Search

Background Dual inhibition using anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors has proven effective in many cancers. However, its efficacy in rare solid cancers remains unclear. Desmoid tumors are ultrarare soft-tissue tumors, traditionally treated with surgery. This study reviews the first results of using ipilimumab and nivolumab in the desmoid tumor cohort of the SWOG S1609 Dual Anti-CTLA-4 & Anti-PD-1 blockade in Rare Tumors (DART) trial.Methods DART is a prospective/open-label/multicenter (1,016 US sites)/multicohort phase II trial of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) plus nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) that opened at 1,016 US sites. The primary endpoint included overall response rate (ORR) defined as confirmed complete (CR) and partial responses (PR) based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v.1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR; stable disease (SD) ≥6 months plus CR and PR) and toxicity.Results Sixteen evaluable patients (median age: 37) with desmoid tumors and a median of 1.5 prior therapies (with no prior exposure to immunotherapy) were analyzed. The tumors varied in location (eight abdomen, three lower limb, two upper limb, two pelvis, and one neck). ORR was 18.8% (3/16; 3 confirmed PR): 40% regression (PFS 30+ months), 83% regression (PFS 16 months) and 71% regression (PFS 8.4 months). Seven additional patients (43.8%) had prolonged SD over 6 months (PFS: 16.5, 22.4+, 22.6, 30.1, 38.2+, 48.3+ and 60.7+ months). Overall CBR was 62.5% (10/16). Median PFS was 19.4 months, with 6-month PFS of 73% and 1-year PFS of 67%. All patients were alive at 1 year; median OS was not assessable, as 13 patients were alive at analysis. Common adverse events included fatigue, nausea and hypothyroidism, with 50% experiencing grade 3–4 events. There were no grade 5 events.Conclusion Treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab in desmoid tumors yielded an ORR of 18.8% and a CBR of 62.5% with durable responses seen. This is the first prospective study exploring the efficacy of this combination in this rare disease. Ongoing studies aim to identify markers for response and resistance. Expanded trials are necessary.Trial registration number NCT02834013.

Objectives Multiple common cancers benefit from immunotherapy; however, less is known about efficacy in rare tumors. We report the results of the adrenocortical carcinoma cohort of NCI/SWOG S1609 Dual Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-PD-1 blockade in Rare Tumors.Design/setting A prospective, phase 2 clinical trial of ipilimumab plus nivolumab was conducted by the SWOG Early Therapeutics and Rare Cancers Committee for multiple rare tumor cohorts across >1,000 National Clinical Trial Network sites.Participants 21 eligible patients were registered. Median age was 53 years (range 26–69); 16 (76%) were women.Interventions Ipilimumab 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks with nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks was administered until disease progression, symptomatic deterioration, treatment delay for any reason >56 days, unacceptable or immune-related toxicity with inability to decrease prednisone to 6 months), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Immune-related outcomes included immune ORR (iORR), immune CBR (iCBR), and immune PFS (iPFS). A two-stage design was used assuming: null=5% alternative=30%, n=6 in the first stage, 16 max, one-sided alpha=13%.Results The median number of prior therapy lines was 2 (range: 1–9). 3 of 21 patients attained confirmed partial response (PR) (ORR=14%). In addition, one patient had an unconfirmed PR; one, stable disease (SD)>6 months; one, immune-related RECIST (iRECIST) PR (iPR); and one patient attained iSD>6 months: clinical benefit rate (response or SD>6 months)=5/21 (24%), iORR=4/21 (19%), iCBR=7/21 (33%). The 6-month PFS was 24%; 6-month iPFS, 33%. The PFS for patients (N=7) with iRECIST clinical benefit were 57, 52, 18, 15, 13, 7, and 7 months. The 6-month OS was 76%; the median OS, was 15.8 months. The most common toxicities were fatigue (62%) and rash (38%), and the most common grade 3/4 immune-related adverse events were hepatic dysfunction (9.5%) and adrenal insufficiency (9.5%). Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation of therapy in four patients (21%). There were no grade 5 adverse events.Conclusions Ipilimumab plus nivolumab is active in refractory metastatic adrenocortical cancer meeting the primary endpoint of the study, with a 19% iORR and 33% iCBR (includes SD/iSD>6 months) and with the longest PFS/iPFS of 52 and 57 months.Trial registration number NCT02834013 (registered 15 July, 2016; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02834013).

