Search

Background: Cancer immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibition (ICI) has revolutionized the treatment of solid cancers; however, it is associated with a spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including inflammatory arthritis. Here we report our experience with the use of point-of-care musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSKUS) and provide a description of MSKUS findings in patients with definite musculoskeletal irAEs., Methods: Patients ≥18 years who received ICI at the Mass General Cancer Center from 2010-2019 were referred to rheumatology by oncology for evaluation of musculoskeletal symptoms following ICI therapy. Fifty-five patients with suspected MSK irAEs had MSKUS performed and interpreted by the same ultrasonographer. Findings were reviewed and confirmed by a blinded US reader. US findings in patients with definite de novo MSK irAEs were reviewed and correlated with the presence or absence of documented clinical synovitis and with available synovial fluid analysis., Results: Thirty-four out of fifty-five patients (62 %) had definite de novo irAE. Seven patients were identified with alternative etiologies assisted by diagnostic MSKUS. Twenty patients with definite de novo irAE had clinical evidence of synovitis at the time of the initial MSKUS examination, while 14 did not. Among patients with clinically evident synovitis, MSKUS examination confirmed inflammatory pathology in all patients. The most common MSKUS features identified were grade 2 or higher synovial thickening (80 %), hyperemia measured by color power Doppler (CPD) signal (70 %), and tenosynovitis (60 %). Among the 14 patients without clinically evident synovitis, inflammatory features were identified in 10 patients (71 %); the most common features identified were > grade 1 synovial proliferation, hyperemia and tenosynovitis. Of 15 patients who underwent synovial fluid analysis, 7 patients had synovial fluid cell counts < 2000 cells/µL considered traditionally within the 'non-inflammatory' range, and all 7 patients were noted to have inflammatory MSKUS findings., Conclusion: Point-of-care MSKUS is a valuable tool in the evaluation of potential MSK irAEs. Our data demonstrates its ability to expediate early identification of subclinical synovitis and/or tenosynovitis even when synovial fluid analysis is within the traditional non-inflammatory range., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Mazen Nasrallah reports financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are associated with a distinct spectrum of toxicities. Data on irAE hospitalization rates and clinical course of patients with thoracic malignancies are lacking., Methods: Patients with advanced thoracic malignancy treated with ICI (2/2016 to 6/2021) were retrospectively identified. Demographic and clinical data of confirmed irAE hospitalizations were extracted from the medical record and a descriptive analysis was performed., Results: From February 2016 to June 2021, 1312 patients with thoracic malignancy received ICI (monotherapy, combination with 2nd ICI or other agents) with 102 patients (7.7%) hospitalized for irAEs. Treatment intent was first-line therapy in most patients (N = 50, 49%) with 9% (n = 9) receiving adjuvant ICI (N = 9). Sixty patients (59%) received ICI alone, 32% (N = 33) chemo plus immunotherapy, and 7% (N = 7) dual ICI. The median age on admission was 68 years. The median time between ICI initiation and admission was 64 days (1-935 days). Pneumonitis (32.3%; 33/102) was the most frequent indication for admission followed by gastroenterocolitis (19.6%; 20/102), hepatitis (12.7%; 13/102), myo/pericarditis (9.8%; 10/102), and endocrinopathies (9.8%; 10/102). Multi-organ toxicity occurred in 36% (N = 37) of patients. Overall, 85.2% (87/102) of patients received systemic corticosteroids and 17.6% (18/102) required additional lines of immunosuppression. The median length of hospitalization stay was 7 days (2-28 days) with a 25.5% (n = 26) readmission rate within 60 days and an 11.8% (n = 12) in house mortality rate., Conclusions: Severe irAE requiring inpatient admission, although infrequent, results in considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilization. Pneumonitis was the most common irAE requiring inpatient management in our patient population with a significant risk of mortality despite the use of guideline-directed systemic immunosuppression. This study highlights the continued need for collaborative efforts amongst medical specialties for improving the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with irAEs., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), dual immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with CTLA4 inhibitors and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (hereafter, PD-(L)1 inhibitors) is associated with higher rates of anti-tumour activity and immune-related toxicities, when compared with treatment with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone. However, there are currently no validated biomarkers to identify which patients will benefit from dual ICB 1,2 . Here we show that patients with NSCLC who have mutations in the STK11 and/or KEAP1 tumour suppressor genes derived clinical benefit from dual ICB with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab and the CTLA4 inhibitor tremelimumab, but not from durvalumab alone, when added to chemotherapy in the randomized phase III POSEIDON trial 3 . Unbiased genetic screens identified loss of both of these tumour suppressor genes as independent drivers of resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition, and showed that loss of Keap1 was the strongest genomic predictor of dual ICB efficacy-a finding that was confirmed in several mouse models of Kras-driven NSCLC. In both mouse models and patients, KEAP1 and STK11 alterations were associated with an adverse tumour microenvironment, which was characterized by a preponderance of suppressive myeloid cells and the depletion of CD8 + cytotoxic T cells, but relative sparing of CD4 + effector subsets. Dual ICB potently engaged CD4 + effector cells and reprogrammed the tumour myeloid cell compartment towards inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)-expressing tumoricidal phenotypes that-together with CD4 + and CD8 + T cells-contributed to anti-tumour efficacy. These data support the use of chemo-immunotherapy with dual ICB to mitigate resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition in patients with NSCLC who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 alterations., Competing Interests: Competing interests F.S. reports consulting for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Revolution Medicines, Novartis, BridgeBio, Beigene, BergenBio, Guardant Health, Calithera Biosciences, Tango Therapeutics, Hookipa Pharma, Novocure, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche; grant or research support from Amgen, Mirati Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck & Co; stockholder in BioNTech, Moderna; and honoraria from ESMO, Japanese Lung Cancer Society, Medscape, Intellisphere, VSPO McGill Universite de Montreal, RV Mais Promocao Eventos, MJH Life Sciences, IDEOlogy Health, MI&T, PER, CURIO, DAVA Oncology, the American Association for Cancer Research and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. M.M. reports stockholder in Roche Holdings. N.J. reports shareholder and former employee of Pionyr Immunotherapeutics. J.M.J. reports stock of D2G Oncology. C.M., Y.Y., X.P. and A.H. report employee of Tango Therapeutics. K.C.A. reports personal fees from Sanofi Genzyme and other support from Revolution Medicines, Genentech, and Mirati outside the submitted work. N.V. receives consulting fees from Sanofi Genzyme, Oncocyte, Eli Lilly, Regeneron, and research funding to the institution from Mirati, Oncocyte, and Circulogene, outside the submitted work. P.D.P. reports advisory fees from AstraZeneca and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. M.E.M. reports research funding from Eli Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst); consulting role with AstraZeneca, Novocure, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Takeda, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ikena; honorarium from Thermo Fisher Scientific; and stock in Merck, Johnson & Johnson. M.M.A. reports grants and personal fees from Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca; grants from Lilly; and personal fees from Maverick, Blueprint Medicine, Syndax, Nektar, Gritstone, ArcherDX, Mirati, NextCure, Novartis, EMD Serono and Panvaxal/NovaRX, outside of the submitted work. J.C.M. reports consulting or honoraria: MJH Life Sciences, Johnson & Johnson and Doximity; and research funding (to institution): Merck via the Conquer Cancer Foundation. J.F.G. reports served as a compensated consultant or received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech (Roche), Takeda, Loxo (Lilly), Blueprint Medicine, Gilead, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Mariana Therapeutics, Mirati, Jounce, Merus Pharmacueticals, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Novocure, AI Proteins, Novartis, Merck, iTeos, Karyopharm and Silverback Therapeutics; research support from Novartis, Genentech (Roche) and Takeda; institutional research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Palleon, Tesaro, Moderna, Blueprint, Jounce, Array Biopharma, Merck, Adaptimmune, Novartis and Alexo; has equity in AI Proteins; and has an immediate family member who is an employee with equity at Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. A.D. reports honoraria: Intellisphere, Roche (Genentech); ad board: TP Therapeutics, Guardant Health, AnHeart Therapeutics, ChromaCode; clinical trial support: Syntrix Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Merck, AnHeart Therapeutics, Sorrento Therapeutics, Guardant Health and Philogen. C. M. Bestvina reports consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, Curio Science, OncLive Clinical Congress Consultants, Seagen, Creative Educational Concepts, Takeda, Janssen, CVS, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sanofi–Regeneron and Novocure; speakers’ bureau: Merck; research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca. C.A.S. reports advisory boards to AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Genentech, Mirati, Takeda and Arcus Biosciences. J.W.R. reports honoraria or consulting (self): Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Turning Point Roche (Genentech), Biodesix, EMD Serono, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Beigene, Merus and Seagen; research support (to institution): ArriVent, Merck, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Spectrum, Revolution Medicines, IO Biotech and Kinnate. C. M. Blakely reports research funding: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Mirati, Spectrum, Takeda, Puma and Pfizer; and consulting: Janssen and Bayer. C.V.P. reports a founder and equity and intellectual property in EnFuego Therapeutics. F.T. reports speaker bureau or honoraria: Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Takeda. M.S. reports institutional support: Dracen Pharmaceuticals; advisory board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Siemens Healthineers, Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb; leadership or fiduciary role: ESMO and EORTC. S.D. reports independent image analysis for hospital-contracted clinical research trials programs for Merck, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Polaris, Cascadian, Abbvie, Gradalis, Bayer, Zai laboratories, Biengen, Resonance and Analise; research grants from Lunit, GE, Qure AI; and an honorarium from Siemens. M.J.M. reports AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb and Istari Oncology & Regeneron. A.G.S. reports AstraZeneca, Genentech (Roche) and Bristol Myers Squibb. A.N.S. reports serving as a consultant and/or advisory board member for Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo and Zymeworks; and research funding from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Memgen, Mersana, Turning Point Therapeutics, BioAtla and Genmab to his institution. J.R. reports consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Sanofi Genzyme, Genentech, Guardant Health, Summit, G1 Therapeutics, BioAtla, Jazz, Amgen, and Janssen; contracted for research (institutional) with AstraZeneca, BioAtla, Blueprint Medicines, EpimAb Biotherapeutics, LOXO Oncology, Enliven, Redcloud and ORIC. T.S. reports advisory board or consulting fees for Seagen, Astellas and AstraZeneca; and research grant GRAIL. S.B.G. reports research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Mirati; and consulting or advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, Blueprint Medicine, Sanofi Genzyme, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Janssen, Summit Therapeutics, Merck and Regeneron. J.K. reports for Arterys. K.S. reports consultant, advisor or speaker for Clinica Alemana Santiago, Shattuck Labs, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Takeda, Torque/Repertoire Therapeutics, CSRlife, Agenus, Genmab, OnCusp, Parthenon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Molecular Templates, Abbvie, Sanofi, Merck, PeerView, PER and Forefront Collaborative; research funding from Navigate BP, Tesaro/GSK, Moderna, Takeda, Surface Oncology, Pierre-Fabre, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Ribon Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech (Roche) and Akoya Biosciences. K.D.D. reports consulting fees or other remuneration from Rain Therapeutics. V.A. reports research funding to Johns Hopkins University from AstraZeneca and Personal Genome Diagnostics, has received research funding to Johns Hopkins University from Bristol Myers Squibb and Delfi Diagnostics in the past five years and is an advisory board member for Neogenomics and AstraZeneca. V.A. is an inventor on patent applications (63/276,525, 17/779,936, 16/312,152, 16/341,862, 17/047,006 and 17/598,690) submitted by Johns Hopkins University related to cancer genomic analyses, ctDNA therapeutic response monitoring and immunogenomic features of response to immunotherapy that have been licensed to one or more entities. Under the terms of these license agreements, the University and inventors are entitled to fees and royalty distributions. K.A.M. reports consulting or advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo (Lilly) and Puma Biotechnology, as well as honoraria from AstraZeneca. K.A.M. receives research funding to Johns Hopkins University from Bristol Myers Squibb and Mirati Therapeutics. P.M.F. reports consulting fee (for example, advisory board): Ascendis, AstraZeneca, BMS, Curevac, Novartis, Regeneron, G1, Genelux, Genentech, Gritstone, Merck, Janssen, F-Star, Sanofi, Amgen, Fosun, Teva, Synthekine, Flame, Iteos, Tavotek and Teva; contracted research: AstraZeneca, BMS, Novartis, Regeneron and BioNTech. B.R. reports advisory board or consultant: Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Amgen; honoraria: Targeted Oncology. E.M.V.A reports advisory or consulting: Tango Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Genomic Life, Enara Bio, Manifold Bio, Monte Rosa, Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research, Riva Therapeutics and Serinus Bio; research support: Novartis, BMS and Sanofi; equity: Tango Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Genomic Life, Syapse, Enara Bio, Manifold Bio, Microsoft, Monte Rosa, Riva Therapeutics and Serinus Bio; patents: institutional patents filed on chromatin mutations and immunotherapy response, and methods for clinical interpretation; intermittent legal consulting on patents for Foaley & Hoag; editorial boards: JCO Precision Oncology and Science Advances. A.L.C. reports consulting for AstraZeneca, Merus and Tempus; research funds from AstraZeneca, Genentech (Roche), Merck and Novartis. J.W.G. reports research grants: AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Merck and Pfizer; consulting fees: AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech, Gilead, Gritstone, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Regeneron. C.A. reports consulting or advisory role: Genentech, Lilly, Celgene, Merck, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Genetics, Shionogi, Daiichi Sankyo–AstraZeneca, Sanofi/Regeneron, Eisai, BeiGene, Turning Point Therapeutics, Pfizer, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim; research funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Macrogenics (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst) and AstraZeneca–MedImmune (Inst). L.R. reports honoraria: Merck, AstraZeneca, Genzyme, EMD Serono and Astellas Pharmas; consulting or advisory role: Amgen. J.W.N. reports honoraria: CME Matters, Clinical Care Options CME, Research to Practice CME, Medscape CME, Biomedical Learning Institute CME, MLI Peerview CME, Prime Oncology CME, Projects in Knowledge CME, Rockpointe CME, MJH Life Sciences CME, Medical Educator Consortium, HMP education consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Genentech (Roche), Exelixis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Natera, Sanofi, D2G Oncology, Surface Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Abbive, Summit Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, Janssen Oncology, Anheart Therapeutics Research Funding: Genentech (Roche), Merck, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Exelixis, Nektart Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie Pharmaceuticals and Novocure. Y.Y.E. reports honoraria: CME Matters, Clinical Care Options CME, Research to Practice CME, Medscape CME, Biomedical