Sosman, Jeffrey A.

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 NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

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.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as “Preferred,” “Other Recommended Regimens,” or “Useful in Certain Circumstances.” This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.

CRA9003 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Saturday, June, 1, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Saturday edition of ASCO Daily News.

9016 Background: The MAP kinase (MAPK) pathway is of critical importance for keratinocyte proliferation and maturation and is essential for epidermal homeostasis. Occurrence of hyperproliferative skin lesions including keratoacanthomas (KA) and cuSCC are considered a class effect of BRAFi [Anforth 2012, Chu 2012, Mattei 2012]. These effects, as well as promotion of pre-existing RAS-driven malignancies, may be caused by paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway downstream of BRAF in wild-type BRAF cells. As MEK inhibition blocks downstream MAPK signaling, it was hypothesized that addition of a MEKi to a BRAFi would abrogate these effects [Su, 2012]. Methods: This 4-part phase I/II study enrolled 365 BRAFV600E/Kmutated MM pts in Parts B-D. In part C, 162 pts (BRAFi and MEKi treatment-naïve, ≥ 18 yrs; ECOG PS <2; RECIST measurable disease) were randomized to D monotherapy 150mg BID (D mono) vs. the combination of D (150 mg BID) and T (1 mg or 2 mg QD). Primary endpoints included safety and efficacy. Occurrence of cuSCC (including KA) across three arms in Part C and secondary malignancies with D+T across all Parts are provided below. Results: The difference in incidence of cuSCC between D mono and the D+T (150/1) was statistically significant, whereas the difference in incidence between D mono and D+T (150/2) was not. The median time to onset of cuSCC was 30 days in D mono compared to 282 and 152 days with D+T (150/1 and 150/2, respectively). Of 365 pts who received D+T, 2 (<1%) cases of new cancers (colorectal and gliobastoma) and 2 (<1%) cases of new primary malignant melanoma were reported. Conclusions: These data support the experimental hypothesis that the occurrence of cuSCC (including KA) can be substantially reduced and delayed by the addition of a MEKi to BRAFi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01072175. [Table: see text]

9005 Background: Dual inhibition of the MAP kinase (MAPK) pathway with dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) in combination has demonstrated clinical benefit compared to D alone in a randomized Phase II trial in V600 BRAF-mutant MM pts, thus delaying the development of BRAFi resistance. Little is known about the efficacy of D + T after BRAFi resistance has been acquired. This analysis evaluates the ability of D + T combination to treat acquired resistance compared to the D + T combination as first-line treatment. Methods: These data from a phase I/II study include 1. BRAFi-resistant group: pts who received 150/2 D+T in Part B (n=26) and Part C (n=43) following progression on BRAFi monotherapy (mono); 2. BRAFi-naïve group: pts who received initial 150/2 D+T in Part B (n=24) and Part C (n=54). Results: Baseline characteristics (ECOG PS, M staging, LDH) were similar across all groups.In the Part B BRAFi-resistant group, 93% of pts previously received D or vemurafenib and all pts received D prior to D+T in Part C. In BRAFi-resistant group, prior best response of CR/PR (38%, 56%), SD (35%, 27%), PD (27%, 7%) was observed in Parts B and C respectively. In BRAFi-resistant group, the ORR and PFS with D+T was lower than initial D+T in BRAFi-naive group. Median duration of response (DoR) in BRAFi-resistant group cannot be calculated due to small no. of pts responding. Median DoR for BRAFi-naïve pts was 11.3 mo and 10.5 mo in Parts B and C respectively. In Part C, the 12-mo overall survival rates in BRAFi-naïve (150/2) pts was 79% vs 70% for pts initially on D mono, despite 80% pts crossing over to D+T combination. Conclusions: The clinical activity for 150/2 D+T combination is consistently superior in BRAFi-naive group vs BRAFi-resistant group in both Parts B and C. Dual MAPK blockade can delay clinical resistance to BRAF inhibition. However, once BRAFi resistance has occurred, the combination of BRAFi + MEKi is far less effective. Clinical trial information: NCT01072175. [Table: see text]

4521 Background: Expression of PDL1 by RCC has been associated with aggressive histology and poor survival. Tissue obtained from the patients enrolled in the IL-2 Select Trial, a prospective, single arm, multicenter CWG study, was analyzed by IHC to determine if PDL1or PDL3 expression predicted for response to initial or subsequent therapy. Methods: Paraffin embedded tumor tissue was stained for PDL1 and PDL3 expression, and results were correlated with RECIST defined response to IL2 treatment. Tumor tissue was considered positive for PDL1 if >5% of the tumor membranes stained for the marker. A cutoff of 10% was used for PDL3. Duration of subsequent VEGFR/mTOR inhibitor therapy was also correlated with tissue PDL1/3 expression. Results: 120 eligible pts were enrolled; 115 had clear cell histology. The overall response rate (ORR) to IL2 was 25% (30/120) with a median OS of 40.6 months. 113 tumors were stained. 18 (16%) were PDL1+. ORR was 19% and 50% in the patients PDL1- and PDL1+ tumors, respectively (p=0.012). 85 (75%) tumors were PDL3+. ORR was 10.7% and 29.4% in the PDL3- and PDL3+ tumors, respectively (p=0.075). In the 17 patients who were positive for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 52.9%. In the 27 pts who were negative for both PDL1 and PDL3, ORR was 11.1%. 69 patients received at least 1 dose of a VEGFR TKI as next therapy following IL2 treatment. 66 tumors were stained. Pts who were PDL1+/PDL3+ had a shorter duration on VEGFR TKI therapy compared to pts who were PDL1-/PDL3- (see Table). Conclusions: This small, retrospective analysis suggests that PDL1 and PDL3 tissue expression may predict for better response to IL2. PDL1 expression has been suggested as a possible predictor of response to anti-PD1 therapy. The current data suggests that its expression may predict for benefit to other immune therapies. PDL3 (+/- PDL1) expression appears to correlate to less benefit from subsequent VEGFR TKI therapy. Funded by NCI SPORE Grant # 5 P50 CA101942-08. [Table: see text]