Background Patients with paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are excluded from clinical trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to safety concerns. Moreover, real-world data on efficacy and safety is scarce.Methods In this retrospective study, data were collected on patients with PNS and solid tumors receiving ICI between 2015 and 2022 at nine institutions. Patients were classified into: Cohort 1 (pre-existing PNS before ICI initiation), cohort 2 (PNS during ICI treatment), and cohort 3 (PNS after ICI discontinuation). Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (mNSCLC) from cohort 1 were matched to patients who were PNS-free at each institution up to a 1:3 ratio for age, sex, type of ICI, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and number of lines of systemic therapy prior to ICI initiation. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess overall survival (OS) and time-to-next treatment (TTNT).Results Among 109 patients with PNS treated with ICIs, median age at ICI initiation was 67 years (IQR: 58–74). The most represented cancer type was NSCLC (n=39, 36%). In cohort 1 (n=55), PNS exacerbations occurred in 16 (29%) patients with median time to exacerbation after ICI of 1.1 months (IQR: 0.7–3.3). Exacerbation or de novo PNS prompted temporary/permanent interruption of ICIs in 14 (13%) patients. For cohort 2 (n=16), median time between ICI initiation and de novo PNS was 1.2 months (IQR: 0.4–3.5). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) occurred in 43 (39%) patients. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 18 (17%) patients. PNS-directed immunosuppressive therapy was required in 55 (50%) patients. We matched 18 patients with mNSCLC and PNS (cohort 1) to 40 without PNS, treated with ICIs. There was no significant difference in OS or TTNT between patients with mNSCLC with and without PNS, although a trend was seen towards worse outcomes in patients with PNS. TrAEs occurred in 6/18 (33%) and 14/40 (35%), respectively. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 4 (22%) patients with PNS and 7 (18%) patients without PNS.Conclusions Exacerbations of pre-existing PNS occurred in 29% of patients treated with ICIs and both exacerbations and de novo PNS occur early in the ICI course. TrAE from ICIs were similar between patients with and without PNS. Our data suggest that pre-existing PNS should not preclude consideration of ICI therapy although patients may not derive the same clinical benefit compared with patients without PNS.

The need for solid clinical definitions of resistance to programmed death 1 or its ligand (PD-(L)1) inhibitors for clinical trial design was identified as a priority by the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC). Broad consensus efforts have provided definitions for primary and secondary resistance and resistance after stopping therapy for both single-agent PD-(L)1 inhibitors and associated combinations. Validation of SITC’s definitions is critical and requires field-wide data sharing and collaboration. Here, in this commentary, we detail current utility and incorporation of SITC’s definitions and discuss the next steps both the society and the field must take to further advance immuno-oncology drug development.

With multiple PD-(L)1 inhibitors approved across dozens of indications by the US Food and Drug Administration, the number of patients exposed to these agents in adjuvant, first-line metastatic, second-line metastatic, and refractory treatment settings is increasing rapidly. Although some patients will experience durable benefit, many have either no clinical response or see their disease progress following an initial response to therapy. There is a significant need to identify therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance and confer clinical benefits for these patients. PD-1 pathway blockade has the longest history of use in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Therefore, these settings also have the most extensive clinical experience with resistance. In 2021, six non-profit organizations representing patients with these diseases undertook a year-long effort, culminating in a 2-day workshop (including academic, industry, and regulatory participants) to understand the challenges associated with developing effective therapies for patients previously exposed to anti-PD-(L)1 agents and outline recommendations for designing clinical trials in this setting. This manuscript presents key discussion themes and positions reached through this effort, with a specific focus on the topics of eligibility criteria, comparators, and endpoints, as well as tumor-specific trial design options for combination therapies designed to treat patients with melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC after prior PD-(L)1 pathway blockade.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy may vary substantially in their clinical presentation, including natural history, outcomes to treatment, and patterns. The application of clinical guidelines for irAE management can be challenging for practitioners due to a lack of common or consistently applied terminology. Furthermore, given the growing body of clinical experience and published data on irAEs, there is a greater appreciation for the heterogeneous natural histories, responses to treatment, and patterns of these toxicities, which is not currently reflected in irAE guidelines. Furthermore, there are no prospective trial data to inform the management of the distinct presentations of irAEs. Recognizing a need for uniform terminology for the natural history, response to treatment, and patterns of irAEs, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a consensus panel composed of leading international experts from academic medicine, industry, and regulatory agencies. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, the expert panel developed clinical definitions for irAE terminology used in the literature, encompassing terms related to irAE natural history (ie, re-emergent, chronic active, chronic inactive, delayed/late onset), response to treatment (ie, steroid unresponsive, steroid dependent), and patterns (ie, multisystem irAEs). SITC developed these definitions to support the adoption of a standardized vocabulary for irAEs, which will have implications for the uniform application of irAE clinical practice guidelines and to enable future irAE clinical trials.