Learning Institute CME, MLI Peerview CME, Prime Oncology CME, Projects in Knowledge CME, Rockpointe CME, MJH Life Sciences CME, Medical Educator Consortium, HMP education consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Genentech (Roche), Exelixis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Blueprint Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Natera, Sanofi, D2G Oncology, Surface Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Mirati Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Abbive, Summit Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, Janssen Oncology, Anheart Therapeutics Reserach Funding: Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Exelixis, Nektart Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Adaptimmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie Pharmaceuticals and Novocure. M.V.N. reports research funding to institution: Mirati, Novartis, Checkmate (ended), Alaunos, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Genentech, Navire; consultant or advisory board: Mirati, Merck/MSD, Novartis and Genentech. X.L. reports receiving consulting or advisory fees from EMD Serono (Merck KGaA), AstraZeneca, Spectrum Pharmaceutics, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hengrui Therapeutics, Janssen, Blueprint Medicines, Regeneron, Sensei Biotherapeutics, Abion and Abbvie, and research funding from Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, ArriVent, Teligene, BlackDiamond, Regeneron and Boehringer Ingelheim. V.K.L. reports consultant or advisory role for Takeda, Seattle Genetics, BMS, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health and AnHeart Therapeutics and has received research funding from GSK, BMS, AstraZeneca, Merck and Seattle Genetics. W.E.L. reports advisory boards: Eisai and Takeda, Grand Rounds and BMS for repotrectinib. J.A.R. reports consultancy, stock, Genprex; patents issued and pending. T.C. reports speaker fees or honoraria from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Medscape, IDEOlogy Health, Physicians’ Education Resource (PER), OncLive and PeerView; travel and/or food/beverage expenses from SITC, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, PER, Dava Oncology, IDEOlogy Health, AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; advisory role or consulting fees from MedImmune–AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Regeneron; and institutional research funding from MedImmune–AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb and EMD Serono. J.Z. reports grants from Merck, grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson and Novartis, personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, GenePlus, Innovent and Hengrui outside the submitted work. G.R.B. reports grant or contract for clinical trial from MacroGenics; grants from Amgen, Bayer, Adaptimmune, Exelixis, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Kite Pharma, MacroGenics, Torque, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Xcovery, Tmunity Therapeutics, Regeneron, BeiGene, Repertoire Immune Medicines, Verastem, CytomX Therapeutics and Duality Biologics; consulting fees from AbbVie, Adicet, Amgen, Ariad, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Instil Bio, Genentech, Genzyme, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Tyme Oncology, Xcovery, Virogin Biotech, Maverick Therapeutics, BeiGene, Regeneron, Cytomx Therapeutics, Intervenn Biosciences and Onconova Therapeutics; participation in advisory boards at Virogin Biotech and Maverick Therapeutics; stock in Virogin Biotech; and employment of family member at Johnson & Johnson/Janssen. C.G. reports member of the advisory board at Jazz Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb and served as speaker for AstraZeneca and BeiGene. L.A.B. reports consulting fees and research funding from AstraZeneca, GenMab and Sierra Oncology and research funding from Tolero Pharmaceuticals and served as advisor or consultant for PharmaMar, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Alethia, Merck, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Debiopharm Group. D.L.G. reports AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Menarini Richerche, 4D Pharma, Onconova Therapeutics and Sanofi. A.T. reports Ariad, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Gilead Sciences and Summit Therapeutics. T.G.B. reports Chan-Zuckerberg Biohub. D.R.C. reports CoI Company sponsored trials at institution (PI roles): AZ, Roche (Genentech) advisory role: ad hoc advisory boards or consultations 2023: Abbvie (steering committee), Anheart, Beigene (IDMC), Eli Lilly (IDMC), Imagene, Immunocore, Janssen, Mirati (IDMC), Prelude, Seattle Genetics, Valencee; 2022: Abbvie, Anheart, Appolomics (SRC), AstraZeneca–Daiichi (ILD adjudication committee), Beigene (DSMB) Dizal, EMD Serono, Elevation, Hengrui, (DSMB), Hummingbird, Janssen, Medtronic, Mersana (ILD adjudication committee), Mirati, Nalo Therapeutics, Onkure, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, Theseus, Xcovery; 2021: Abbvie, Amgen, Anheart, Apollomics (SRC), AstraZeneca (SRC/SC), Beigene (DSMC), Bio-Thera (DSMB), Blueprint, Daiichi Sankyo (ILD adjudication committee), Elevation (SRC), Eli Lilly (DSMB and NCCN), EMD Serono, Helsinn (DSMB), Hengrui (DSMC), Janssen, Kestrel (SAB, Shares), Mersana, Nuvalent (SAB), Puma (NCCN), Ribon, Roche (Genentech), Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Turning Point. J.E.G. reports honoraria: Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck and OncoCyte; consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Lilly, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Loxo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, AstraZeneca–MedImmune, Janssen Scientific Affairs, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, AbbVie and Regeneron; research funding: Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Genentech (Roche) (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research (Inst), SWOG (Inst), Array BioPharma (Inst) and ECOG-ACRIN (Inst). N.L. reports CME and research funding: AstraZeneca. B.L. reports Genentech (Roche), Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Takeda, Mirati, Novartis and Guardant 360. J.R.B. reports grant funding: AstraZeneca; advisory board: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Novartis, Incyte, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline; DSMB: Sanofi, Janssen and GlaxoSmithKline. M.C.G. reports AstraZeneca, Abion, MSD International, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Italia S.p.A, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Mirati, Daiichi Sankyo, Regeneron, Merck, Blueprint, Janssen, Sanofi, AbbVie, BeiGenius, Oncohost and Medscape. D.R.G. reports institutional research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genentech and Merck; consultant or advisory board for Adagene, AstraZeneca, Roche (Genentech), Guardant, IO Biotech, Oncocyte, OncoHost, Lilly, Merck and Novartis. E.B.G. reports consulting or advisory role: Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Shionogi, Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, ABL Bio, Xilio Therapeutics, Natera, Sanofi–Regeneron, Lilly, Personalis, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, AbbVie–Abbott, Arcus Biosciences, Seagan and Summit Therapeutics; research funding: Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Dynavax Technologies (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst), Neon Therapeutics (Inst), EMD Serono (Inst), ABL Bio (Inst) and Daiichi Sankyo–UCB Japan (Inst); patents, royalties, other intellectual property: diagnosistic and therapeutic use of ‘Motif Neoepitopes’ as defined by Cummings et al.76. N.A.R. reports an employee at Synthekine and holds equity at Synthekine and Gritstone. G.V.S. reports honoraria, research funding and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene Switzerland, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Takeda Oncology, Tesaro and Verastem outside the submitted work. J.W. reports advisory boards and lecture fees: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, Janssen, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mirati, MSD (Merck Sharp & Dohme), Novartis, Nuvalent, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Turning Point; research support (to institution): BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. B.B. reports receiving grants from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipse, EISAI, Genmab, Genzyme Corporation, Hedera Dx, Inivata, IPSEN, Janssen, MSD, PharmaMar, Roche (Genentech), Sanofi, Socar Research, Tahio Oncology and Turning Point Therapeutics. R.S.H. reports consulting roles with AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cybrexa Therapeutics, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech (Roche), Genmab, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, I-Mab Biopharma, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mirati Therapeutics, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, NextCure, Novartis, Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen and WindMIL Therapeutics; advisory board roles with AstraZeneca, Bolt Biotherapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, EMD Serono, I-Mab Biopharma, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Neon Therapeutics, Novartis and STCube Pharmaceuticals; research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech (Roche) and Merck; and non-executive board membership for Junshi Pharmaceuticals and Immunocore. H.A.W. reports grants or contracts from any entity: Bayer, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca–Medimmune, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Genentech (Roche), Merck, Novartis, Seagen, Xcovery and Helsinn; advisory board: Mirati, Merck and Genentech (Roche); leadership: International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), President; ECOG-ACRIN, executive committee. N.A.P. reports an employee at Synthekine and holds equity at Synthekine and Gritstone. A.T.S. is currently an employee of Novartis. P.A.J. reports stock and other ownership interests: Gatekeeper Pharmaceuticals and Loxo; consulting or advisory role: Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Merrimack, Chugai, Roche (Genentech), Loxo, Mirati Therapeutics, Araxes Pharma, Ignyta, Lilly, Takeda, Novartis, Biocartis, Voronoi Health Analytics, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, Silicon Therapeutics, Nuvalent, Eisai, Bayer, Syndax, AbbVie, Allorion Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, Transcenta, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merus, Frontier Medicines, Hongyun Biotech and Duality Biologics; research funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Takeda (Inst) and Revolution Medicines (Inst); patents, royalties, other intellectual property: I am a co-inventor on a DFCI owned patent on EGFR mutations licensed to Lab Corp. I receive post-marketing royalties from this invention. D.P.C. reports advisory boards or consulting: Abbvie, Arcus Biosciences, AstraZeneca, BMS Israel, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, InThought, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Jazz, JNJ, Merck–EMD Serono, Merck KGaA, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, OncoHost, Pfizer Egypt, Regeneron, Roche and Sanofi; KOL/presentation/education/forum: AstraZeneca, Curio Science, Intellisphere, Merck US, OncLive, Pfizer, PPD Development and Roche Taiwan. M.D.H. is an employee of and stockholder in AstraZeneca. C.M.R. reports consulted regarding oncology drug development with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, D2G, Daiichi Sankyo, Epizyme, Genentech (Roche), Ipsen, Jazz, Kowa, Lilly, Merck and Syros. He serves on the scientific advisory boards of Auron, Bridge Medicines, DISCO, Earli and Harpoon Therapeutics. L.A. is an employee of Foundation Medicine and a stockholder of Roche Holding AG. H.M. reports full-time employee of AstraZeneca and stock/shares. Z.Z. reports employee of AstraZeneca as well as stockholder of AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Z.L. reports full-time employee and stock owner of AstraZeneca. R.S. reports other support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study, as well as other support from Pfizer outside the submitted work. S.P. reports consultation or advisory role: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, BerGenBio, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Hutchmed, Illumina, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Nykode Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure, PharmaMar, Promontory Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche (Genentech), Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Takeda; Board of Directors position: Galenica; talk in a company’s organized public event: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GSK, Illumina, Ipsen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche (Genentech), Sanofi and Takeda; receipt of grants or research support: principal investigator in trials (institutional financial support for clinical trials) sponsored by Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, iTeos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Mirati, PharmaMar, Promontory Therapeutics, Roche (Genentech) and Seattle Genetics. J.M.J. and M.J.R. are employees and shareholders of D2G Oncology. I.P.W. is a co-founder, employee and shareholder of D2G Oncology. M.M.W. is a co-founder, shareholder, member of the board of directors and compensated scientific advisor of D2G Oncology. I.P.W. and M.M.W. are co-inventors of patents relating to technologies for an autochthonous mouse model of human cancer, which D2G Oncology has exclusively licensed from Stanford University. V.A.P. reports Pfizer employee and stockholder. K.K.W. is a founder and equity holder of G1 Therapeutics and has sponsored research agreements with Takeda, TargImmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, Mirati, Merus and Alkermes, and consulting and sponsored research agreements with AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Zentalis, BridgeBio and Blueprint. P.J. reports employee and stock or stock options of AstraZeneca. I.I.W. reports honoraria from Genentech (Roche), Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Guardant Health, Flame, Novartis, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Janssen, Merus, G1 Therapeutics, Abbvie, Catalyst Therapeutics, Regeneron, Oncocyte, Medscape, Platform Health and Physicians’ Education Resources; research support from Genentech, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medimmune, Adaptive, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, Pfizer, Takeda, Amgen, Karus, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, Iovance, 4D, Novartis and Akoya. A.G.P. reports Pfizer. J.V.H. reports Advisory Committees: Genentech, Mirati Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Regeneron, Takeda, BerGenBio, Jazz, Curio Science, Novartis, AstraZeneca, BioAlta, Sanofi, Spectrum, GlaxoSmithKline, EMD Serono, BluePrint Medicine and Chugai; research support: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Spectrum, Mirati, Bristol Myers Squibb and Takeda; licensing or royalties: Spectrum. H.A.A., M.T.D., A.G.C., Y.Q., R.P., D.M., D.H.O., R.M., J.A.H., L.M., S.C.M.L., R.P.J., C.L., Z.W., M.G.W., D.V., H.S., M.K., S.K., Y.N., J.T.A., J.S., L.L., H.N.K., B.C., S.S., R.L., T.Z., J.J.L., D.P., M.L.J. T.T., A.P., Y.K. and J.L.: no disclosures were reported by these authors., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Current approaches to accurately identify immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in large retrospective studies are limited. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential solution to this challenge, given their high performance in natural language comprehension tasks. Therefore, we investigated the use of an LLM to identify irAEs among hospitalized patients, comparing its performance with manual adjudication and International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes., Methods: Hospital admissions of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy at a single institution from February 5, 2011, to September 5, 2023, were individually reviewed and adjudicated for the presence of irAEs. ICD codes and an LLM with retrieval-augmented generation were applied to detect frequent irAEs (ICI-induced colitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis) and the most fatal irAE (ICI-myocarditis) from electronic health records. The performance between ICD codes and LLM was compared via sensitivity and specificity with an α = .05, relative to the gold standard of manual adjudication. External validation was performed using a data set of hospital admissions from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, from a second institution., Results: Of the 7,555 admissions for patients on ICI therapy in the initial cohort, 2.0% were adjudicated to be due to ICI-colitis, 1.1% ICI-hepatitis, 0.7% ICI-pneumonitis, and 0.8% ICI-myocarditis. The LLM demonstrated higher sensitivity than ICD codes (94.7% v 68.7%), achieving significance for ICI-hepatitis ( P < .001), myocarditis ( P < .001), and pneumonitis ( P = .003) while yielding similar specificities (93.7% v 92.4%). The LLM spent an average of 9.53 seconds/chart in comparison with an estimated 15 minutes for adjudication. In the validation cohort (N = 1,270), the mean LLM sensitivity and specificity were 98.1% and 95.7%, respectively., Conclusion: LLMs are a useful tool for the detection of irAEs, outperforming ICD codes in sensitivity and adjudication in efficiency.

