When checkpoint inhibitors were first developed, the typical approach was if a patient got a significant toxicity, treatment would be ceased. And that’s because clinical trials mandated that. However, there are a number of clinical situations where you’d want to retreat a patient. And as I said, the trial data didn’t guide us on that. The most common situation is a patient who’d been treated with a checkpoint inhibitor, subsequently progressed, and you either wanted to treat them with the same checkpoint inhibitor or a different checkpoint inhibitor...
When checkpoint inhibitors were first developed, the typical approach was if a patient got a significant toxicity, treatment would be ceased. And that’s because clinical trials mandated that. However, there are a number of clinical situations where you’d want to retreat a patient. And as I said, the trial data didn’t guide us on that. The most common situation is a patient who’d been treated with a checkpoint inhibitor, subsequently progressed, and you either wanted to treat them with the same checkpoint inhibitor or a different checkpoint inhibitor. There are a lot of retrospective studies out there that really have shown that while retreatment can lead to a recurrence of the same toxicity or the development of new toxicities, for the majority of patients it’s safe. We also know that if we use certain selective immunosuppressives, we may be able to reduce that risk of recurrence of those toxicities.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.