Immunotherapy is the standard of care for several cancers and the field continues to advance at a rapid pace, with novel combinations leading to indications in an increasing number of disease settings. Durable responses and long-term survival with immunotherapy have been demonstrated in some patients, though lack of initial benefit and recurrence after extended disease control remain major hurdles for the field. Many new combination regimens are in development for patients whose disease progressed on initial immunotherapy. To guide clinical trial design and support analyses of emerging molecular and cellular data surrounding mechanisms of resistance, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) previously generated consensus clinical definitions for resistance to single-agent anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in three distinct scenarios: primary resistance, secondary resistance, and progression after treatment discontinuation. An unmet need still exists, however, for definitions of resistance to ICI-based combinations, which represent an expanding frontier in the immunotherapy treatment landscape. In 2021, SITC convened a workshop including stakeholders from academia, industry, and government to develop consensus definitions for resistance to ICI-based combination regimens for improved outcome assessment, trial design and drug development. This manuscript reports the minimum drug exposure requirements and time frame for progression that define resistance in both the metastatic setting and the perioperative setting, as well as key caveats and areas for future research with ICI/ICI combinations. Definitions for resistance to ICIs in combination with chemotherapy and targeted therapy will be published in companion volumes to this paper.

Background The Food and Drug Administration recommends that people living with HIV (PWH) with a CD4+ T cell count (CD4) ≥350 cells/µL may be eligible for any cancer clinical trial, but there is reluctance to enter patients with lower CD4 counts into cancer studies, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) studies. Patients with relapsed or refractory cancers may have low CD4 due to prior cancer therapies, irrespective of HIV status. It is unclear how baseline CD4 prior to ICI impacts the proportion of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and whether it differs by HIV status in ICI treated patients.Methods We conducted a pilot retrospective cohort study of participants eligible for ICI for advanced cancers from three phase 1/2 trials in the USA and Spain. We determined whether baseline CD4 counts differed by HIV status and whether the effect of CD4 counts on incidence of TEAE was modified by HIV status using a multivariable logistic regression model.Results Of 122 participants, 66 (54%) were PWH who received either pembrolizumab or durvalumab and 56 (46%) were HIV-negative who received bintrafusp alfa. Median CD4 at baseline was 320 cells/µL (IQR 210–495) among PWH and 356 cells/µL (IQR 260–470) among HIV-negative participants (p=0.5). Grade 3 or worse TEAE were recorded among 7/66 (11%) PWH compared with 7/56 (13%) among HIV-negative participants. When adjusted for prior therapies, age, sex, and race, the effect of baseline CD4 on incidence of TEAE was not modified by HIV status for any TEAE (interaction term p=0.7), or any grade ≥3 TEAE (interaction term p=0.1).Conclusions There was no significant difference in baseline CD4 or the proportions of any TEAE and grade ≥3 TEAE by HIV status. CD4 count thresholds for cancer clinical trials should be carefully reviewed to avoid unnecessarily excluding patients with HIV and cancer.

Background The combination of antiangiogenic agents with immune checkpoint inhibitors could potentially overcome immune suppression driven by tumor angiogenesis. We report results from a phase IB study of ziv-aflibercept plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.Methods This is a multicenter phase IB dose-escalation study of the combination of ziv-aflibercept (at 2–4 mg/kg) plus pembrolizumab (at 2 mg/kg) administered intravenously every 2 weeks with expansion cohorts in programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1)-naïve melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), microsatellite stable colorectal cancer (CRC), and ovarian cancer. The primary objective was to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose of the combination. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Exploratory objectives included correlation of clinical efficacy with tumor and peripheral immune population densities.Results Overall, 33 patients were enrolled during dose escalation (n=3) and dose expansion (n=30). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the initial dose level. Ziv-aflibercept 4 mg/kg plus pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks was established as the MTD. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 19/33 patients (58%), the most common being hypertension (36%) and proteinuria (18%). ORR in the dose-expansion cohort was 16.7% (5/30, 90% CI 7% to 32%). Complete responses occurred in melanoma (n=2); partial responses occurred in RCC (n=1), mesothelioma (n=1), and melanoma (n=1). Median OS was as follows: melanoma, not reached (NR); RCC, 15.7 months (90% CI 2.5 to 15.7); CRC, 3.3 months (90% CI 0.6 to 3.4); ovarian, 12.5 months (90% CI 3.8 to 13.6); other solid tumors, NR. Activated tumor-infiltrating CD8 T cells at baseline (CD8+PD1+), high CD40L expression, and increased peripheral memory CD8 T cells correlated with clinical response.Conclusion The combination of ziv-aflibercept and pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with antitumor activity in solid tumors. The combination is currently being studied in sarcoma and anti-PD-1-resistant melanoma.Trial registration number NCT02298959.