Image-guided percutaneous cryoablation is an established minimally invasive oncologic treatment. We hypothesized that cryoablation may modify the immune microenvironment through direct modulation of the tumor, thereby generating an anti-tumor response in tumors refractory to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). In this non-randomized phase II single-center study (NCT03290677), subjects with unresectable melanoma progressing on ICI underwent cryoablation of an enlarging metastasis, and ICI was continued for a minimum of two additional cycles. The primary endpoints were safety, feasibility and tumor response in non-ablated lesions. From May 2018 through July 2020, 17 patients were treated on study. The study met its primary endpoints with the combination strategy found to be safe and feasible with an objective response rate of 23.5% and disease control rate of 41% (4 partial response, 3 stable disease). Our data support further study of this synergistic therapeutic approach., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose of Review: This report highlights several of the recent therapeutic advancements in the treatment of BRAF-mutant tumors, discusses the most common adverse events observed with BRAF-targeted agents, and suggests strategies to manage and mitigate treatment-related toxicities., Recent Findings: BRAF and MEK inhibitors represent a significant advancement in the treatment of BRAF-mutated malignancies with data across tumor types demonstrating the anti-tumor efficacy of dual MAPK inhibition. Although these agents have a reasonable toxicity profile, variable side effects across organ systems can develop. The discovery of activating BRAF mutations and subsequent development of BRAF and MEK inhibitors has transformed the treatment algorithms of BRAF-mutant malignancies. With increased application of these targeted regimens, identification and prompt management of their unique adverse events are crucial., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

With an increasing number of patients eligible for immune checkpoint inhibitors, the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is on the rise. Dermatologic immune-related adverse events (D-irAEs) are the most common and earliest to manifest, often with important downstream consequences for the patient. Current guidelines lack clarity in terms of diagnostic criteria for D-irAEs. The goal of this project is to better define D-irAE for the purposes of identification, diagnosis, and future study of this important group of diseases.The objectives of this project were to develop consensus guidance for an approach to D-irAEs including disease definitions and severity grading. Knowing that consensus among oncologists, dermatologists, and irAE subspecialists would be critical for usability, we formed a Dermatologic irAE Disease Definition Panel. The panel was composed of 34 experts, including oncologists, dermatologists, a rheumatologist, and an allergist/immunologist from 22 institutions across the USA and internationally. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two virtual meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness, and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. A working group aggregated survey responses and incorporated them into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions.Following revisions based on panelist feedback, all items received consensus in the second round of ratings. Consensus definitions were achieved for 10 core D-irAE diagnoses: ICI-vitiligo, ICI-lichen planus, ICI-psoriasis, ICI-exanthem, ICI-bullous pemphigoid, ICI-Grover's, ICI-eczematous, ICI-eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, ICI-pruritus without rash, and ICI-erosive mucocutaneous. A standard evaluation for D-irAE was also found to reach consensus, with disease-specific exceptions detailed when necessary. Each disorder's description includes further details on disease subtypes, symptoms, supportive exam findings, and three levels of diagnostic certainty (definite, probable, and possible).These consensus-driven disease definitions standardize D-irAE classification in a useable framework for multiple disciplines and will be the foundation for future work. Given consensus on their accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that they can be used broadly across clinical and research settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MS: Consulting with Amgen, AbbVie, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Eli Lilly Canada, Fresenius Kabi Canada, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, L’Oreal Canada, LEO Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB Canada.LCC: Research funding- Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consulting- AmgenAM: Research Funding: Amryt Pharma, Incyte Corporation, Kintara Therapeutics, Novartis, Novocure Consulting: ADC Therapeutics, Alira Health, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Protagonist Therapeutics, OnQuality, and Janssen Royalties: UpToDateCAN: CAN has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and participated in an advisory board for work related to pustular psoriasis and palmoplantar pustulosis.VH: Royalties from UpToDateML: Research funding: Onquality, Novartis, AZ, Lutris, Novocure; Consulting: Onquality, Novartis, AZ, Lutris, Novocure, La Roche Posay, JanssenMC: PI for Blueprint, Cogent, Author for UpToDateNRL: Consultant for or has received honoraria from Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: The PACIFIC trial established consolidation durvalumab as the standard of care following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Understanding its benefit in routine US clinical practice is critical., Objective: To report characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of patients who did or did not receive durvalumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prespecified cohorts were curated in this retrospective cohort study (SPOTLIGHT). Deidentified patient-level data from a US database (Flatiron Health) were analyzed. Patients had unresectable stage III NSCLC, were diagnosed on or after January 1, 2011, had 2 or more visits on or afterward, and received CRT. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to October 2023., Exposures: Patients started durvalumab after CRT (durvalumab cohort) or ended CRT without durvalumab (nondurvalumab cohort) by June 30, 2019, to allow 15 or more months of follow-up from CRT end., Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to first subsequent therapy or death (TFST), and time to distant metastasis or death (TTDM)., Results: The durvalumab cohort included 332 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.5 [60.8-74.0] years; 187 were male [56.3%], 27 were Black [8.7%], 33 were other races [10.7%], and 249 were White [80.6%]) and the nondurvalumab cohort included 137 patients (median (IQR) age, 70.0 [64.0-75.0] years; 89 [65.0%] were male, 11 [8.9%] were Black, 19 [15.4%] were other races, and 93 [75.6%] were White). Most patients had a smoking history (durvalumab, 316 patients [95.2%] and nondurvalumab, 132 patients [96.4%]) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 through 1 (durvalumab, 251 patients [90.9%] and nondurvalumab, 88 patients [81.5%]). Median (IQR) CRT duration was 1.6 (1.4-1.8) months for the durvalumab cohort and 1.5 (1.4-1.8) months for the nondurvalumab cohort. Median time to durvalumab discontinuation was 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.8-10.6 months). Median TFST and TTDM were not reached (NR) in the durvalumab cohort and 8.3 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.8 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 6.4-14.5 months), respectively, in the nondurvalumab cohort. Median PFS and OS were 17.5 months (95% CI, 13.6-24.8 months) and NR in the durvalumab cohort and 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.2-9.8 months) and 19.4 months (95% CI, 11.7-24.0 months) in the nondurvalumab cohort. In Cox regression analyses of patients who completed concurrent CRT without progression, durvalumab was associated with a lower risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.51) and lower risk of death (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.43), adjusted for prior platinum agent and patient characteristics., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, findings were consistent with PACIFIC, and durvalumab was associated with a lower risk of progression and/or death. Further investigation is warranted to explain why patients did not receive durvalumab after its approval.

