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 .

PURPOSE: The phase III PACIFIC trial compared durvalumab with placebo in patients with unresectable, stage III non–small-cell lung cancer and no disease progression after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Consolidation durvalumab was associated with significant improvements in the primary end points of overall survival (OS; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.87; P = .00251) and progression-free survival (PFS [blinded independent central review; RECIST v1.1]; stratified HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P < .0001), with manageable safety. We report updated, exploratory analyses of survival, approximately 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned. METHODS: Patients with WHO performance status 0 or 1 (any tumor programmed cell death-ligand 1 status) were randomly assigned (2:1) to durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously; administered once every 2 weeks for 12 months) or placebo, stratified by age, sex, and smoking history. Time-to-event end point analyses were performed using stratified log-rank tests. Medians and landmark survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Seven hundred and nine of 713 randomly assigned patients received durvalumab (473 of 476) or placebo (236 of 237). As of January 11, 2021 (median follow-up, 34.2 months [all patients]; 61.6 months [censored patients]), updated OS (stratified HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; median, 47.5 v 29.1 months) and PFS (stratified HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.68; median, 16.9 v 5.6 months) remained consistent with the primary analyses. Estimated 5-year rates (95% CI) for durvalumab and placebo were 42.9% (38.2 to 47.4) versus 33.4% (27.3 to 39.6) for OS and 33.1% (28.0 to 38.2) versus 19.0% (13.6 to 25.2) for PFS. CONCLUSION: These updated analyses demonstrate robust and sustained OS and durable PFS benefit with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy. An estimated 42.9% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive at 5 years and 33.1% of patients randomly assigned to durvalumab remain alive and free of disease progression, establishing a new benchmark for standard of care in this setting.

Anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a vital part of the therapeutic landscape for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).^1-5 However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may lead to patient morbidity and mortality. Large case series studies in NSCLC and other tumors have identified that irAE development is associated with improved survival outcomes.⁶

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 .

The benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors is tempered by immunologic toxicities, which involve diverse organs, have varying biology, onset time, and severity. Herein, we identify important areas of controversy and open research questions in the field of immune-related toxicity.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting immune checkpoint pathways such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) may confer durable disease control in several malignancies. In some patients, immune checkpoint mAbs cause cutaneous immune-related adverse events. Although the most commonly reported cutaneous toxicities are mild, a subset may persist despite therapy and can lead to severe or life-threatening toxicity. Autoimmune blistering disorders are not commonly associated with immune checkpoint mAb therapy. We report a case series of patients who developed bullous pemphigoid (BP), an autoimmune process classically attributed to pathologic autoantibody formation and complement deposition. Three patients were identified. Two patients developed BP while receiving the anti–PD-1 mAb nivolumab, and one while receiving the anti–PD-L1 mAb durvalumab. The clinicopathologic features of each patient and rash, and corresponding radiologic findings at the development of the rash and after its treatment, are described. Patients receiving an anti–PD-1/PD-L1 mAb may develop immune-related BP. This may be related to both T-cell– and B-cell–mediated responses. Referral to a dermatologist for accurate diagnosis and management is recommended. Cancer Immunol Res; 4(5); 383–9. ©2016 AACR.