Cargando…
Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the setting of liver transplant (LT) pose a risk of rejection and hold unclear benefit in both the neoadjuvant (pre-transplant) and post-transplant salvage setting. In the pre-transplant setting, neoadjuvant ICIs may serve as a bridge to LT by downs...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10186520/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37201081 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo-22-922 |
_version_ | 1785042577044537344 |
---|---|
author | Rudolph, Mark Shah, Shimul A. Quillin, Ralph Lemon, Kristina Olowokure, Olugbenga Latif, Tahir Sohal, Davendra |
author_facet | Rudolph, Mark Shah, Shimul A. Quillin, Ralph Lemon, Kristina Olowokure, Olugbenga Latif, Tahir Sohal, Davendra |
author_sort | Rudolph, Mark |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the setting of liver transplant (LT) pose a risk of rejection and hold unclear benefit in both the neoadjuvant (pre-transplant) and post-transplant salvage setting. In the pre-transplant setting, neoadjuvant ICIs may serve as a bridge to LT by downstaging disease burden to fit within transplant criteria. Outcomes in this setting include patients who had successful transplants without complications to patients who suffered severe complications, including fatal hepatic necrosis and graft failure requiring re-transplant. Some authors suggest having a period of three months between checkpoint inhibition and transplant may help mitigate adverse effects. In the post-LT setting, there are few treatment options if there is a recurrence of disease, which forces treatment teams to reconsider checkpoint inhibitors. Again, a longer period of time between transplant and checkpoint inhibition may reduce risk of rejection. Case reports of patients treated with ICIs post-transplant utilized either nivolumab or pembrolizumab. As combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is a relatively new treatment option for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there are only three reported cases using this combination in the post-LT setting. While there were no cases of rejection, all three cases had progression of disease. As immunotherapy joins transplantation as a mainstay of treatment for HCC, it remains unclear how to best navigate when the treatment course involves both immune activation and immunosuppression. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patients who had an LT and were treated with ICIs (pre or post LT) at the University of Cincinnati were included in this retrospective chart review. CONCLUSIONS: Fatal rejection remains a significant risk even 4 years after LT. Neoadjuvant ICIs also pose a risk for acute cellular rejection; however, this may not always be clinically significant. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) may be an additional, previously unreported risk of ICIs in the setting of LT. Prospective studies are needed to understand benefits and risks of checkpoint inhibitors in the LT setting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10186520 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | AME Publishing Company |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101865202023-05-17 Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series Rudolph, Mark Shah, Shimul A. Quillin, Ralph Lemon, Kristina Olowokure, Olugbenga Latif, Tahir Sohal, Davendra J Gastrointest Oncol Case Series BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the setting of liver transplant (LT) pose a risk of rejection and hold unclear benefit in both the neoadjuvant (pre-transplant) and post-transplant salvage setting. In the pre-transplant setting, neoadjuvant ICIs may serve as a bridge to LT by downstaging disease burden to fit within transplant criteria. Outcomes in this setting include patients who had successful transplants without complications to patients who suffered severe complications, including fatal hepatic necrosis and graft failure requiring re-transplant. Some authors suggest having a period of three months between checkpoint inhibition and transplant may help mitigate adverse effects. In the post-LT setting, there are few treatment options if there is a recurrence of disease, which forces treatment teams to reconsider checkpoint inhibitors. Again, a longer period of time between transplant and checkpoint inhibition may reduce risk of rejection. Case reports of patients treated with ICIs post-transplant utilized either nivolumab or pembrolizumab. As combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is a relatively new treatment option for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there are only three reported cases using this combination in the post-LT setting. While there were no cases of rejection, all three cases had progression of disease. As immunotherapy joins transplantation as a mainstay of treatment for HCC, it remains unclear how to best navigate when the treatment course involves both immune activation and immunosuppression. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patients who had an LT and were treated with ICIs (pre or post LT) at the University of Cincinnati were included in this retrospective chart review. CONCLUSIONS: Fatal rejection remains a significant risk even 4 years after LT. Neoadjuvant ICIs also pose a risk for acute cellular rejection; however, this may not always be clinically significant. Graft versus host disease (GVHD) may be an additional, previously unreported risk of ICIs in the setting of LT. Prospective studies are needed to understand benefits and risks of checkpoint inhibitors in the LT setting. AME Publishing Company 2023-04-03 2023-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10186520/ /pubmed/37201081 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo-22-922 Text en 2023 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Case Series Rudolph, Mark Shah, Shimul A. Quillin, Ralph Lemon, Kristina Olowokure, Olugbenga Latif, Tahir Sohal, Davendra Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series |
title | Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series |
title_full | Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series |
title_fullStr | Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series |
title_full_unstemmed | Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series |
title_short | Immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series |
title_sort | immune checkpoint inhibitors in liver transplant: a case series |
topic | Case Series |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10186520/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37201081 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo-22-922 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rudolphmark immunecheckpointinhibitorsinlivertransplantacaseseries AT shahshimula immunecheckpointinhibitorsinlivertransplantacaseseries AT quillinralph immunecheckpointinhibitorsinlivertransplantacaseseries AT lemonkristina immunecheckpointinhibitorsinlivertransplantacaseseries AT olowokureolugbenga immunecheckpointinhibitorsinlivertransplantacaseseries AT latiftahir immunecheckpointinhibitorsinlivertransplantacaseseries AT sohaldavendra immunecheckpointinhibitorsinlivertransplantacaseseries |