Since the first approval for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma more than a decade ago, immunotherapy has completely transformed the treatment landscape of this chemotherapy-resistant disease. Combination regimens including ICIs directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) agents or, more recently, anti-lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) agents, have gained regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic cutaneous melanoma, with long-term follow-up data suggesting the possibility of cure for some patients with advanced disease. In the resectable setting, adjuvant ICIs prolong recurrence-free survival, and neoadjuvant strategies are an active area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma and bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, are also available to patients. Despite the remarkable efficacy of these regimens for many patients with cutaneous melanoma, traditional immunotherapy biomarkers (ie, programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, T-cell infiltrate and/or microsatellite stability) have failed to reliably predict response. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles, particularly for the highly active combination of anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 agents. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of melanoma, including rare subtypes of the disease (eg, uveal, mucosal), with the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the Expert Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using immunotherapy to treat melanoma, with topics including therapy selection in the advanced and perioperative settings, intratumoral immunotherapy, when to use immunotherapy for patients with BRAF V600-mutated disease, management of patients with brain metastases, evaluation of treatment response, special patient populations, patient education, quality of life, and survivorship, among others., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CA—Other: Stock Pfizer, Advisory Board: Iovance and Merck, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. EIB—Consulting Fees: Nektar, Instilbio, Novartis, Xilio, Sanofi, Merck, and Iovance. DD—IP Rights: US Patent 63/124,231, Compositions and Methods for Treating Cancer, December 11, 2020, US Patent 63/208,719, Compositions and Methods For Determining Responsiveness to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI), Increasing Effectiveness of ICI and Treating Cancer, June 9, 2021; Consulting Fees: Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Finch, Shionogi, Vedanta Biosciences; Fees for Non CE Services: Medical Learning Group (MLG), Clinical Care Options (CCO); Contracted Research: Arcus, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, CellSight Technologies, Immunocore, Merck, Tesaro/GSK. GTG—Consulting Fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, Merck, Sapience Therapeutics, Exicure, Eisai, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma, and HUYABIO International; Contracted Research: Exelixis (institutional support), Lucerno Dynamics. OH—Researcher: Arcus, Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Bioatla, BMS, Cytomx, Exelixis, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Iovance, Merck, Moderna, Merck Serono, Nextcure, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Seattle Gen, Torque, Zelluna; Consultant Advisor Speaker: Alkermes, Amgen, Bactonix, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Esai, Roche Genentech, Georiamune, GigaGen, Grit Bio, GSK, Idera, Immunocore, Incyte, Instilbio, IO Biotech, Iovance, Janssen, KSQ, Merck, Moderna, Novartis, Obsidian, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Gen, Tempus, Vial Health Tech, Zelluna; Independent Contractor: Alkermes, Amgen, Bactonix, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Esai, Roche Genentech, Georiamune, GigaGen, Grit Bio, GSK, Idera, Immunocore, Incyte, Instilbio, IO Biotech, Iovance, Janssen, KSQ, Merck, Moderna, Novartis, Obsidian, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Gen, Tempus, Vial Health Tech, Zelluna; Publically Traded Stocks: Bactonix. TJH—Contracted Research: Genentech, SkylineDX. BI—Consulting Fees: Johnson & Johnson, Volastra Therapeutics, Merck, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; research funding to Columbia University from Alkermes, Arcus Biosciences, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Compugen, Immunocore, and Synthekine. DBJ—IP Rights: MHC-II for use as immunotherapy biomarker, Abatacept as treatment for irAEs; Consulting Fees: BMS, Catalyst, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoIngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Targovax; Contracted Research: BMS, Incyte. RPK—Consulting Fees: Regeneron. JJL—Researcher: AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus, Day One, EMD Serono, Fstar, Genmab, Ikena, Immatics, Incyte, Kadmon, KAHR, Macrogenics, Merck, Moderna, Nektar, Next Cure, Numab, Palleon, Pfizer, Replimmune, Rubius, Servier, Scholar Rock, Synlogic, Takeda, Trishula, Tizona, Xencor; Consultant Advisor Speaker: AbbVie, Agenus, Alnylam, Atomwise, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle, Checkmate, Codiak, Crown, Cugene, Curadev, Day One, Eisai, EMD Serono, Endeavor, Flame, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Glenmark, HotSpot, Kadmon, KSQ, Janssen, Ikena, Inzen, Immatics, Immunocore, Incyte, Instil, IO Biotech, Macrogenics, Merck, Mersana, Nektar, Novartis, Partner, Pfizer, Pioneering Medicines, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Replimmune, Ribon, Roivant, Servier, STINGthera, Synlogic, Synthekine 7 Hills, Affivant, Bright Peak, Exo, Fstar, Inzen, RefleXion, Xilio (stock) Actym, Alphamab Oncology, Arch Oncology, Duke Street Bio, Kanaph, Mavu, NeoTx, Onc.AI, OncoNano, physIQ, Pyxis, Saros, STipe, Tempest, AbbVie, Agenus, Amgen, Immutep, Evaxion. TCM—Consulting Fees: Merck, BMS, GigaGen, OncoSec; Pfizer – Scientific Advisory Board. MJM—Consulting Fees: AstraZeneca, Nektar Therapeutics, Istari Oncology, Immunai, Xilio Therapeutics; Fees for Non CE Services: Bristol Myers Squibb (served as a speaker). ACP—Consulting Fees: Regeneron, BMS, Merck; Fees for Non CE Services: BMS; Contracted Research: Merck, BMS, Iovance, Regeneron, Takeda, Ideaya, Replimune: All payments to institution. KMR—Consulting Fees: BMS, Merck, Eisai, Immunocore. AKSS—Consulting Fees: Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Iovance. Contracted Research: Ascentage, Ideaya, Regeneron, Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Nektar, Olatec, Replimune, Seagen. KS—Contracted Research: Trials at Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Syndax, Provectus, OmniSeq, BrightPath Biotherapeutics, Ludwig Institute of Cancer Research, Hlsinn, AbbVie, BMS, OncoSec, Ultimovacs, Altellas, AstraZeneca, Xencor, Exicure, Numab, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Natera. RJS—Reseracher: Merck (research funding); Consultant Advisor Speaker: BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer; Other: Faculty for SCION Workshop. JT—Consulting Fees: GSK, Genentech, BMS, Akoya Biosciences, Merck, AstraZeneca, Compugen, Lunaphore; Contracted Research: BMS, Akoya Biosciences; Other: Akoya Biosciences; Other Details: Patent pending for multiplexing imaging strategy; Ownership Interest Less Than 5 Per Cent: Akoya Biosciences. HAT—Consulting Fees: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, Merck, Eisai, Karyopharm, Boxer Capital, Iovance, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Medicenna; Contracted Research: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, Merck, GSK, EMD Serono, Eisai, Dragonfly Therapeutics, RAPT Therapeutics. JKT—Nothing to Disclose. CV—Nothing to Disclose. SAW—Consulting Fees: Lyell; Contracted Research: research funds to institution from BMS and Apexigen. MKW—Consulting Fees: Merck, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, EMD-Serono, ExiCure, Castle Biosciences, Adagene. SITC Staff—CG, AK, NL, SM-W—Nothing to Disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Immune checkpoint inhibition has fundamentally altered the treatment paradigm of resectable and unresectable melanoma, resulting in dramatic improvements in patient outcomes. With these advances, the five-year overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable disease has eclipsed 50%. Ongoing research is focused on improving outcomes further, with a considerable emphasis on preventing de novo and acquired resistance and personalizing therapeutic options. Here, we review the ongoing advancements in the treatment of malignant melanoma, focusing on novel combination strategies that aim to build upon the successes of the last decade.

The development of highly effective BRAF-targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibition for patients with advanced metastatic melanoma has transformed the treatment of this disease. More recently, these advances have moved into the resected, high-risk stage II and III settings. For patients with resected, BRAF-mutant stage III melanoma, there are no head-to-head data to support the use of BRAF-targeted therapy (specifically the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib) with either single-agent nivolumab or pembrolizumab. Because the relapse-free and distant metastasis-free survivals are similar in a cross-trial comparison, it is not clear what the best option for these patients is. In this piece, the authors argue on behalf of and against both approaches. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Two types of therapy exist for patients diagnosed with melanoma who have completed surgery and remain at high risk for tumor recurrence: (1) drugs that target the BRAF mutation (found in ∼50% of patients) and (2) immunotherapy. There are no data showing that either approach is better than the other, so the choice of which therapy is best for an individual patient can be challenging. In this article, we make arguments for and against each option., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Optimal integration of local therapy and systemic immune therapy for patients with mucosal melanoma (MM) is uncertain. We evaluated treatment patterns and outcomes following radiation therapy (RT) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in MM., Methods and Materials: Thirty-seven patients with localized (n = 32, 87%) or node-positive (n = 5, 14%) MM were treated across 4 institutions with RT to the primary tumor with or without oncologic resection (n = 28, 76%) and ICI from 2012 to 2020. Recurrence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence in the presence of the competing risk of death., Results: Mucosal sites were head/neck (n = 29, 78%), vaginal (n = 7, 19%), and anorectal (n = 1, 3%). Patients received ICI prior to or concurrent with RT (n = 14, 38%), following RT (n = 5, 14%), or at recurrence (n = 18, 49%). The objective response rate for evaluable patients was 31% for ICI as initial treatment (95% CI, 11%-59%) and 19% for ICI at recurrence (95% CI, 4%-46%). Median follow-up was 26 months for living patients; median overall survival (OS) was 54 months (95% CI, 31 months-not reached). Two-year OS was 85%; distant metastasis-free survival 44%. The 2-year cumulative incidence of local recurrence (LR) was 26% (95% CI, 13%-41%). For 9 patients with unresectable disease, 2-year OS was 88% (95% CI, 35%-98%); LR was 25% (95% CI, 3%-58%). For 5 patients with positive nodes at diagnosis, 2-year OS was 100%; LR was 0%., Conclusions: High rates of local control were achieved with RT with or without oncologic resection and ICI for localized and locally advanced MM. In particular, favorable local control was possible even for patients with unresectable or node-positive disease. Although risk of distant failure remains high, patients with MM may benefit from aggressive local therapy including RT in the setting of immunotherapy treatment., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Combination BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is an active regimen in patients who have BRAF V600E-mutated tumors; however, the clinical efficacy of this therapy is limited by resistance. Preclinically, the addition of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibition improves the efficacy of BRAF inhibitor therapy in both BRAF inhibitor-sensitive and BRAF inhibitor-resistant mutant cell lines., Methods: Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program study 9557 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02097225) is a phase 1 study that was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the small-molecule HSP90 inhibitor, AT13387, in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAF V600E/K-mutant solid tumors. Correlative analyses evaluated the expression of HSP90 client proteins and chaperones., Results: Twenty-two patients with metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutant solid tumors were enrolled using a 3 + 3 design at four dose levels, and 21 patients were evaluable for efficacy assessment. The most common tumor type was colorectal cancer (N = 12). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in one patient at dose level 3 and in one patient at dose level 4; specifically, myelosuppression and fatigue, respectively. The maximum tolerated dose was oral dabafenib 150 mg twice daily, oral trametinib 2 mg once daily, and intravenous AT13387 260 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The best response was a partial response in two patients and stable disease in eight patients, with an overall response rate of 9.5% (90% exact confidence interval [CI], 2%-27%), a disease control rate of 47.6% (90% CI, 29%-67%), and a median overall survival of 5.1 months (90% CI, 3.4-7.6 months). There were no consistent proteomic changes associated with response or resistance, although responders did have reductions in BRAF expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor downregulation using HSP90 inhibition was observed in one patient who had colorectal cancer., Conclusions: HSP90 inhibition combined with BRAF/MEK inhibition was safe and produced evidence of modest disease control in a heavily pretreated population. Additional translational work may identify tumor types and resistance mechanisms that are most sensitive to this approach., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis increases the risk of developing lung cancer. Diagnosing and staging lung cancer in patients with ILD is challenging and requires careful interpretation of computed tomography (CT) and fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT to distinguish nodules from areas of fibrosis. Minimally invasive tissue sampling is preferred but may be technically challenging given tumor location, coexistent fibrosis, and pneumothorax risk. Current treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, percutaneous thermal ablation, and systemic therapy; however, ILD increases the risks associated with each treatment option, especially acute ILD exacerbation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mucosal melanoma (MM) is a rare melanoma subtype with distinct biology and poor prognosis. Data on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. We determined the efficacy of ICIs in MM, analyzed by primary site and ethnicity/race., Patients and Methods: A retrospective cohort study from 25 cancer centers in Australia, Europe, USA and Asia was carried out. Patients with histologically confirmed MM were treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) ± ipilimumab. Primary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) by primary site (naso-oral, urogenital, anorectal, other), ethnicity/race (Caucasian, Asian, Other) and treatment. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model analyses were conducted., Results: In total, 545 patients were included: 331 (63%) Caucasian, 176 (33%) Asian and 20 (4%) Other. Primary sites included 113 (21%) anorectal, 178 (32%) urogenital, 206 (38%) naso-oral and 45 (8%) other. Three hundred and forty-eight (64%) patients received anti-PD-1 and 197 (36%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab. RR, PFS and OS did not differ by primary site, ethnicity/race or treatment. RR for naso-oral was numerically higher for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 54%] compared with anti-PD-1 (29%, 95% CI 21% to 37%). Thirty-five percent of patients who initially responded progressed. The median duration of response (mDoR) was 26 months (95% CI 18 months-not reached). Factors associated with short PFS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥3 (P < 0.01), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) more than the upper limit of normal (ULN) (P = 0.01), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01). Factors associated with short OS were ECOG PS ≥1 (P < 0.01), LDH >ULN (P = 0.03), lung metastases (P < 0.01) and ≥1 previous treatments (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: MM has poor prognosis. Treatment efficacy of anti-PD-1 ± ipilimumab was similar and did not differ by ethnicity/race. Naso-oral primaries had numerically higher response to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab, without difference in survival. The addition of ipilimumab did not show greater benefit over anti-PD-1 for other primary sites. In responders, mDoR was short and acquired resistance was common. Other factors, including site and number of metastases, were associated with survival., Competing Interests: Disclosure FD: receives/received honoraria and travel support from Merck Sharp & Dohme Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sun Pharma. KN: honoraria from Ono Pharmaceutical, Novartis Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb and MSD. EIB: has received consulting fees from BMS and Novartis; has research funding paid to the institution from BMS, Merck, Novartis and Genentech. JAS: conference support from MSD. AZ: received travel support from Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. MJM: served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, immunai, nektar therapeutics, catalyst pharmaceuticals and istari oncology. YN: consultant/advisory board—MSD, Novartis. Institutional research funding—Kaken, Ono pharma, Pola Pharma, Torii. Honoraria—BMS, Maruho, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Taisho Toyama, Taiho Pharma. XB: merit award supported by BMS.CA: Travel accommodations—meetings: Roche, BMS, AMGEN. AI: advisory board: Novartis. Honoraria for lectures: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre-Fabre. MF: advisory board—Bayer. KCK: has served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Novartis, and received travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac and Novartis. VA: personal fees: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Oncosec. OK: personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. AH: has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Q Biotic. RDC: consultant/advisory board—Alkermes, Aura Biosciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Castle Biosciences, Chimeron, Ideaya, Immunocore, InxMed, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre Fabre, PureTech Health, Regeneron, Rgenix, Sanofi Genzyme, Sorrento Therapeutics, Trisalus. OH: speaker’s bureau honoraria from BMS, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi Regeneron, and is an advisory board member/consultant for Aduro, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Nextcure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, Seagen, Tempus and Zelluna. AH: received grants and personal fees from Amgen, BMS, Immunocore, Novartis, MerckSerono, MSD/Merck, Philogen, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Replimune, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme and Sun Pharma, outside the submitted work. MSC: consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Merck and Sanofi, and received honoraria from BMS, MSD and Novartis. MM: received honoraria for participation at advisory boards from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, reports lecture from Novartis, BMS, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi and reports grants from Roche, Novartis. CR: advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca and is scientific founder of Aglaia therapeutics. CL: BMS: research grant, honoraria, consultancy, speaker’s bureau, travel accommodations—meetings, advisory role, serving on an advisory board; MSD: honoraria, consultancy, advisory role, serving on an advisory board, travel accommodations—meetings; Novartis: honoraria, consultancy, speaker’s bureau, advisory role, serving on an advisory board; Amgen: honoraria, consultancy, speaker’s bureau, serving on an advisory board; Roche: research grant, honoraria, consultancy, speaker’s bureau, advisory role, serving on an advisory board; Avantis Medical Systems: board; Pierre-Fabre/Pfizer/Incyte: honoraria. JG: consultant/advisory boards for MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, Simcere Pharmaceutical Group, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences and Oriengene. DBJ: advisory boards for Array Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and OncoSec. Research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Incyte. PAA: has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. ANS: advisory board/personal fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Castle Biosciences. Institutional trial support: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Xcovery, Polaris, Pfizer, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Forghorn Therapeutics. RJS: advisory board—BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer; research support from Merck. LZ: served as consultant and/or has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and travel support from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma and Novartis. SS: grants from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Genentech; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. CUB: personal fees from BMS, MSD, Roche, Novartis, GSK, AZ, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures, grants from BMS, Novartis, NanoString, other from Uniti Cars, Forty Seven, Neon Therapeutics, Verastem, other from Immagene B.V. RD: intermittent, project-focused consulting and/or advisory relationships with Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym, Second Genome, Regeneron, Alligator, T3 Pharma, MaxiVAX SA and touchIME outside the submitted work. BCS: speaker’s bureau honoraria and personal fees from BMS, Novartis, MDS, Pierre Fabre. AMM: advisory board—BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. GVL: consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech Inc, Amgen Inc, Array Biopharma inc, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics S.L., Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma AG, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Availability of data and material: patients’ medical records. All data were anonymized immediately after collection., (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acral melanoma is a rare melanoma subtype with poor prognosis. Importantly, these patients were not identified as a specific subgroup in the landmark melanoma trials involving ipilimumab and the anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There is therefore an absence of prospective clinical trial evidence regarding the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in this population. Acral melanoma has lower tumor mutation burden (TMB) than other cutaneous sites, and primary site is associated with differences in TMB. However the impact of this on the effectiveness of immune CPIs is unknown. We examined the efficacy of CPIs in acral melanoma, including by primary site., Methods: Patients with unresectable stage III/IV acral melanoma treated with CPI (anti-PD-1 and/or ipilimumab) were studied. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR); secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: In total, 325 patients were included: 234 (72%) plantar, 69 (21%) subungual and 22 (7%) palmar primary sites. First CPI included: 184 (57%) anti-PD-1, 59 (18%) anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination and 82 (25%) ipilimumab. ORR was significantly higher with initial anti-PD-1/ipilimumab compared with anti-PD-1 (43% vs 26%, HR 2.14, p=0.0004) and significantly lower with ipilimumab (15% vs 26%, HR 0.49, p=0.0016). Landmark PFS at 1 year was highest for anti-PD-1/ipilimumab at 34% (95% CI 24% to 49%), compared with 26% (95% CI 20% to 33%) with anti-PD-1 and 10% (95% CI 5% to 19%) with ipilimumab. Despite a trend for increased PFS, anti-PD-1/ipilimumab combination did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, p=0.35) or OS over anti-PD-1 (HR 1.30, p=0.16), potentially due to subsequent therapies and high rates of acquired resistance. No outcome differences were found between primary sites., Conclusion: While the ORR to anti-PD-1/ipilimumab was significantly higher than anti-PD-1 and PFS numerically higher, in this retrospective cohort this benefit did not translate to improved OS. Future trials should specifically include patients with acral melanoma, to help determine the optimal management of this important melanoma subtype., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PB: sponsorship: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis; paid speaker: Novartis. AS: advisory board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Novartis, Castle Biosciences; trial support to institution: Bristol Myers Squibb, Imunocore, Xcovery, Polaris, Novartis, Pfizer, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Foghorn Therapeautics. AZ: travel support: Novartis, Sanofi Grenzyme, Sun Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb. JM: consultant advisor: Merck/Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre; travel support: Ultrasun, L’Oreal, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre. MW: grants, personal fees, non-financial support and other: Novartis, BMS, Merck/MSD; personal fees, and other: Merck Serono, Amgen, Sanofi/Regeneron, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Takeda, Medac. LS: honoraria: MSD, Roche, Novartis, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences, Oriengene. TL: consultant: MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. CR: consultant for Novartis, BMS, Merck, MSD, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Roche, and scientic founder of Aglaia Therapeutics CA: Travel accommodations-Meetings: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen. JKS: sponsorship: MSD, Amgen; honoraria: Novartis. MJM: consultant advisor: AstraZeneca, Nektar Therapeutics, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals Immunia, Istari Oncology; paid speaker: Bristol Myers Squibb. RR-T: advisory board fees: Novartis, Bristol Myer Squibb, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer; honoraria: Bristol Myer Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. AM: honoraria from Novartis. LZ: consultant and/or honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma; travel support: Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, BristolMyers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sunpharma, Novartis. CB (all paid to the institute except TRV): advisory board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, GenMab, Pierre Fabre, Third Rock Ventures; research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, NanoString; stockownership & co-founder: Immagene BV. ER: consultant advisor or paid speaker: Sanofi, Amgen, BMS. KK: consultant or/and honoraria: Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Novartis; travel support: Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Medac, Novartis. PAA: consultant/advisory role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos; research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. OM: consulting/advisory roles: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Neracare; research grants: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Amgen. PCL: Consultant advisor or paid speaker: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Nektar. Research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre. DBJ: advisory boards/consultant: BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Mosaic ImmunoEngineering, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, and Targovax. Research funding: BMS and Incyte. RP: advisory boards: Pierre Faber, Bayer, Novartis, Biosceptre, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cybrexa, Ellipses, CV6 Therapeutics, Astex Therapeutics, Medivir, GammaDelta Therapeutics, Sanofi Aventis; paid speaker: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, Tesaro, Bristol Myers Squibb. CL: BMS: Research grant, Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, Travel accommodations, Meetings, Advisory role, advisory board. MSD: Honoraria, Consultancy, Advisory role, advisory board, Travel accommodations-Meetings. Novartis: Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, Advisory role, advisory board. Amgen: Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, advisory board. Roche: Research grant, Honoraria, Consultancy, Speakers bureau, Advisory role, advisory board. Avantis Medical Systems: Board. Pierre-Fabre/Pfizer/Incyte: Honoraria. BN: Personal financial compensation from Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen and AstraZeneca for public speaking, consultancy and participation in advisory board meetings. My institution (UZ Brussel) received funding related to research projects conducted by my academic research team from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Merck-Serono. RJS: Consultant: AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer; research funding: Merck. OH: consultant advisor: Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Nextcure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, Zelluna; speaker bureau: BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron; contracted research (for institution): Arcus, Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Bioatla, BMS, CytomX, Exelixis, Roche Genentech, GSK, Immunocore, Idera, Incyte, Iovance, Merck, Moderna, Merck-Serono, NextCure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Torque, Zelluna. GAM: reimbursement of trials costs to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre: Array/Pfizer Roche/Genetech; non-reimbursed advisor: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb. AMH: advisory board member for Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, and Qbiotics, GVL: advisor: Aduro Biotech, Agenus, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Evaxion, Highlight Therapeutics S.L, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics, Regeneron, Specialised Therapeutics Australia. AM: advisory board: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, QBiotics. MC: consultant advisor: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ideaya, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche; honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival and are increasingly used for non-small cell lung cancer. However, use may be limited by immune-related adverse events such as checkpoint-inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP). Literature estimates for CIP incidence are inconsistent. Real-world adherence to guidelines, clinical course, and healthcare utilization in the treatment of CIP has not been described in large cohorts., Methods: A combined claims and electronic health record database (TriNetX) was used to identify 13,113 patients with lung cancer treated with programmed cell death receptor/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors, and a propensity score-matched control cohort treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies. The attributable risk of CIP was calculated in the first 12 months after therapy by comparing the incidence of diagnosis codes for pneumonitis/pneumonia between cohorts. Cases of CIP, identified by the most specific code for drug-induced respiratory conditions, were further analyzed for medication usage, rates of diagnostic bronchoscopy, ICI discontinuation rates, and usage of hospital services compared with patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors who did not develop CIP., Results: The attributable risk of pneumonitis to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was 2.49% (95% CI, 1.50% to 3.47%). Median time to onset in the CIP subcohort was 3.9 months (IQR, 2.1-7.3 months). Steroid and antibiotic use increased dramatically after a pneumonitis diagnosis, and 70.2% of patients permanently discontinued ICI therapy. Compared with controls, patients with CIP had more than a threefold increased risk of needing critical care (relative risk 3.59, 95% CI, 2.31 to 5.57) and an increased risk of mortality (HR 2.34, 95% CI, 1.47 to 3.71)., Conclusions: In a large claims-based analysis, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors increase the risk of pneumonitis in patients with lung cancer by 2.49%. Cases of CIP are associated with high healthcare utilization, discontinuation of ICIs, and mortality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) modulates the tumor microenvironment through immunosuppressive effects. Its associations with clinicopathologic parameters and prognostic significance in non-small-cell lung carcinomas remain unclear. We examined LAG-3 expression in 368 resected non-small-cell lung carcinomas (including 218 adenocarcinomas and 150 squamous-cell carcinomas) using tissue microarrays, with normalization to CD8 + T-cell count (LAG-3/CD8 index), and correlated LAG-3, CD8, and LAG-3/CD8 index with clinicopathologic features, molecular status, and survival. LAG-3 expression in the immune cells (ranged 0.35-540.1 cells/mm²) was identified in 92% of non-small-cell lung carcinomas. In adenocarcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, LAG-3 expression correlated with CD8 + T-cell count and PD-L1 expression. In adenocarcinomas, high LAG-3 expression (defined as >median) was additionally associated with smoking history, high T stage, aggressive pathologic features (solid-predominant histologic pattern, lymphovascular invasion, and nodal metastasis), and lack of EGFR mutation. In the entire resected tumor cohort and in adenocarcinomas, high LAG-3 and LAG-3/CD8 index were each associated with worse overall survival. In squamous-cell carcinomas, high CD8 was associated with better overall survival. In an exploratory analysis of pretreatment samples from advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients treated with pembrolizumab, high CD8 was predictive of improved overall and progression-free survival, while high LAG-3, but not high LAG-3/CD8 index, was associated with improved progression-free survival. In conclusion, the clinicopathologic correlations and prognostic impact of LAG-3 in non-small-cell lung carcinoma are histotype-dependent, highlighting differences in the immune microenvironment between adenocarcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas. The predictive impact of LAG-3 warrants further investigation., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology.)

