76.6 | 30 | 21/1937 | 0.31 (0.00‐1.03) | 29.3 |
| Phase 2 and 1/2 | 66 | 153/3968 | 3.89 (2.44‐5.58) | 75.6 | 80 | 75/5982 | 0.48 (0.16‐0.92) | 44.4 | 49 | 107/2521 | 3.40 (1.66‐5.55) | 75.8 | 58 | 53/3660 | 0.47 (0.07‐1.12) | 50.1 |
| Phase 3 and 2/3 | 20 | 86/6256 | 1.30 (0.77‐1.94) | 69.5 | 43 | 78/13 804 | 0.37 (0.23‐0.53) | 28.5 | 26 | 323/7933 | 3.11 (1.62‐5.01) | 94.3 | 38 | 166/11 792 | 1.03 (0.65‐1.49) | 75.1 |
Values for rates are percentages (95% confidence intervals).
Abbreviations: E, number of events; n, number of patients; N, number of cohorts.
Heterogeneity was explored by using subgroup analysis on the basis of the phase of the trial and type of ICIs. The results showed that anti‐CTLA‐4 was associated with higher rates of both high‐grade and serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency, with rates of 5.32% and 0.42%, respectively. Phase 2 trials showed a trend toward higher rates, with 3.89% for all‐grade adrenal insufficiency and 0.48% for serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency (Table 2).
To assess the relative rate of ICI‐associated adrenal insufficiency compared with those in control arms, we calculated the relative risk of developing adrenal insufficiency in the randomized controlled clinical trials. Compared with patients in control arms, those treated with ICIs were at a higher risk for all‐grade (OR 2.63, 95% CI, 1.31%‐5.28%, Figure S1) and serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency (OR 3.19, 95% CI, 1.84%‐5.54%, Figure 2), with no significant between‐study heterogeneity. In this analysis, no publication bias was evident (Table S4).
Figure 2.

Risk of serious‐grade adrenal insufficiency in patients treated with ICIs vs controls
3.3. Rates of hypophysitis
All‐grade hypophysitis was described in 61 studies and serious‐grade in 77 studies. Four studies did not report the number of events41, 86, 110, 128; across all the other studies, 484 cases of all‐grade hypophysitis in 11 893 patients and 240 cases of serious‐grade hypophysitis in 17 389 patients were reported. Pooling the data showed that the rates of all‐grade and serious‐grade hypophysitis were 3.25% (95% CI, 2.15%‐4.51%) and 0.44% (95% CI, 0.21%‐0.74%), respectively (Table 2). Substantial heterogeneity for all‐grade hypophysitis (I2 = 87.0%) and moderate heterogeneity for serious‐grade hypophysitis (I2 = 59.3%) were observed (Table 2). In this analysis, publication bias was evident (Table S3).
Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate heterogeneity based on the phase of the trial and type of ICIs. The rates of hypophysitis for all‐grade and serious‐grade patients were greatest with ICI combination therapy at 7.68% and 1.66%, respectively. For all‐grade hypophysitis, the rate was 4.53% with CTLA‐4 inhibitors and less than 1% with PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitors. For serious‐grade hypophysitis, the rate was 0.78% for CTLA‐4 inhibitors and less than 0.1% for PD‐1 inhibitors. The phase of the trial was also associated with rates of hypophysitis. For all‐grade hypophysitis, the rate was 4.53% for phase 1 trials, 3.40% for phase 2 trials, and 3.11% for phase 3 trials. For serious‐grade hypophysitis, the rate was 0.31% for phase 1 trials, 0.47% for phase 2 trials, and 1.03% for phase 3 trials (Table 2).
Eleven clinical controlled trials (n = 7581 participants) assessed the relative risk of any‐grade hypophysitis, and 19 clinical controlled trials (n = 13 394 participants) assessed the relative risk of serious‐grade hypophysitis during treatment. Pooling the data of these studies showed that patients treated with ICIs were significantly more likely to experience all‐grade hypophysitis (OR 10.36, 95% CI, 5.08%‐21.12%, Figure S2) and serious‐grade hypophysitis (OR 4.77, 95% CI, 2.60%‐8.78%, Figure 3) than those treated with other regimens. There was no significant between‐study heterogeneity, with I2 statistics of 6.2% for all‐grade and 0% for serious‐grade hypophysitis. In this analysis, there was no significant publication bias (Table S4).
Figure 3.

Risk of serious‐grade hypophysitis in patients treated with ICIs vs controls
3.4. Rates of hypopituitarism
Regarding hypopituitarism, three studies did not report the number of events33, 128, 173; across the other studies, 45 cases of all‐grade hypopituitarism occurred in 3755 patients (raw event rate 1.20%), and 71 cases of serious‐grade hypopituitarism occurred in 12 336 patients (raw event rate 0.58%) who used at least one ICI. Due to the smaller number of events, no statistical inferences of the rates were made. For the randomized clinical controlled trials, the ORs of all‐grade and serious‐grade hypopituitarism in patients receiving ICIs compared with non‐ICI‐receiving control patients were 3.03 (95% CI, 0.52%‐17.57%, Figure S3) and 3.62 (95% CI, 1.86%‐7.03%, Figure 4), respectively. There was no substantial heterogeneity, with I2 statistics of 0% for both all‐grade and serious‐grade hypopituitarism. In this analysis, there was no significant publication bias (Table S4).
