Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are used either as monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic agents in metastatic gastric cancer (mGC). Studies show that circadian rhythms are essential for immune system functions, including anticancer immunity.

Objectives:

This study evaluated whether the time of day of nivolumab infusion altered the efficacy of mGC treatment.

Design:

This was a retrospective cohort study.

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 296 consecutive patients with mGC who received nivolumab monotherapy between December 2014 and December 2022. Patients were divided into early (EA)- and late (LA)-nivolumab infusion groups: the EA and LA groups received ⩾70% and <70% of their infusions before 14:00, respectively. Treatment efficacy was compared between the groups.

Results:

A total of 248 patients were eligible: 140 and 108 in the EA and LA groups, respectively. Most baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except for differences in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly better in the EA than in the LA group (median PFS, 2.3 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.65; p < 0.01; median OS, 7.6 vs 3.9 months; HR, 0.64; p < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, EA was an independent prognostic factor for PFS (adjusted HR, 0.70; p < 0.01) and OS (adjusted HR, 0.67; p < 0.01). Immune-related adverse events were more frequent in the EA than in the LA group (40.7% vs 29.6%, p = 0.07).

Conclusion:

Our data suggest that scheduling nivolumab infusions before mid-afternoon should be considered in daily practice for the treatment of mGC.

Keywords

circadian rhythm gastric cancer immunotherapy nivolumab prognosis

Introduction

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ Systemic chemotherapy is the standard of care for improving survival and enhancing the quality of life of patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer (mGC).^2,3 The prognosis of mGC remains poor, with a median overall survival (OS) of approximately 1 year.⁴ However, with advances in drug development, there has been a gradual prolongation of the OS of patients with mGC in clinical practice.⁵

In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), such as those targeting programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), have shown better clinical outcomes in patients with various solid tumors.^6–8 Immune checkpoints downregulate the immune system, preventing its overactivation, and are used by cancer cells as an escape mechanism from the immune system. Nivolumab is a humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G4 PD-1 antibody that has become standard of care as a third- or later-line treatment for mGC based on the ATTRACTION-2 trial, showing improved OS compared with placebo.⁹

Chronotherapy is a treatment method that improves efficacy by administering drugs that align with a patient’s internal clock or circadian rhythm. The circadian rhythm uses cues from the environment, such as light and food intake, to establish an approximately 24-h rhythm for most physiological processes. The relationship between circadian rhythms and treatment efficacy has been reported not only for cytotoxic anticancer drugs but also for ICIs in various carcinomas, such as melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and esophageal cancer.^10–17 This phenomenon is thought to be influenced by the existence of a circadian rhythm in the cancer immune system, which affects the localization and proliferation of immune cells because of variations throughout the day.^18,19

However, to our knowledge, there are no reports on whether the timing of nivolumab infusion affects the treatment efficacy and safety in mGC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety depending on the time of day of nivolumab infusion as a later-line treatment in patients with mGC.

Materials and methods

Patients and treatment

This single-center retrospective study included patients with mGC who received nivolumab monotherapy as a third- or later-line treatment between December 2014 and December 2022 at Aichi Cancer Center Hospital. Patients received nivolumab at 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) histologically confirmed advanced unresectable or recurrent gastric/esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma; (2) age ⩾20 years; (3) prior treatment with two or more lines of chemotherapy, including fluoropyrimidine and taxanes; (4) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0–2; (5) adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function; and (6) received at least two injections of nivolumab. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee and Institutional Review Board of the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital (approval number: IR051072). This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of Aichi Cancer Center Hospital because of the retrospective, non-interventional design, and opt-out option available on the institution’s website.

Treatment group

Infusion times were retrieved from medical records and classified into two groups, with patients who received ⩾70% of infusions before 14:00 assigned to the early time infusion (EA), and patients who received <70% of infusions before 14:00 assigned to the late time infusion (LA). The cutoff value was set at 14:00 for the following reasons: (1) when the infusion times were divided into 30-min intervals, the interval with the highest number of infusions was between 13:30 and 14:00 (Supplemental Figure 1); and (2) based on a previous report.¹⁰

