Herrmann, Sandra M.

ABSTRACT Over the last 13 years, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has grown remarkably, owing to their unprecedented anti-tumor efficacy in certain tumor groups. With increased use of ICIs, we are seeing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) more frequently. Renal irAEs, such as ICI-associated acute kidney injury (ICI-AKI), are reported in 2%–5% of patients treated with ICIs, with acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ATIN) as the most common histopathologic lesion, though various forms of glomerulonephritis have also been reported. Modifiable risk factors for ICI-AKI include concurrent use of ATIN-associated drugs, like proton pump inhibitors, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics, and dual ICI therapy with both Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte Associated Protein 4 (CTLA-4) and Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 and its ligand (PD1/PDL-1) blockade. Kidney biopsies remain the diagnostic modality of choice, though several promising non-invasive biomarkers, which have not yet been broadly clinically validated have emerged. The treatment of ICI-AKI involves holding ICIs, discontinuation of ATIN-associated drugs and initiation of immunosuppression with corticosteroids as first-line therapy. With prompt treatment initiation, most patients achieve full or partial renal recovery, allowing for re-challenge with ICI. However, a subset of patients will require additional steroid-sparing therapies for corticosteroid-dependent or refractory ICI-AKI. Here we review developments in our understanding of the pathophysiology of ICI-AKI, the approach to diagnosis (with a focus on the emergence of novel diagnostic tools), prognostic factors and the current evidence for establishing treatment standards for ICI-AKI. As the evidence base remains largely retrospective, we identify questions that would benefit from future prospective studies in the diagnosis, management and prognostication of ICI-AKI.

7542 Background: Teclistamab, a novel bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting CD3 and BCMA, exhibits promising effects for patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM). However, rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with this therapy remains inadequately characterized. Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with relapsed refractory MM who received teclistamab or Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy (CAR-T) therapy at Mayo Clinic between 12/1/2022-5/15/2023 and who were not in kidney failure at the time of treatment. The primary endpoint was incidence of AKI during follow-up; secondary endpoints included treatment and recovery from AKI. AKI was defined based on Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria as an increase of serum creatinine levels > 1.5 times their baseline value after starting therapy. Cumulative incidences and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate time to event data. Results: A total of 64 patients met inclusion criteria for the study (30 received CAR-T and 34 received teclistamab therapy). There were 14 AKI events occurring during follow-up (10 teclistamab [n = 6 stage 1, n = 3 stage 2 and n = 1 stage 3] and 4 CAR-T [n = 3 stage 1 and n = 1 stage 2]). Cumulative incidence estimates of AKI at 120 days after treatment were 32% (95% CI: 14%-47%) for teclistamab patients and 10% (95% CI: 0%-21%) for CAR-T patients. While patients receiving teclistamab were found to be at increased risk of an incident AKI event compared to patients receiving CAR-T therapy, results were not statistically significant (HR (95% CI): 3.38 (0.93-12.31), p = 0.065). Median time to development of AKI was 30 days (IQR 16, 73) in teclistamab and 59 days (IQR 9, 146) in CAR-T patients. Among the 10 patients in the teclistamab group with an AKI event, 4 (40%) had complete renal recovery and 4 (40%) had partial recovery, while among the 4 patients with CAR-T with an AKI event, 2 (50%) experienced complete renal recovery and 2 (50%) experienced partial recovery. Conclusions: Our study showed that almost one third of patients receiving teclistamab therapy for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma experienced an incident AKI event during follow-up. This finding underscores the importance of monitoring for kidney function in these patients.

Accurate assessment of GFR is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dosing of systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. Up to 32% of patients with cancer have baseline CKD, and both malignancy and treatment may cause kidney injury and subsequent CKD. To date, there has been lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population. In this two-part statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology, we present key messages for estimation of GFR in patients with cancer, including the choice of GFR estimating equation, use of race and body surface area adjustment, and anticancer drug dose-adjustment in the setting of CKD. These key messages are based on a systematic review of studies assessing GFR estimating equations using serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer, against a measured GFR comparator. The preponderance of current data involving validated GFR estimating equations involves the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, with 2508 patients in whom CKD-EPI using serum creatinine and cystatin C was assessed (eight studies) and 15,349 in whom CKD-EPI with serum creatinine was assessed (22 studies). The former may have improved performance metrics and be less susceptible to shortfalls of eGFR using serum creatinine alone. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the American Society of Onco-Nephrology Position Committee rated the certainty of evidence as low. Additional studies are needed to assess the accuracy of other validated eGFR equations in patients with cancer. Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment, we advocate for the use of validated GFR estimating equations incorporating both serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer. Measurement of GFR via exogenous filtration markers should be considered in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials.

e24143 Background: Accurate assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dose-adjusting systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. To date, there has been a lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population based on the available evidence. We aim to present data on the first systematic review (SR) of GFR estimating equations in patients with cancer. Methods: We conducted a SR on behalf of the American Society of Onco-Nephrology (ASON) on the accuracy of equations to estimate GFR in adult patients with cancer, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We required that studies use a reference methodology as comparator involving measured GFR via urinary or plasma clearance of an exogenous filtration marker or carboplatin. Two search strategies focusing on studies using serum creatinine (Cr) and cystatin C (Cys) were developed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed for all studies. Results: A total of 39 studies (21,949 patients in total, 19,025 with solid cancers) were included. Studies assessing populations in Europe were most frequent (50%), followed by Asia (27%) and the remaining from Australia/New Zealand and North and South America. Risk of bias and quality assessment allocated 15 studies (38%) as low or very low quality, and 24 (62%) as low-moderate or moderate quality. The most commonly assessed GFR estimating equations included Cockroft-Gault (32 studies), Modification of Diet Renal Disease (MDRD) (24 studies), Chronic Kidney Disese Epidemiology Collaboration Study (CKD-EPI)Cr (22 studies), Wright (13 studies), CKD-EPICys (8 studies), CKD-EPICr-Cys (8 studies), and Jeliffe (8 studies). Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment and the evidence supporting the performance (i.e., accuracy) of the CKD-EPI incorporating both Cr and Cys, we suggest the use of this equation in patients with cancer (grade 2C). Where Cys is unavailable, CKD-EPICr is the next preferred equation given the supporting data for its performance and widespread availability. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the ASON rated the certainty of evidence as low. Also, additional data on clinical outcomes related to the selection of eGFR equations is needed. We suggest measurement of GFR via an exogenous filtration marker in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials (ungraded). Conclusions: Based on the results of this SR, we suggest use of contemporary methods for estimation of GFR (CKD-EPICr-Cys and CKD-EPICr-Cr) and avoidance of older and less accurate formulae such as Cockcroft-Gault.