Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

The primary goal after managing immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-induced ITP is resuming cancer therapy. Data shows most patients do not experience a relapse of ITP upon re-challenge with the ICI, allowing them to continue their effective cancer treatment.

Related Insights

Unlike immunotherapy, where re-challenge after progression is dubious, there is an emerging clinical practice of re-challenging patients with the same antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), such as enfortumab vedotin (EV), after a treatment break forced by toxicity. Anecdotally, patients are showing great responses, highlighting a key area for prospective data generation.

ITP caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is rare (0.25% incidence) but generally has a good prognosis. Most patients respond to standard first-line ITP therapies, and approximately 70% of those re-challenged with the ICI can continue treatment without a recurrence of ITP.

Data from the Checkmate 743 trial shows that patients who stopped dual immunotherapy (Nivo/Ipi) due to toxicity can still achieve long-term benefits. A third of these patients had an ongoing response at three years, despite stopping treatment after only four months on average, providing confidence in the regimen.

The treatment paradigm for ITP is shifting towards early combination therapy. Recent clinical trials are investigating augmented first- and second-line regimens, such as combining dexamethasone with rituximab or romiplostim, to achieve more durable, treatment-free responses than monotherapy.

The discontinuation rate for pembrolizumab due to side effects was lower in the LITESPARK 022 trial compared to the earlier Keynote 564 trial (20%). This trend suggests that as clinicians gain more experience with immune checkpoint inhibitors, they are becoming more adept at managing immune-related adverse events, allowing more patients to complete their therapy.

In a data-free zone, a survey of 78 US oncologists revealed an emerging consensus to wait six months before re-challenging with EV-Pembro after prior immunotherapy. This demonstrates how clinical practice norms can form around arbitrary time points when definitive evidence on optimal treatment-free intervals is lacking.

For endometrial or cervical cancer patients who progress after receiving a checkpoint inhibitor, re-challenging with a single-agent immunotherapy is a less desirable approach. Emerging data suggests that a combination therapy—such as an ICI paired with a TKI like lenvatinib or a bispecific antibody—offers a more promising chance of response.

For patients who previously received immunotherapy (IO), a recurrence more than 12 months after completing treatment makes re-challenging with an IO agent a reasonable option. The likelihood of benefit is lower if the recurrence is within 6-12 months and minimal if under 6 months.

Data shows that patients who permanently stopped ipilimumab due to immune-related side effects still had exceptionally good outcomes. This gives clinicians confidence to manage toxicity by discontinuing the CTLA-4 inhibitor portion of the regimen while continuing nivolumab, without fearing a loss of efficacy.

Contrary to initial fears, both clinical trial and real-world data show that patients experiencing asymptomatic, grade 1 interstitial lung disease (ILD) from TDXD can be safely retreated. This allows patients to continue benefiting from a highly effective therapy without undue risk.