Statistical analysis

The Chi-square test was used for categorical data, whereas the Mann–Whitney U test was used for continuous data. The objective response rate (ORR) was assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1.²⁰ ORR was defined as the proportion of patients with complete or partial response. The disease control rate (DCR) refers to the proportion of patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from the initiation of nivolumab treatment until the date of disease progression or death due to any cause. Survivors without disease progression were censored at the last contact. OS was defined as the time from the initiation of nivolumab treatment until the date of death due to any cause or censored at the latest follow-up visit in surviving patients. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. We conducted a Cox proportional hazards model analysis to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) of each factor in the different groups of patients. For the multivariate analysis, variables were selected based on factors with p values <0.10 in the univariable analysis. To investigate the impact of nivolumab monotherapy infusion time on survival, we conducted subgroup analyses with patients categorized into three groups: group 1 received at least 70% of their infusions before 14:00, group 2 received at least 30% of their infusions before 14:00 and 30% of their infusions after 14:00, and group 3 received at least 70% of their infusions after 14:00.¹³ This three-group comparison was not included as a factor in the multivariate analysis. The modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) was defined based on previous reports.²¹ Pre-treatment blood test results were used in this study; the cutoff value for the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was set at 2.4, which was the median value for the patients participating in this study. Adverse events related to treatment with ICIs were retrospectively assessed using medical records from the start of treatment to the last follow-up. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR version 1.64 (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R version 4.3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). This study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

Results

Patient characteristics

Of the 296 patients who received nivolumab between December 2014 and December 2022, 248 were eligible for this study, excluding 48 patients who received only one infusion (n = 44) or no prior treatment with fluoropyrimidines or taxanes (n = 4). A total of 140 patients were assigned to the EA group and 108 to the LA group (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the selection process for the early or late infusion groups from cases receiving nivolumab monotherapy for mGC between December 2014 and December 2022.

Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Most baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Significant differences were observed in the NLR (NLR < 2.4, 59% vs 38%, p < 0.01), median infusion start time (11:50 vs 14:22, p < 0.01), and total number of infusions (1039 vs 533, p < 0.01). In addition, the mGPS scores tended to be better in the EA group than in the LA group.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics.

Characteristics	EA (%), n = 140	LA (%), n = 108	p Value
Age, years
Median (range)	64 (32–86)	64 (25–86)	0.93
<65	61 (44%)	47 (44%)	0.99
⩾65	79 (56%)	61 (56%)
Sex
Male	90 (64%)	69 (64%)	0.95
Female	50 (36%)	39 (36%)
ECOG PS
0	39 (28%)	23 (21%)	0.24
⩾1	101 (72%)	85 (79%)
Histological type
Intestinal	48 (34.3%)	37 (34.3%)	0.54
Diffuse	91 (65%)	70 (64.8%)
Others	1 (0.7%)	1 (0.9%)
History of gastrectomy
Yes	55 (39.2%)	48 (44.4%)	0.51
No	85 (60.8%)	60 (55.6%)
Liver metastasis
Yes	44 (31%)	35 (32%)	0.87
No	96 (69%)	73 (68%)
Peritoneum metastasis
Yes	89 (64%)	73 (68%)	0.51
No	51 (36%)	35 (32%)
Ascites
Severe	26 (19%)	21 (19%)	0.99
Moderate	21 (15%)	18 (17%)
Mild	43 (31%)	36 (33%)
No	50 (35%)	33 (31%)
Number of metastatic sites
1	58 (41%)	54 (50%)	0.26
⩾2	82 (59%)	54 (50%)
Number of previous regimens
2	101 (72%)	84 (78%)	0.31
⩾3	39 (28%)	24 (22%)
HER2 status
Yes	25 (18%)	19 (18%)	0.76
No	113 (81%)	86 (79%)
Unknown	2 (1%)	3 (3%)
MSI status
MSS	48/48 (100%)	27/29 (93.1%)	0.07
MSI-H	0/48 (0%)	2/29 (6.9%)
NLR
<2.4	82 (59%)	41 (38%)	<0.01
⩾2.4	58 (41%)	67 (62%)
mGPS
0	42 (30%)	25 (23%)	0.06
1	61 (44%)	39 (36%)
2	37 (26%)	44 (41%)
First dose of nivolumab
3 mg/kg	58 (41.4%)	34 (31.5%)	0.21
240 mg	70 (50.0%)	66 (61.1%)
480 mg	12 (8.6%)	8 (7.4%)
Time of nivolumab infusions
Median	11:50	14:22	<0.01

EA, early group; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; HER2, human epidermal growth factor 2; LA, late group; mGPS, Modified Glasgow prognostic score; MSI, microsatellite instability; MSI-H, microsatellite instability high; MSS, microsatellite stable; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.

