ArticleThe oncologist2025
Safety and efficacy of retreatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors after severe immune-related adverse events.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Advancing immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge: key insights into efficacy, safety, and personalized strategies in advanced solid tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Long-term follow-up of a phase 1/2 trial of anti-GDF-15 antibody visugromab plus anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab in anti-PD-1/-L1 relapsed/refractory solid tumors.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Trial
- Case Report: Durable remission in stage IV melanoma following strategic immune checkpoint inhibitor class rotation and rechallenge.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Sequential Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Retreatment After Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer treatment, they can trigger severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The safety and efficacy of ICI retreatment after severe irAEs remain poorly understood.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 1271 patients with malignancies treated with ICIs at a university hospital in Japan between September 2014 and June 2023. We evaluated the incidence and characteristics of severe irAEs, defined as grade ≥3, and the safety and efficacy of ICI retreatment.
resultsSevere irAEs occurred in 222 patients (17.5%). Patients with single endocrinopathies were excluded, and 46 (28.4%) of the remaining 162 patients underwent ICI retreatment. Upon retreatment, 14 patients (30.4%) experienced recurrent or new grade ≥2 irAEs. One patient who experienced hepatotoxicity (grade 3) at initial ICI treatment developed a recurrence (grade 4). Regarding antitumor response, the objective response rate to retreatment was 28.3% (13/46), with 10.9% achieving complete and 17.4% partial response. The median duration of ICI administration after retreatment was 218 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84-399). At 1 year after retreatment, 15.4% (95% CI: 6.8-27.4) of patients discontinued due to irAEs, 44.4% (95% CI: 29.7-58.1) due to disease progression, 6.6% (95% CI: 1.7-16.3) completed planned treatment, and 33.4% (95% CI: 20.3-47.2) continued treatment.
conclusionsICI retreatment after severe irAEs demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising efficacy, even in patients with grade ≥3 irAEs. ICI retreatment may be a viable option for patients with limited alternatives, particularly those showing favorable antitumor responses at initial treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.