Objective: This study aimed to assess MDCT as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in patients with suspected immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-related colitis., Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients receiving ICIs at three hospitals between 2015 and 2019 who underwent both abdominopelvic MDCT and endoscopic biopsy to workup suspected ICI-related colitis. Two radiologists independently reviewed MDCT images for signs of colitis based on pre-defined features. Diagnostic performance of MDCT was calculated and categorical variables between treatment subgroups were compared. Logistic regression was used to develop proposed MDCT criteria for diagnosis and MDCT severity score based on a combination of MDCT features of colitis to predict the patient outcomes in ICI-related colitis., Results: A total of 118 MDCT scans from 108 patients were evaluated for suspected colitis, with 72 confirmed ICI-related colitis cases. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of MDCT for diagnosis of ICI-related colitis was 81% (58/72), 52 % (24/46), 73% (58/80), and 63% (24/38), respectively. Small bowel involvement was visualized in 25% of cases with ICI-related colitis (18/72). In melanoma patients presenting with diarrhea grade ≥ 2 (n = 40), MDCT had the best diagnostic performance for ICI-related colitis (specificity = 80% [8/10], PPV = 92% [23/25]). MDCT severity scores predicted intravenous steroid use (OR 10.3, p = 0.004), length of stay > 7 days (OR 9.0, p < 0.001), and endoscopic mucosal ulceration (OR 4.7, p = 0.02)., Conclusion: MDCT is a useful diagnostic and prognostic tool for evaluating patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-related colitis. An MDCT-based severity score enables assessment of disease severity and predicts outcome., Key Points: • MDCT is useful for the diagnosis of colitis in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, and an MDCT-based severity score allows for prognostication of patient outcomes. • MDCT yielded moderate sensitivity (81%) for diagnosis of ICI-related colitis but limited specificity (52%). However, in symptomatic melanoma patients (grade 2-4 diarrhea) with a high pretest probability, MDCT proved useful for diagnosis with a high PPV (92%). • For ICI-related colitis, our proposed MDCT severity score has prognostic value in predicting intravenous steroid use, prolonged length of stay during inpatient admission (> 7 days), and endoscopic mucosal ulceration., (© 2021. European Society of Radiology.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved to treat multiple cancers. Retrospective analyses demonstrate acceptable safety of ICIs in most patients with autoimmune disease, although disease exacerbation may occur. Psoriasis vulgaris is a common, immune-mediated disease, and outcomes of ICI treatment in patients with psoriasis are not well described. Thus we sought to define the safety profile and effectiveness of ICIs in patients with pre-existing psoriasis., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients from eight academic centers with pre-existing psoriasis who received ICI treatment for cancer were evaluated. Main safety outcomes were psoriasis exacerbation and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). We also assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival., Results: Of 76 patients studied (50 (66%) male; median age 67 years; 62 (82%) with melanoma, 5 (7%) with lung cancer, 2 (3%) with head and neck cancer, and 7 (9%) with other cancers; median follow-up 25.1 months (range=0.2-99 months)), 51 (67%) received anti-PD-1 antibodies, 8 (11%) anti-CTLA-4, and 17 (22%) combination of anti-PD-1/CTLA-4. All patients had pre-existing psoriasis, most frequently plaque psoriasis (46 patients (61%)) and 15 (20%) with psoriatic arthritis. Forty-one patients (54%) had received any prior therapy for psoriasis although only two (3%) were on systemic immunosuppression at ICI initiation. With ICI treatment, 43 patients (57%) experienced a psoriasis flare of cutaneous and/or extracutaneous disease after a median of 44 days of receiving ICI. Of those who experienced a flare, 23 patients (53%) were managed with topical therapy only; 16 (21%) needed systemic therapy. Only five patients (7%) required immunotherapy discontinuation for psoriasis flare. Forty-five patients (59%) experienced other irAEs, 17 (22%) of which were grade 3/4. PFS with landmark analysis was significantly longer in patients with a psoriasis flare versus those without (39 vs 8.7 months, p=0.049)., Conclusions: In this multicenter study, ICI therapy was associated with frequent psoriasis exacerbation, although flares were manageable with standard psoriasis treatments and few required ICI discontinuation. Patients who experienced disease exacerbation performed at least as well as those who did not. Thus, pre-existing psoriasis should not prevent patients from receiving ICIs for treatment of malignancy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DBJ has served on advisory boards for BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, and Pfizer; and received research funding from BMS and Incyte. JCH declares research support from Bristol Myers Squibb; advisory board honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and Merck Sharp & Dome; speakers honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Almirall; and travel support from Pierre Fabre. AM has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics. GL is consultant advisor for Aduro Biotech, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Highlight Therapeutics, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Pierre Fabre, QBiotics Group Limited, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. PB declares travel support from MSD; and advisory board honoraria from Novartis. MC is a consultant advisor for Amgen, BMS, Eisai, Ideaya, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Oncosec, Pierre-Fabre, Qbiotics, Regeneron, Roche, Provectus and Sanofi. AH has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre and QBiotics. MEL consults with Johnson and Johnson, Novocure, QED, Bicara, Janssen, Novartis, F Hoffmann-La Roche, EMD Serono, AstraZeneca, Innovaderm, Deciphera, DFB, Azitra, Kintara, RBC/La Roche Posay, Trifecta, Varsona, Genentech, Loxo, Seattle Genetics, Lutris, OnQuality, Azitra, Roche, Oncoderm, NCODA, and Apricity. MEL receives research funding from Lutris, Paxman, Novocure, J&J, US Biotest, OQL, Novartis and AZ; and is funded in part through NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. MJM has served as a consultant and/or received honorarium from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Nektar Therapeutics and Immunai. STC serves on the Pfizer Advisory Board on digital media and the BOD for Medical Dermatology Society and is the Chair for Organisational Structure Committee of the AAD. ABW and VMR are supported by the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. VMR is funded by the Melanoma Research Alliance Young Investigator Award 614197 and an expert advisor for Inhabit Brands, Inc., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In 2017, Massachusetts General Hospital implemented the Severe Immunotherapy Complications (SIC) Service, a multidisciplinary care team for patients hospitalized with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), a unique spectrum of toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This study's objectives were to evaluate the intervention's (1) effect on patient outcomes and healthcare utilization, and (2) ability to collect biological samples via a central infrastructure, in order to study the mechanisms responsible for irAEs., Methods: A hospital database was used to identify patients who received ICIs for a malignancy and were hospitalized with severe irAEs, before (April 2, 2016-October 3, 2017) and after (October 3, 2017-October 24, 2018) SIC Service initiation. The primary outcome was readmission rate after index hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) for admissions, corticosteroid and non-steroidal second-line immunosuppression use, ICI discontinuation, and inpatient mortality., Results: In the pre-SIC period, 127 of 1169 patients treated with ICIs were hospitalized for irAEs; in the post-SIC period, 122 of 1159. After SIC service initiation, reductions were observed in irAE readmission rate (14.8% post-SIC vs 25.9% pre-SIC; OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.95; p=0.036) and readmission LOS (median 6 days post-SIC vs 7 days pre-SIC; 95% CI -16.03 to -0.14; p=0.046). No significant pre-initiation and post-initiation differences were detected in corticosteroid use, second-line immunosuppression, ICI discontinuation, or inpatient mortality rates. The SIC Service collected 789 blood and tissue samples from 234 patients with suspected irAEs., Conclusions: This is the first study to report that establishing a highly subspecialized care team focused on irAEs is associated with improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare utilization. Furthermore, the SIC Service successfully integrated blood and tissue collection safety into routine care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LZ—Merck consultant. JC—consultant for BMS and Sanofi-Genzyme. DJ—scientific advisory board fee from Eisai, EMD Serono, Genentech, Ipsen, Novartis, Guardant, Petra Pharma, Mapkure, Vibliome Therapeutics, and Relay Therapeutics; institutional research funds from Novartis, Genentech, EMD Serono, Eisai, Takeda, Placon Therapeutics, Syros, Ribon Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, InventisBio and Amgen. GMB—sponsored research agreements with Palleon Therapeutics and Olink Proteomics; scientific advisory board for Novartis and Nektar Therapeutics; consulting for Merck. MD—consultant for Moderna, Tillotts Pharma, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, and Partner Therapeutics; research funding from Novartis and Eli Lilly; scientific advisory board for Neoleukin Therapeutics. ACG—consultant for Momenta, Alexion, UCB/Ra pharma; royalties from Oakstone Publishing; research funding from Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, MGNET and Project Datasphere. BDM—consultant for Sanofi, AbbVie, and Celestial Pharmaceuticals. He has also received sponsored research agreements from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squib. MK—consultant for Novartis and Mymee; speaker fees for Lilly. TGN—advisory fees from Parexel, BMS, H3 Biomedicine, AbbVie, and Intrinsic Imaging; grant support from AstraZeneca. JRF—research grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and X4 Pharmaceuticals. MJM—received honarium/acted as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Nektar Therapeutics, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Immunai Aditya Bardia; consulting or advisory role for bioTheranostics, Genentech, Genentech/Roche (Inst), Immunomedics, Immunomedics (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), Merck, Merck (Inst), Novartis, Novartis (Inst), Pfizer, Pfizer (Inst), Radius Health (Inst), Radius Pharma, Sanofi, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; research funding from bioTheranostics. RS—consultant/scientific advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Replimune; research funding from Merck and Amgen. SB—consultant for Third Rock Consulting and Two River Consulting; equity holdings in Kronos Bio and Allogene Therapeutics. YRS—consultant for Castle Biosciences., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted health care systems. However, to date, the trend of hospitalizations in the oncology patient population has not been studied, and the frequency of nosocomial spread to patients with cancer is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on inpatient oncology census and determine the nosocomial rate of COVID-19 in patients with cancer admitted at a large academic center., Materials and Methods: Medical records of patients with cancer diagnosed with COVID-19 and admitted were reviewed to evaluate the temporal trends in inpatient oncology census during pre-COVID-19 (January 2019 to February 2020), COVID-19 (March to May 2020), and post-COVID-19 surge (June to August 2020) in the region. In addition, nosocomial infection rates of SARS-CoV-2 were reviewed., Results: Overall, the daily inpatient census was steady in 2019 (median, 103; range, 92-118) and until February 2020 (median, 112; range, 102-114). However, there was a major decline from March to May 2020 (median, 68; range, 57-104), with 45.4% lower admissions during April 2020. As the COVID-19 surge eased, the daily inpatient census over time returned to the pre-COVID-19 baseline (median, 103; range, 99-111). One patient (1/231, 0.004%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 13 days after hospitalization, and it is unclear if it was nosocomial or community spread., Conclusion: In this study, inpatient oncology admissions decreased substantially during the COVID-19 surge but over time returned to the pre-COVID-19 baseline. With aggressive infection control measures, the rates of nosocomial transmission were exceedingly low and should provide reassurance to those seeking medical care, including inpatient admissions when medically necessary., Implications for Practice: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the health care system, and cancer patients are a vulnerable population. This study observes a significant decline in the daily inpatient oncology census from March to May 2020 compared with the same time frame in the previous year and examines the potential reasons for this decline. In addition, nosocomial rates of COVID-19 were investigated, and rates were found to be very low. These findings suggest that aggressive infection control measures can mitigate the nosocomial infection risk among cancer patients and the inpatient setting is a safe environment, providing reassurance., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ACG has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Alexion, Ra Pharma/UCB and Momenta pharmaceuticals/Janssen. She has received royalties from Oakstone Publishing and research support from the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America, the MG Rare Disease Network and Project Data Sphere® for an irAE-N registry. She has received clinical trial support to the institution from Ra Pharma and Momenta. LBB receives salary support from Biogen, royalties from Oakstone Publishing, and research support from Project Data Sphere for an irAE-N registry. BKC reports research support from Project Data Sphere for an irAE-N registry. JH receives research support from Project Data Sphere for an irAE-N registry and from GE Healthcare. THS is an employee at the not-for-profit corporation Project DS, with a trade name of Project Data Sphere. AAA served on medical advisory boards for Alexion, Sarepta, CSL Behring, Strongbridge Pharma, Argenx, Ra Pharmaceuticals, and as a neurology consultant for Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine trials. ABW served on a medical advisory board or as a consultant with Iovance, Novartis, Shanghai Jo’Ann Medical Technology. PKB has consulted for Angiochem, Genentech-Roche, Lilly, Tesaro, Voyager Therapeutics, ElevateBio, Pfizer (Array), Pfizer, SK Life Sciences and Dantari, received grant/research support (to Massachusetts General Hospital) from Merck, BMS and Lilly and honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Genentech-Roche and Lilly. TAC has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer. SLC serves as the Editor of the Neurology®Podcast and Neurology Minute™. She has received research and/or clinical fellowship support from the Western Institute for Veterans Research, the Siegel Rare Neuroimmune Association, the Immune Deficiency Foundation, Alexion, the Barbara Gural Steinmetz Foundation, and the Sumaira Foundation for NMO. She has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Alexion, Genentech, VielaBio, Guidepoint, Clarion Healthcare Consulting, ExpertConnect (majority fees paid to University of Utah). JC has received consulting fees from Sanofi-Genzyme and BMS. JD is a consultant for Blue Earth Diagnostics, Magnolia, Gamaka Bio, and Unum Therapeutics. JD has received research support from Beacon Biosignals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brystol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Medimmune, Acerta Pharma, Orbus Therapeutics, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. JD has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for serving as an author for UpToDate. MD has research funding from Novartis and Eli Lilly, has served as a consultant for Roche-Genentech, Tillotts Pharma, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Partner Therapeutics, and Moderna, and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Neoleukin Therapeutics. CTD has served on advisory boards for Argenx and Dysimmune Diseases Foundation. He has received royalties from Oakstone Publishing. He has received grant support from NINDS/NeuroNext. DD has served on an advisory board and/or consulted for UCB, Astellas and Immunovant pharmaceuticals. All compensation for the consulting activities is paid to Mayo Clinic. He has patents pending for KLHL11 and LUZP4 as markers of neurological autoimmunity and germ cell tumors. JG has received research to UCSF support from Genentech/Roche for a clinical trial, performed consulting for Biogen, and received personal compensation for medical-legal consulting. JTG has served as a consultant in past 12 months for Immunovant, Alexion, Momenta, Ra Pharma, Grifols, Jacobus, Cabaletta, Regeneron, Argenx, Signant, UCB, Toleranzia and Piedmont Pharmaceuticals. He receives industry grant support from UCB pharma for a fellowship training grant. Full disclosure statement available at: https://dcri.org/about-us/conflict-of-interest/. DBJ has served on advisory boards for Array Biopharma, BMS, Catalyst Biopharma, Iovance, Jansen, Merck, Novartis, and Oncosec, and has received research funding from BMS and Incyte. VCJ is a site investigator in myasthenia gravis research trials sponsored by PCORI and by Alexion Pharmaceuticals. RK receives research funding from Alexion Pharmaceuticals. NK reports no relevant disclosures. NRL is a consultant and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Fortress Biotech, Silverback Therapeutics and SYNOX Therapeutics. JL reports no disclosures. AM reports no disclosures. MM-L reports no relevant disclosures. MJM has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Nektar Therapeutics, Catalyst Pharmaceuticals and Immunai. JN has received research funding from Merck and AstraZeneca; served as a consultant/advisory board member with Merck, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche/Genentech, Daiichi/Sankyo and has