Clinical outcome

At the data cutoff date, the median follow-up period after initiating nivolumab therapy was 9.0 months (interquartile range, 4.5–15.3 months, EA: 11.7 months, LA: 6.2 months). Among the 149 patients with measurable lesions, ORR (17% vs 3%, p = 0.01) and DCR (47% vs 20%, p < 0.01) were significantly better in the EA than in the LA group (Figure 2(a) and (b), and Table 2).

Figure 2.

Waterfall plot of the maximum percent change from baseline for the sum of measurable lesions (a) in the early group and (b) late group.

Table 2.

Tumor response.

	EA (%), n = 89	LA (%), n = 60	p Value
CR	1 (1.1%)	0 (0.0%)
PR	14 (15.7%)	2 (3.3%)
SD	27 (30.3%)	10 (16.7%)
PD	36 (40.4%)	41 (68.3%)
NE	11 (12.4%)	7 (11.7%)
ORR^a	15 (16.9%)(95% CI, 9.8–26.3)	2 (3.3%)(95% CI, 0.4–11.5)	0.01
DCR^b	42 (47.2%)(95% CI, 36.5–58.1)	12 (20.0%)(95% CI, 10.8–32.3)	<0.01

ORR was defined as the proportion of patients who had CR or PR.

DCR was defined as the proportion of patients who had CR or PR, or SD.

CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; DCR, disease control rate; EA, early group; LA, late group; NE, not evaluable; ORR, objective response rate; PD progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.

Patients in the EA group had significantly longer PFS than those in the LA group (median PFS, 2.3 vs 1.6 months; HR, 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.50–0.86; p < 0.01; Figure 3(a)). The EA group also showed significantly prolonged OS compared with the LA group (median OS, 7.6 vs 3.9 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48–0.85; p < 0.01; Figure 3(b)). The multivariate analysis showed that the timing of nivolumab infusion was independently associated with longer PFS (adjusted HR, 0.70; p < 0.01) and OS (adjusted HR, 0.67; p < 0.01; Table 3).

Figure 3.

Kaplan–Meier estimates of (a) PFS and (b) OS.

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariate analyses for (a) progression-free survival and (b) overall survival.

Variables	Category	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
Variables	Category	HR	95% CI	p Value	HR	95% CI	p Value
(a)
Timing of infusion	EA (vs LA)	0.65	0.49–0.85	<0.01	0.70	0.53–0.92	<0.01
Age, years	⩾65 (vs <65)	0.88	0.68–1.14	0.35
Sex	Female (vs Male)	1.20	0.92–1.57	0.17
Histological type	Diffuse (vs intestinal)	1.32	1.00–1.73	0.05	1.23	0.93–1.64	0.14
ECOG PS	⩾1 (vs 0)	1.27	0.96–1.68	0.09	1.31	0.96–1.78	0.09
Liver metastasis	Yes (vs no)	1.22	0.92–1.61	0.16
Peritoneum metastasis	Yes (vs no)	1.26	0.96–1.65	0.09	1.12	0.82–1.52	0.48
Ascites	Severe/moderate (vs mild/non)	1.35	1.03–1.77	0.03	1.02	0.74–1.41	0.90
Number of metastatic sites	⩾2 (vs 1)	0.92	0.71–1.18	0.50
Number of previous regimens	⩾3 (vs 2)	0.77	0.57–1.04	0.09	0.82	0.60–1.14	0.23
NLR	⩾2.4 (vs <2.4)	1.54	1.19–2.00	<0.01	1.58	1.20–2.10	<0.01
mGPS	2 (vs ⩽ 1)	1.27	0.96–1.67	0.08	1.34	1.01–1.79	0.05
(b)
Timing of infusion	EA (vs LA)	0.64	0.49–0.85	<0.01	0.67	0.50–0.90	<0.01
Age, years	⩾65 (vs <65)	0.77	0.59–1.02	0.07	0.69	0.51–0.93	0.02
Sex	Female (vs male)	1.16	0.87–1.53	0.31
Histological type	Diffuse (vs intestinal)	1.43	1.10–1.92	0.02	1.33	0.98–1.80	0.06
ECOG PS	⩾1 (vs 0)	1.47	1.09–2.00	0.01	1.24	0.90–1.74	0.19
Liver metastasis	Yes (vs no)	0.97	0.70–1.27	0.71
Peritoneum metastasis	Yes (vs no)	1.22	0.95–1.70	0.10
Ascites	Severe/moderate (vs mild/non)	1.32	0.99–1.76	0.06	1.31	0.96–1.79	0.09
Number of metastatic sites	⩾2 (vs 1)	0.92	0.70–1.22	0.57
Number of previous regimens	⩾3 (vs 2)	0.89	0.66–1.23	0.50
NLR	⩾2.4 (vs <2.4)	1.46	1.11–1.93	<0.01	1.25	0.94–1.68	0.13
mGPS	2 (vs ⩽1)	1.50	1.09–2.00	<0.01	1.51	1.10–2.08	0.01

