Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) 2020 clinical practice recommendations for the management of immune checkpoint inhibitor endocrinopathies and the role of advanced practice providers in the management of immune-mediated toxicities.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as the newest pillar of cancer treatment, transforming outcomes in melanoma and showing benefit in a range of malignancies. Immune-mediated toxicities, stemming from increased activity within the T cell lineage, range from asymptomatic or mild complications to those that are fulminant and potentially fatal. Immune-mediated endocrinopathies include hypophysitis, thyroiditis, and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. These presentations, which may be vague and non-specific, can be life-threatening if not diagnosed and treated appropriately. This review considers the work-up and management of immune-mediated endocrinopathies and also considers the role of advanced practice practitioners in the management of immune-mediated toxicities. These state-of-the-art MASCC recommendations represent a comprehensive overview of the management and clinical work-up in those in whom the diagnosis should be considered.

Understanding and Managing Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced Melanoma.

The immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab represent a substantial improvement in treating advanced melanoma but are associated with adverse events (AEs) likely related to general immunologic enhancement. To ensure that patients receive optimal benefit from these agents, prompt assessment and treatment of AEs are essential. We review the efficacy and safety profiles of these immune checkpoint inhibitors and describe guidelines for managing immune-related AEs. We also present case studies describing the management of toxicities in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. These cases illustrate the importance of collecting a detailed medical history when administering immunotherapy, as this information is necessary to establish baseline, inform monitoring, and determine the etiology of symptoms. Advanced practice nurses and physician assistants are uniquely positioned to educate patients on the early recognition of AEs and have an important role in establishing appropriate monitoring and open dialogue among services.

Pneumonitis in Patients Treated With Anti-Programmed Death-1/Programmed Death Ligand 1 Therapy.

Purpose Pneumonitis is an uncommon but potentially fatal toxicity of anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features are poorly described. Methods Patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy or in combination with anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 mAb were identified at two institutions (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: advanced solid cancers, 2009 to 2014, and Melanoma Institute of Australia: melanomas only, 2013 to 2015). Pneumonitis was diagnosed by the treating investigator; cases with confirmed malignant lung infiltration or infection were excluded. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features of pneumonitis were collected. Associations among pneumonitis incidence, therapy received, and underlying malignancy were examined with Fisher's exact test as were associations between pneumonitis features and outcomes. Results Of 915 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs, pneumonitis developed in 43 (5%; 95% CI, 3% to 6%; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 27 of 578 [5%]; Melanoma Institute of Australia, 16 of 337 [5%]). Time to onset of pneumonitis ranged from 9 days to 19.2 months. The incidence of pneumonitis was higher with combination immunotherapy versus monotherapy (19 of 199 [10%] v 24 of 716 [3%]; P < .01). Incidence was similar in patients with melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer (overall, 26 of 532 [5%] v nine of 209 [4%]; monotherapy, 15 of 417 v five of 152 [ P = 1.0]; combination, 11 of 115 v four of 57 [ P = .78]). Seventy-two percent (31 of 43) of cases were grade 1 to 2, and 86% (37 of 43) improved/resolved with drug holding/immunosuppression. Five patients worsened clinically and died during the course of pneumonitis treatment; proximal cause of death was pneumonitis (n = 1), infection related to immunosuppression (n = 3), or progressive cancer (n = 1). Radiologic and pathologic features of pneumonitis were diverse. Conclusion Pneumonitis associated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs is a toxicity of variable onset and clinical, radiologic, and pathologic appearances. It is more common when anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs are combined with anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 mAb. Most events are low grade and improve/resolve with drug holding/immunosuppression. Rarely, pneumonitis worsens despite immunosuppression, and may result in infection and/or death.

Paradoxical activation of T cells via augmented ERK signaling mediated by a RAF inhibitor.

RAF inhibitors selectively block ERK signaling in BRAF-mutant melanomas and have defined a genotype-guided approach to care for this disease. RAF inhibitors have the opposite effect in BRAF wild-type tumor cells, where they cause hyperactivation of ERK signaling. Here, we predict that RAF inhibitors can enhance T cell activation, based upon the observation that these agents paradoxically activate ERK signaling in BRAF wild-type cells. To test this hypothesis, we have evaluated the effects of the RAF inhibitor BMS908662 on T cell activation and signaling in vitro and in vivo. We observe that T cell activation is enhanced in a concentration-dependent manner and that this effect corresponds with increased ERK signaling, consistent with paradoxical activation of the pathway. Furthermore, we find that the combination of BMS908662 with CTLA-4 blockade in vivo potentiates T cell expansion, corresponding with hyperactivation of ERK signaling in T cells detectable ex vivo. Lastly, this combination demonstrates superior anti-tumor activity, compared to either agent alone, in two transplantable tumor models. This study provides clear evidence that RAF inhibitors can modulate T cell function by potentiating T cell activation in vitro and in vivo. Paradoxical activation of ERK signaling in T cells offers one mechanism to explain the enhanced antitumor activity seen when RAF inhibitors are combined with CTLA-4 blockade in preclinical models.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with melanoma, ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4]) prolongs overall survival, and nivolumab (an antibody against the programmed death 1 [PD-1] receptor) produced durable tumor regression in a phase 1 trial. On the basis of their distinct immunologic mechanisms of action and supportive preclinical data, we conducted a phase 1 trial of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. METHODS: We administered intravenous doses of nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients every 3 weeks for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab alone every 3 weeks for 4 doses (concurrent regimen). The combined treatment was subsequently administered every 12 weeks for up to 8 doses. In a sequenced regimen, patients previously treated with ipilimumab received nivolumab every 2 weeks for up to 48 doses. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients received concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, and 33 received sequenced treatment. The objective-response rate (according to modified World Health Organization criteria) for all patients in the concurrent-regimen group was 40%. Evidence of clinical activity (conventional, unconfirmed, or immune-related response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks) was observed in 65% of patients. At the maximum doses that were associated with an acceptable level of adverse events (nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight and ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram), 53% of patients had an objective response, all with tumor reduction of 80% or more. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy occurred in 53% of patients in the concurrent-regimen group but were qualitatively similar to previous experience with monotherapy and were generally reversible. Among patients in the sequenced-regimen group, 18% had grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to therapy and the objective-response rate was 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab had a manageable safety profile and provided clinical activity that appears to be distinct from that in published data on monotherapy, with rapid and deep tumor regression in a substantial proportion of patients. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01024231.).