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: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4–blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A ( P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B ( P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

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 .

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti–PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies. This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines .

We conducted a randomized phase III trial to evaluate whether adjuvant pembrolizumab for one year (647 patients) improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) in comparison with high-dose IFNα-2b for one year or ipilimumab for up to three years (654 patients), the approved standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies at the time of enrollment for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer RFS than prior standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies [HR, 0.77; 99.62% confidence interval (CI), 0.59–0.99; P = 0.002]. There was no statistically significant association with OS among all patients (HR, 0.82; 96.3% CI, 0.61–1.09; P = 0.15). Proportions of treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 to 5 were 19.5% with pembrolizumab, 71.2% with IFNα-2b, and 49.2% with ipilimumab. Therefore, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved RFS but not OS compared with the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Significance: Adjuvant PD-1 blockade therapy decreases the rates of recurrence, but not survival, in patients with surgically resectable melanoma, substituting the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for this cancer. See related commentary by Smithy and Shoushtari, p. 599. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 587

While the role of the gut microbiome in inflammation and colorectal cancers has received much recent attention, there are few data to support an association between the oral microbiome and head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Prior investigations have been limited to comparisons of microbiota obtained from surface swabs of the oral cavity. This study aims to identify microbiomic differences in paired tumor and non-tumor tissue samples in a large group of 121 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas and correlate these differences with clinical-pathologic features. Total DNA was extracted from paired normal and tumor resection specimens from 169 patients; 242 samples from 121 patients were included in the final analysis. Microbiomic content of each sample was determined using 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing. Bioinformatic analysis was performed using QIIME algorithms. F-testing on cluster strength, Wilcoxon signed-rank testing on differential relative abundances of paired tumor-normal samples, and Wilcoxon rank-sum testing on the association of T-stage with relative abundances were conducted in R. We observed no significant difference in measures of alpha diversity between tumor and normal tissue (Shannon index: p = 0.13, phylogenetic diversity: p = 0.42). Similarly, although we observed statistically significantly differences in both weighted (p = 0.01) and unweighted (p = 0.04) Unifrac distances between tissue types, the tumor/normal grouping explained only a small proportion of the overall variation in the samples (weighted R2 = 0.01, unweighted R2 < 0.01). Notably, however, when comparing the relative abundances of individual taxa between matched pairs of tumor and normal tissue, we observed that Actinomyces and its parent taxa up to the phylum level were significantly depleted in tumor relative to normal tissue (q < 0.01), while Parvimonas was increased in tumor relative to normal tissue (q = 0.01). These differences were more pronounced among patients with more extensive disease as measured by higher T-stage. Matched pairs analysis of individual tumor-normal pairs revealed significant differences in relative abundance of specific taxa, namely in the genus Actinomyces. These differences were more pronounced among patients with higher T-stage. Our observations suggest further experiments to interrogate potential novel mechanisms relevant to carcinogenesis associated with alterations of the oral microbiome that may have consequences for the human host.