CI, confidence interval; EA, early group; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; LA, late group; mGPS, modified Glasgow prognostic score; NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.

We conducted an analysis with varying cutoffs to examine whether there was a favorable trend in PFS and OS in the EA group, even with different proportions of infusion cutoffs. In the EA group, we observed a favorable trend in PFS and OS from early administration rates above 50% (Supplemental Figure 2(a)–(c)). In the subgroup analysis, there were 140 patients in group 1, 66 in group 2, and 42 in group 3. The efficacy results demonstrated consistent and statistically significant differences in both PFS and OS between the three groups (p < 0.01, respectively; Supplemental Figure 3(a) and (b)).

Safety

Adverse events associated with immunotherapy are shown in Table 4. Approximately one-third of patients had at least one immune-related adverse event (irAE). The most common irAEs were skin toxicity (36%), including rash and pruritus, thyroid dysfunction (14%), and transaminase elevation (9%). Overall, irAEs tended to be more common in the EA than in the LA group (40.7% vs 29.6%, p = 0.07), and skin toxicities of any grade were more frequent in the EA group (23.6% vs 12.0%, p < 0.01). Grade 3/4 irAEs were observed in 7% and 6% of the patients in the EA and LA groups, respectively, with no significant difference. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

Table 4.

Adverse events.

	EA (%), n = 140	LA (%), n = 108	p Value	EA (%), n = 140	LA (%), n = 108	p Value
	Any grade			Grade 3/4		p Value
Any irAEs	57 (40.7%)	32 (29.6%)	0.07	10 (7.1%)	6 (5.6%)	0.61
Pneumonitis	2 (1.4%)	4 (3.7%)	0.25	2 (1.4%)	1 (0.9%)	0.72
Rash	33 (23.6%)	13 (12.0%)	0.02	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	–
AST/ALT increased	4 (2.9%)	7 (6.5%)	0.17	1 (0.7%)	3 (2.9%)	0.20
Adrenal insufficiency	3 (2.1%)	2 (1.9%)	0.87	3 (2.1%)	2 (1.9%)	0.87
Arthralgia	6 (4.3%)	1 (0.9%)	0.11	1 (0.7%)	0 (0.0%)	0.38
Diarrhea	6 (4.3%)	1 (0.9%)	0.11	1 (0.7%)	1 (0.9%)	0.85
Hypothyroidism	13 (9.3%)	5 (4.6%)	0.16	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	–

EA, early group; irAEs, immune-related adverse events; LA, late group.

Post-progression anticancer therapies

Four patients in the EA group and two in the LA group were still undergoing treatment at the time of the latest follow-up visit. Disease progression was the most common reason for discontinuing nivolumab in both groups (97.1% in the EA group and 98.1% in the LA group), and 0.7% and 4.6% of the patients in the EA and LA groups, respectively, discontinued nivolumab owing to adverse events. The number of patients who received subsequent chemotherapy was significantly higher in the EA than in the LA group (53.6% vs 32.4%, p < 0.01; Table 5).

Table 5.

Status of discontinuation/subsequent treatment.