received honoraria from Merck, AstraZeneca, BMS, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche/Genentech. TGN reports acting as a consultant for Parexel, Bristol Myers-Squibb, H3 Biomedicine, AbbVie, and Intrinsic Imaging unrelated to the current research. TGN reports grant funding from AstraZeneca unrelated to current research. DR has been an advisor or consultant with AbbVie; Advantagene; Agenus; Agios; Amgen; Bayer; Boston Biomedical; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celldex; Deciphera; DelMar; EMD Serono; Genenta; Genentech/Roche; Imvax; Inovio; Kintara; Kiyatec; Medicenna Biopharma; Merck; Merck KGaA; Monteris; Neuvogen; Novartis; Novocure; Oncorus; Oxigene; Regeneron; Stemline; Sumitono Dainippon Pharma; Taiho Oncology. Research support to his institution has been provided by Acerta Phamaceuticals; Agenus; Celldex; EMD Serono; Incyte; Inovio; Omniox; Tragara. KMR has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Merck, BMS, and Eisai. BDS has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with Janssen, Kite/Gilead, and Celgene/BMS. RS has served on an advisory board and/or consulted with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, and Replimune. He has received research funding from Merck. NW has served on an advisory board with Seattle Genetics, received royalties from Wolters Kluwer and research support from Merck. KW reports no disclosures. LZ has been a consultant for Merck. WCL is an employee of the not-for-profit corporation Project DS, with a trade name of Project Data Sphere. KLR has received personal compensation from Teladoc research support from Project Data Sphere for a irAE-N registry., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The aim of this study was to characterize severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs) seen among hospitalized patients and to examine risk factors for irAE admissions and clinically relevant outcomes, including length of stay, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) discontinuation, readmission, and death., Methods: Patients who received ICI therapy (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, or any ICI combination) at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and were hospitalized at MGH following ICI initiation between January 1, 2011, and October 24, 2018, were identified using pharmacy and hospital admission databases. Medical records of all irAE admissions were reviewed, and specialist review with defined criteria was performed. Demographic data, relevant clinical history (malignancy type and most recent ICI regimen), and key admission characteristics, including dates of admission and discharge, immunosuppressive management, ICI discontinuation, readmission, and death, were collected., Results: In total, 450 admissions were classified as irAE admissions and represent the study's cohort. Alongside the increasing use of ICIs at our institution, the number of patients admitted to MGH for irAEs has gradually increased every year from 9 in 2011 to 92 in 2018. The hospitalization rate per ICI recipient has declined over that same time period (25.0% in 2011 to 8.5% in 2018). The most common toxicities leading to hospitalization in our cohort were gastrointestinal (30.7%; n = 138), pulmonary (15.8%; n = 71), hepatic (14.2%; n = 64), endocrine (12.2%; n = 55), neurologic (8.4%; n = 38), cardiac (6.7%; n = 30), and dermatologic (4.4%; n = 20). Multivariable logistic regression revealed statistically significant increases in irAE admission risk for CTLA-4 monotherapy recipients (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; p < .001) and CTLA-4 plus PD-1 combination therapy recipients (OR, 1.88; p < .001), relative to PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy recipients, and patients with multiple toxicity had a 5-fold increase in inpatient mortality., Conclusion: This study illustrates that cancer centers must be prepared to manage a wide variety of irAE types and that CTLA-4 and combination ICI regimens are more likely to cause irAE admissions, and earlier. In addition, admissions for patients with multi-organ involvement is common and those patients are at highest risk of inpatient mortality., Implications for Practice: The number of patients admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) has gradually increased every year and the most common admissions are for gastrointestinal (30.7%), pulmonary (15/8%), and hepatic (14.2%) events. Readmission rates are high (29% at 30 days, 49% at 180 days) and 64.2% have to permanently discontinue immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Importantly, multiple concurrent toxicities were seen in 21.6% (97/450) of irAE admissions and these patients have a fivefold increased risk of inpatient death., (© 2021 AlphaMed Press.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) predispose patients to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Although hepatitis is a potentially lethal toxicity, the timing and outcomes have not been well described. In this retrospective study, patients from six international institutions were included if they were treated with ICIs and developed immune-related hepatitis. Patient and tumor characteristics, and hepatitis management and outcomes were evaluated. Of the 164 patients included, most were male (53.7%) with a median age of 63.0 years. Most patients had melanoma (83.5%) and stage IV disease (86.0%). Median follow-up was 585 days; median OS and PFS were not reached. The initial grade of hepatitis was most often grade 2 (30.5%) or 3 (45.7%) with a median time to onset of 61 days. Patients were most commonly asymptomatic (46.2%), but flu-like symptoms, including fatigue/anorexia (17.1%), nausea/emesis (14.0%), abdominal/back pain (11.6%), and arthralgias/myalgias (8.5%) occurred. Most patients received glucocorticoids (92.1%); the median time to improvement by one grade was 13.0 days, and the median time to complete resolution was 52.0 days. Second-line immunosuppression was required in 37 patients (22.6%), and steroid-dose re-escalation in 45 patients (27.4%). Five patients (3%) died of ICI-hepatitis or complications of hepatitis treatment. Ninety-one patients (58.6%) did not resume ICI; of 66 patients (40 grade 1/2, 26 grade 3/4) that were rechallenged, only 25.8% (n = 17) had recurrence. In this multi-institutional cohort, immune-related hepatitis was associated with excellent outcomes but frequently required therapy discontinuation, high-dose steroids, and second-line immunosuppression. Rechallenge was associated with a modest rate of hepatitis recurrence., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Purpose: To describe interventional oncology therapies combined with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy targeting the programmed death 1 pathway in patients with different neoplasms., Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent tumor-directed thermal ablation, embolization, or selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) between January 1, 2011, and May 1, 2019, and received anti-programmed death 1/PD-L1 agents ≤ 90 days before or ≤ 30 days after the interventional procedure. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and procedural complications ≤ 90 days after the procedure were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. The study included 65 eligible patients (49% female; age 63 years ± 11.1). The most common tumors were metastatic melanoma (n = 28) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (n = 12). Patients underwent 78 procedures (12 patients underwent > 1 procedure), most frequently SIRT (35.9%) and cryoablation (28.2%). The most common target organs were liver (46.2%), bone (24.4%), and lung (9.0%). Most patients received ICI monotherapy with pembrolizumab (n = 30), nivolumab (n = 22), and atezolizumab (n = 6); 7 patients received ipilimumab and nivolumab., Results: Seven (10.8%) patients experienced an irAE (71.4% grade 1-2), mostly affecting the skin. Median time to irAE was 33 days (interquartile range, 19-38 days). Five irAEs occurred in patients with melanoma, and no irAEs occurred in patients with NSCLC. Management required corticosteroids (n = 3) and immunotherapy discontinuation (n = 1); all irAEs resolved to grade ≤ 1. There were 4 intraprocedural and 32 postprocedural complications (77.8% grade < 3). No grade 5 irAEs and/or procedural complications occurred., Conclusions: No unmanageable or unanticipated toxicities occurred within 90 days after interventional oncology therapies combined with ICIs., (Copyright © 2020 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lung cancer is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. Symptom overlap between COVID-19 and lung cancer may complicate diagnostic evaluation. We aimed to investigate the incidence, symptoms, differential diagnosis, and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer., Methods: To determine an at-risk population for COVID-19, we retrospectively identified patients with lung cancer receiving longitudinal care within a single institution in the 12 months (April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020) immediately preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, including an "active therapy population" treated within the last 60 days of this period. Among patients subsequently referred for COVID-19 testing, we compared symptoms, laboratory values, radiographic findings, and outcomes of positive versus negative patients., Results: Between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2020, a total of 696 patients received longitudinal care, including 406 (58%) in the active therapy population. Among 55 patients referred for COVID-19 testing, 24 (44%) were positive for COVID-19, representing a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (longitudinal population) and 1.5% (active therapy population). Compared with patients who were COVID-19 negative, those who were COVID-19 positive were more likely to have a supplemental oxygen requirement (11% versus 54%, p  = 0.005) and to have typical COVID-19 pneumonia imaging findings (5 versus 56%, p  = 0.001). Otherwise, there were no marked differences in presenting symptoms. Among patients who were COVID-19 negative, alternative etiologies included treatment-related toxicity (26%), atypical pneumonia (22%), and disease progression (22%). A total of 16 patients positive for COVID-19 (67%) required hospitalization, and seven (29%) died from COVID-related complications., Conclusions: COVID-19 was infrequent in this lung cancer population, but these patients experienced high rates of morbidity and mortality. Oncologists should maintain a low threshold for COVID-19 testing in patients with lung cancer presenting with acute symptoms., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background and Aims: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) enterocolitis is a common immune-related adverse event and can be fatal, especially when not diagnosed and treated promptly. The current gold standard for diagnosis is endoscopy with biopsy, but CT scan is a possible alternative. The primary objective of this study is to identify the diagnostic performance of CT in the evaluation of ICI enterocolitis., Methods: With institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who received ICI therapy between 2015 and 2019 across a healthcare system. Patients were included if they underwent both abdominal CT and endoscopy with biopsy within 3 days. The radiological and pathological diagnoses, as well as clinical characteristics, were extracted from the electronic medical record. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CT for diagnosing ICI enterocolitis when compared with tissue diagnosis., Results: Of the 4474 patients screened, 138 met inclusion criteria. Most common tumor types were melanoma (37%) and lung cancer (19%). Seventy-four per cent were treated with antiprogrammed cell death (PD-1)/PD-L1 therapy. Thirty-nine per cent had signs of enterocolitis on CT scan and 58% had biopsy-proven ICI enterocolitis. Sensitivity and specificity of CT were 50% and 74%, respectively. PPV was 73% and NPV was 52%. Of those with confirmed ICI enterocolitis, 70% had grade 3 or higher symptoms, 91% received steroids and 40% received infliximab., Conclusion: The performance of CT scan for diagnosis of ICI enterocolitis is moderate to poor and does not replace endoscopy with biopsy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJM. is a consultant and received honoraria from AstraZeneca. MD is a consultant for Tillotts Pharma, Partner Therapeutics, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech-Roche, receives research funding from Novartis, and is on the Scientific Advisory Board for Neoleukin. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Lung cancer is made up of distinct subtypes, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information., Methods: Using data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas, we assessed lung-cancer mortality and linked deaths from lung cancer to incident cases in SEER cancer registries. This allowed us to evaluate population-level mortality trends attributed to specific subtypes (incidence-based mortality). We also evaluated lung-cancer incidence and survival according to cancer subtype, sex, and calendar year. Joinpoint software was used to assess changes in incidence and trends in incidence-based mortality., Results: Mortality from NSCLC decreased even faster than the incidence of this subtype, and this decrease was associated with a substantial improvement in survival over time that corresponded to the timing of approval of targeted therapy. Among men, incidence-based mortality from NSCLC decreased 6.3% annually from 2013 through 2016, whereas the incidence decreased 3.1% annually from 2008 through 2016. Corresponding lung cancer-specific survival improved from 26% among men with NSCLC that was diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those in whom it was diagnosed in 2014. This improvement in survival was found across all races and ethnic groups. Similar patterns were found among women with NSCLC. In contrast, mortality from SCLC declined almost entirely as a result of declining incidence, with no improvement in survival. This result correlates with limited treatment advances for SCLC in the time frame we examined., Conclusions: Population-level mortality from NSCLC in the United States fell sharply from 2013 to 2016, and survival after diagnosis improved substantially. Our analysis suggests that a reduction in incidence along with treatment advances - particularly approvals for and use of targeted therapies - is likely to explain the reduction in mortality observed during this period., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Rare cases of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-associated celiac disease (ICI-CeD) have been reported, suggesting that disruption of tolerance mechanisms by ICIs can unmask celiac disease (CeD). This study aims to characterize the clinicopathological and immunophenotypic features of ICI-CeD in comparison to ICI-associated duodenitis (ICI-Duo) and usual CeD., Methods: A medical and pathological records search between 2015 and 2019 identified eight cases of ICI-CeD, confirmed by tTG-IgA. Nine cases of ICI-Duo, 28 cases of moderate CeD, as well as 5 normal controls were used as comparison groups. Clinical information was collected from the electronic medical records. Immunohistochemistry for CD3, CD8, T-cell receptor gamma/delta (γδ), programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), and programmed death 1 (PD-1) were performed, with quantification of intraepithelial lymphocyte (IEL) subsets in three well-oriented villi. CD68, PD-L1, and PD-1 were assessed as a percentage of lamina propria surface area infiltrated by positive cells. Statistical significance was calculated by the Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test., Results: The eight patients with ICI-CeD (F:M=1:3) and nine patients with ICI-Duo (F:M=5:4) presented similarly with diarrhea (13/17) and abdominal pain (11/17) after a median of 1.6 months on ICI therapy. In patients with ICI-CeD, tTG-IgA ranged from 104 to >300 IU/mL. Histological findings in ICI-CeD and ICI-Duo were similar and included expansion of the lamina propria, active neutrophilic duodenitis, variably increased IELs, and villous blunting. Immunohistochemistry showed that the average number of IELs per 100 enterocytes is comparable between ICI-CeD and ICI-Duo, with increased CD3 + CD8 + T cells compared with normal duodenum but decreased γδ T cells compared with CeD. Average PD-L1 percentage was 9% in ICI-CeD and 18% in ICI-Duo, in comparison to <1% in CeD and normal duodenum; average PD-1 percentage was very low to absent in all cases (<3%). On follow-up, five patients with ICI-CeD improved on a gluten-free diet (GFD) as the sole therapeutic intervention (with down-trending tTG-IgA) while the other three required immunosuppression. All patients who developed ICI-Duo received immunosuppression with variable improvement in symptoms., Conclusions: ICI-CeD resembles ICI-Duo clinically and histologically but shares the serological features and response to gluten withdrawal with classic CeD. Immunophenotyping of IELs in ICI-CeD and ICI-Duo also shows similar CD3, CD8, γδ T cell subsets, and PD-L1 populations, all of which differed quantitatively from usual CeD. We conclude that ICI-CeD is biologically similar to ICI-Duo and is likely a variant of ICI-Duo, but treatment strategies differ, with ICI-CeD often improving with GFD alone, whereas ICI-Duo requires systemic immunosuppression., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MD is a consultant for Genentech-Roche, Tillotts Pharma, and Partner Therapeutics. He received research funding from Novartis. He is on the scientific advisory board for Neoleukin Therapeutics., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Expanding use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) underscores the importance of accurate diagnosis and timely management of neurological immune-related adverse events (irAE-N). We evaluate the real-world frequency, phenotypes, co-occurring immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and long-term outcomes of severe, grade III to V irAE-N at a tertiary care center over 6 years. We analyze how our experience supports published literature and professional society guidelines. We also discuss these data with regard to common clinical scenarios, such as combination therapy, ICI rechallenge and risk of relapse of irAE-N, and corticosteroid taper, which are not specifically addressed by current guidelines and/or have limited data. Recommendations for management and future irAE-N reporting are outlined. ANN NEUROL 2020;87:659-669., (© 2020 American Neurological Association.)

