https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4799-6880
Figures
Abstract
Background
Checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized advanced melanoma care; however, their cutaneous side effects have not been definitively elucidated.
Objective
To identify the prevalence of cutaneous toxicity in patients with melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy and/or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
Materials and methods
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, which encompassed both clinical trials and observational studies describing the dermatological toxicities in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review under the number CRD42018091915. The searches were performed using the CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, LIVIVO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated with the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data
Results
A total of 9,802 articles were identified in the databases. The final sample comprised 39 studies. The evaluated drugs were ipilimumab, tremelimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab. The results suggest that the most prevalent side effect was grade 1 and 2 pruritus (24%), followed by grade 1 and 2 rash (21%) and grade 1 and 2 vitiligo (10%).
Citation: Mineiro dos Santos Garrett NF, Carvalho da Costa AC, Barros Ferreira E, Damiani G, Diniz dos Reis PE, Inocêncio Vasques C (2021) Prevalence of dermatological toxicities in patients with melanoma undergoing immunotherapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0255716. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255716
Editor: Gayle E. Woloschak, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, UNITED STATES
Received: July 24, 2019; Accepted: July 22, 2021; Published: August 6, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Mineiro dos Santos Garrett et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil to CIV (Grant no. 437802/2018-3). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which were originally introduced for the treatment of melanoma during the last decade, have revolutionized cancer therapy [1,2]. Many patients have been living longer due to remarkable responses and delay of disease progression during ICI treatment [3].
Unlike monoclonal antibodies, ICIs act as co-stimulatory inhibitory receptor antagonists to counteract the deactivation of the immune system caused by the tumor and to promote immune activation [4,5]. The majority of ICIs act on the inhibition of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) [6].
Although in many cancers one can see anti-tumor activity with ICIs and traditional chemotherapy, the types, mechanisms, and rates of side effects differ [7,8]. The side effects related to ICIs are labeled as immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and are thought to be related to the inflammatory response caused in several organs due to the stimulation of the immune system, especially of T cells [9–11]. Though one can see irAEs involving all body systems, cutaneous toxicity is of particular interest.
The dermatological toxicity of ICIs is similar, although its incidence is higher with ipilimumab than with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 agents [12,13]. Cutaneous adverse events (AEs) attributed to CTLA-4 inhibitors usually occur within 3–6 weeks after the initiation of therapy. However, these AEs occur within 2–10 months with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitor therapy [14].
The cost associated with the management of dermatological toxicity in patients with metastatic melanoma reaches US $ 21,726.00 per month, which represent the total adjudicated amount paid to all providers for inpatient and outpatient services and drugs [15]. Therefore, understanding the risks for dermatological toxicity can help to identify cutaneous AEs early on and thus to enable a more assertive clinical management, in addition to reducing costs.
Previous systematic reviews have assessed the patterns of irAEs and the safety of one or more ICIs [1,16–19]. However, several previous studies limited the search of references in the databases to a specific period [1,16,17,19], whereas another study restricted the review to only a few ICIs [18].
This review is a comprehensive report on the prevalence of dermatological toxicity in patients with melanoma using ICIs as monotherapy and/or in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.
Materials and methods
Protocol and registration
This systematic review was elaborated according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Checklist (PRISMA) [20]. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) [21] under the number CRD42018091915.
Eligibility criteria
This review aimed to answer the following guiding question, based on the PECO strategy—Population, Exposure, Control and Outcomes: “What is the prevalence of dermatological toxicity (O) in patients with melanoma (P) undergoing treatment with ICIs (E)?”
We included clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) and observational studies that evaluated melanoma cancer patients undergoing treatment with a single ICI, a combination of ICIs, or a combination of an ICI with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and that described the prevalence of dermatological toxicity. There were no restrictions regarding the language or publication period.
The studies were analyzed for inclusion and exclusion criteria in two phases. In phase 1 (screening of the titles and abstracts), we excluded studies that evaluated children and adolescents with cancer; adult oncology patients treated with ICIs with an associated autoimmune disease; and adult oncology patients treated with ICIs who also received vaccines, target therapy, or other therapies. Further, we excluded studies with cutaneous toxicity not associated with the use of ICIs, studies showing other (non-dermatological) toxicities associated with the use of ICIs, literature reviews, letters, case reports, personal opinions, conferences, abstracts, and book chapters.
In phase 2 (full text reading), we excluded studies that presented complementary data from previously published investigations, qualitative studies, studies that did not present complete data and/or did not allow the extraction of the data of interest, and studies that evaluated other types of cancer (not melanoma).
Information sources
The searches were carried out in the following electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, LIVIVO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. A search strategy was developed for each of the databases (S1 File). The gray literature was also checked using Google Scholar and Open Gray. Further, a manual search was performed on the list of references of the included studies. All searches were performed on January 23, 2019.
Study selection
The study selection was carried out in two phases. In phase 1, two reviewers (N.F.M.S.G. and A.C.C.C.) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all citations identified in the electronic databases. Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. This step was performed on a Rayyan web application [22]. In phase 2, the same reviewers applied the inclusion criteria to the full text of the articles. Any disagreements in the first or second phase were resolved by discussion until an agreement was reached between the two authors. When consensus could not be reached, the third reviewer (C.I.V.) was asked to evaluate the article and make the final decision.
References, including the removal of duplicates, were managed in EndNoteBasic [23].
Data collection process
Two reviewers (N.F.M.S.G. and A.C.C.C.) independently collected data from the selected studies. A third reviewer (C.I.V.) evaluated the accuracy of the collected information. For all included studies, the following information was recorded: study characteristics (author, year, country of publication, study design, and purpose); sample characteristics (sample size and mean age of the participants); duration of the drug treatment and follow-up; and characteristics of the results (type of dermatological toxicity and main conclusions).
