Table 1.
Ref.
|
Drug
|
No. of cycles
|
Sex
|
Age
|
Indication
|
Year from transplant
|
Line of therapy
|
Rejection
|
Early mortality
|
PD-L1 status
|
Immunosuppression
|
Best response
|
PFS (mo)
|
OS (mo)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graft
|
Tumor
|
|
|
|
|
De Toni and Gerbes[10] | Nivolumab | 15 | M | 41 | HCC | NA | 1 | No | No | NA | 0% | Tacrolimus | PD | 3.5 | 7 |
Friend et al[11] | Nivolumab | 2 | M | 20 | HCC | 4 | 2 | Yes | Yes | Pos | Pos | Sirolimus | NA | 1 | 1 |
Friend et al[11] | Nivolumab | 1 | M | 14 | HCC | 3 | 3 | Yes | Yes | Pos | Pos | Tacrolimus | NA | 1 | 1 |
Varkaris et al[12] | Pembrolizumab | NA | M | 70 | HCC | 8 | NA | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus | PD | NA | NA |
Munker and De Toni[13] | Nivolumab | NA | M | 57 | HCC | 2.7 | 3 | No | No | NA | 10% | Tacrolimus | PD | 2.2 | 1.2 (surviving) |
Munker and De Toni[13] | Nivolumab | NA | M | 56 | HCC | 7.8 | 4 | No | No | 5% | NA | Sirolimus/MMF | PD | 0.7 | 1.1 (surviving) |
Munker and De Toni[13] | Nivolumab | NA | F | 35 | HCC | 3.7 | 5 | No | No | 0% | 0% | Tacrolimus | PD | 1.3 | 1.3 (surviving) |
Munker and De Toni[13] | Nivolumab | NA | M | 64 | HCC | 1.2 | 2 | No | Yes | NA | 0% | Tacrolimus | NA | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Munker and De Toni[13] | Nivolumab | NA | M | 68 | HCC | 1.1 | 2 | Yes | Yes | 30% | 0% | Sirolimus | NA | 0.9 | 0.9 |
Al Jarroudi et al[14] | Nivolumab | 4 | M | 70 | HCC | 2.75 | 3 | Yes | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus | NA | 4 | 4 |
Al Jarroudi et al[14] | Nivolumab | 5 | F | 62 | HCC | 1 | 4 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus | PD | 2.5 | NA |
Al Jarroudi et al[14] | Nivolumab | 6 | M | 66 | HCC | 5 | 4 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus | SD | 3 | NA |
Rammohan et al[15] | Pembrolizumab | 14 | M | 57 | HCC | 4.3 | 2 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus/mTOR inhibitor | CR | 10 (no progression) | 10 (surviving) |
Gassmann et al[16] | Nivolumab | 1 | F | 53 | HCC | 3 | 2 | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | Everolimus | NA | 0.8 | 0.8 |
Nasr et al[17] | Pembrolizumab | 35 | M | 63 | HCC | 4.6 | 2 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus/MMF | CR | 25 (no progression) | 25 (surviving) |
Wang et al[18] | Pembrolizumab | 1 | M | 48 | HCC | 1 | 1 | Yes | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus/Everolimus | NA | NA | 8 (surviving) |
Au (current research) | Nivolumab | 4 | M | 62 | HCC | 2.2 | 3 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus/Everolimus | PD | 4.0 | 7.3 |
Au (current research) | Nivolumab | 6 | M | 53 | HCC | 6.0 | 2 | No | No | NA | NA | Sirolimus | PD | 2.8 | 10.6 |
Au (current research) | Pembrolizumab | 16 | M | 77 | HCC | 32 | 1 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus/Everolimus | SD | 12.4 | 19.2 |
Ranganath and Panella[19] | Ipilimumab | 4 | F | 59 | Melanoma | 8 | NA | No | No | NA | NA | Sirolimus | PR | 5 | 9 (surviving) |
Morales et al[20] | Ipilimumab | 4 | M | 67 | Melanoma | 8 | 2 | No | No | NA | NA | Sirolimus/MMF | PR | 4 (no progression) | 14 (surviving) |
Munker and De Toni[13] | Pembrolizumab | NA | M | 55 | Melanoma | 5.5 | 2 | No | No | 0% | 5% | Everolimus/MMF | CR | 21.1 (no progression) | 21.1 (surviving) |
Munker and De Toni[13] | Pembrolizumab | NA | M | 64 | Melanoma | 3.1 | 2 | Yes | No | 25% | NA | MMF/Prednisolone | NA | NA | 0.7 (surviving) |
Kuo et al[21] | Ipilimumab/Pembrolizumab | 4/25 | M | 62 | Melanoma | 6 | NA | No | No | NA | NA | Sirolimus | PR | 24 (no progression) | 24 (surviving) |
Dueland et al[22] | Ipilimumab | 1 | F | 67 | Melanoma | 1.5 | 1 | Yes | No | NA | NA | Prednisolone | PD | 3 (no progression) | 4 |
Schvartsman et al[23] | Pembrolizumab | 2 | M | 35 | Melanoma | 20 | 1 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus | CR | 6 | 6 (surviving) |
Tio et al[24] | Pembrolizumab | 1 | F | 63 | Melanoma | NA | NA | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | Ciclosporin | NA | NA | NA |
Biondani et al[25] | Nivolumab | 3 | M | 54 | SCC lung | 13 | 1 | No | No | NA | NA | Tacrolimus/Everolimus | PD | 2.25 | 15 |
CR: Complete response; F: Female; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; M: Male; NA: Not available; OS: Overall survival; PD: Progressive disease; PFS: Progression-free survival; PR: Partial response; SCC: Squamous-cell carcinoma; SD: Stable disease.