Reynolds, Kerry L.

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated immune thrombocytopenia (ICI-ITP) has been described in case reports and small case series, but comprehensive data on its incidence, risk factors, clinical features, treatment, and outcomes are lacking. We reviewed medical records of all adults initiating ICI therapy between 2016 and 2023 at 29 US hospitals across 7 major cancer centers to identify patients with ICI-ITP. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and Cox modeling was performed to assess the association between ICI-ITP, its severity, and mortality. Among 86 467 patients, ICI-ITP occurred in 214 (0.25%). Independent risk factors included lower baseline platelet count, combination ICI therapy, stage IV cancer, and additional immune-related adverse events. ICI-ITP occurred at a median of 8 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 4-18) after ICI initiation, with a median nadir platelet count of 41 × 109/L (IQR, 17 × 109/L to 64 × 109/L). Patients were treated with glucocorticoids (n = 106 [49.5%]), immune globulin (n = 39 [18.2%]), and thrombopoietin receptor agonists (n = 29 [13.6%]). Recovery occurred in 161 patients (75.2%) at a median of 2.3 weeks (IQR, 1.0-5.3). Of 76 patients rechallenged with ICIs, 23 (30.3%) developed recurrent ICI-ITP. ICI-ITP and its severity were associated with higher all-cause mortality, with a nearly threefold increase in risk among patients with severe ICI-ITP than those without ICI-ITP (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96 [95% confidence interval, 2.14-4.08]). These findings establish ICI-ITP as a rare but clinically significant complication of ICI therapy, provide, to our knowledge, the first large-scale description of its risk factors and clinical course, and underscore the importance of timely recognition and management.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are an important class of cancer treatment. Endocrine immune-related adverse events (E-irAEs) account for a significant proportion of irAEs in ICI-treated patients. Diagnosing E-irAEs accurately and timely can be challenging in the absence of clear categorization and standardization across oncology, endocrinology and other specialties. While existing guidelines provide some broad directions to diagnosis and management, they lack clarity on irAE-specific symptom evaluation and work-up, as well as assessment of severity. These limitations can then impact triage, time-sensitive management and care escalation to specialists such as oncoendocrinologists. The objective of this study was to develop consensus-based statements on disease definitions for E-irAEs. A core working group of endocrinologists with expertise in the oncoendocrinology field drafted a survey with statements outlining the general approach to E-irAEs, disease definition and management approach of six specific diagnoses: ir-thyroiditis thyrotoxic phase, ir-thyroiditis hypothyroidism, ir-Graves’ disease, ir-hypophysitis, ir-adrenalitis and ir-type 1 diabetes mellitus. Severity grading tables were drafted for three disease categories—“thyroid”, “pituitary and adrenal”, and “diabetes mellitus”. A two-round modified Delphi process, using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method, was employed. In this process, a 25-member voting panel consisting of endocrinologists, oncologists and other specialists and healthcare providers with experience in management of ICI-treated patients and irAEs was recruited. The panel rated anonymously on usability, accuracy, appropriateness or agreement of 41 items on a 9-point scale in Survey 1, after which a meeting was convened. Statements were modified based on voting results from Survey 1 and Meeting 1, and the process was repeated in Survey 2 and Meeting 2. At the end of this process, consensus was achieved for all statements. Our study findings address the gap in standardized nomenclature, clinical, laboratory and radiological evaluations, and management principles of E-irAEs. With consensus achieved from a panel of experts from a variety of disciplines, we anticipate that the statements can form the basis for standardization of the diagnostic process and improvement of patient care.