Risk of bias in individual studies
To evaluate the risk of bias, the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data [24], composed of nine items, was used. For each of the items, it was possible to check “yes”, “no”, “unclear”, or “not/applicable”.
The methodological quality of the studies was categorized as low risk of bias (70% or more “yes” responses), moderate risk of bias (50%–69% “yes” responses), and high risk of bias (up to 49% “yes” responses).
Summary measures
The frequency of dermatological toxicity described by the studies was considered the primary outcome. The frequency was expressed as a percentage, which corresponds to the number of cases present among all patients treated with ICIs. We analyzed the toxicities with highest prevalence in the studies, allowing associative measures such as rash, pruritus, and vitiligo.
Synthesis of the results
The meta-analysis was performed using the Jamovi software, version 1.6, which offers a variety of statistical techniques [25]. The prevalence was estimated by the number of events out of the total sample. We considered the homogeneity of the studies in relation to the type of exposure and outcome. Heterogeneity was calculated using I2. An I2 value greater than 50% was considered a substantial indicator of heterogeneity among the studies, and a random effect model could be used. When I2 is less than 50%, a fixed effect model is recommended. Jamovi provides fixed and random effect models for each analysis, and we therefore chose between the two based on the I2 values. Beside the I2 values, we also considered the Confidence Interval and the p value. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Funnel plot was not considered, since it is a prevalence systematic review, and the graphic results could be non interpretability [26].
Results
Study selection
In phase 1, 9,802 studies were identified in the seven electronic databases. Among the 7,484 articles that remained after the removal of duplicates, 218 were selected. Another five studies that were identified in the gray literature were added and continued to phase 2. No additional study was identified in the list of references of the included articles.
Among the 223 studies that followed into Phase 2, 184 articles were excluded (S2 File). Thus, 39 studies [27–65] that met the eligibility criteria were included in the qualitative synthesis. Among these, 35 studies were considered adequate for the meta-analysis. The process of identification, inclusion, and exclusion of studies is described in Fig 1.
Adapted from PRISMA.
Characteristics of the studies
The articles were published in English, except for one study, which was published in Spanish [39]. The publications occurred between 2008 and 2018, with the highest number of publications in 2017. There were predominantly multicenter studies (n = 13) [28,30,32,36,41,45–48,51,55,60,61] and studies conducted in the United States (n = 11) [27,29,31,33,35,37,38,41,42,56,64]. With respect to the study design, there were 28 clinical trials (randomized or non-randomized) [27–31,33,35,37,38,40–48,51,55,56,58–64] and 11 observational studies [32,34,36,39,49,50,52–54,57,65].
Regarding the treatment with ICIs, 23 studies evaluated the use of ICIs alone, including the use of tremelimumab (n = 1) [28], ipilimumab (n = 14) [27,29,31,32,34,36,39,44,45–47,51–53], nivolumab (n = 4) [50,54,59,60], and pembrolizumab (n = 4) [33,49,58,61]. Combinations of two ICIs were evaluated in eight studies, including the combinations ipilimumab + nivolumab (n = 6) [38,41,48,63–65] and ipilimumab + pembrolizumab (n = 1) [57]. Finally, the combination or comparison of ICIs with chemotherapy was assessed by six studies (n = 6) [30,35,37,40,42,62]. The characteristics of the studies included in the review are described in Table 1.
Results of the individual studies
Among the studies included, 21 of them evaluated patients with advanced melanoma [29,32–34,37,38,40,43,44,48,50,53,55–60,62–64], 11 evaluated patients with metastatic melanoma [27,28,30,31,35,36,39,45,46,52,65] and seven studies evaluated patients with either stage III or IV irresectable melanoma or stage III or IV melanoma resected [41,42,47,49,51,54,61]. Overall, 9,847 patients were evaluated, and the samples in the individual studies ranged from ten [39] to 1,019 patients [61]. One of the studies [65] considered the total number of AEs observed during the study period as representative of the sample, thus not having a sample per number of patients. The mean age of the study participants was 60 years.
Regarding the ICI classes, only the anti-PD-L1 class was not analyzed in the studies included in this review. However, 15 studies studies evaluated the anti-CTLA4 class [27–29,31,32,34,36,39,44–47,51–53] and eight evaluated the anti-PD-1 class [33,49,50,54,58–61]. Several studies assessed the combined treatment with ICIs [38,41,43,48,55–57,63–65], whereas other studies evaluated the treatment with ICIs in combination with or in comparison to chemotherapy [30,35,37,40,42,62].
As to anti-CTLA4 class, the drug tremelimumab was evaluated alone at doses of 3, 6, 10, or 15 mg/kg [28] and, in comparison with chemotherapy (dacarbazine) [35]. Ipilimumab monotherapy was evaluated at doses of 3, 10, and 20 mg/kg, and the 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg doses were compared with each other [27,29,31,32,34,39,44–47,51–53]. The effect of ipilimumab treatment was also assessed in combination with nivolumab [38,41,48,63–65] and pembrolizumab [55,57], in comparison to nivolumab [56] or pembrolizumab [43] treatment, and in combination with chemotherapy (dacarbazine or paclitaxel + carboplatin) [30,37]. One study [36] did not describe the administered ipilimumab dose. Dermatological toxicity was more frequently observed in patients who used ipilimumab than in those who used nivolumab or pembrolizumab and included mainly rash and pruritus. Moreover, when the administration of ipilimumab was investigated in combination with chemotherapy, the dermatological toxicity was high in the ipilimumab group [30,37].