	EA (%), n = 140	LA (%), n = 108	p Value
On going nivolumab	4 (2.9%)	2 (1.9%)
Discontinuation	136 (97.1%)	106 (98.1%)
Reason for discontinuation
Disease progression	132 (94.3%)	98 (90.7%)
Adverse event	1 (0.7%)	5 (4.6%)
Others	4 (2.9%)	3 (2.8%)
Received subsequent chemotherapy	75 (53.6%)	35 (32.4%)	<0.01
Irinotecan	19 (25.3%)	9 (25.7%)
Oxaliplatin	20 (26.7%)	10 (28.6%)
Trifluridine/tipiracil	22 (29.3%)	6 (17.1%)
Trial drug	5 (6.7%)	1 (2.8%)
Others	9 (12%)	9 (25.7%)

EA, early group; LA, late group.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to demonstrate a correlation between the time-of-day of nivolumab infusion and clinical outcomes in patients with mGC who received it as a later-line treatment. Administering >70% of the nivolumab infusions before 14:00 was associated not only with better short-term treatment efficacy, including ORR, but also with long-term treatment efficacy, reflected in improved PFS and OS. Early nivolumab infusion was confirmed to be an independent prognostic factor for both PFS and OS in the multivariate analyses. Moreover, the incidence of irAEs of any grade was higher in the EA than in the LA group. Differences in subsequent treatment rates and patient backgrounds may have influenced OS; however, these findings suggest that optimal timing of ICI administration to stimulate the adaptive immune system can enhance the efficacy of ICI therapy.

The relationship between the timing of ICI administration and treatment efficacy has previously been reported in patients with metastatic melanoma.¹² The current study is in accordance with the MEMOIR study, which showed that patients with metastatic melanoma receiving <20% of ICI infusions after 16:30 had improved OS compared with those who had later infusions. Furthermore, our study is consistent with a meta-analysis of 13 clinical studies, demonstrating that patients with cancer who received most of their ICIs earlier rather than later in the day showed a statistically significant improvement in ORR, PFS, and OS.¹⁷ One possible mechanism by which the timing of ICI administration influences treatment outcomes is as follows: immune cells, such as naïve T cells, memory T cells, and NK cells, as well as cytokine production, exhibit circadian rhythms. During the morning to early afternoon, naïve T cells tend to migrate to the lymph nodes. Therefore, when T cells are reactivated by ICIs during this time, they are more likely to be localized in the lymph nodes, making them more accessible to antigen presentation, thereby enhancing the therapeutic effect of ICIs.²² These studies have examined anti-PD-1, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors, anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4, and their combinations in various carcinomas; consequently, the patients’ baseline characteristics are not necessarily well balanced. Although not all potentially confounding factors could be assessed, a strength of our study is that the analysis included only nivolumab as a late-line treatment for mGC, and the baseline characteristics were well-matched.

In this study, the cutoff time was set at 14:00, although there was no clear basis for this specific time. The cutoff times in previous studies varied; two different cutoff times (16:00–16:30 or 12:00–14:00) have been adopted.^10–16 These cutoff times were based on the results of vaccination studies that revealed reduced antibody formation in healthy individuals vaccinated after 16:00–16:30.^12,23 By contrast, the 12:00–14:00 cutoff times correspond to the cutoff of the individual timing of ICI infusions in the study population. In our study, the cutoff time was defined as 14:00 based on the individual timing of the ICI infusions. Inconsistency in the timing of administration was caused by variations in patient schedules or the availability of treatment rooms, leading to difficulty in determining the cutoff values. However, even when the cutoff time for administration was changed to times other than 14:00, the early administration group consistently showed a favorable trend.

As the plasmatic half-life of nivolumab is approximately 3–5 weeks,²⁴ it is unclear why earlier administration results in higher efficacy. Immune cells undergo circadian rhythms many times within this plasmatic half-life period, implying that their efficacy and toxicity should be independent of the dosing time. However, the pharmacodynamics of nivolumab within the tumor microenvironment and in tumor-draining lymph nodes may significantly impact its efficacy. This suggests that when T-cell localization coincides with ICI distribution, there may be enhanced T-cell stimulation.²⁵ In preclinical models, pembrolizumab concentrations peaked in lymphoid organs 30 min after injection and were cleared approximately half within 12 h.²⁶ Therefore, irrespective of the plasmatic half-life of nivolumab, having its distribution into tissues and the localization of T cells coincide at the time of priming induction may be considered important for enhancing T-cell activation. In addition, the effects of corticosteroids on the circadian rhythm of the immune system further complicate these mechanisms.²⁷ The current investigation did not examine the levels of cortisol, white blood cells, such as lymphocytes, and immune-related cells, such as dendritic cells, or perform macrophage subset analysis using flow cytometry prior to and following nivolumab administration. Circulating cortisol levels correlate with the proportions of leukocyte subsets, such as naïve and memory T cells, and both fluctuate over a 24-h period; therefore, the timing of evaluation may influence the results and should be carefully considered.¹⁹ However, further elucidation of the mechanism might help optimize the timing of ICI administration.