Immunotherapy has significantly affected cancer treatment and survival rates, accompanied by an increase in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requiring new management strategies. irAEs can affect various organ systems and have varying severity levels, with higher rates observed when combining immune checkpoint inhibitors. National organizations such as ASCO, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society for Medical Oncology have created guidelines for managing irAEs. This chapter expands on these guidelines by discussing practical strategies to improve the multidisciplinary management in irAE care, focusing on the who, what, and how to bridge gaps in care and enhance collaboration between academic and community oncology practices. Effective irAE management involves early recognition and guideline-adherent approaches using a multidisciplinary team, including oncologists, other subspecialists, primary care clinicians, and all care team members. Institutions are developing methods to integrate irAE care into clinical workflows, such as incorporating urgent care clinics and e-consults for efficient irAE management and developing hub-and-spoke models to extend specialized care from academic centers to community hospitals for equitable care delivery. Additionally, effective patient education is critical for improving irAE recognition and health literacy. The new ASCO Community of Practice called the Alliance for Support and Prevention of Immune-Related Adverse Events consortium and patient advocacy group Standing Together to Optimize Research, Interventions, and Education in irAEs initiatives aim to advance irAE clinical care, research, and education through global collaboration, standardized data collection, and improved outreach to patients and caregivers.

Ophthalmic immune-related adverse events (Eye-irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause visual morbidity. The absence of standardized definitions for Eye-irAEs not only impedes the development of evidence-based treatments but also progress in translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to Eye-irAEs. Four ophthalmic physicians (uveitis specialists and neuro-ophthalmologists) drafted Eye-irAE consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Eye-irAE definition panel. The panel was divided into Group A (Neuro-ophthalmology/Orbital Disease) and Group B (Uveitis/Ocular Surface Disease). A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. For each disorder, five diagnostic components were evaluated: symptoms, examination findings, laboratory studies/imaging findings, diagnostic criteria, and treatment. 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 Corporation/ University of California Los Angeles Health Services Utilization Study (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 29 panelists from 25 academic medical centers voted on 114 rating scales (66 neuro-ophthalmic/orbital disease components, 48 uveitis/ocular surface disease components); of these, 86.3% (57/66) in Group A and 89.6% (43/48) in Group B reached first-round consensus. After revisions, all items except 6.1% (4/66) in Group A and 1.6% (1/60) in Group B received second-round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for 10/11 neuro-ophthalmic/orbital disorders: optic neuritis, inflammatory optic disc edema, arteritic ischemic optic neuropathy, optic perineuritis, orbital inflammation, thyroid eye disease-like orbital inflammation, cavernous sinus syndrome, oculomotor mononeuritis, trochlear mononeuritis, and abducens mononeuritis. Consensus definitions were achieved for 9/10 uveitis/ocular surface disorders: anterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, panuveitis, Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-like syndrome, sarcoidosis-like syndrome, acute macular neuroretinopathy, dry eye disease, and scleritis. These disease definitions establish a standardized classification for Eye-irAE, highlighting differences between irAEs and other inflammatory disorders. Importantly, diagnostic certainty does not always align directly with the need to treat as an Eye-irAE. Given the consensus from this representative panel group, it is anticipated the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Importance The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is increasing. Little is known about the frequency of late-onset immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and the patient-specific risk factors associated with their development. Objectives To assess the incidence of persistent or de novo late-onset irAEs requiring hospitalization and identify patient factors associated with risk of late-onset irAEs. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective observational cohort study conducted from January 2011 to October 2022 included patients who received ICIs and were hospitalized with irAEs at an academic medical center. Exclusion criteria included ICI therapy outside of the hospital system and no irAE diagnosis during admission. Data were analyzed from November 15, 2022, to January 8, 2025. Exposure Late-onset irAEs. Main Outcomes and Measures The main study outcomes were (1) incidence of irAE hospitalization at 0 to 6 months (early), more than 6 to 12 months (intermediate), and more than 12 months (late) after ICI initiation and (2) patient factors associated with risk of late-onset irAEs. Results Among the 795 patients hospitalized with irAEs, the median age was 67.3 years (IQR, 58.3-74.8 years); 476 (59.9%) were male. Most patients (n = 517 [65.0%]) received anti–programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti–programmed cell death 1 monotherapy, with the most common indications being melanoma (n = 335 [42.1%]) and lung cancer (n = 167 [21.0%]). The median time from start of ICI therapy to hospital admission was 2.7 months (IQR, 1.2-6.1 months), with 14.7% of patients (n = 117 of 795) presenting 6 to 12 months after initial ICI exposure and 10.8% of patients (86 of 795) presenting more than 12 months after initial exposure. The irAEs most likely to present late included those involving the kidney (10 of 32 [31.3%]) and hematologic (5 of 23 [21.7%]) organ systems. In univariate analysis, ICI type was significantly associated with the timing of hospital admission for irAEs; of the 517 patients receiving anti–PD-L1–based therapy, 13.5% (n = 70) presented late compared with 5.4% (9 of 167) receiving dual therapy with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 ( P < .001). Patients receiving perioperative ICI therapy were significantly more likely to be admitted at the intermediate interval (16 of 68 [23.5%]) compared with those with metastatic disease (87 of 678 [12.8%]) ( P = .03). Timing of irAE was also significantly associated with active ICI exposure; among the patients presenting late, 7.4% (48 of 651) had received ICI therapy within the last 60 days compared with 26.4% (38 of 144) who had not had recent ICI exposure ( P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this retrospective observational cohort study suggest that late irAEs are possible, with a subset of patients presenting years after the start of ICI therapy. Clinicians must remain vigilant for irAEs regardless of elapsed time from ICI therapy, especially as patients live longer and ICIs become more widely used. Future investigations are needed to better understand the risk factors for late-onset irAEs and the distinct immunologic pathways that underlie such events.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Background Non-invasive biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ICI-nephritis) are urgently needed. Because ICIs block immune checkpoint pathways that include cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4), we hypothesized that biomarkers of immune dysregulationpreviously defined in patients with congenital CTLA4 deficiency, including elevated soluble interleukin-2 receptor alpha (sIL-2R) and flow cytometric cell-based markers of B and T cell dysregulation in peripheral blood may aid the diagnosis of ICI-nephritis. Methods A retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with ICI-nephritis was compared with three prospectively enrolled control cohorts: ICI-treated controls without immune-related adverse events, patients not on ICIs with hemodynamic acute kidney injury (hemodynamic AKI), and patients not on ICIs with biopsy proven acute interstitial nephritis from other causes (non-ICI-nephritis). sIL-2R level and flow cytometric parameters were compared between groups using Wilcoxon rank sum test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to define the accuracy of sIL-2R and flow cytometric biomarkers in diagnosing ICI-nephritis. The downstream impact of T cell activation in the affected kidney was investigated using archived biopsy samples to evaluate the gene expression of IL2RA, IL-2 signaling, and T cell receptor signaling in patients with ICI-nephritis compared with other causes of drug-induced nephritis, acute tubular injury, and histologically normal controls. Results sIL-2R level in peripheral blood was significantly higher in patients with ICI-nephritis (N=24) (median 2.5-fold upper limit of normal (ULN), IQR 1.9–3.3), compared with ICI-treated controls (N=10) (median 0.8-fold ULN, IQR 0.5–0.9, p<0.001) and hemodynamic AKI controls (N=6) (median 0.9-fold-ULN, IQR 0.7–1.1, p=0.008). A sIL-2R cut-off point of 1.75-fold ULN was highly diagnostic of ICI-nephritis (area under the curve >96%) when compared with either ICI-treated or hemodynamic AKI controls. By peripheral blood flow cytometry analysis, lower absolute CD8+T cells, CD45RA+CD8+ T cells, memory CD27+B cells, and expansion of plasmablasts were prominent features of ICI-nephritis compared with ICI-treated controls. Gene expressions for IL2RA , IL-2 signaling, and T cell receptor signaling in the kidney tissue with ICI-nephritis were significantly higher compared with controls. Conclusion Elevated sIL-2R level and flow cytometric markers of both B and T cell dysregulation may aid the diagnosis of ICI-nephritis.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701