Purpose Angiosarcoma is a rare aggressive endothelial cell cancer with high mortality. Isolated reports suggest immune checkpoint inhibition efficacy in angiosarcoma, but no prospective studies have been published. We report results for angiosarcoma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab as a cohort of an ongoing rare cancer study.Methods This is a prospective, open-label, multicenter phase II clinical trial of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) plus nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) for metastatic or unresectable angiosarcoma. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free (PFS) and overall survival, and toxicity. A two-stage design was used.Results Overall, there were 16 evaluable patients. Median age was 68 years (range, 25–81); median number of prior lines of therapy, 2. Nine patients had cutaneous and seven non-cutaneous primary tumors. ORR was 25% (4/16). Sixty per cent of patients (3/5) with primary cutaneous scalp or face tumors attained a confirmed response. Six-month PFS was 38%. Altogether, 75% of patients experienced an adverse event (AE) (at least possibly related to drug) (25% grade 3–4 AE); 68.8%, an immune-related AE (irAE) (2 (12.5%), grade 3 or 4 irAEs (alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase increase and diarrhea)). There were no grade 5 toxicities. One of seven patients in whom tumor mutation burden (TMB) was assessed showed a high TMB (24 mutations/mb); that patient achieved a partial response (PR). Two of three patients with PDL1 immunohistochemistry assessed had high PDL1 expression; one achieved a PR.Conclusion The combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma, with three of five patients with cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face responding. Ipilimumab and nivolumab warrant further investigation in angiosarcoma.Trial registration number NCT02834013.

Background Programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors can cause unique immune-related adverse effects due to non-specific immunological activation. However, less is known about adverse effects of these drugs in the eye.Methods Two adverse event databases were retrospectively reviewed. The two databases consisted of a routine adverse event database and a serious adverse event database of expeditiously submitted reports. Patients with any malignancy who had ocular adverse events while on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor treatment were included. Patients received nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab or durvalumab alone or in combination with other anticancer agents per each trial’s protocol. Databases were queried up to May 19, 2020.Results In the routine adverse event database, 272 adverse events from 213 patients were reported and in the serious adverse event reporting database, 59 ocular adverse events from 47 patients were reported. A lower estimate of the prevalance from the routine adverse event database showed 259/7727 patients on study treatment arms reporting ocular adverse events (3.3% prevalence). Excluding trials that do not report lower grade adverse events to the routine adverse event database results in a higher end estimate of 242/3255 patients on study treatment arms reporting ocular adverse events (7.4% prevalence). Ocular events occurred early after drug initiation (routine database: median 6 weeks, IQR 0–16, serious adverse events database: median 11 weeks, IQR 6–21). The median Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade was grade 1 (mild) (IQR 1–2) and grade 2 (moderate) (IQR 2–3) for the routine database and the serious adverse events database, respectively. In-depth analysis of the serious adverse event reports revealed varying degrees of clinical workup, with 30/47 patients (64%) receiving ophthalmological evaluation and 16/47 (34%) of patients having to delay or discontinue treatment. However, 16/47 (34%) patients experienced resolution and 14/47 (30%) patients experienced at least some improvement.Conclusions This is one of the largest analyses of ocular adverse events in patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the USA. We found ocular adverse events are rare complications of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy, can be severe enough to cause treatment discontinuation/delay, and may not always be appropriately evaluated by eye specialists. Standardized plans for ophthalmology evaluation and management of ocular toxicities are needed in studies of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment of cancer, improving outcomes in patients with advanced malignancies. The use of ICIs in clinical practice, and the number of ICI clinical trials, are rapidly increasing. The use of ICIs in combination with other forms of cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or targeted therapy, is also expanding. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) can be serious in up to a third of patients. Critical questions remain surrounding the characteristics and outcomes of irAEs, and how they may affect the overall risk–benefit relationship for combination therapies. This article proposes a framework for irAE classification and reporting, and identifies limitations in the capture and sharing of data on irAEs from current clinical trial and real-world data. We outline key gaps and suggestions for clinicians, clinical investigators, drug sponsors, patients, and other stakeholders to make these critical data more available to researchers for pooled analysis, to advance contemporary understanding of irAEs, and ultimately improve the efficacy of ICIs.

