Herrmann, Sandra M

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 Aims Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in diabetics. This study aimed to investigate the cardiac, cancer, and overall mortality effects of GLP-1 RAs in diabetics treated with anthracyclines. Methods and results We retrospectively identified 1384 diabetics treated with anthracyclines from 2013 to 2023; 56 received GLP-1 RAs between their first and last dose of anthracycline. These patients were propensity score matched 4:1 to 224 controls without concurrent GLP-1 RA use. Because stage was not available for 10 of the 56 patients, a repeat analysis was conducted with additional matching for cancer stage in 46 cases and 92 controls. Major endpoints were rate of all-cause and cancer-related and cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality, no evidence of disease (NED), and hospitalization for CVD including heart failure (HF), over 5 years. Survival analyses were conducted using cause-specific hazards Cox regression. Patients on GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower 5 year overall mortality (HR 0.46, CI 0.24–0.87, P = 0.007) and cancer-related mortality (HR 0.42, CI 0.19–0.91, P = 0.03). This mortality risk reduction remained significant even when accounting for covariates (HR 0.39, CI 0.20–0.75, P = 0.002). The percentage of patients with NED was higher in the GLP-1 RA than control group (60.9% vs. 38.0%, P = 0.007). A decline in left ventricular ejection fraction was seen in controls but not in patients on GLP-1 RAs. There was no significant difference in CVD hospitalization; the rate of HF-related hospitalization was very low overall. Conclusion GLP-1 RAs may offer survival benefits and better cancer- and cardiac function-related outcomes in diabetics undergoing anthracycline chemotherapy.

ABSTRACT Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute interstitial nephritis (ICI-AIN) requires a kidney biopsy for a definitive diagnosis. A recent study suggested that 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (F18-FDG PET–CT) may offer a noninvasive alternative, but lack of kidney biopsies in all patients and a proper control group receiving ICI therapy remained important limitations. We conducted the first study addressing these limitations and examined whether PET–CT could differentiate biopsy-proven ICI-AIN from other causes of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients on ICI therapy. Methods This retrospective cohort study comprises 105 patients on ICI therapy who underwent F18-FDG PET–CT and had a kidney biopsy, along with data from a control group receiving ICIs without AKI. PET–CT scans were performed within 14 days before or 10 days after biopsy, and baseline PET-CTs obtained during ICI therapy before AKI, were reviewed by a blinded nuclear radiologist. Renal cortical standardized uptake values (SUV) were measured in five regions of interest, liver and blood-pool SUVs served as internal references. Results Thirty-two patients were included (5 ICI-AIN, 7 AKI from other causes, 20 controls). Renal SUVs did not differ significantly among groups. In patients with serial PET-CTs, kidney SUVs tended to increase from baseline to AKI in ICI-AIN, but these changes were not statistically significant. Conclusions In this biopsy-validated cohort, PET-CTs did not reliably distinguish ICI-AIN from other causes of AKI in patients receiving ICI therapy. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

ABSTRACT Background Although kidney biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing immune checkpoint inhibitors–associated acute interstitial nephritis (ICI-AIN), several promising urinary biomarkers have emerged as potential non-invasive diagnostics. Notably, recent studies have highlighted tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), CXC motif chemokine ligand 9 (CXCL-9) and others as potential biomarkers to help distinguish ICI-AIN from other causes of acute kidney injury (AKI). However, a direct systematic comparison between these two biomarkers in a cohort of patients undergoing immunotherapy has not been performed. Methods We prospectively enrolled a cohort of ICI-treated cancer patients who developed AKI (including both ICI-AIN and ICI-Non-AIN AKI), as well as those without AKI, referred to as the internal validation cohort. Urinary CXCL-9 and TNF-α were measured across all groups using the human Quantikine ELISA Kit. We externally validated our findings in a cohort of biopsy proven ICI-AIN patients from Spain, referred to as the external validation cohort. Results Urinary CXCL-9 levels were significantly higher in ICI-AIN patients from Mayo (n = 40) compared with those with ICI-Non-AIN AKI (n = 36) and ICI-treated patients without AKI (n = 16) (both P ≤ .0001); these findings were confirmed in the validation cohort from Spain (n = 19) with P-values of .0008 and <.0001, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for urinary CXCL-9 distinguishing ICI-AIN biopsy proven (combined from both cohorts, n = 45) from ICI-Non-AIN AKI was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.74–0.92), while for urinary TNF-α the AUC was 0.63 (0.51–0.75). Conclusions Increased urinary CXCL-9 was superior to TNF-α as a biomarker for the non-invasive diagnosis of ICI-AIN, even after prior corticosteroid exposure, highlighting its promise as clinical diagnostic tool.

Immunotherapy has transformed oncology, yet kidney complications increasingly affect outcomes. This review summarizes nephrotoxicity from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, and bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs). ICIs remain most used, with acute interstitial nephritis (AIN) as the hallmark lesion, while glomerular diseases and electrolyte abnormalities are less common. CAR-T therapy, though highly effective in hematologic cancers, carries risks of cytokine release syndrome, tumor lysis syndrome, and acute kidney injury (AKI). BiTEs, particularly teclistamab, show higher AKI rates than CAR-T, though mechanisms remain unclear. Early recognition, tailored management, and multidisciplinary collaboration are essential to ensure safe therapy and preserve kidney function.

Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGF-I) are frequently used for cancer treatment. VEGF-I can cause proteinuria and acute kidney injury (AKI) with thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) as a commonly described pathology, but other glomerular pathologies are not well characterized. We aim to describe the clinical characteristics and glomerular lesions associated with VEFG-I in a single center cohort. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients treated with VEGF-I and underwent kidney biopsies from 2010 to 2022 at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Biopsy findings were reviewed by our pathologists. Data on patients’ characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes were abstracted. Descriptive statistics were used to report relevant patient characteristics and findings. Results: From 2010 to 2022, 19 kidney biopsies were performed for kidney dysfunction in patients on VEGF-I. Eleven had complete data, with a median age of 62 years (interquartile range 58–66 years); renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was the most common cancer (4 of 11 patients). TMA was noted in 8 of the 11 biopsies, with proteinuria as the most frequent indication for biopsy in these cases. Three patients had findings other than TMA. One developed anti-phospholipase A2 receptor negative membranous nephropathy; VEGF-I and pembrolizumab were discontinued, and prednisone improved proteinuria. Another patient had known cryoglobulinemia with nephrotic range proteinuria which was exacerbated by VEGF-I peaking at 11 g/day. Despite stopping VEGF-I and treating with prednisone and rituximab, kidney dysfunction progressed to end stage kidney disease (ESKD). A third patient had IgA nephropathy with concurrent diabetic changes, but proteinuria progressed even after stopping VEGF-I. Conclusion: In this case-series of patients treated with VEGF-I undergoing kidney biopsy, we describe the pathological characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes of patients with pathologies other than TMA. Our study adds information to the sparse literature on patients with renal dysfunction after receiving VEGF-I.

ABSTRACT An increasing number of cancer patients are benefiting from long term cancer-directed therapy with an ever-expanding arsenal of novel agents from monoclonal antibodies to small molecules and cellular therapies in addition to the mainstay cytotoxic chemotherapy. All these therapies are accompanied by a unique array of adverse events, which include kidney toxicity. In this context, the need for onco-nephrology expertise continues to grow. Oncologists and hematologists collaborate closely with onco-nephrologists to determine: (i) treatment options for special populations based on accurate assessment of patients’ glomerular filtration rate, (ii) supportive therapies for those whose treatment course is complicated by acute kidney injury, and (iii) pharmacologic strategies to continue or restart cancer therapy during kidney dysfunction. Here we outline 10 tips for common clinical scenarios in an outpatient onco-nephrology clinic.

Accurate assessment of GFR is key in patients with cancer to guide drug eligibility, adjust dosing of systemic therapy, and minimize the risks of undertreatment and systemic toxicity. Several aspects of GFR evaluation in patients with cancer have been unclear, such as the choice of the GFR estimating equation and the overall lack of data on the reliability of new filtration markers, such as cystatin C. This uncertainty has led to concerns that inaccurate GFR estimation may have a large effect on clinical practice and research. Recent data have brought important developments to the field. The new and timely Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of CKD raised important considerations and provided guidance on key aspects of GFR evaluation in patients with cancer. The guidelines cover valid estimating equations, incorporation of cystatin C in GFR estimation, drawbacks of using race in GFR estimation, and acknowledge that non-GFR determinants of filtration markers may be prominent in patients with cancer, reducing the accuracy of GFR estimating equations, prompting greater utilization of GFR measurement. The aim of this review is to summarize advances in GFR evaluation in patients with cancer considering the new Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines and other recent data.

Key Points Studies on GFR assessment in people with cancer are needed. In this study, the creatinine–cystatin C equations performed better than other equations, and this was observed in solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support to the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in people with cancer. Background GFR assessment is important in clinical practice with implications for diagnosis, prognostication, and drug dosing. People with cancer are at risk of imprecision in GFR estimation. This cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of various creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in comparison with measured GFR (mGFR) in people with cancer. Methods We retrieved data for all adult patients who had mGFR by urinary iothalamate clearance between 2011 and 2023 at Mayo Clinic and use of an electronic health record diagnosis code for cancer within 2 years before mGFR. The CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), European Kidney Function Consortium, and Cockcroft–Gault equations were computed, along with performance metrics (bias, precision, and root mean square error [RMSE]. Confidence intervals were generated by bootstrapping, and analysis were stratified by solid and hematological cancers. Results From all adults with cancer and mGFR, 1145 had both creatinine and cystatin C available within 7 days of mGFR. Among all equations, the creatinine–cystatin C CKD-EPI equation provided the best performance, with small bias (median, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 3.8) and higher precision (RMSE, 14.5) compared with creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations (RMSE varying from 16.6 to 20), and this was also true in solid and hematological cancers. The creatinine–cystatin European Kidney Function Consortium equation had a similar performance to CKD-EPI, Cockcroft–Gault showed worst precision (30% of people with errors above 30%), and cystatin C CKD-EPI equation was the most biased, prone to underestimation of mGFR. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with mGFR and cancer, the CKD-EPI creatinine–cystatin C equation performed best for GFR assessment, and this was true for both solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support for the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations instead of creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations in people with cancer. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2025_03_25_CJASNMar20.3.3252025.mp3