Johnson, Douglas B.

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.

Importance Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are efficacious in many cancer types but can produce immune-related adverse events (irAEs). As such, patients with preexisting autoimmune disorders are often excluded from clinical trials, although subsequent studies have shown that many of these patients have acceptable ICI tolerance. The safety and efficacy of ICIs among patients with preexisting neurologic autoimmune disorders (NAIDs) is not well characterized. Objective To evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes associated with ICI therapy among patients with NAIDs. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with cancer who were treated with ICIs between October 2013 and May 2023 and had preexisting multiple sclerosis (MS), myasthenia gravis (MG), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and other NAIDs as well as a control cohort of patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Exposure ICI therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures Demographic and clinical characteristics (neurologic disability, active or recent immunosuppression), ICI outcomes (response, progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]), and safety outcomes (NAID exacerbation, irAEs) were collected. Results A total of 135 patients were included; the median (range) age was 72 (40-88) years, 84 (62%) were men, and 51 (38%) were women. A total of 45 patients had MS; 18, MG; 10, GBS; 5, another NAID; and 57, PD. Exacerbations occurred most frequently in MG (12 of 18 patients [67%]), often resulting in hospitalization (6 [50%]) or death (2 [17%]), with much lower rates in the MS cohort (8 of 45 patients [18%]). Ten patients with a history of GBS tolerated ICI without exacerbations, although 1 developed a fatal case of Lambert Eaton myasthenic syndrome following ICI treatment. No differences in response rate, PFS, or OS were observed between NAID groups. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of ICI use in NAIDs, patients with MG had frequent and more severe exacerbations, while those with MS had few exacerbations. No obvious differences in survival between groups were observed. ICI may be an option for many patients with appropriate oncologic indications and preexisting NAIDs.

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.

Background Data on the safety profiles and clinical outcomes of patients with solid tumors and cardiac metastasis treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are limited. Methods This is an international multicenter retrospective study of patients with cancer and cardiac metastasis at baseline. Patients who had received ≥1 dose of ICI were included. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were graded per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event V.5.0. Objective response rates (ORR) were evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1 when available. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Among 110 pts, median age at ICI initiation was 65 (IQR: 59–75). Median follow-up time since ICI initiation was 36 (95% CI: 26 to 51) months. Melanoma (38%, n=42) and non-small cell lung cancer (24%, n=26) were the most common. 68 (62%) patients received ICIs as first-line, and 29 (26%) patients were treated with combination anti-programmed death-1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. The most common location of cardiac metastasis was in the atria (37%, n=41) and ventricles (35%, n=39). 15 patients (13.6%) had bilateral cardiac/pericardial metastasis, 44 (40%) had left-sided, and 43 (39.8%) had right-sided. At ICI initiation, 21% (n=23) had a cardiac thrombus. Cardiology referrals and cardiac MRIs at the time of cancer diagnosis were completed on 58 (53%) and 52 (47%) patients, respectively. Cardiac events occurred in 40 (36%) patients, including arrhythmias (n=14, 13%), arterial/venous emboli (n=4, 3.6%), and cardiac tamponade (n=3, 2.7%). 53 (47%) patients developed trAEs; most common were colitis/diarrhea (n=16, 15%), dermatitis (n=13, 12%), and hepatitis (n=9, 8.2%). ICI-related major cardiac trAEs occurred in 2 (1.8%) patients. 22 patients (20%) developed grade ≥3 trAE. Patients with multiple cardiac metastases had significantly lower responses to ICI-based regimens compared with patients with single cardiac metastasis (11% vs 63%, p=0.02). For melanoma, ORR, median PFS, and median OS were 38%, 9.0 months, and 28.9 months, respectively. 83% of patients with melanoma had concordant responses in overall disease burden and cardiac disease. 91 patients discontinued ICIs, and the main reason was progression or death in 55 (49%) patients. Conclusions Among patients with pre-existing cardiac metastasis, ICIs demonstrated meaningful clinical efficacy with no increase in safety signals. Most patients had concordant responses in the overall disease burden and cardiac mass. Multidisciplinary teams are crucial for the appropriate management of patients with cardiac metastasis.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma (termed Melanoma: Cutaneous ) provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the update to neoadjuvant systemic therapy options and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Cutaneous Melanoma.

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 several are FDA-approved. Although not yet approved, neoadjuvant ICIs have also shown to improve event-free survival and remains an ongoing area of investigation. Other immunotherapy strategies, such as oncolytic virotherapy for injectable cutaneous melanoma, bispecific T-cell engager therapy for HLA-A*02:01 genotype-positive uveal melanoma, and lifileucel, an autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, for unresectable or metastatic 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.

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.

PURPOSE Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

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

Background To determine whether antibiotic treatment is a risk factor for immune-related adverse events (irAEs) across different patients with cancer receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies. Methods The retrospective analysis includes clinical information from 767 patients with cancer treated at Hunan Cancer Hospital from 2017 to 2020. The pharmacovigilance data analysis includes individual cases of 38,705 safety reports from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2014 to 2020, and 25,122 cases of safety reports from the World Health Organization database VigiBase from 2014 to 2019. All cases that received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment were included. Multiomics data from patients across 25 cancer types were download from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Logistic regression and propensity score algorithm was employed to calculate OR of irAEs. Results Retrospective analysis of in-house patients showed that irAE potential risks are higher in all cancer (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.22, false discovery rate (FDR) adjusted-p=1.93×10−3) and patients with lung cancer (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.67 to 5.95, FDR adjusted-p=1.93×10−3) when using antibiotics. Potential risk of irAEs in patients with lung cancer with antibiotic treatment is significantly higher in FAERS (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.59; FDR adjusted-p=1.62×10−5) and VigiBase (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.59, FDR adjusted-p=0.05). Mechanistically, decreased microbial diversity caused by antibiotics use may increase the irAE risk through mediating the irAE-related factors. Conclusions Our study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the associations of irAEs and antibiotic during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy across a wide spectrum of cancers by analyzing multisource data. Administration of antibiotics should be carefully evaluated in patients with cancer treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1 to avoid potentially increasing irAE risk.