Background: Immune-related colitis is a common, often serious complication of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Although endoscopy is not strictly recommended for any grade of diarrhea/colitis, emerging evidence suggests that endoscopic evaluation may have important therapeutic implications. In this retrospective study, we sought to comprehensively characterize the clinical and histologic features of ICI-induced colitis with a specific focus on evaluating the prognostic role of endoscopy., Methods: Data were collected from the medical records of 130 patients with confirmed ICI-induced colitis. In a subset of patients (n=44) with endoscopic and pathologic data, endoscopic data were scored using the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) with scores ranging from 0 (no inflammation) to 3 (colonic ulceration). The impact of infliximab on antitumor outcomes was evaluated using progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: We identified 130 patients with ICI-induced colitis across two institutions. All patients were treated with corticosteroids. Additional and/or alternative immunosuppression was employed in 59 cases, with 52 patients (42%) requiring at least one infusion of infliximab 5 mg/kg. Endoscopic assessment with biopsy was performed in 123 cases of suspected colitis (95%), with 44 cases available for MES tabulation. Presence of ulceration (MES 3) was associated with use of infliximab (p=0.008) and MES was significantly higher in patients who received infliximab compared with those who did not (p=0.003) with a median score of 2.5; conversely, those with an MES of zero rarely required secondary immunosuppression. Notably, symptoms of colitis based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade had no association with endoscopic findings based on MES classification. After adjustment for baseline patient and disease characteristics, there was no significant difference in steroid duration or cancer-related outcomes in patients treated with infliximab., Conclusions: In our study, we demonstrate the association of endoscopic features, specifically the MES, with immunosuppressive needs. Importantly, we also show that MES was not related to severity of patient symptoms. The data suggest that endoscopic features can guide clinical decision-making better than patient symptoms, both identifying high-risk patients who will require infliximab and those who are likely to respond to initial corticosteroids., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose of Review: While immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has improved melanoma patient outcomes, it has also resulted in the rise of unique immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Here, we review and synthesize irAE management recommendations from several oncological societies into a streamlined format to aid in diagnosis and management. We also include clinical pearls highlighting several recent research studies in this field., Recent Findings: Knowledge of immunotherapy toxicity has continually evolved, and several major oncologic societies have recently released new or updated guidelines. Keeping up with the evolving field of immunotherapy and related toxicities is crucial, because ICI use, in combination with other agents, will only continue to increase and likely result in new and different patterns of irAEs. Providing clear and concise references for clinicians will help ensure proper irAE evaluation and management going forward. We present one such reference here, covering management of common and/or serious irAEs.

Background and Objectives: Immune checkpoint inhibitor use in oncology is increasing rapidly. We sought to determine the frequency, severity, cause, and predictors of AKI in a real-world population receiving checkpoint inhibitors., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: We included all patients who received checkpoint inhibitor therapy from May 2011 to December 2016 at Massachusetts General Hospital. Baseline serum creatinine, averaged 6 months before checkpoint inhibitor start date, was compared with all subsequent creatinine values within 12 months of starting therapy. AKI was defined by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria for fold changes in creatinine from baseline. Sustained AKI events lasted at least 3 days and was our primary outcome. The cause of sustained AKI was determined by chart review. Cumulative incidence and subdistribution hazard models were used to assess the relationship between baseline demographics, comorbidities, and medications, and sustained AKI and potential checkpoint inhibitor-related AKI., Results: We included 1016 patients in the analysis. Average age was 63 (SD 13) years, 61% were men, and 91% were white. Mean baseline creatinine was 0.9 mg/dl (SD 0.4 mg/dl), and 169 (17%) had CKD (eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ) at baseline. A total of 169 patients (17%) experienced AKI, defined by an increase in creatinine at least 1.5 times the baseline within 12 months; 82 patients (8%) experienced sustained AKI and 30 patients (3%) had potential checkpoint inhibitor-related AKI. The first episode of sustained AKI occurred, on average, 106 days (SD 85) after checkpoint inhibitor initiation. Sixteen (2%) patients experienced stage 3 sustained AKI and four patients required dialysis. Proton pump inhibitor use at baseline was associated with sustained AKI., Conclusions: AKI is common in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The causes of sustained AKI in this population are heterogenous and merit thorough evaluation. The role of PPI and other nephritis-inducing drugs in the development of sustained AKI needs to be better defined., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Objective: To describe the spectrum, clinical course, and management of neuropathies associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)., Methods: Patients with ICI-related neuropathy (irNeuropathy) were identified and their clinical characteristics compared to neuropathy attributed to cytotoxic agents., Results: We identified 19 patients with irNeuropathies. ICIs included anti-programmed death-1 (PD1), 9; anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA4), 2; and combination of anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1, 8. Median number of ICI doses prior to neuropathy onset was 4. Rate of neuropathies following ICI therapy was 0.7%. Underlying malignancies included melanoma (n = 15), lung adenocarcinoma (n = 3), and cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1). Neuropathy phenotypes were cranial neuropathies with or without meningitis (n = 7), nonlength-dependent polyradiculoneuropathies with and without cranial nerve involvement (n = 6), small-fiber/autonomic neuropathy (n = 2), ANCA-associated mononeuritis multiplex (n = 1), sensory neuronopathy (n = 1), length-dependent sensorimotor axonal polyneuropathy (n = 1), and neuralgic amyotrophy (n = 1). Immune-related adverse events involving other organ systems were common (58%). Corticosteroid use for management of neuropathy was associated with improvement in median modified Rankin Scale score (1 vs 0, p = 0.001) and Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment Disability score (2 vs 0.5, p = 0.012) (Class IV). Significantly higher proportion of irNeuropathies had acute or subacute and nonlength-dependent presentations ( p < 0.001) and rate of hospitalization for irNeuropathy was also higher ( p = 0.002) compared to toxic neuropathy from chemotherapy., Conclusion: Neuropathy is a rare complication of ICIs that often responds to immunosuppression. Recognition of its wide phenotypic spectrum and distinct clinical characteristics and prompt management with corticosteroids may lead to favorable outcomes., (© 2019 American Academy of Neurology.)

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy has recently become the standard of care for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The implications of these first-line treatments are considerable, given the potential population of patients eligible to receive them and their high cost., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the United States., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed to assess atezolizumab combination vs bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel alone in the first line (base case 1). A secondary model was developed to assess these treatments along with pembrolizumab combination and platinum doublet chemotherapy (base case 2). Treatment strategies and other simulated conditions were based on those from the IMpower150 and KEYNOTE-189 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. One million patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer were simulated for each treatment group. This study was performed from February 2019 through May 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)., Results: In base case 1, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treating with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in the first line was associated with a mean cost of $112 551 (95% CI, $112 450-$112 653) and a mean survival of 1.48 QALYs (95% CI, 1.47-1.48 QALYs) per patient. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel was associated with a mean cost of $244 166 (95% CI, $243 864-$244 468) and a mean survival of 2.13 QALYs (95% CI, 2.12-2.13 QALYs) per patient, for an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $201 676 per QALY (95% CI, $198 105-$205 355 per QALY). In base case 2, in which 1 million patients were simulated, pembrolizumab combination therapy was associated with a mean cost of $226 282 (95% CI, $226 007-$226 557) and a mean survival of 2.45 QALYs (95% CI, 2.44-2.46 QALYs) per patient. Pembrolizumab combination dominated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 698 per QALY (95% CI, $115 088-$118 342 per QALY) between pembrolizumab combination and bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel. Atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY., Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulated model economic analysis, atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel and provided suboptimal incremental benefit compared with cost vs pembrolizumab combination for first-line treatment. Although atezolizumab combination therapy provides clinical benefits, price reductions may be necessary for this treatment strategy to become cost-effective.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have revolutionized oncologic therapy but can lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Corticosteroids are first-line treatment with escalation to biologic immunosuppression in refractory cases. CPI-related gastroenterocolitis (GEC) affects 20%-50% of patients receiving CPIs and can carry significant morbidity and mortality. Severe CPI-related GEC is not well-described. We present the clinical characterization of all CPI-related GEC requiring admission at a single institution., Methods: Clinical, laboratory, radiographic, and endoscopic data were extracted from charts of all melanoma patients ≥18 years of age admitted to one institution for CPI-related GEC, from February 5, 2011 to December 13, 2016. Patients were followed until December 31, 2017 for further admissions. Survival, outcomes, and pharmaceutical-use analyses were performed., Results: Median time-to-admission from initial CPI exposure was 73.5 days. Median length of stay was 4.5 days. About 50.0% required second-line immunosuppression. Readmission for recrudescence occurred in 33.3%. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade was not significantly associated with outcomes. Hypoalbuminemia (P = 0.005), relative lymphopenia (P = 0.027), and decreased lactate dehydrogenase (P = 0.026) were associated with second-line immunosuppression. There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or OS (P = 0.367, 0.400) for second-line immunosuppression. Subgroup analysis showed that early corticosteroid administration (P = 0.045) was associated with decreased PFS., Conclusions: Severe CPI-related GEC typically manifests within 3 months of immunotherapy exposure. Rates of second-line immunosuppression and readmission for recrudescence were high. CTCAE grade did not capture the degree of severity in our cohort. Second-line immunosuppression was not associated with poorer oncologic outcomes; however, early corticosteroid exposure was associated with decreased PFS. Further investigation is warranted., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)