Brahmer, Julie R.

The NCCN Guidelines for the Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities are intended to provide oncology practitioners with guidance on how to manage the wide-ranging and potentially fatal toxicities that may occur with cancer immunotherapy. The guidelines address immune-related adverse events related to immune checkpoint inhibitors, CAR T-cell therapies, and lymphocyte engagers (which include T-cell–engaging bispecific antibodies). These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight recent guideline updates pertaining to the management of emerging toxicities related to cancer immunotherapy.

The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise across a wide range of disease sites, and experts from the areas of dermatology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, neurooncology, nephrology, cardio-oncology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, and oncology nursing. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicities related to CAR T-cell therapies and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to immune checkpoint inhibitors, visitNCCN.org.

2510 Background: Blocking the interaction between programmed death-1 (PD-1), a co-inhibitory receptor expressed by activated T cells, and its ligand PD-L1 may enhance T-cell function. Here we describe the safety and activity from the first clinical study of BMS-936559 in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors, further validating the importance of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway as a target for cancer therapy. Methods: BMS-936559 was given Q2 wk IV in a 6-wk cycle at doses of 0.3−10.0 mg/kg during dose escalation and/or cohort expansion; pts could receive up to 16 cycles (48 doses). Results: As of August 1, 2011, 162 pts with melanoma (MEL, n=53), non-small-cell lung (NSCLC, n=50), colorectal (n=18), renal cell (RCC, n=17), ovarian (n=17), and pancreatic (n=7) cancer were treated. Median therapy duration was 11 wks (max 99 wks). Common related adverse events (rAEs; ≥5% pts) included fatigue, diarrhea, infusion reaction, arthralgia, rash, and pruritus. The incidence of grade 3-4 rAEs was 8.6%. AEs of special interest included hypothyroidism, hepatitis, sarcoidosis, endophthalmitis, and myasthenia gravis; there were no drug-related deaths. Clinical activity was observed in MEL, RCC, and NSCLC. Objective responses (ORs; RECIST 1.0) were observed in heavily pretreated pts. ORs were durable; among 16 pts with ORs, 7 had responses lasting ≥1 yr. Two other pts had ongoing ORs with durations of 2.3 and 8.5 mo at data lock. Several pts had prolonged stable disease. Some pts had a persistent reduction in overall tumor burden in the presence of new lesions but were not categorized as responders. In NSCLC, ORs were observed irrespective of histology. Conclusions: BMS-936559 was active and generally well tolerated in pts with NSCLC, RCC, and MEL. In conjunction with data from anti-PD-1/BMS-936558 trials, this study concurrently validates the importance of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway for cancer immunotherapy and supports further clinical development of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 directed therapy. [Table: see text]

The NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities provide interdisciplinary guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) resulting from cancer immunotherapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe symptoms that may be caused by an irAE and should trigger further investigation, and summarize the NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor–related diarrhea/colitis and cardiovascular irAEs.

The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions and ASCO, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise in a wide array of disease sites, and experts from the fields of dermatology, gastroenterology, neuro-oncology, nephrology, emergency medicine, cardiology, oncology nursing, and patient advocacy. Several panel representatives are members of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC). The initial version of the NCCN Guidelines was designed in general alignment with recommendations published by ASCO and SITC. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicity related to immune checkpoint blockade and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, visit NCCN.org .

Abstract Introduction. For patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to benefit from ALK inhibitors, sensitive and specific detection of ALK genomic rearrangements is needed. ALK break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved and standard-of-care diagnostic assay, but identification of ALK rearrangements by other methods reported in NSCLC cases that tested negative for ALK rearrangements by FISH suggests a significant false-negative rate. We report here a large series of NSCLC cases assayed by hybrid-capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in the course of clinical care. Materials and Methods. Hybrid-capture-based CGP using next-generation sequencing was performed in the course of clinical care of 1,070 patients with advanced lung cancer. Each tumor sample was evaluated for all classes of genomic alterations, including base-pair substitutions, insertions/deletions, copy number alterations and rearrangements, as well as fusions/rearrangements. Results. A total of 47 patients (4.4%) were found to harbor ALK rearrangements, of whom 41 had an EML4-ALK fusion, and 6 had other fusion partners, including 3 previously unreported rearrangement events: EIF2AK-ALK, PPM1B-ALK, and PRKAR1A-ALK. Of 41 patients harboring ALK rearrangements, 31 had prior FISH testing results available. Of these, 20 were ALK FISH positive, and 11 (35%) were ALK FISH negative. Of the latter 11 patients, 9 received crizotinib based on the CGP results, and 7 achieved a response with median duration of 17 months. Conclusion. Comprehensive genomic profiling detected canonical ALK rearrangements and ALK rearrangements with noncanonical fusion partners in a subset of patients with NSCLC with previously negative ALK FISH results. In this series, such patients had durable responses to ALK inhibitors, comparable to historical response rates for ALK FISH-positive cases.

BACKGROUNDTo ensure that National Institutes of Health‐funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.METHODSEMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.RESULTSCancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.CONCLUSIONSCatchment area definitions and the collection of patient‐level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States. Cancer 2014;120(7 suppl):1113–21. © 2014 American Cancer Society.