Previous studies have reported that the NLR, peritoneal metastasis, liver metastasis, ECOG PS, and GPS were prognostic factors for patients with mGC undergoing nivolumab therapy.^28–31 From the real-world data of a large cohort (n = 487), peritoneal metastasis and ECOG PS were associated with poor prognosis for PFS.²⁹ In our study, multivariate analysis of previously reported prognostic factors revealed that early infusion time was the most significant factor. In addition, the microsatellite instability status and PD-L1 combined positive score have been reported as factors that predict susceptibility to treatment with ICIs.³⁰ However, in our study, because of the small number of patients in whom these biomarkers were measured, it was not possible to examine the relationship between the timing of administration and these biomarkers. Further studies are needed to clarify the significance of ICIs stratified by PD-L1 expression, microsatellite instability status, and timing of administration.

Previous studies have demonstrated the relationship between irAEs and the effectiveness of ICIs in various cancer types.^32–34 The MEMOIR study demonstrated a higher number of patients who experienced toxicity leading to discontinuation of ICIs in those who had early rather than later infusions (22% vs 18%).¹² Moreover, an association between skin toxicity caused by nivolumab and treatment outcomes, such as PFS and OS, has been reported.³⁴ These findings support those of our study; the proportion of skin toxicity was significantly higher in the EA than in the LA group, correlating with a difference in survival.

Our study has some limitations. This was not a prospective randomized study. Furthermore, in the era of immunochemotherapy and approval for its use as a first-line therapy for mGC, this study only examined cases of nivolumab monotherapy as a later-line treatment. Further investigations are warranted to evaluate whether a consistent relationship exists between early administration and treatment response when treated with ICIs other than nivolumab, or in combination with chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Adjusting the timing of nivolumab administration may impact treatment efficacy in mGC without additional cost and complex examinations. The primary circadian-dependent clinical and biological mechanisms underlying nivolumab infusion timing and efficacy remain unclear, necessitating prospective randomized trials and translational research.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359251339921 – Supplemental material for Impact of nivolumab monotherapy infusion time-of-day on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric cancer

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359251339921 for Impact of nivolumab monotherapy infusion time-of-day on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric cancer by Yasunobu Ishizuka, Yukiya Narita, Tomoki Sakakida, Munehiro Wakabayashi, Hiroyuki Kodama, Kazunori Honda, Toshiki Masuishi, Hiroya Taniguchi, Shigenori Kadowaki, Masashi Ando, Masahiro Tajika and Kei Muro in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359251339921 – Supplemental material for Impact of nivolumab monotherapy infusion time-of-day on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric cancer

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359251339921 for Impact of nivolumab monotherapy infusion time-of-day on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric cancer by Yasunobu Ishizuka, Yukiya Narita, Tomoki Sakakida, Munehiro Wakabayashi, Hiroyuki Kodama, Kazunori Honda, Toshiki Masuishi, Hiroya Taniguchi, Shigenori Kadowaki, Masashi Ando, Masahiro Tajika and Kei Muro in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the patients and their families for participating in this study and the medical staff for their respective contributions to the treatment of the patients. We would like to thank Editage () for the English language editing.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Yasunobu Ishizuka

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Sung

Ferlay

Siegel

, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209–249.

Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2021 (6th edition). Gastric Cancer 2023; 26: 1–25.

Ajani

D’Amico

Bentrem

, et al. Gastric cancer, version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022; 20: 167–192.

Koizumi

Narahara

Hara

, et al. S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 alone for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (SPIRITS trial): a phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 215–221.

Ogata

Narita

Oze

, et al. Chronological improvement of survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer over 15 years. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2024; 16: 17588359241229428.

Brahmer

Drake

Wollner

, et al. Phase I study of single-agent anti-programmed death-1 (MDX-1106) in refractory solid tumors: safety, clinical activity, pharmacodynamics, and immunologic correlates. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 3167–3175.

Wolchok

Kluger

Callahan

, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 122–133.

Borghaei

Paz-Ares

Horn

, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1627–1639.

Kang

Boku

Satoh

, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017; 390: 2461–2471.

10.