Regarding the anti-PD-1 class, the drug nivolumab was evaluated as monotherapy at doses of 2 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg [50,54,59,60] and compared with chemotherapy [40,62]. Higher frequencies of the AEs were observed at higher doses. When compared with chemotherapy, it was observed that the group treated with nivolumab also had dermatological AEs more frequently than the chemotherapy group in both grades 1 and 2, and in grades 3 and 4. Pembrolizumab was evaluated as monotherapy at doses of 2, 10, and 200 mg [33,49,58,61] and compared with chemotherapy [42].
Among the studies that were evaluated, the most frequent dermatological toxicities were rash [27–33,35,37–48,51,53–57,59–65], pruritus [28–33,35–46,48–49,51,53–65], vitiligo [27,33,38,40–43,49,50,52,55,57–62], dry skin [42,58,62], erythema multiforme [45,46], and skin hypopigmentation [58,59].
Other dermatological toxicities were reported by the studies such as alopecia [44], blister [38], dermatitis [32], drug eruption [55], eczema [52], erythema nodosum [51], folliculitis [52], hand-foot syndrome [45], leukoderma [59],lichenoid exanthema [36], maculopapular exanthema [36], mucositis [52], pemphigoid lesion [55], photosensitivity reaction [36], pruritic eczema [36], pyoderma gangraenosum [36], rosacea [52], seborrheic dermatitis [59], syringometaplasia [52], Stevens-Johnson Syndrome [52], sever skin reactions; eczema, lichenoid or psoriasiform skin irritation [49], toxic skin eruption [51], urticaria [38], and xerosis [52], DRESS syndrome [36,55].
Rash.
Rash grades 1 and 2 [35] was observed with the administration of tremelimumab. When compared to chemotherapy, the tremelimumab-group had a higher frequency of rash than the dacarbazine.
When ipilimumab was administered alone, grades 1 and 2 rash were developed. When ipilimumab was administered in combination with nivolumab [38,41,48,63–65] or in the combination ipilimumab plus pembrolizumab [55,57], patients developed all grades of rash. Maculopapular rash were also observed in patients using ipilimumab [48,51] and nivolumab [48,60,62,63]. Pruritic rash was also reported in patients using ipilimumab [51]. Studies evaluating monotherapy with nivolumab [50,54,59,60] showed grade 1 and 2 rash. However, the occurrence of grade 3 and 4 rash was less frequent [40,62].
Pruritus.
Grades 1 and 2 of pruritus was observed when tremelimumab was evaluated alone [28,35], when ipilimumab was administered alone [27,29,31,32,34,39,44–47,51–53] or in combination with nivolumab [38,41,48,63–65] or pembrolizumab [55,57]. Monotherapy with nivolumab [50,54,59,60] or pembrolizumab [33,49,58,61] also showed grades 1 and 2 pruritus. Although less frequent, grade 3 and 4 pruritus were observed especially in the combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab [41,48,64], and in the combination of nivolumab with chemotherapy [30,40].
Vitiligo.
Vitiligo was observed only with the administration of the anti-PD-1 class. Studies evaluating monotherapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab showed the occurence of vitiligo grade 1 and 2 [33,49,58,61]. When in comparison with chemotherapy, the group treated with nivolumab or pembrolizumab experienced a higher frequency of vitiligo than the group undergoing chemotherapy [40,42].
Other toxicities.
Dry skin grade 1 and 2 was observed in patients using pembrolizumab alone [58], and in patients who were treated with pembrolizumab or nivolumab in comparison with chemotherapy [42,62]. Higher frequency of dry skin was observed on the group treated with immunotherapy.
Skin hypopigmentation was observed in patients using pembrolizumab [58], ipilimumab [36], and nivolumab [59]. Some patients using ipilimumab had acneiform rash/eruption [36,52], erythema multiforme [45,46], and DRESS syndrome (Drug Rash with Eosophilia and Systemic Symptoms) [36,55].
Risk of bias among the studies
Among the clinical trials, 18 had low risk of bias [30,31,35,37,38,40,42,43,45–48,51,55,56,61,62,64], whereas 10 presented moderate risk of bias [27–29,33,41,44,58–60,63]. Domains related to the sample size and statistical analysis contributed to the classification of clinical trials as presenting moderate risk of bias. It was not possible to evaluate the representativeness of the sample size in multicenter studies [28,33,59,60,63]. Even among the studies conducted at a single center, the samples were small [29,41,44,58]. Moreover, it was not possible to verify whether the response rate was properly managed [28,29,33,44,60], or whether the samples were adequately analyzed [29,58]. In other studies, the statistical analysis of the data was not clearly described and was thus impossible to evaluate [27,41], the sample analysis was insufficient [44,60], and it was impossible to determine the suitability of the method for assessment of the condition [41] or the reliability of the condition measurement [27].
Among the observational studies, the risk of bias was considered low, moderate, and high in one [54], two [32,53], and eight studies [34,36,39,49,50,52,57,65], respectively. The studies were considered to have moderate risk of bias, when it was not possible to evaluate whether the sample represented the population or harm [32,53], or whether the statistical analysis of the data was performed adequately [53]. Among the studies with high risk of bias, most inconsistencies referred to the uncertain description of the response rate or lack of its management [34,36,39,49,50,52,57,65], unrepresentative and unstratified samples [34,39,49,50,52,57], lack of description of the statistical analyses [36], use of an unusual statistical analysis [39], or unclear adequacy of the statistical analysis [34].
The detailed evaluation of each study is presented in S3 File.
Synthesis of the results
Among the included 39 studies, 34 were grouped to perform a meta-analysis. Four studies were excluded, because they did not grade the AEs (n = 3) [36,37,64,65] or because the reported ipilimumab AEs were caused by combined administration with chemotherapy (n = 1) [30].
