Warner, Allison Betof

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.

Cancer immunotherapy—including immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and adoptive cell therapy (ACT)—has become a standard, potentially curative treatment for a subset of advanced solid and liquid tumors. However, most patients with cancer do not benefit from the rapidly evolving improvements in the understanding of principal mechanisms determining cancer immune responsiveness (CIR); including patient-specific genetically determined and acquired factors, as well as intrinsic cancer cell biology. Though CIR is multifactorial, fundamental concepts are emerging that should be considered for the design of novel therapeutic strategies and related clinical studies. Recent advancements as well as novel approaches to address the limitations of current treatments are discussed here, with a specific focus on ICI and ACT.

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.