Gonçalves

Esteban-Casanelles

, et al. Immunotherapy around the clock: impact of infusion timing on stage IV melanoma outcomes. Cells 2023; 12: 2068.

11.

Dizman

Govindarajan

Zengin

, et al. Association between time-of-day of immune checkpoint blockade administration and outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2023; 21: 530–536.

12.

Qian

Kleber

Brammer

, et al. Effect of immunotherapy time-of-day infusion on overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma in the USA (MEMOIR): a propensity score-matched analysis of a single-centre, longitudinal study. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22: 1777–1786.

13.

Karaboué

Collon

Pavese

, et al. Time-dependent efficacy of checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab: results from a pilot study in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14: 896.

14.

Rousseau

Tagliamento

Auclin

, et al. Clinical outcomes by infusion timing of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2023; 182: 107–114.

15.

Nomura

Hosokai

Tamaoki

, et al. Timing of the infusion of nivolumab for patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus influences its efficacy. Esophagus 2023; 20: 722–731.

16.

Cortellini

Barrichello

APC

Alessi

, et al. A multicentre study of pembrolizumab time-of-day infusion patterns and clinical outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer: too soon to promote morning infusions. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: 1202–1204.

17.

Landré

Karaboué

Buchwald

, et al. Effect of immunotherapy-infusion time of day on survival of patients with advanced cancers: a study-level meta-analysis. ESMO Open 2024; 9: 102220.

18.

Scheiermann

Gibbs

Ince

, et al. Clocking in to immunity. Nat Rev Immunol 2018; 18: 423–437.

19.

Dimitrov

Benedict

Heutling

, et al. Cortisol and epinephrine control opposing circadian rhythms in T cell subsets. Blood 2009; 113: 5134–5143.

20.

Eisenhauer

Therasse

Bogaerts

, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 228–247.

21.

McMillan

Crozier

JEM

Canna

, et al. Evaluation of an inflammation-based prognostic score (GPS) in patients undergoing resection for colon and rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22: 881–886.

22.

Karaboué

Innominato

Wreglesworth

, et al. Why does circadian timing of administration matter for immune checkpoint inhibitors’ efficacy? Br J Cancer 2024; 131: 783–796.

23.

Holtkamp

Ince

Barnoud

, et al. Circadian clocks guide dendritic cells into skin lymphatics. Nat Immunol 2021; 22: 1375–1381.

24.

Centanni

Moes

DJAR

Trocóniz

, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Clin Pharmacokinet 2019; 58: 835–857.

25.

Fransen

van Hall

Ossendorp

Immune checkpoint therapy: tumor draining lymph nodes in the spotlights. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22: 9401.

26.

England

Ehlerding

Hernandez

, et al. Preclinical pharmacokinetics and biodistribution studies of 89Zr-labeled pembrolizumab. J Nucl Med 2017; 58: 162–168.

27.

Shimba

Ikuta

Glucocorticoids regulate circadian rhythm of innate and adaptive immunity. Front Immunol 2020; 11: 2143.

28.

Ota

Takahari

Suzuki

, et al. Changes in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio during nivolumab monotherapy are associated with gastric cancer survival. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2020; 85: 265–272.

29.

Takahashi

Sunakawa

Inoue

, et al. Real-world effectiveness of nivolumab in advanced gastric cancer: the DELIVER trial (JACCRO GC-08). Gastric Cancer 2022; 25: 235–244.

30.

Hagi

Kurokawa

Kawabata

, et al. Multicentre biomarker cohort study on the efficacy of nivolumab treatment for gastric cancer. Br J Cancer 2020; 123: 965–972.

31.

Kurosaki

Kawakami

Mitani

, et al. Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and tumor response as biomarkers of nivolumab monotherapy in third- or later-line setting for advanced gastric cancer. In Vivo 2020; 34: 1921–1929.

32.

Fisher

Flaherty

KT.

Prognostic significance of cutaneous adverse events associated with pembrolizumab therapy. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1: 1340–1341.

33.

Teraoka

Fujimoto

Morimoto

, et al. Early immune-related adverse events and association with outcome in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with nivolumab: a prospective cohort study. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12: 1798–1805.

34.

Freeman-Keller

Kim

Cronin

, et al. Nivolumab in resected and unresectable metastatic melanoma: characteristics of immune-related adverse events and association with outcomes. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 886–894.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.70 MB