Neurological autoimmunity in melanoma patients: a comparison between those exposed and non-exposed to immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background The clinical spectrum of melanoma-associated neurological autoimmunity, whether melanoma-associated paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNS) or induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), is not well characterized. We aim to describe the clinical spectrum of melanoma-associated neur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of neurology 2024-06, Vol.271 (6), p.3279-3290
Hauptverfasser: Vilaseca, Andreu, Farina, Antonio, Villagrán-García, Macarena, Pegat, Antoine, Benaiteau, Marie, Ciano-Petersen, Nicolás Lundahl, Do, Le-Duy, Rogemond, Véronique, Gonçalves, David, Psimaras, Dimitri, Birzu, Cristina, Honnorat, Jérôme, Joubert, Bastien
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The clinical spectrum of melanoma-associated neurological autoimmunity, whether melanoma-associated paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNS) or induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), is not well characterized. We aim to describe the clinical spectrum of melanoma-associated neurological autoimmunity. Methods A systematic review of the literature combined with patients from French databases of paraneoplastic neurological syndromes was conducted. All melanoma patients with a possible immune-mediated neurologic syndrome were included and classified according to whether they had previously been exposed to ICI (ICI-neurotoxicity) or not (ICI-naïve) at first neurological symptoms. Results Seventy ICI-naïve (literature: n  = 61) and 241 ICI-neurotoxicity patients (literature: n  = 180) were identified. Neuromuscular manifestations predominated in both groups, but peripheral neuropathies were more frequent in ICI-neurotoxicity patients (39.4% vs 21.4%, p  = 0.005) whereas myositis was more frequent in ICI-naïve patients (42.9% vs 18.7%, p  
ISSN:0340-5354
1432-1459
1432-1459
DOI:10.1007/s00415-024-12252-0