Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to update the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 through 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 175 studies met the eligibility criteria of the systematic review and were pertinent to the development of the recommendations. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to the organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, except for some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert ≤ grade 1. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids. Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4-6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, except for endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to develop the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 to 2021.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 35 eligible publications. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The multidisciplinary team issued recommendations to aid in the recognition, workup, evaluation, and management of the most common CAR T-cell-related toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, B-cell aplasia, cytopenias, and infections. Management of short-term toxicities associated with CAR T cells begins with supportive care for most patients, but may require pharmacologic interventions for those without adequate response. Management of patients with prolonged or severe CAR T-cell-associated cytokine release syndrome includes treatment with tocilizumab with or without a corticosteroid. On the basis of the potential for rapid decline, patients with moderate to severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome should be managed with corticosteroids and supportive care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Adjuvant nivolumab for stage III/IV melanoma: evaluation of safety outcomes and association with recurrence-free survival

BACKGROUND

Several therapeutic options are now available in the adjuvant melanoma setting, mandating an understanding of their benefit‒risk profiles in order to make informed treatment decisions. Herein we characterize adjuvant nivolumab select (immune-related) treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and evaluate possible associations between safety and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the phase III CheckMate 238 trial.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage IIIB-C or IV melanoma received nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=452) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (n=453) for up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. First-occurrence and all-occurrence select TRAEs were analyzed within discrete time intervals: from 0 to 3 months of treatment, from >3-12 months of treatment, and from the last dose (regardless of early or per-protocol treatment discontinuation) to 100 days after the last dose. Possible associations between select TRAEs and RFS were investigated post randomization in 3-month landmark analyses and in Cox model analyses (including a time-varying covariate of select TRAE), within and between treatment groups.

RESULTS

From the first nivolumab dose to 100 days after the last dose, first-occurrence select TRAEs were reported in 67.7% (306/452) of patients. First-occurrence select TRAEs were reported most frequently from 0 to 3 months (48.0%), during which the most common were pruritus (15.5%) and diarrhea (15.3%). Most select TRAEs resolved within 6 months. There was no clear association between the occurrence (or not) of select TRAEs and RFS by landmark analysis or by Cox model analysis within treatment arms or comparing nivolumab to the ipilimumab comparator arm.

CONCLUSION

Results of this safety analysis of nivolumab in adjuvant melanoma were consistent with its established safety profile. In the discrete time intervals evaluated, most first-occurrence TRAEs occurred early during treatment and resolved. No association between RFS and select TRAEs was evident.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02388906.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Validation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Eighth Edition Staging of Patients With Metastatic Cutaneous Melanoma Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

IMPORTANCE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. Patient prognosis is reflected by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system; however, it is unknown whether the metastatic (M) stage categories for cutaneous melanoma remain informative of prognosis in patients who have received ICIs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcomes of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma based on the M stage category from the AJCC eighth edition and to determine whether these designations continue to inform the prognosis of patients who have received ICIs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma who were treated between August 2006 and August 2019 at the University of Michigan. The estimated median follow-up time was 35.5 months. Patient data were collected via the electronic medical record system. Critical findings were externally validated in a multicenter nationwide cohort of patients treated within the Veterans Affairs health care system. Data analysis was conducted from February 2020 to January 2021.

EXPOSURES

All patients were treated with dual-agent concurrent ipilimumab and nivolumab followed by maintenance nivolumab or single-agent ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab therapy. Patients were staged using the AJCC eighth edition.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess the prognostic value of predefined clinicopathologic baseline factors on survival.

RESULTS

In a discovery cohort of 357 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [14.2] years; 254 [71.1%] men) with metastatic cutaneous melanoma treated with ICIs, the M category in the AJCC eighth edition showed limited prognostic stratification by both univariable and multivariable analyses. The presence of liver metastases and elevated levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) offered superior prognostic separation compared with the M category (liver metastases: hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.48-3.33; P < .001; elevated serum LDH: hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.16-2.58; P = .007). An updated staging system based on these factors was externally validated in a cohort of 652 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [11.6] years; 630 [96.6%] men), with patients without liver metastases or elevated LDH levels having the longest survival (median overall survival, 30.7 months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that the AJCC eighth edition M category was poorly reflective of prognosis in patients receiving ICIs. Future staging systems could consider emphasizing the presence of liver metastases and elevated LDH levels. Additional studies are needed to confirm the importance of these and other prognostic biomarkers.