Figure 4.

Risk of serious‐grade hypopituitarism in patients treated with ICIs vs controls
4. DISCUSSION
In this systematic review, we described ICI‐associated pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction in cancer patients. We extracted data from reports of academic publications and the https://ClinicalTrials.gov website to maximize the information gathered. Our study provides a systematic and quantitative analysis that assessed these effects and explored other important differences between trials regarding the rates of pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction in patients receiving ICIs.
We found five key points. First, from 160 clinical trials including 40 432 patients, we determined estimates of the rates of adrenal insufficiency and hypophysitis with ICIs of 2.43% and 3.25%, respectively. Second, the incidence of hypopituitarism was low, with raw event rates of 1.20% and 0.58% for all‐grade and serious‐grade hypopituitarism, respectively. Third, the rates of pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction differed according to the trial phase, but the rates in phase 1 trials were comparable, suggesting that those events tended to arise early in treatment. Fourth, the rates of these adverse events differed according to the ICI type and occurred more frequently in those who were treated with anti‐CTLA‐4 antibodies. Finally, we found that patients in the ICI groups were associated with a higher risk of serious‐grade and all‐grade pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction than those in the control groups. Most of these results were largely consistent with the findings of previous studies.9, 10, 11 Taken together, these findings indicate that ICI confers an elevated risk of pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction.
We chose to combine data that compared ICIs with placebo or other active regimens in one set of analyses because the comparator drugs seem to have no effect on these adverse events. In our analysis, a small proportion of the included studies examined the effects of ICI dosage regimens that were used as first‐line therapies or other combination therapies that were not approved for use. However, little heterogeneity was observed for the relative risks, despite the varied use of background treatments and differential use of comparator drugs. Notably, heterogeneity in the rates of these adverse events was observed across drugs, which might in part be attributable to the differential use of ICIs and might also be attributable to the varied phases of the clinical trials.
Previous studies have reported that the overall mean incidence of ICI‐associated adverse events did not differ between different cancer types10; therefore, we did not perform subgroup analyses based on particular cancer types to calculate whether specific pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction was more common in certain cancer types. However, we found that CTLA‐4 inhibitors appeared to have a higher rate of all‐grade and serious‐grade adverse events of the adverse events studied than PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitors. The explanation for these differences might be attributed to the mechanistic underpinnings of each target. Unlike the PD‐1/PD‐L1 axis, which activates restricted subsets of T cells in the tumor microenvironment and in circulation, CTLA‐4 inhibition induces the breadth of T cell activation,174, 175 which is thought to be responsible for the high rate of immune‐based toxic effects during treatment or even long after treatment cessation.
Less is known about ICI‐induced hypopituitarism. Although our study found only 71 cases of serous‐grade hypopituitarism among 12 336 patients (0.58%), 50 cases occurred with anti‐CTLA‐4 therapy among 5790 patients. Likewise, among 45 cases of any‐grade hypopituitarism, 36 occurred with anti‐CTLA‐4 therapy among 1836 patients (1.96%). We did not make statistical inferences due to the small number of events. However, the risk of hypopituitarism was significantly higher in patients treated with ICI regimens than in those in the control group. Notably, few case reports for this event have been published in clinical trials, but hypopituitarism seemed higher in the spectrum of ICI‐induced endocrinopathies in cancer patients based on the scoping review of case reports.8
Our study has some limitations. First, because of the heterogeneity of the included studies, an assessment of additional potential risk factors, including the role of sex, age, and baseline pituitary‐adrenal function, is needed. However, some comparisons were limited by a lack of detailed clinical data for these uncommon safety outcomes. Considering the higher rate of these adverse events among patients on anti‐CTLA‐4 therapy, the second limitation is that the associations of clinical response, long‐term durability and irAEs with anti‐CTLA‐4 have not been established. Data from early trials have described that anti‐CTLA4‐related irAEs might be associated with clinical benefit.176, 177 A pooled analysis of 343 patients treated with ipilimumab showed that there was a trend toward superior disease control in patients with at least grade 2 irAEs when compared withthose with grade 1 irAEs.177 Patients with hypophysitis had a prolonged median survival time compared with those without hypophysitis following CTLA‐4 inhibitor therapy.176 Thus, anti‐CTLA‐4‐associated pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction might be suggestive of benefit rather than harm in certain conditions. The main limitation of our study is that the rates of these events were low, but there were still data derived from a small number of studies. A substantial amount of additional data is still needed to draw firm conclusions.
Although pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction associated with ICIs are rare, these toxicities can be severe or even life threatening with a higher relative risk than other oncologic interventions. As the use of ICIs increases in the clinic, these occurrences will become more common. Moreover, these occurrences tend to differ among various regimens and phases of trials. Additional information, such as baseline pituitary‐adrenal function, will be crucial to separate patients into subgroups that allow the identification of patients who are at the greatest risk of serious‐grade pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no duality of interest associated with this manuscript.
Supporting information
Lu J, Li L, Lan Y, Liang Y, Meng H. Immune checkpoint inhibitor‐associated pituitary‐adrenal dysfunction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Cancer Med. 2019;8:7503–7515. 10.1002/cam4.2661
Funding information
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81603122).
REFERENCES
- 1. Ribas A, Wolchok JD. Cancer immunotherapy using checkpoint blockade. Science. 2018;359(6382):1350‐1355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Johnson DB, Sullivan RJ, Menzies AM. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in challenging populations. Cancer. 2017;123(11):1904‐1911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Patel SA, Minn AJ. Combination cancer therapy with immune checkpoint blockade: mechanisms and strategies. Immunity. 2018;48(3):417‐433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Martins F, Sofiya L, Sykiotis GP, et al. Adverse effects of immune‐checkpoint inhibitors: epidemiology, management and surveillance. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(9):563‐580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Boutros C, Tarhini A, Routier E, et al. Safety profiles of anti‐CTLA‐4 and anti‐PD‐1 antibodies alone and in combination. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(8):473‐486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Davies M, Duffield EA. Safety of checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment: strategies for patient monitoring and management of immune‐mediated adverse events. Immunotargets Ther. 2017;6:51‐71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Chang LS, Barroso‐Sousa R, Tolaney SM, Hodi FS, Kaiser UB, Min L. Endocrine toxicity of cancer immunotherapy targeting immune checkpoints. Endocr Rev. 2019;40(1):17‐65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Tan MH, Iyengar R, Mizokami‐Stout K, et al. Spectrum of immune checkpoint inhibitors‐induced endocrinopathies in cancer patients: a scoping review of case reports. Clin Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;5:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Barroso‐Sousa R, Barry WT, Garrido‐Castro AC, et al. Incidence of endocrine dysfunction following the use of different immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(2):173‐182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Wang Y, Zhou S, Yang F, et al. Treatment‐related adverse events of PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitors in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(7):1008‐1019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. de Filette J, Andreescu CE, Cools F, Bravenboer B, Velkeniers B. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of endocrine‐related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51(3):145‐156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269, W64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Ribas A, Camacho LH, Lopez‐Berestein G, et al. Antitumor activity in melanoma and anti‐self responses in a phase I trial with the anti‐cytotoxic T lymphocyte‐associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody CP‐675,206. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(35):8968‐8977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Yang JC, Hughes M, Kammula U, et al. Ipilimumab (anti‐CTLA4 antibody) causes regression of metastatic renal cell cancer associated with enteritis and hypophysitis. J Immunother. 2007;30(8):825‐830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Weber JS, O'Day S, Urba W, et al. Phase I/II study of ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(36):5950‐5956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Fong L, Kwek SS, O'Brien S, et al. Potentiating endogenous antitumor immunity to prostate cancer through combination immunotherapy with CTLA4 blockade and GM‐CSF. Cancer Res. 2009;69(2):609‐615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Ribas A, Comin‐Anduix B, Chmielowski B, et al. Dendritic cell vaccination combined with CTLA4 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(19):6267‐6276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Chung KY, Gore I, Fong L, et al. Phase II study of the anti‐cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated antigen 4 monoclonal antibody, tremelimumab, in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(21):3485‐3490. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Hersh EM, O'Day SJ, Powderly J, et al. A phase II multicenter study of ipilimumab with or without dacarbazine in chemotherapy‐naive patients with advanced melanoma. Invest New Drugs. 2011;29(3):489‐498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. 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]
- 21. Kirkwood JM, Lorigan P, Hersey P, et al. Phase II trial of tremelimumab (CP‐675,206) in patients with advanced refractory or relapsed melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(3):1042‐1048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Royal RE, Levy C, Turner K, et al. Phase 2 trial of single agent Ipilimumab (anti‐CTLA‐4) for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Immunother. 2010;33(8):828‐833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Sarnaik AA, Yu B, Yu D, et al. Extended dose ipilimumab with a peptide vaccine: immune correlates associated with clinical benefit in patients with resected high‐risk stage IIIc/IV melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(4):896‐906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. O'Day SJ, Maio M, Chiarion‐Sileni V, et al. Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a multicenter single‐arm phase II study. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(8):1712‐1717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2517‐2526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. van den Eertwegh AJ, Versluis J, van den Berg HP, et al. Combined immunotherapy with granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor‐transduced allogeneic prostate cancer cells and ipilimumab in patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer: a phase 1 dose‐escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(5):509‐517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Di Giacomo AM, Ascierto PA, Pilla L, et al. Ipilimumab and fotemustine in patients with advanced melanoma (NIBIT‐M1): an open‐label, single‐arm phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(9):879‐886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Lynch TJ, Bondarenko I, Luft A, et al. Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first‐line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non‐small‐cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double‐blind, multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(17):2046‐2054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Madan RA, Mohebtash M, Arlen PM, et al. Ipilimumab and a poxviral vaccine targeting prostate‐specific antigen in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer: a phase 1 dose‐escalation trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(5):501‐508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti‐PD‐1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(26):2443‐2454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Le DT, Lutz E, Uram JN, et al. Evaluation of ipilimumab in combination with allogeneic pancreatic tumor cells transfected with a GM‐CSF gene in previously treated pancreatic cancer. J Immunother. 2013;36(7):382‐389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Millward M, Underhill C, Lobb S, et al. Phase I study of tremelimumab (CP‐675 206) plus PF‐3512676 (CPG 7909) in patients with melanoma or advanced solid tumours. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(10):1998‐2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard‐of‐care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(5):616‐622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Weber JS, Kudchadkar RR, Yu B, et al. Safety, efficacy, and biomarkers of nivolumab with vaccine in ipilimumab‐refractory or ‐naive melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(34):4311‐4318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(2):122‐133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Kwon ED, Drake CG, Scher HI, et al. Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184‐043): a multicentre, randomised, double‐blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):700‐712. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD, et al. Anti‐programmed‐death‐receptor‐1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab‐refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose‐comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1109‐1117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Eggermont AM, Chiarion‐Sileni V, Grob JJ, et al. Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high‐risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): a randomised, double‐blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(5):522‐530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD‐L1‐positive, advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE‐010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1540‐1550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Horinouchi H, Yamamoto N, Fujiwara Y, et al. Phase I study of ipilimumab in phased combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in Japanese patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Invest New Drugs. 2015;33(4):881‐889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD‐1 blockade in tumors with mismatch‐repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2509‐2520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(21):2006‐2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R, et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator‐choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab‐refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE‐002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):908‐918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Rizvi NA, Mazieres J, Planchard D, et al. Activity and safety of nivolumab, an anti‐PD‐1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, for patients with advanced, refractory squamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer (CheckMate 063): a phase 2, single‐arm trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(3):257‐265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2521‐2532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Weber JS, D'Angelo SP, Minor D, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti‐CTLA‐4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open‐label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(4):375‐384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Yamazaki N, Uhara H, Fukushima S, et al. Phase II study of the immune‐checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab plus dacarbazine in Japanese patients with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;76(5):969‐975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Yamazaki N, Kiyohara Y, Uhara H, et al. Phase II study of ipilimumab monotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced melanoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;76(5):997‐1004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Zimmer L, Eigentler TK, Kiecker F, et al. Open‐label, multicenter, single‐arm phase II DeCOG‐study of ipilimumab in pretreated patients with different subtypes of metastatic melanoma. J Transl Med. 2015;13:351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Zimmer L, Vaubel J, Mohr P, et al. Phase II DeCOG‐study of ipilimumab in pretreated and treatment‐naive patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0118564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Antonia SJ, Lopez‐Martin JA, Bendell J, et al. Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small‐cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open‐label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):883‐895. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Armand P, Shipp MA, Ribrag V, et al. Programmed death‐1 blockade with pembrolizumab in patients with classical hodgkin lymphoma after brentuximab vedotin failure. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(31):3733‐3739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Brohl AS, Khushalani NI, Eroglu Z, et al. A phase IB study of ipilimumab with peginterferon alfa‐2b in patients with unresectable melanoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2016;4:85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Hellmann MD, Rizvi NA, Goldman JW, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first‐line treatment for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): results of an open‐label, phase 1, multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(1):31‐41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Reck M, Luft A, Szczesna A, et al. Phase III randomized trial of ipilimumab plus etoposide and platinum versus placebo plus etoposide and platinum in extensive‐stage small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(31):3740‐3748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Reck M, Rodriguez‐Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD‐L1‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823‐1833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Ribas A, Hamid O, Daud A, et al. Association of pembrolizumab with tumor response and survival among patients with advanced melanoma. JAMA. 2016;315(15):1600‐1609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. 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]