We analyzed the dermatological toxicities which have been reported by two or more studies: rash, pruritus, vitiligo, dry skin, and erythema multiforme. Despite two or more studies had reported skin hypopigmentation and DRESS syndrome, it was not possible to perform the meta-analysis for these toxicities because they were not graduated [36,59] or were reported in different grades [36,55]. The heterogeneity among the studies that evaluated grades 1 to 4 rash, grades 1 and 2 pruritus, and grades 1 and 2 vitiligo was high (rash grades 1 and 2—I2 = 96.93%, p = 0.001, CI = 0.20–0.31; rash grades 3 and 4—I2 = 79.68%, p = 0.001, CI = 0.01–0.02; pruritus grades 1 and 2—I2 = 87.21%, p = 0.001, CI = 0.21–0.27; and vitiligo grades 1 and 2—I2 = 88.37%, p = 0.001, CI = 0.07–0.13). Therefore, we opted to use random effect models for the statistical analysis. The heterogeneity could be explained by the high number of included studies (n = 39), observed by the between-study differences regarding proportion of events.
The results of the meta-analyses for grades 1 and 2 rash, pruritus, vitiligo, erythema multiforme, and dry skin are shown in Figs 2–6. The results of the meta-analysis for grades 3 and 4 rash outcomes and pruritus are shown in S1 and S2 Figs, respectively.
Elaborated by the authors using JAMOVI®. Legend: IPI—Ipilimumab, NIVO—Nivolumab, PEMBRO—Pembrolizumab, TREME—Tremelimumab.
Elaborated by the authors using JAMOVI®. Legend: IPI—Ipilimumab, NIVO—Nivolumab, PEMBRO—Pembrolizumab, TREME—Tremelimumab.
Elaborated by the authors using JAMOVI®. Legend: IPI—Ipilimumab, NIVO—Nivolumab, PEMBRO—Pembrolizumab.
Elaborated by the authors using JAMOVI®. Legend: IPI—Ipilimumab.
Elaborated by the authors using JAMOVI®. Legend: NIVO—Nivolumab, PEMBRO—Pembrolizumab.
The prevalence of grades 1 and 2 rash and grades 3 and 4 rash was 26% (Fig 2) and 2% (S1 Fig), respectively. The prevalence of grades 1 and 2 pruritus (Fig 3) and grades 3 and 4 pruritus were 25% and 1%, respectively (S2 Fig). However, the prevalence of grades 1 and 2 vitiligo was 10% (Fig 4). We could not evaluate the prevalence of grades 3 and 4 vitiligo because only one study [27] described this event. The prevalence of erythema multiforme grade 1 and 2 was 4% (Fig 5), and dry skin grade 1 and 2 was 4% (Fig 6). The studies did not describe higher grades of erythema multiforme or dry skin. For this reason, we could not evaluate the prevalence of these events in grades 3 and 4.
Discussion
Cutaneous AEs are often the first toxicities to occur with the use of ICIs. Despite being self-limited, these toxicities may lead to ICI dose interruption or treatment discontinuation [66]. Dermatological toxicities might be mediated by a shared antigen which is coexpressed by the tumor cells and dermoepidermal junction [10,12].
Furthermore, cutaneous AEs are related to T-cell activation mediated by the blockade of PD-1 (or the PD-L1 ligand) and CTLA-4 receptors as well as the cross-reactivity between T cells directed against a tumor and T cells directed against normal tissue antigens [67]. Several hypotheses investigate factors that influence the risk of irAE development, including genetic factors, cytokines, and the composition of the patient’s gastrointestinal microbiological flora [11].
The most frequent cutaneous AEs identified in this meta-analysis were grade 1 and 2 pruritus (24%), grade 1 and 2 rash (21%), grade 1 and 2 vitiligo (10%), grade 1 and 2 erythema multiforme (4%), and grade 1 and 2 dry skin. There was a higher prevalence of grades 1 and 2 compared to grades 3 and 4 of these AEs. According to Postow [68], approximately 50% of the patients treated with ICIs, mainly ipilimumab, may develop pruritus and rash. Pruritus is considered the most frequent AE reported by patients treated with ICIs. The prevalence of pruritus is high with ipilimumab administered alone or in combination with other ICIs and, usually appears concomitantly with rash; however, pruritus may also precede the rash or even appear with intact skin [67,69]. Like pruritus, rash is also one of the most frequently observed AEs in patients treated with ICIs [69] and, often start after few treatment cyles occuring mainly on the trunk and extremities [70].
Vitiligo is a commonly observed irAE with ICI treatment in patients with melanoma and it is more frequently associated with the use of PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) compared to the use of CTLA-4 inhibitors (ipilimumab) [71]. In this review, among the studies that identified vitiligo as an irAE [27,33,40–43,49,50,52,57,58,60–62], the majority of them evaluated patients treated with anti-PD-1 as a monotherapy or in combination therapy [33,40–43,49,50,57,58,60–62]. The development of vitiligo in patients treated with anti-PD-1 is caused by the activated anti-melanoma immunity that targets both malignant and healthy melanocytes [72,73] and, its occurrence has been associated with an objective response and a prolonged overall survival [12]. Studies have shown that not only vitiligo, but also rash has been associated with clinical benefits in patients treated with nivolumab [74].
Erythema multiforme (EM) is not a very commom AE observed in patients undergoing immunotherapy. However, there are some case reports showing the development of EM-related to the administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab [75,76] that required immunotherapy discontinuation, and corticosteroid treatment. Nevertheless, the studies in this review reported grade 1 and 2 EM which did not lead to treatment discontinuation. Meantime, dry skin is a commom AE related to both chemotherapy and immunotherapy. It is important to educate patients on the use of moisturizers to prevent itching.
The manifestation of cutaneous irAEs occurs at the beginning of treatment, typically 3–6 weeks after treatment initiation [77]. Most grade 3 or 4 irAEs occur later, 12–14 weeks after the beginning of treatment [78]. In this meta-analysis, the prevalence of grade 3 or 4 irAEs was lower compared to grade 1 or 2 irAEs [27,29–31,33,35,38,40,41,43,47,48,51–57,61–64]; however, more than half of the studies identified grade 3 or 4 AEs.
Most studies that presented grade 3 or 4 irAEs (n = 15) evaluated the use of ipilimumab alone [27,29,31,43,47,48,51–53] or in combination therapy [30,38,41,56,63,64]. Ipilimumab has a more unfavorable toxicity profile than PD-1 inhibitors. Regarding grade 3 or 4 AEs, their incidence is 20%–30% in patients receiving ipilimumab and 10%–15% in patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors. The combination of ipilimumab and PD-1 inhibitors increases the incidence of grades 3 and 4 AEs to 55% [79].
Combined anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy is associated with the development of more frequent cutaneous irAEs of greater severity with an earlier onset than monotherapy with ICIs [60]. Combination treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab reportedly exacerbates their AEs and triggers high rates of grades 3 and 4 AEs. As a result, patients may repeatedly seek emergency care and may need hospitalizations and systemic immunosuppression. Further, the combination treatment has a toxicological profile that combine the side effects of both agents [63–65]. Although this combination is effective for cancer treatment, the high irEA rates are concerning [67].
Therefore, the management of adverse events requires early recognition, in addition to monitoring and classifying the grade of toxicity. The early identification of these events is critical to define the most appropriate intervention, such as treatment with the use of corticosteroids, temporary or permanent interruption of the use of ICI [80].
High-degree AEs may be potentially fatal; thus, patients should be carefully evaluated for symptoms consistent with Stevens-Johnson syndrome, pemphigus or toxic epidermal necrolysis [81]. In our review, one study identified Stevens-Johnson syndrome [52], classified as grade 4, affecting only one patient. Pemphigoid lesion grade 4 was also reported by one study [55], affecting only one patient. Though was not possible to perceive wheter these toxicities led to treatment discontinuation. However, toxic epidermal necrolysis was not listed in any of the studies. Both events are considered dermatological emergencies with high morbidity power which require an immediate intervention, hospitalization, and treatment discontinuation [82].
The frequency of irAEs increases with treatment exposure and requires long-term monitoring. Patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors may present with cutaneous AEs up to one year after the initiation of treatment [83]. Thus, follow-up periods longer than 12 months would be ideal to identify the incidence of irAEs. Overall 14 studies included in our review presented follow-up periods ranging from 1 to 5 years, which is considered an adequate time for the identification of irAEs [30,35,38,39,44,47,48,51,55,56,60–63].
Further, authors did not always report the irAEs in the most appropriate manner, since important information such as the classification [36,65] and type of scales used to classify the AEs [27,36,65] was often not reported.
A positive aspect of the irAE report was the use of the Commom Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC-AE) scale [28–35,37–64] to classify and grade irAEs by most of the studies included in this review. The CTC-AE scale was developed to report AEs manifested by patients participating in oncological clinical trials [84]. The use of the same scale by most of the studies allowed the standardization of the irAEs reported in this review. However, Spain & Larkin [79] point out that even though the CTC-AE scale is a good scale that can also be used in clinical practice, it may lead researchers and professionals to underestimate some of the irAEs, such as pituitary gland dysfunction, because it is a scale created for a pre-immunotherapy time.
Other dermatological manifestations were identified in the studies included in this review such as maculopapular exanthema, erythema multiforme, dermatitis, acneiform rash, lichenoid exanthema, folliculitis, rosacea, eczema, leukoderma, seborrheic dermatitis, and alopecia. The majority of them were classified as grade 1 and 2.
Limitations
The heterogeneity of the samples, lack of grading of the AEs in some studies, and unknown time of onset of the AEs may have impaired the analysis of the outcomes. It was not possible to identify subsets of patients with high possibility of displaying cutaneous side effects. Thus, future studies should classify and grade the immunomediated AEs accurately, present the time of onset of the manifested AEs, and report the management and reversibility of the described AEs.
Conclusion
The results of this review and meta-analysis show that the most prevalent irAEs are pruritus and rash. Even though mild and moderate irAEs were reported more frequently than severe irAEs in the included studies, there was also a significant representation of more severe AEs. Grade 3 or 4 irAEs have been associated with the use of ipilimumab. Although it is possible to manage these AEs in most cases, early identification plays a key role in the prevention of severe cases, avoiding treatment interruption.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Meta-analysis of grade 3 or 4 rash outcomes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255716.s002
(TIF)
S2 Fig. Meta-analysis of grade 3 or 4 pruritus outcomes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255716.s003
(TIF)
S1 File. Search Strategy performed in the databases CINAHL, COCHRANE CENTRAL, LILACS, LIVIVO, PUBMED, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, and OPENGRAY.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255716.s004
(DOCX)
S2 File. Articles excluded after reading the full text (phase 2).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255716.s005
(DOCX)
S3 File. Risk of bias in the included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255716.s006
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Abdel-Rahman O, ElHalawani H, Fouad M. Risk of cutaneous toxicities in patients with solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Future Oncol. 2015; 11 (17): 2471–84. pmid:26274495
- 2. Sadreddini S, Baradaran B, Aghebati-Maleki A, Sadreddini S, Shanehbandi D, Fotouhi A, et al. Immune checkpoint blockade opens a new way to cancer immunotherapy. J Cell Physiol. 2019 Jun; 234 (6): 8541–8549. pmid:30511409
- 3. Pavlick AC, Fecher L, Ascierto PA, Sullivan RJ. Frontline Therapy for BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma: How Do You Choose, and Is There One Correct Answer? Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019 Jan; 39: 564–571. pmid:31099689
- 4. Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 22; 12 (4): 252–64. pmid:22437870
- 5. Yousefi H, Yuan J, Keshavarz-Fathi M, Murphy JF, Rezaei N. Immunotherapy of cancers comes of age. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2017 Oct; 13 (10): 1001–1015. pmid:28795649
- 6. Ott PA, Hodi FS, Robert C. CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: new immunotherapeutic modalities with durable clinical benefit in melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Oct 1; 19 (19): 5300–9. pmid:24089443
- 7. Cooper AJ, Carlino MS, Kefford RF. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma. Melanoma Manag. 2015 Aug; 2 (3): 267–284. pmid:30190854
- 8. Mantia CM, Buchbinder EI. Immunotherapy toxicity. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am.2019 Apr; 33 (2): 275–290. pmid:30833000
- 9. Curry JL, Tetzlaff MT, Nagarajan P, Drucker C, Diab A, Hymes SR, et al. Diverse types of dermatologic toxicities from immune checkpoint blockade therapy. J Cutan Pathol. 2017 Feb; 44 (2): 158–176. pmid:27859479
- 10. Russo I, Zorzetto L, Chiarion Sileni V, Alaibac M. Cutaneous side effects of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced melanoma. Scientifica (Cairo). 2018 Dec 30; 2018: 5036213. pmid:30693134
- 11. Postow MA, Sidlow R, Hellmann MD. Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Blockade. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11; 378 (2): 158–168. pmid:29320654
- 12. Sibaud V. Dermatologic reactions to immune checkpoint inhibitors: Skin toxicities and immunotherapy. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018 Jun; 19 (3): 345–361. pmid:29256113
- 13. Lacouture ME. Management of dermatologic toxicities. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015 May; 13 (5 Suppl): 686–9. pmid:25995431
- 14. Bourke JM, O’Sullivan M, Khattak MA. Management of adverse events related to new cancer immunotherapy (immune checkpoint inhibitors). Med J Aust. 2016 Nov 7; 205 (9): 418–424. pmid:27809739
- 15. Ghate SR, Li Z, Tang J, Nakasato AR. Economic burden of adverse events associated with immunotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic melanoma in the elderly. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2018 Oct; 11 (7): 334–343. pmid:30647822
- 16. Chen TW, Razak AR, Bedard PL, Siu LL, Hansen AR. A systematic review of immune-related adverse event reporting in clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep; 26 (9): 1824–9. pmid:25888611
- 17. Khoja L, Day D, Wei-Wu Chen T, Siu LL, Hansen AR. Tumour- and class-specific patterns of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2017 Oct 1; 28 (10): 2377–2385. pmid:28945858
- 18. Wang PF, Chen Y, Song SY, Wang TJ, Ji WJ, Li SW, et al. Immune-related adverse events associated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment for malignancies: a meta-Analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Oct 18; 8: 730. pmid:29093678
- 19. Xu C, Chen YP, Du XJ, Liu JQ, Huang CL, Chen L, et al. Comparative safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018 Nov 8; 363: k4226. pmid:30409774
- 20. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010; 8 (8): 658. pmid:20171303
- 21. Vasques CI, Reis PED, Ferreira EB. Prevalence of dermatological toxicities in cancer patients submitted to treatment with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review. PROSPERO CRD42018091915. [accessed 19 april 2019]. Available in: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=91915.
- 22.
Hamad Bin Khalifa University. Qatar computing research institute: Rayyan. [accessed 20 april 2019]. Available in: https://rayyan.qcri.org/welcome.
- 23.
Endnote™ basic. © Thomson Reuters. [accessed 10 February 2019]. Available in: http://www.myendnoteweb.com/.
- 24.
Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Prevalence Studies. The University of Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute. [accessed 09 february 2019]. Available in: https://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/ReviewersManual_2017-The-Systematic-Review-of-Prevalence-and-Incidence-Data_v2.pdf; 2017.
- 25.
The jamovi project (2021). jamovi (Version 1.6) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
- 26. Fukuya-Kanamori L, Barendregt JJ, Doi SAR. A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2018; 16:000–000.
- 27. Weber JS, O’Day S, Urba W, Powderly J, Nichol G, Yellin M, et al. Phase I/II study of ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 20; 26 (36): 5950–6. pmid:19018089
- 28. Camacho LH, Antonia S, Sosman J, Kirkwood JM, Gajewski TF, Redman B, et al. Phase I/II trial of tremelimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 1; 27 (7): 1075–81. pmid:19139427
- 29. Ku GY, Yuan J, Page DB, Schroeder SE, Panageas KS, Carvajal RD, et al. Single-institution experience with ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients in the compassionate use setting: lymphocyte count after 2 doses correlates with survival. Cancer. 2010 Apr 1; 116 (7): 1767–75. pmid:20143434
- 30. Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, O’Day S, Weber J, Garbe C, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 30; 364 (26): 2517–26. pmid:21639810
- 31. Margolin K, Ernstoff MS, Hamid O, Lawrence D, McDermott D, Puzanov I, et al. Ipilimumab in patients with melanoma and brain metastases: na open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012 May; 13 (5): 459–65. pmid:22456429
- 32. Altomonte M, Di Giacomo A, Queirolo P, et al. Clinical experience with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in patients with melanoma treated at Italian centres as part of a European expanded access programme. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Oct 25; 32: 82. pmid:24423086
- 33. Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Ascierto P, Spagnolo F, Bajetta E, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 11; 369 (2): 134–44. pmid:23724846
- 34. Postow MA, Luke JJ, Bluth MJ, Ramaiya N, Panageas KS, Lawrence DP, et al. Ipilimumab for patients with advanced mucosal melanoma. Oncologist. 2013 Jun; 18 (6): 726–32. pmid:23716015
- 35. Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, Punt CJ, Haanen JB, Marmol M, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Feb 10; 31 (5): 616–22. pmid:23295794
- 36. Voskens CJ, Goldinger SM, Loquai C, Robert C, Kaehler KC, Berking C, et al. The price of tumor control: an analysis of rare side effects of anti-CTLA-4 therapy in metastatic melanoma from the ipilimumab network. PLoS One. 2013; 8 (1): e53745. pmid:23341990
- 37. Weber J, Hamid O, Amin A, O’Day S, Masson E, Goldberg SM, et al. Randomized phase I pharmacokinetic study of ipilimumab with or without one of two different chemotherapy regimens in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Cancer Immun. 2013 May 1; 13: 7. pmid:23833564
- 38. Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK, Postow MA, Rizvi NA, Lesokhin AM, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 11; 369 (2): 122–33. pmid:23724867
- 39. Ruiz-Morales JM, Rodrigues-Cid J, Alvarado-Luna G, Green-Renner D, Motola-Kuba D. Uso de ipilimumab en pacientes con melanoma metastático. Experience en el Hospital Médica Sur. Gazeta Mexicana de Oncologia. 2014; 13 (3): 157–161.