Liver injury is most commonly due to hepatic metastases rather than drug hepatotoxicity during pembrolizumab immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab immunotherapy has been associated with hepatotoxicity in 1%-10% of oncology patients treated in clinical trials.

AIM

To describe the incidence, phenotypes and outcomes of liver injury in a large cohort of solid organ tumour patients receiving pembrolizumab METHODS: Liver injury was defined by serum alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and/or total bilirubin levels exceeding threshold values. The likelihood of drug-induced liver injury was adjudicated by expert opinion.

RESULTS

Seventy (14.3%) of the 491 pembrolizumab-treated patients developed liver injury at a median of 62 days (6-478) and 71.4% had a cholestatic injury profile at onset. The median age, gender and tumour types of liver injury patients were similar to those without, but hepatic metastases (53% vs 21%, P < 0.01) and prior systemic and liver-directed therapy (71% vs 53%, P < 0.01) were more commonly observed in liver injury patients. During follow-up, liver injury patients were less likely to experience tumour remission (10% vs 40.4%) and had higher mortality (67.1% vs 33.7%). Only 20 (28.6%) liver injury cases were adjudicated as probable drug-induced hepatotoxicity; these patients were significantly more likely to present with an hepatocellular/mixed injury pattern (65% vs 12%), to receive corticosteroids (55% vs 12%) and had lower mortality (45% vs 76%) during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology patients treated with pembrolizumab who develop liver injury experience poorer outcomes during follow-up. The low incidence of confirmed drug hepatotoxicity highlights the need for thorough medical evaluation before initiating corticosteroids to optimise patient care.

Frontline Therapy for BRAF-Mutated Metastatic Melanoma: How Do You Choose, and Is There One Correct Answer?

Genetic analysis of melanoma has allowed us to identify a population of patients who have more aggressive disease and harbor the driver mutation BRAF. This mutation is found in approximately 50% of metastatic disease and provides a target for focused therapies to control this disease. These responses are usually brisk; however, they lack the durability of immunotherapy. Frontline therapy for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma is not as straightforward as prescribing BRAF/MEK inhibitors. Prior trials of combination immunotherapy demonstrate similar responses and durability of responses in patients with BRAF wild-type as well as BRAF-mutated disease. Decisions about immunotherapy, targeted therapy, or the combination of immunotherapy with targeted therapy require an oncologist to evaluate multiple factors to select which treatment option is best for the patient. Trials for metastatic melanoma have included biomarkers as secondary endpoints and aim to identify some way to predict a response, or lack thereof, to therapy. Here, we discuss the utility and reliability of biomarkers in determining therapy for patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma and discuss combination immunotherapy with targeted therapy versus sequential immunotherapy/targeted therapy as well as which regimen should be implemented as initial therapy.

An update on the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on tumor immunotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous melanoma: version 2.0

BACKGROUND

Cancer immunotherapy has been firmly established as a standard of care for patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma. Therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials have resulted in the approval of 11 new drugs and/or combination regimens for patients with melanoma. However, prospective data to support evidence-based clinical decisions with respect to the optimal schedule and sequencing of immunotherapy and targeted agents, how best to manage emerging toxicities and when to stop treatment are not yet available.

METHODS

To address this knowledge gap, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Melanoma Task Force developed a process for consensus recommendations for physicians treating patients with melanoma integrating evidence-based data, where available, with best expert consensus opinion. The initial consensus statement was published in 2013, and version 2.0 of this report is an update based on a recent meeting of the Task Force and extensive subsequent discussions on new agents, contemporary peer-reviewed literature and emerging clinical data. The Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine) clinical practice guidelines were used as a basis for consensus development with an updated literature search for important studies published between 1992 and 2017 and supplemented, as appropriate, by recommendations from Task Force participants.