- 59. Subudhi SK, Aparicio A, Gao J, et al. Clonal expansion of CD8 T cells in the systemic circulation precedes development of ipilimumab‐induced toxicities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(42):11919‐11924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Weber J, Gibney G, Kudchadkar R, et al. Phase I/II study of metastatic melanoma patients treated with nivolumab who had progressed after ipilimumab. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016;4(4):345‐353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Weber JS, Gibney G, Sullivan RJ, et al. Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open‐label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):943‐955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Wilgenhof S, Corthals J, Heirman C, et al. Phase II study of autologous monocyte‐derived mRNA electroporated dendritic cells (TriMixDC‐MEL) plus ipilimumab in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(12):1330‐1338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Ascierto PA, Del Vecchio M, Robert C, et al. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double‐blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(5):611‐622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Badros A, Hyjek E, Ma N, et al. Pembrolizumab, pomalidomide, and low‐dose dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2017;130(10):1189‐1197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ, et al. Pembrolizumab as second‐line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(11):1015‐1026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Callahan MK, Kluger H, Postow MA, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: updated survival, response, and safety data in a phase I dose‐escalation study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4):391‐398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. El‐Khoueiry AB, Sangro B, Yau T, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open‐label, non‐comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10088):2492‐2502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Galsky MD, Wang H, Hahn NM, et al. Phase 2 trial of gemcitabine, cisplatin, plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer and impact of DNA damage response gene mutations on outcomes. Eur Urol. 2018;73(5):751‐759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Govindan R, Szczesna A, Ahn MJ, et al. Phase III trial of ipilimumab combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced squamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(30):3449‐3457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Gulley JL, Rajan A, Spigel DR, et al. Avelumab for patients with previously treated metastatic or recurrent non‐small‐cell lung cancer (JAVELIN Solid Tumor): dose‐expansion cohort of a multicentre, open‐label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(5):599‐610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Hui R, Garon EB, Goldman JW, et al. Pembrolizumab as first‐line therapy for patients with PD‐L1‐positive advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: a phase 1 trial. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(4):874‐881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Kang YK, Boku N, Satoh T, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro‐oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO‐4538‐12, ATTRACTION‐2): a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10111):2461‐2471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Long GV, Atkinson V, Cebon JS, et al. Standard‐dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced‐dose ipilimumab for patients with advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE‐029): an open‐label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1202‐1210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Overman MJ, McDermott R, Leach JL, et al. Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair‐deficient or microsatellite instability‐high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open‐label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1182‐1191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Patel MR, Ellerton J, Infante JR, et al. Avelumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum failure (JAVELIN Solid Tumor): pooled results from two expansion cohorts of an open‐label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):51‐64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Tang C, Welsh JW, de Groot P, et al. Ipilimumab with stereotactic ablative radiation therapy: phase I Results and immunologic correlates from peripheral T cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(6):1388‐1396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Tawbi HA, Burgess M, Bolejack V, et al. Pembrolizumab in advanced soft‐tissue sarcoma and bone sarcoma (SARC028): a multicentre, two‐cohort, single‐arm, open‐label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1493‐1501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Tolcher AW, Sznol M, Hu‐Lieskovan S, et al. Phase Ib study of utomilumab (PF‐05082566), a 4–1BB/CD137 agonist, in combination with pembrolizumab (MK‐3475) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(18):5349‐5357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1824‐1835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Williams NL, Wuthrick EJ, Kim H, et al. Phase 1 study of ipilimumab combined with whole brain radiation therapy or radiosurgery for melanoma patients with brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(1):22‐30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Yamazaki N, Takenouchi T, Fujimoto M, et al. Phase 1b study of pembrolizumab (MK‐3475; anti‐PD‐1 monoclonal antibody) in Japanese patients with advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE‐041). Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2017;79(4):651‐660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Yi JS, Ready N, Healy P, et al. Immune activation in early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus ipilimumab. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(24):7474‐7482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Adams S, Loi S, Toppmeyer D, et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously untreated, PD‐L1‐positive, metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer: cohort B of the phase II KEYNOTE‐086 study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(3):405‐411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Amaria RN, Reddy SM, Tawbi HA, et al. Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in high‐risk resectable melanoma. Nat Med. 2018;24(11):1649‐1654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Ariyan CE, Brady MS, Siegelbaum RH, et al. Robust antitumor responses result from local chemotherapy and CTLA‐4 blockade. Cancer Immunol Res. 2018;6(2):189‐200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Arkenau HT, Martin‐Liberal J, Calvo E, et al. Ramucirumab plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer: nonrandomized, open‐label, phase I trial (JVDF). Oncologist. 2018;23(12):1407‐e136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Armand P, Engert A, Younes A, et al. Nivolumab for relapsed/refractory classic hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation: extended follow‐up of the multicohort single‐arm phase II checkmate 205 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1428‐1439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Atkins MB, Hodi FS, Thompson JA, et al. Pembrolizumab plus pegylated interferon alfa‐2b or ipilimumab for advanced melanoma or renal cell carcinoma: dose‐finding results from the phase Ib KEYNOTE‐029 study. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(8):1805‐1815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Atkins MB, Plimack ER, Puzanov I, et al. Axitinib in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell cancer: a non‐randomised, open‐label, dose‐finding, and dose‐expansion phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(3):405‐415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Bajor DL, Mick R, Riese MJ, et al. Long‐term outcomes of a phase I study of agonist CD40 antibody and CTLA‐4 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7(10):e1468956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Balar AV, Castellano D, O'Donnell PH, et al. First‐line pembrolizumab in cisplatin‐ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE‐052): a multicentre, single‐arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1483‐1492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Barta SK, Zain J, MacFarlane AW, et al. Phase II study of the PD‐1 inhibitor pembrolizumab for the treatment of relapsed or refractory mature T‐cell lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leukemia. 2019;19(6):356‐364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Boudadi K, Suzman DL, Anagnostou V, et al. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab and DNA‐repair defects in AR‐V7‐expressing metastatic prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 2018;9(47):28561‐28571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Choueiri TK, Larkin J, Oya M, et al. Preliminary results for avelumab plus axitinib as first‐line therapy in patients with advanced clear‐cell renal‐cell carcinoma (JAVELIN Renal 100): an open‐label, dose‐finding and dose‐expansion, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):451‐460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Chung V, Kos FJ, Hardwick N, et al. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of p53MVA vaccine combined with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid cancers. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019;21(3):363‐372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. D'Angelo SP, Mahoney MR, Van Tine BA, et al. Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab treatment for metastatic sarcoma (Alliance A091401): two open‐label, non‐comparative, randomised, phase 2 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(3):416‐426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Davar D, Wang H, Chauvin JM, et al. Phase Ib/II study of pembrolizumab and pegylated‐interferon alfa‐2b in advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;JCO1800632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Doi T, Piha‐Paul SA, Jalal SI, et al. Safety and antitumor activity of the anti‐programmed death‐1 antibody pembrolizumab in patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(1):61‐67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1789‐1801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. Fehrenbacher L, von Pawel J, Park K, et al. Updated efficacy analysis including secondary population results for OAK: a randomized phase III study of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(8):1156‐1170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Gadgeel SM, Stevenson JP, Langer CJ, et al. Pembrolizumab and platinum‐based chemotherapy as first‐line therapy for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer: Phase 1 cohorts from the KEYNOTE‐021 study. Lung Cancer. 2018;125:273‐281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Gandhi L, Rodriguez‐Abreu D, Gadgeel S, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2078‐2092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Garassino MC, Cho BC, Kim JH, et al. Durvalumab as third‐line or later treatment for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open‐label, single‐arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):521‐536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Gubens MA, Sequist LV, Stevenson JP, et al. Pembrolizumab in combination with ipilimumab as second‐line or later therapy for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer: KEYNOTE‐021 cohorts D and H. Lung Cancer. 2019;130:59‐66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Haag GM, Zoernig I, Hassel JC, et al. Phase II trial of ipilimumab in melanoma patients with preexisting humoural immune response to NY‐ESO‐1. Eur J Cancer. 2018;90:122‐129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Hodi FS, Chiarion‐Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4‐year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(11):1480‐1492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Janjigian YY, Bendell J, Calvo E, et al. CheckMate‐032 study: efficacy and safety of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(28):2836‐2844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Lisberg A, Hunt J, Reese N, et al. A phase II study of pembrolizumab in EGFR mutant, PD‐L1+, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) naïve patients with advanced NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(11):S1805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Liu SV, Camidge DR, Gettinger SN, et al. Long‐term survival follow‐up of atezolizumab in combination with platinum‐based doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101:114‐122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Long GV, Atkinson V, Lo S, et al. Combination nivolumab and ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in melanoma brain metastases: a multicentre randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):672‐681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Namikawa K, Kiyohara Y, Takenouchi T, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in Japanese patients with advanced melanoma: an open‐label, single‐arm, multicentre phase II study. Eur J Cancer. 2018;105:114‐126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Ott PA, Bang YJ, Piha‐Paul SA, et al. T‐cell‐inflamed gene‐expression profile, programmed death ligand 1 expression, and tumor mutational burden predict efficacy in patients treated with pembrolizumab across 20 cancers: KEYNOTE‐028. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(4):318‐327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Paz‐Ares L, Luft A, Vicente D, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(21):2040‐2051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114. Ribas A, Medina T, Kummar S, et al. SD‐101 in combination with pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma: Results of a phase Ib, multicenter study. Cancer Discov. 2018;8(10):1250‐1257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115. Sakamuri D, Glitza IC, Betancourt Cuellar SL, et al. Phase I dose‐escalation study of anti‐CTLA‐4 antibody ipilimumab and lenalidomide in patients with advanced cancers. Mol Cancer Ther. 2018;17(3):671‐676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116. Shitara K, Ozguroglu M, Bang YJ, et al. Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated, advanced gastric or gastro‐oesophageal junction cancer (KEYNOTE‐061): a randomised, open‐label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10142):123‐133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117. Tarhini AA, Lee SJ, Li X, et al. E3611‐A randomized phase II study of ipilimumab at 3 or 10 mg/kg alone or in combination with high‐dose interferon‐alpha2b in advanced melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(2):524‐532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118. Tawbi HA, Forsyth PA, Algazi A, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in melanoma metastatic to the brain. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(8):722‐730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119. Le Tourneau C, Hoimes C, Zarwan C, et al. Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: phase 1b results from the JAVELIN solid tumor trial. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6(1):111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120. Yang CJ, McSherry F, Mayne NR, et al. Surgical outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and ipilimumab for non‐small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(3):924‐929. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121. Zhu AX, Finn RS, Edeline J, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib (KEYNOTE‐224): a non‐randomised, open‐label phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(7):940‐952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122. Chung HC, Arkenau HT, Lee J, et al. Avelumab (anti‐PD‐L1) as first‐line switch‐maintenance or second‐line therapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: phase 1b results from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123. Chung HC, Ros W, Delord JP, et al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in previously treated advanced cervical cancer: results from the phase II KEYNOTE‐158 study. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(17):1470‐1478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124. Disselhorst MJ, Quispel‐Janssen J, Lalezari F, et al. Ipilimumab and nivolumab in the treatment of recurrent malignant pleural mesothelioma (INITIATE): results of a prospective, single‐arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(3):260‐270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125. Emens LA, Cruz C, Eder JP, et al. Long‐term clinical outcomes and biomarker analyses of atezolizumab therapy for patients with metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer: a phase 1 study. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(1):74‐82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126. Fountain E, Bassett RL, Cain S, et al. Adjuvant ipilimumab in high‐risk uveal melanoma. Cancers. 2019;11(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127. Katsuya Y, Horinouchi H, Seto T, et al. Single‐arm, multicentre, phase II trial of nivolumab for unresectable or recurrent thymic carcinoma: PRIMER study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;113:78‐86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128. Leighl NB, Hellmann MD, Hui R, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE‐001): 3‐year results from an open‐label, phase 1 study. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(4):347‐357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane‐based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple negative breast cancer ‐ clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130. Makker V, Rasco D, Vogelzang NJ, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: an interim analysis of a multicentre, open‐label, single‐arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(5):711‐718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131. Matulonis UA, Shapira‐Frommer R, Santin AD, et al. Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced recurrent ovarian cancer: results from the phase 2 KEYNOTE‐100 study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(7):1080‐1087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132. Mok TSK, Wu YL, Kudaba I, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD‐L1‐expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE‐042): a randomised, open‐label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10183):1819‐1830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133. Nghiem P, Bhatia S, Lipson EJ, et al. Durable tumor regression and overall survival in patients with advanced merkel cell carcinoma receiving pembrolizumab as first‐line therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(9):693‐702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134. Scherpereel A, Mazieres J, Greillier L, et al. Nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (IFCT‐1501 MAPS2): a multicentre, open‐label, randomised, non‐comparative, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):239‐253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135. Squibb B‐M . A companion study for patients enrolled in prior/parent ipilimumab studies. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00162123; 2006.
- 136. Squibb B‐M . Study of MDX‐010 in patients with metastatic hormone‐refractory prostate cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00323882; 2006.
- 137. Squibb B‐M . Phase II study for previously untreated subjects with non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or small cell lung cancer (SCLC). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00527735; 2008.
- 138. Squibb B‐M , Medarex . Evaluation of tumor response to ipilimumab in the treatment of melanoma with brain metastases. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00623766; 2008.
- 139. Squibb B‐M , Medarex . Drug‐drug interaction ‐ 3 Arm ‐ carboplatin/paclitaxel, dacarbazine. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00796991; 2009.
- 140. Squibb B‐M , Medarex . Comparison of ipilimumab manufactured by 2 different processes in participants with advanced melanoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00920907; 2009.
- 141. Squibb B‐M . Phase 3 study of immunotherapy to treat advanced prostate cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01057810; 2010.
- 142. Institute NC . Ipilimumab with or without sargramostim in treating patients with stage III or stage IV melanoma that cannot be removed by surgery. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01134614; 2010.
- 143. Squibb B‐M , Inc OPU . BMS‐936558 (MDX‐1106) in subjects with advanced/metastatic clear‐cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01354431; 2011.
- 144. Institute OKC , Institute NC . Ipilimumab in combination with androgen suppression therapy in treating patients with metastatic hormone‐resistant prostate cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01498978; 2012.
- 145. An efficacy study in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer comparing ipilimumab versus standard of care immediately following first line chemotherapy. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01585987.
- 146. Squibb B‐M . Phase II study of ipilimumab monotherapy in recurrent platinum‐sensitive ovarian cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01611558; 2012.
- 147. Squibb B‐M, Ltd OPC . Study of NIvolumab (BMS‐936558) vs. everolimus in pre‐treated advanced or metastatic clear‐cell renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate 025). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01668784; 2012.
- 148. Squibb B‐M . Phase II safety study of vemurafenib followed by ipilimumab in subjects with V600 BRAF mutated advanced melanoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01673854; 2012.
