PURPOSE: Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS: Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION: Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have acquired a central role in the treatment of cancer within the last decade. Over 50 different tumor types have approval for the use of T-cell targeted immunomodulators blocking immune checkpoints like cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed death-1 (PD-1), or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1).¹ However, because of their unique mechanism of action, ICIs present their own set of adverse events (AEs), called immune-related adverse events. Neurologic immune-related AEs are an emerging area of interest because of the complexity of the nervous system and the potential for long-term morbidity.^2,3 Although the overall incidence of neurologic AE (NAE) is reported to be approximately 1%,⁴ NAEs constitute 11% of all the fatal events secondary to ICIs.³ In a systematic review of literature, Cuzzubbo et al⁵ reported that the overall incidence of NAEs of any grade was 3.8% with anti–CTLA-4, 6.1% for anti–PD-1/PD-L1, and 12% with the use of dual checkpoint inhibitors (a combination of anti–PD-1 and anti–CTLA-4 therapy).

Opinion statement: Desmoid tumors are rare tumors with a tendency to infiltrate locally. The lack of a standard treatment approach makes choosing the most appropriate treatment for patients challenging. Most experts recommend watchful observation for asymptomatic patients as spontaneous regression of tumor is observed in up to 20% of patients. Upfront resection of the desmoid tumor has fallen out of favor due to high morbidity and high relapse rates associated with the tumor. Systemic therapy has evolved over several decades. Where chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were used over the last several decades, tyrosine kinase inhibitors came to the forefront within the last decade. Most recently, gamma-secretase inhibitors have shown significant clinical benefit in patients with desmoid tumors, bringing forth an entirely new mechanistic approach. Several Wnt pathway inhibitors are also under development. Invasive approaches like cryoablation have also shown clinical benefit in patients with extra-abdominal desmoid tumors in recent years. The recent approval of nirogacestat has ushered in a new era of treatment for patients diagnosed with desmoid tumors. Several new molecules are expected to be approved over the coming years.

The treatment of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in adults has evolved rapidly over the past decade. The second-generation thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs), romiplostim, eltrombopag, and avatrombopag are approved for the treatment of chronic ITP in adults. However, their use in pregnancy is labeled as category C by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) due to the lack of clinical data on human subjects. ITP is a common cause of thrombocytopenia in the first and second trimester of pregnancy, which not only affects the mother but can also lead to thrombocytopenia in the neonatal thrombocytopenia secondary to maternal immune thrombocytopenia (NMITP). Corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs) are commonly used for treating acute ITP in pregnant patients. Drugs such as rituximab, anti-D, and azathioprine that are used to treat ITP in adults, are labeled category C and seldom used in pregnant patients. Cytotoxic chemotherapy (vincristine, cyclophosphamide), danazol, and mycophenolate are contraindicated in pregnant women. In such a scenario, TPO-RAs present an attractive option to treat ITP in pregnant patients. Current evidence on the use of TPO-RAs in pregnant women with ITP is limited. In this narrative review, we will examine the preclinical and the clinical literature regarding the use of TPO-RAs in the management of ITP in pregnancy and their effect on neonates with NMITP.

Importance: Despite the clear potential benefits of neoadjuvant therapy, the optimal neoadjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (HRRM) is not known.Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibitors with anti–programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD1) therapy in a neoadjuvant setting among patients with HRRM.Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pooled analysis of clinical trials, studies were selected provided they investigated immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, were published between January 2018 and March 2023, and were phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials. Participant data included in the analysis were derived from trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 monotherapy and the combination of anti–cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein-4 with anti-PD1 in the neoadjuvant setting, specifically among patients with HRRM.Interventions: Patients were treated with either anti-PD1 monotherapy; dual checkpoint inhibition (DCPI) with a conventional dose of 3-mg/kg ipilimumab and 1-mg/kg nivolumab; or DCPI with an alternative-dose regimen of 1-mg/kg ipilimumab and 3-mg/kg nivolumab.Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were radiologic complete response (rCR), radiologic overall objective response (rOOR), and radiologic progressive disease. Also, pathologic complete response (pCR), the proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection, and occurrence of grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were considered.Results: Among 573 patients enrolled in 6 clinical trials, neoadjuvant therapy with DCPI was associated with higher odds of achieving pCR compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.16; P < .001). DCPI was associated with higher odds of grade 3 or 4 irAEs compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy (OR, 3.75; P < .001). When comparing the alternative-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) regimen with conventional-dose IPI-NIVO, no statistically significant difference in rCR, rOOR, radiologic progressive disease, or pCR was noted. However, the conventional-dose IPI-NIVO regimen was associated with increased grade 3 or 4 irAEs (OR, 4.76; P < .001). Conventional-dose IPI-NIVO was associated with greater odds of achieving improved rOOR (OR, 1.95; P = .046) and pCR (OR, 2.99; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The alternative dose of IPI-NIVO also was associated with higher odds of achieving rCR (OR, 2.55; P = .03) and pCR (OR, 3.87; P < .001) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy. The risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs is higher with both the conventional-dose (OR, 9.59; P < .001) and alternative-dose IPI-NIVO regimens (OR, 2.02; P = .02) compared with anti-PD1 monotherapy.Conclusion and Relevance: In this pooled analysis of 6 clinical trials, although DCPI was associated with increased likelihood of achieving pathological and radiologic responses, the associated risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs was significantly lower with anti-PD1 monotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for HRRM. Additionally, compared with alternative-dose IPI-NIVO, the conventional dose of IPI-NIVO was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or 4 irAEs, with no significant distinctions in radiologic or pathologic efficacy.

Primary pericardial angiosarcoma: case report and review of treatment options Udit Yadav1 and Ankit Mangla2 1Department of Medicine, Division