RESULTS

The Task Force considered patients with stage II-IV melanoma and here provide consensus recommendations for how they would incorporate the many immunotherapy options into clinical pathways for patients with cutaneous melanoma.

CONCLUSION

These clinical guidleines provide physicians and healthcare providers with consensus recommendations for managing melanoma patients electing treatment with tumor immunotherapy.

Ipilimumab induced digital vasculitis

BACKGROUND

Immune check point inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as a new therapeutic paradigm for a variety of malignancies including metastatic melanoma. As the use of ICIs expand, immune-mediated adverse events are becoming a common occurrence.

CASE PRESENTATION

We describe the first reported patient with small vessel vasculitis, manifested by digital ischemia, following treatment with high dose Ipilimumab for resected stage IIIB/C melanoma. This patient received high dose steroids, five-day intravenous (IV) Epoprostenol protocol, botulinum toxin injections, and Rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly for four cycles. With this treatment regimen, the digital ischemia did not progress proximally, but she did require multiple distal digit amputations about six months after the onset of her symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt identification and management of immune related adverse events (IRAEs) are critical to optimal patient management. This patient's vasculitis did not reverse, but was likely halted and stabilized with multiple immunosuppressive medications.

Sequential administration of nivolumab and ipilimumab with a planned switch in patients with advanced melanoma (CheckMate 064): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Concurrent administration of the immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has shown greater efficacy than either agent alone in patients with advanced melanoma, albeit with more high-grade adverse events. We assessed whether sequential administration of nivolumab followed by ipilimumab, or the reverse sequence, could improve safety without compromising efficacy.

METHODS

We did this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study at nine academic medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma (treatment-naive or who had progressed after no more than one previous systemic therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to induction with intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks for six doses followed by a planned switch to intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was done by an independent interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size four) without stratification factors. After induction, both groups received intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events until the end of the induction period (week 25), analysed in the as-treated population. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved a response at week 25 and disease progression at weeks 13 and 25. Overall survival was a prespecified exploratory endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783938, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients.

FINDINGS

Between April 30, 2013, and July 21, 2014, 140 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab followed by ipilimumab (n=70) or to the reverse sequence of ipilimumab followed by nivolumab (n=70), of whom 68 and 70 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the analyses. The frequencies of treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events up to week 25 were similar in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (34 [50%; 95% CI 37·6-62·4] of 68 patients) and in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (30 [43%; 31·1-55·3] of 70 patients). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events during the whole study period were colitis (ten [15%]) in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group vs 14 [20%] in the reverse sequence group), increased lipase (ten [15%] vs 12 [17%]), and diarrhoea (eight [12%] vs five [7%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The proportion of patients with a response at week 25 was higher with nivolumab followed by ipilimumab than with the reverse sequence (28 [41%; 95% CI 29·4-53·8] vs 14 [20%; 11·4-31·3]). Progression was reported in 26 (38%; 95% CI 26·7-50·8) patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group and 43 (61%; 49·0-72·8) patients in the reverse sequence group at week 13 and in 26 (38%; 26·7-50·8) and 42 (60%; 47·6-71·5) patients at week 25, respectively. After a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·8-25·7), median overall survival was not reached in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group (95% CI 23·7-not reached), whereas over a median follow-up of 14·7 months (IQR 5·6-23·9) in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group, median overall survival was 16·9 months (95% CI 9·2-26·5; HR 0·48 [95% CI 0·29-0·80]). A higher proportion of patients in the nivolumab followed by ipilimumab group achieved 12-month overall survival than in the ipilimumab followed by nivolumab group (76%; 95% CI 64-85 vs 54%; 42-65).

INTERPRETATION

Nivolumab followed by ipilimumab appears to be a more clinically beneficial option compared with the reverse sequence, albeit with a higher frequency of adverse events.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb.