Citations

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer therapy but are associated with immune-related adverse events, including ICI–associated acute kidney injury (ICI-AKI). ICI-AKI presents diagnostic and management challenges and can influence decisions regarding immunosuppression and ICI rechallenge, with important implications for both kidney and cancer outcomes. An international, multidisciplinary panel convened at the 34th Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) consensus conference in September 2024. Systematic literature searches of PubMed were conducted to identify studies on the epidemiology, mechanisms, diagnosis, management, rechallenge, and outcomes of ICI-AKI. The meeting followed the established ADQI process and used a modified Delphi method to achieve consensus. Evidence was reviewed and appraised by workgroups, and consensus statements were developed through structured discussion and voting. Observational data suggest that AKI occurs in up to 20% of patients receiving ICIs, with ICI-AKI accounting for approximately 2%–5% of cases. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis is the most common lesion, observed in 80%–90% of biopsies, although glomerular diseases are increasingly recognized. No clinical features reliably distinguish ICI-AKI from other causes of AKI, and kidney biopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard. Emerging urinary, circulating, and imaging biomarkers show promise but are not yet ready for routine clinical use. Early glucocorticoid initiation (within 3 days of ICI-AKI diagnosis versus >3 days after diagnosis) is associated with higher rates of kidney recovery, although optimal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Recurrent ICI-AKI occurs in fewer than 20% of patients undergoing ICI rechallenge. Management of high-risk populations, including kidney transplant recipients and patients with autoimmune disease or advanced CKD, requires individualized, multidisciplinary decision-making. ICI-AKI is an important and potentially reversible complication of cancer immunotherapy; these consensus statements provide a framework for diagnosis and management, support cautious ICI rechallenge in selected patients, and identify priorities for future research.

Abstract High-dose methotrexate (MTX) results in high rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), neutropenia, and hepatotoxicity. Glucarpidase is a recombinant enzyme that cleaves MTX, but clinical data supporting its use are scarce. We examined the association between glucarpidase administration and outcomes in adults with MTX-AKI from 28 cancer centers across the United States using a sequential target trial emulation framework. The primary end point was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival to discharge with serum creatinine <1.5-fold baseline and without dialysis dependence. Key secondary end points were time to kidney recovery, neutropenia, and transaminitis on day 7, and time to death. Using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, we compared outcomes in patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days following MTX initiation with those in patients who did not. Among 708 patients with MTX-AKI, 209 (29.5%) received glucarpidase. Overall, 183 (25.8%) had a primary end point event. Glucarpidase receipt was associated with a 2.70-fold higher adjusted odds of kidney recovery (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69–4.31) compared with no glucarpidase receipt. Patients treated with glucarpidase also had faster time to kidney recovery (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.18–3.33) and lower risks of grade ≥2 neutropenia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28–0.91) and grade ≥2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28–0.91) on day 7. There was no difference in time to death (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49–1.18). These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI.