- 40. Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Dutriaux C, Maio M, Mortier L, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 22; 372 (4): 320–30. pmid:25399552
- 41. Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, Robert C, Grossmann K, McDermott D, et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015 May 21; 372 (21): 2006–17. pmid:25891304
- 42. Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R, Schadendorf D, Hamid O, Robert C, et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Aug; 16 (8): 908–18. pmid:26115796
- 43. Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25; 372 (26): 2521–32. pmid:25891173
- 44. Yamazaki N, Kiyohara Y, Uhara H, Fukushima S, Uchi H, Shibagaki N, et al. Phase II study of ipilimumab monotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced melanoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015 Nov; 76 (5): 997–1004. pmid:26410424
- 45. Zimmer L, Eigentler TK, Kiecker F, Simon J, Utikal J, Mohr P, 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 Nov 6; 13: 351. pmid:26541511
- 46. Zimmer L, Vaubel J, Mohr P, Hauschild A, Utikal J, Simon J, et al. Phase II DeCOG-study of ipilimumab in pretreated and treatment-naïve patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 11; 10 (3): e0118564. pmid:25761109
- 47. Eggermont AM, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob JJ, Dummer R, Wolchok JD, Schmidt H, et al. Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10; 375 (19): 1845–1855. pmid:27717298
- 48. Hodi FS, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, Robert C, Grossmann KF, McDermott DF, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17 (11): 1558–1568. pmid:27622997
- 49. Hua C, Boussemart L, Mateus C, Routier E, Boutros C, Cazenave H, et al. Association of vitiligo with tumor response in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Jan; 152 (1): 45–51. pmid:26501224
- 50. Nakamura Y, Tanaka R, Asami Y, Teramoto Y, Imamura T, Sato S, et al. Correlation between vitiligo occurrence and clinical benefit in advanced melanoma patients treated with nivolumab: A multi-institutional retrospective study. J Dermatol. 2016 Feb; 44 (2): 117–122. pmid:27510892
- 51. Ascierto PA, Del Vecchio M, Robert C, Mackiewicz A, Chiarion-Sileni V, Arance A, 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 May; 18 (5): 611–622. pmid:28359784
- 52. Dika E, Ravaioli GM, Fanti PA, Piraccini BM, Lambertini M, Chessa MA, et al. Cutaneous adverse effects during ipilimumab treatment for metastatic melanoma: a prospective study. Eur J Dermatol. 2017 Jun 1; 27 (3): 266–270. pmid:28524050
- 53. Jung M, Lee J, Kim TM, Lee DH, Kang JH, Oh SY, et al. Ipilimumab real-world efficacy and Safety in Korean melanoma patients from the Korean named-patient program cohort. Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jan; 49 (1): 44–53. pmid:27121719
- 54. Long GV, Weber JS, Larkin J, Atkinson V, Grob JJ, Schadendorf D, et al. Nivolumab for patients with advanced melanoma treated beyond progression: Analysis of 2 phase 3 clinical trials. JAMA Oncol. 2017 Nov 1; 3 (11): 1511–1519. pmid:28662232
- 55. Long GV, Atkinson V, Cebon JS, Jameson MB, Fitzharris BM, McNeil CM, et al. Standard-dose pembrolizumab in combination with reduced-dose ipilimumab for patients with advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-029): na open-label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep; 18 (9): 1202–1210. pmid:28729151
- 56. Weber J, Mandala M, Del Vecchio M, Gogas HJ, Arance AM, Cowey CL, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 9; 377 (19): 1824–1835. pmid:28891423
- 57. Wen X, Ding Y, Li J, Zhao J, Peng R, Li D, et al. The experience of immune checkpoint inhibitors in Chinese patients with metastatic melanoma: a retrospective case series. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2017 Sep; 66 (9): 1153–1162. pmid:28444424
- 58. Yamazaki N, Takenouchi T, Fujimoto M, Ihn H, Uchi H, Inozume T, 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 Apr; 79 (4): 651–660. pmid:28283736
- 59. Yamazaki N, Kiyohara Y, Uhara H, Iizuka H, Uehara J, Otsuka F, et al. Cytokine biomarkers to predict antitumor responses to nivolumab suggested in a phase 2 study for advanced melanoma. Cancer Sci. 2017 May; 108 (5): 1022–1031. pmid:28266140
- 60. Yamazaki N, Kiyohara Y, Uhara H, Uehara J, Fujimoto M, Takenouchi T, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in Japanese patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma: A phase II study. Cancer Sci. 2017 Jun; 108 (6): 1223–1230. pmid:28342215
- 61. Eggermont AMM, Blank CU, Mandala M, Long GV, Atkinson V, Dalle S, et al. Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10; 378 (19): 1789–1801. pmid:29658430
- 62. Larkin J, Minor D, D’Angelo S, Neyns B, Smylie M, Miller WH Jr, et al. Overall survival in patients with advanced melanoma who received nivolumab versus investigator’s choice chemotherapy in CheckMate 037: A randomized, controlled, open-label phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 1; 36 (4): 383–390. pmid:28671856