Cell-based immunotherapies have had remarkable success in the clinic, specifically in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. However, these strategies have had limited efficacy in patients with solid tumors. To better understand the challenges involved, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened an initial workshop with immuno-oncology thought leaders in December 2018 and a follow-up workshop in December 2020. The goals of the NCI workshops on cell-based immunotherapy for solid tumors were to discuss the current state of the field of cell-based immunotherapy, obtain insights into critical knowledge gaps, and identify ways in which NCI could facilitate progress. At both meetings, subjects emphasized four main types of challenges in further developing cell-based immunotherapy for patients with solid tumors: scientific, technical, clinical, and regulatory. The scientific barriers include selecting appropriate targets, ensuring adequate trafficking of cell therapy products to tumor sites, overcoming the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and identifying appropriate models for these investigations. While mouse models may provide some useful data, the majority of those that are commonly used are immunodeficient and unable to fully recapitulate the immune response in patients. There is therefore a need for enhanced support of small early-phase human clinical studies, preferably with adaptive trial designs, to provide proof of concept for novel cell therapy approaches. Furthermore, the requirements for manufacturing, shipping, and distributing cell-based therapies present technical challenges and regulatory questions, which many research institutions are not equipped to address. Overall, workshop subjects identified key areas where NCI support might help the research community in driving forward innovation and clinical utility: 1) provide focused research support on topics such as tumor target selection, immune cell fitness and persistence, cell trafficking, and the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment; 2) support the rapid translation of preclinical findings into proof of concept clinical testing, harmonize clinical trial regimens, and facilitate early trial data sharing (including negative results); 3) expand manufacturing support for cell therapies, including vectors and reagents, and provide training programs for technical staff; and 4) develop and share standard operating procedures for cell handling and analytical assays, and work with the Food and Drug Administration to harmonize product characterization specifications.

Background There are limited treatment options for patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. Platinum-based chemotherapy plus the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody bevacizumab remains the mainstay of advanced treatment. Pembrolizumab is Food and Drug Agency approved for programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive cervical cancer with a modest response rate. This is the first study to report the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer.Methods We report the results from a phase II, open-label, multicenter study (NCT02921269). Patients with advanced cervical cancer were treated with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenous every 3 weeks and atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenous every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to measure the objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.Results In the total evaluable population (n=10), zero patients achieved an objective response as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1, resulting in a confirmed ORR of 0%. Of note, there were two patients who achieved an unconfirmed PR. The DCR by RECIST V.1.1 was 60% (0% complete response, 0% partial response, 60% stable disease). Median PFS was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 6) and median OS was 8.9 months (95% CI, 3.4 to 21.9). Safety results were generally consistent with the known safety profile of both drugs, notably with two high-grade neurologic events.Conclusions The combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab did not meet the predefined efficacy endpoint, as addition of bevacizumab to PD-L1 blockade did not appear to enhance the ORR in cervical cancer.

As the field of cancer immunotherapy continues to advance at a fast pace, treatment approaches and drug development are evolving rapidly to maximize patient benefit. New agents are commonly evaluated for activity in patients who had previously received a programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor as standard of care or in an investigational study. However, because of the kinetics and patterns of response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade, and the lack of consistency in the clinical definitions of resistance to therapy, the design of clinical trials of new agents and interpretation of results remains an important challenge. To address this unmet need, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a multistakeholder taskforce—consisting of experts in cancer immunotherapy from academia, industry, and government—to generate consensus clinical definitions for resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibitors in three distinct scenarios: primary resistance, secondary resistance, and progression after treatment discontinuation. The taskforce generated consensus on several key issues such as the timeframes that delineate each type of resistance, the necessity for confirmatory scans, and identified caveats for each specific resistance classification. The goal of this effort is to provide guidance for clinical trial design and to support analyses of emerging molecular and cellular data surrounding mechanisms of resistance.

Abstract Purpose To develop recommendations for clinical trial reporting that address the unique efficacy, toxicity, and combination and sequencing aspects of immuno-oncology (IO) treatments. Methods ASCO and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a working group that consisted of practicing medical oncologists, immunologists, clinical researchers, biostatisticians, and representatives from industry and government to develop Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) recommendations. These recommendations are based on expert consensus, given that existing data to support evidence-based recommendations are limited. Conclusion The TRIO recommendations are intended to improve the reporting of IO clinical trials and thus provide more complete evidence on the relative benefits and risks of an IO therapeutic approach. Given the rapid expansion of the number of IO clinical trials and ongoing improvements to the evidence base supporting the use of IO treatments in clinical care, these recommendations will likely need regular revision as the IO field develops.