- 149. Squibb B‐M . Study of BMS‐936558 (Nivolumab) compared to docetaxel in previously treated metastatic non‐squamous NSCLC. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01673867; 2012.
- 150. Institute NC . Ipilimumab with or without high‐dose recombinant interferon Alfa‐2b in treating patients with stage III‐IV melanoma that cannot be removed by surgery. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01708941; 2013.
- 151. Squibb B‐M . Study of nivolumab (BMS‐936558) compared with dacarbazine in untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01721772; 2013.
- 152. Amgen . Ipilimumab with or without talimogene laherparepvec in unresected melanoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01740297; 2013.
- 153. LLC M . Randomized, double‐blind study comparing tremelimumab to placebo in subjects with unresectable malignant mesothelioma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01843374; 2013.
- 154. Roche H‐L . A study of atezolizumab (an engineered anti‐programmed death‐ligand 1 PD‐L1 antibody) as monotherapy or in combination with bevacizumab (Avastin®) compared to sunitinib (Sutent®) in participants with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01984242; 2014.
- 155. Roche H‐L . A study of atezolizumab in participants with programmed death ‐ ligand 1 (PD‐L1) positive locally advanced or metastatic non‐small cell lung cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02031458; 2014.
- 156. Squibb B‐M, Ltd OPC . An open‐label, randomized, phase 3 trial of nivolumab versus investigator's choice chemotherapy as first‐line therapy for stage IV or recurrent PD‐L1+ non‐small cell lung cancer (CheckMate 026). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02041533; 2014.
- 157. Squibb B‐M, Ltd OPC . Trial of nivolumab vs therapy of investigator's choice in recurrent or metastatic head and neck carcinoma (CheckMate 141). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02105636; 2014.
- 158. Squibb B‐M, Ltd OPC . Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate 214). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02231749; 2014.
- 159. Celgene . Safety and efficacy study of Nab®‐Paclitaxel with CC‐486 or Nab®‐paclitaxel with durvalumab, and Nab®‐Paclitaxel monotherapy as second/third‐line treatment for advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02250326; 2015.
- 160. Sharp M, Corp. D . Study of MK‐3475 (Pembrolizumab) in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Treatment With Platinum‐based and Cetuximab Therapy (MK‐3475‐055/KEYNOTE‐055). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02255097; 2014.
- 161. AstraZeneca Sciences PH . Phase II study of MEDI4736, tremelimumab, and MEDI4736 in combination w/ tremelimumab squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02319044; 2015.
- 162. AstraZeneca . A global study to assess the effects of MEDI4736 (Durvalumab), given as monotherapy or in combination with tremelimumab determined by PD‐L1 expression versus standard of care in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non small cell lung cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02352948; 2015.
- 163. Roche H‐L . A study of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus (+) nab‐paclitaxel compared with carboplatin+nab‐paclitaxel in participants with stage IV non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02367781; 2015.
- 164. Squibb B‐M, Ltd OPC . A study of nivolumab in participants with metastatic or unresectable bladder cancer. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02387996; 2015.
- 165. Research ES, Development Institute I, Merck KGaA D, Germany, Serono E . Avelumab in non‐small cell lung cancer (JAVELIN Lung 200). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02395172; 2015.
- 166. Roche H‐L . A study of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in participants with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02420821; 2015.
- 167. AstraZeneca . Study of tremelimumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02527434; 2015.
- 168. Celgene . A study of durvalumab in combination with lenalidomide with and without dexamethasone in adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02685826; 2016.
- 169. Squibb B‐M . A study of two different dose combinations of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in subjects with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02714218; 2016.
- 170. Corporation I, Sharp M, Corp. D . A phase 3 study of pembrolizumab + epacadostat or placebo in subjects with unresectable or metastatic melanoma (Keynote‐252 ECHO‐301) https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02752074; 2016.
- 171. Squibb B‐MA . Safety and efficacy study of multiple administration regimens for nivolumab plus ipilimumab in subjects with melanoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT02905266; 2016.
- 172. Squibb B‐M . An investigational immuno‐therapy safety and efficacy study of multiple administration regimens for nivolumab plus ipilimumab in subjects with renal cell carcinoma. https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT03029780; 2017.
- 173. Wolchok JD, Neyns B, Linette G, et al. Ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a randomised, double‐blind, multicentre, phase 2, dose‐ranging study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(2):155‐164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174. Topalian SL, Taube JM, Anders RA, Pardoll DM. Mechanism‐driven biomarkers to guide immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(5):275‐287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175. Topalian SL. Targeting immune checkpoints in cancer therapy. JAMA. 2017;318(17):1647‐1648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176. Faje AT, Sullivan R, Lawrence D, et al. Ipilimumab‐induced hypophysitis: a detailed longitudinal analysis in a large cohort of patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(11):4078‐4085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177. Weber JS, Kahler KC, Hauschild A. Management of immune‐related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):2691‐2697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