- 63. Namikawa K, Kiyohara Y, Takenouchi T, Uhara H, Uchi H, Yoshikawa S, 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 Dec; 105: 114–126. pmid:30447539
- 64. Shoushtari AN, Friedman CF, Navid-Azarbaijani P, Postow MA, Callahan MK, Momtaz P, et al. Measuring toxic effects and time to treatment failure for nivolumab plus ipilimumab in melanoma. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jan 1; 4 (1): 98–101. pmid:28817755
- 65. Soldatos TG, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Larribere L, Hassel JC, Sachpekidis C. Retrospective side effect profiling of the metastatic melanoma combination therapy ipilimumab-nivolumab using adverse event data. Diagnostics (Basel). 2018 Oct 31;8 (4). pii: E76. pmid:30384507
- 66. Grávalos C, Sanmartín O, Gúrpide A, España A, Majem M, Suh Oh HJ, et al. Clinical management of cutaneous adverse events in patients on targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies: a National consensus statement by the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019 May; 21 (5): 556–571. pmid:30284232
- 67. Sibaud V, Boulinguez S, Pagès C, Riffaud L, Lamant L, Chira C, et al. Dermatologic toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2018 May; 145 (5): 313–330. pmid:29678394
- 68. Postow MA. Managing immune checkpoint-blocking antibody side effects. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2015: 76–83. pmid:25993145
- 69. Hwang SJE, Fernández-Peñas P. Adverse reactions to biologics: Melanoma (Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab). Curr Probl Dermatol. 2018; 53: 82–92. pmid:29131040
- 70. Sibaud V, Meyer N, Lamant L, Vigarios E, Mazieres J, Delord JP. Dermatologic complications of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint antibodies. Curr Opin Oncol. 2016 Jul; 28 (4): 254–63. pmid:27136138
- 71. Abdel-Wahab N, Alshawa A, Suarez-Almazor ME. Adverse events in cancer immunotherapy. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017; 995: 155–174. pmid:28321817
- 72. Willensen M, Melief CJM, Bekkenk MW, Luiten RM. Targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 Axis in Human Vitiligo. Front. Immunol. 2020; 11:579022. pmid:33240267
- 73. Byrne EH, Fisher DE. Immune and molecular correlates in melanoma treated with immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer. 2017 Jun 1; 123 (S11): 2143–2153. pmid:28543699
- 74. Freeman-Keller M, Kim Y, Cronin H, Richards A, Gibney G, Weber JS. Nivolumab in Resected and Unresectable Metastatic Melanoma: Characteristics of Immune-Related Adverse Events and Association with Outcomes. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 22(4): 886–894. pmid:26446948
- 75. Utsunomiya A, Oyama N, Lino S, Baba N, Chino T, Utsunomiya N, et al. A Case of Erythema Multiforme Major Developed after Sequential Use of Two Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, Nivolumab and Ipilimumab, for Advanced Melanoma: Possible Implication of Synergistic and/or Complementary Immunomodulatory Effects. Case Rep Dermatol. 2018 Jan 18; 10(1):1–6. pmid:29515387
- 76. Sundaresan S, Nguyen K T, Nelson K C, Ivan D, Patel AB. Erythema multiforme major in a patient with metastatic melanoma treated with ivolumab. Dermatology Online Journal. 2017 23(9). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2513974h.
- 77. Collins LK, Chapman MS, Carter JB, Samie FH. Cutaneous adverse effects of the immune checkpoint inhibitors. Curr Probl Cancer. 2017 Mar—Apr; 41 (2): 125–128. pmid:28190531
- 78. Weber JS, Postow M, Lao CD, Schadendorf D. Management of adverse events following treatment with anti-programmed death-1 agents. Oncologist. 2016 Oct; 21 (10): 1230–1240. pmid:27401894
- 79. Spain L, Larkin J. Combination immune checkpoint blockade with ipilimumab and nivolumab in the management of advanced melanoma. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2016; 16 (3): 389–96. pmid:26750801
- 80. Rudzki JD. Management of adverse events related to checkpoint inhibition therapy. Magazine of European Medical Oncology, 2018; 11(2): 132–137. pmid:29983828
- 81. Naidoo J, Page DB, Li BT, Connell LC, Schindler K, Lacouture MEet al. Toxicities of the anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint antibodies. Ann Oncol. 2016 Jul; 27 (7): 1362. pmid:27072927
- 82. Gordon R, Kasler MK, Stasi K, Yelena S, Mimma E, Kathryn C, et al. Checkpoint inhibitors: Common immune-related adverse events and their management. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2017 Apr 1; 21 (2 Suppl): 45–52. pmid:28315555
- 83. Michot JM, Bigenwald C, Champiat S, et al. Immune-related adverse events with imune checkpoint blockade: a comprehensive review. Eur J Cancer. 2016 Feb; 54: 139–148. pmid:26765102
- 84. De Tursi M, Zilli M, Carella C, Auriemma M, Lisco MN, Di Nicola M, et al. Skin toxicity evaluation in patients treated with cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a new tool for more accurate comprehension of quality of life impacts. Onco Targets Ther. 2017 Jun 16; 10: 3007–3015. pmid:28670133