8013 Background: For patients (pts) with unresectable locally-advanced NSCLC, standard of care involves durva consolidation after concurrent CRT, although its benefit in ALK+ tumors is unclear. The ALINA trial demonstrated adjuvant efficacy of alectinib in resected ALK+ NSCLC, but the optimal consolidation strategy for unresectable locally-advanced ALK+ NSCLC remains elusive. Methods: This multi-institutional international retrospective analysis included pts with stage III unresectable ALK+ NSCLC who received an ALK TKI, durva, or obs alone after concurrent CRT between 2015-2022. Baseline characteristics of age, sex, smoking history, and PD-L1 status were collected. Clinical outcomes including real-world progression-free survival (rw-PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse events (trAE) as defined using CTCAE 5.0 were assessed, and multivariate cox regression models were performed. Results: Sixty-four pts across 16 institutions were included. The median age was 57 (IQR 49-66) and 61% were females. The majority had adenocarcinoma (97%) and had never smoked (58%). 15 received ALK TKI (10 alectinib, 3 crizotinib, 1 brigatinib, 1 lorlatinib), 30 received durva, and 19 received obs alone. There was no significant difference in stage of cancer (IIIA, B, or C) or PD-L1 status among groups. After adjusting for stage and age at CRT initiation, median rw-PFS was significantly longer for ALK TKI (rw-PFS not reached [NR], 95% CI 22.7-NR) vs durva (11.3 months (mo), 95% CI 9.2-18.5, p= 0.005, HR = 0.12) or obs (7.4 mo, 95% CI 3.4-12.5, p < 0.0001). Two (13%) pts progressed on ALK TKI. 25 pts (83%) progressed on durva leading to treatment with ALK TKI in 23, and 18 (95%) progressed while under obs leading to treatment with ALK TKI in 15. 3-year OS was 100% for ALK TKI vs 90.5% for durva vs 63.5% for obs. Median OS was NR (95% CI NR-NR) for both ALK TKI and durva vs 70.6 mo (24.9-NR) in the obs group ( p= 0.03 for both ALK TKI and durva compared to obs). Median duration of therapy was 24.7 mo with ALK TKI and 6.5 mo with durva. Grade ≥3 trAE occurred in 27%, 7%, 6% of pts treated with ALK TKI (1 fatigue, 1 diarrhea, 1 hyperbilirubinemia, 1 pneumonitis), durva (1 fatigue, 1 neutropenia), and obs (1 neutropenia) respectively. Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity occurred in 4 (27%) with ALK TKI and in 3 (10%) with durva. Conclusions: In this retrospective study of stage III ALK+ NSCLC, consolidation ALK TKI demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in PFS and OS over durva and obs, while showing a slightly higher rate of trAE over dura and obs. Furthermore, we show a high rate of progression following CRT alone in ALK+ NSCLC. These findings underscore the need for prospective molecularly driven trials to determine the optimal consolidation therapy for unresectable ALK+ NSCLC.

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.

Background Patients with paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are excluded from clinical trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to safety concerns. Moreover, real-world data on efficacy and safety is scarce. Methods In this retrospective study, data were collected on patients with PNS and solid tumors receiving ICI between 2015 and 2022 at nine institutions. Patients were classified into: Cohort 1 (pre-existing PNS before ICI initiation), cohort 2 (PNS during ICI treatment), and cohort 3 (PNS after ICI discontinuation). Patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (mNSCLC) from cohort 1 were matched to patients who were PNS-free at each institution up to a 1:3 ratio for age, sex, type of ICI, use of concurrent chemotherapy, and number of lines of systemic therapy prior to ICI initiation. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess overall survival (OS) and time-to-next treatment (TTNT). Results Among 109 patients with PNS treated with ICIs, median age at ICI initiation was 67 years (IQR: 58–74). The most represented cancer type was NSCLC (n=39, 36%). In cohort 1 (n=55), PNS exacerbations occurred in 16 (29%) patients with median time to exacerbation after ICI of 1.1 months (IQR: 0.7–3.3). Exacerbation or de novo PNS prompted temporary/permanent interruption of ICIs in 14 (13%) patients. For cohort 2 (n=16), median time between ICI initiation and de novo PNS was 1.2 months (IQR: 0.4–3.5). Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) occurred in 43 (39%) patients. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 18 (17%) patients. PNS-directed immunosuppressive therapy was required in 55 (50%) patients. We matched 18 patients with mNSCLC and PNS (cohort 1) to 40 without PNS, treated with ICIs. There was no significant difference in OS or TTNT between patients with mNSCLC with and without PNS, although a trend was seen towards worse outcomes in patients with PNS. TrAEs occurred in 6/18 (33%) and 14/40 (35%), respectively. Grade ≥3 trAEs occurred in 4 (22%) patients with PNS and 7 (18%) patients without PNS. Conclusions Exacerbations of pre-existing PNS occurred in 29% of patients treated with ICIs and both exacerbations and de novo PNS occur early in the ICI course. TrAE from ICIs were similar between patients with and without PNS. Our data suggest that pre-existing PNS should not preclude consideration of ICI therapy although patients may not derive the same clinical benefit compared with patients without PNS.