compared with treatment with placebo. 5 These results show that ruxolitinib reduces splenomegaly in patients with thalassemia and suggest that targeting EPO-EPOR-JAK2-STAT5 axis may limit the excessive proliferation of erythroid progenitors in spleen.Although there was an increase in hepcidin levels with ruxolitinib treatment in our study, no significant changes in either serum iron or ferritin levels were observed over time. However, increased levels of hepcidin may suggest that the handling of iron absorption could be improved in the long term.In conclusion, treatment with ruxolitinib in patients with TDT led to a sustained reduction in spleen size, and, hence, could be considered as an option for TDT patients with splenomegaly. Because the major purpose of reducing spleen size in patients with TDT is to improve pretransfusion hemoglobin and related reduction in transfusion needs where ruxolitinib had shown a limited effect, no further phase 3 studies are planned in regularly transfused patients with thalassemia.

Fibroblast Growth Factor receptor (FGFR) pathway aberrations have been implicated in approximately 7% of the malignancies. As our knowledge of FGFR aberrations in cancer continues to evolve, FGFR inhibitors emerged as potential targeted therapeutic agents. The promising results of pemigatinib and infigratinib in advanced unresectable cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangement, and erdafitinib in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR2 and FGFR3 genetic aberrations, lead to their accelerated approval by the United States (USA) FDA. Along with these agents, many phase II/III clinical trials are currently evaluating the use of derazantinib, infigratinib, and futibatinib either alone or in combination with immunotherapy. Despite the encouraging results seen with FGFR inhibitors, resistance mechanisms and side effect profile may limit their clinical utility. A better understanding of the unique FGFR-inhibitor-related toxicities would invariably help us in the prevention and effective management of FGFR-inhibitor-induced adverse events thereby enhancing their clinical benefit. Herein, we summarized the physiology of FGF/FGFR signaling and briefly discussed the possible mechanisms that could lead to FGFR inhibitor resistance and side effects. In addition, we proposed treatment guidelines for the management of FGFR-inhibitor-associated toxicities. This work would invariably help practicing oncologists to effectively manage the unique toxicities of FGFR inhibitors.

Context:Immune checkpoint inhibitors, including anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), anti–programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1), and anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (anti-CTLA4) monoclonal antibodies, have been widely used in cancer treatment. They are known to cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which resemble autoimmune diseases. Anterior pituitary hypophysitis with secondary hypopituitarism is a frequently reported irAE, especially in patients receiving anti–CTLA4 treatment. In contrast, posterior pituitary involvement, such as central diabetes insipidus (DI), is relatively rare and is unreported in patients undergoing PD-1/PD-L1 blockade.Case Description:We describe a case of a 73-year-old man with Merkel cell carcinoma who received the anti–PD-L1 monoclonal antibody avelumab and achieved partial response. The patient developed nocturia, polydipsia, and polyuria 3 months after starting avelumab. Further laboratory testing revealed central DI. Avelumab was held and he received desmopressin for the management of central DI. Within 6 weeks after discontinuation of avelumab, the patient’s symptoms resolved and he was eventually taken off desmopressin. The patient remained off avelumab and there were no signs or symptoms of DI 2 months after the discontinuation of desmopressin.Conclusion:To our knowledge, this is the first report of central DI associated with anti–PD-L1 immunotherapy. The patient’s endocrinopathy was successfully managed by holding treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor. This case highlights the importance of early screening and appropriate management of hormonal irAEs in subjects undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors to minimize morbidity and mortality.

No abstract

No abstract