Purpose To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy. Methods A multidisciplinary, multi-organizational panel of experts in medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, urology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialist, and advocacy was convened to develop the clinical practice guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic review of the literature and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and case series published from 2000 through 2017. Results The systematic review identified 204 eligible publications. Much of the evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, case series, and case reports. Due to the paucity of high-quality evidence on management of immune-related adverse events, recommendations are based on expert consensus. Recommendations Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, with the exception of some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert to grade 1 or less. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids (prednisone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d or methylprednisolone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d). Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4 to 6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require infliximab or other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, with the exception of endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

No abstract

F i n a l V e r s i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n J o i n t C o m m i t t e e o n C a n c e r S t a g i n g S y s t e m f o r C u t a n e o u s M e l a n o m aByMaterials and Methods: The prognostic factors analysis described in the companion publication (this issue), as well as evidence from the published literature, was used to assemble the tumor-node-metastasis criteria and stage grouping for the melanoma staging system.Results: Major changes include (1) melanoma thickness and ulceration but not level of invasion to be used in the T category (except for T1 melanomas); (2) the number of metastatic lymph nodes rather than their gross dimensions and the delineation of clinically occult (ie, microscopic) versus clinically apparent (ie, macroscopic) nodal metastases to be used in the N category; (3) the site of distant metastases and the presence of elevated serum lactic dehydrogenase to be used in the M category; (4) an upstaging of all patients with stage I, II, and III disease when a primary melanoma is ulcerated; (5) a merging of satellite metastases around a primary melanoma and in-transit metastases into a single staging entity that is grouped into stage III disease; and (6) a new convention for defining clinical and pathologic staging so as to take into account the staging information gained from intraoperative lymphatic mapping and sentinel node biopsy. T HE AMERICAN JOINT Committee on Cancer (AJCC)has now formally approved the final version of a revised melanoma staging system, which is described herein, along with operational definitions. The final version is similar to the initial recommendations from the AJCC Melanoma Staging Committee published last year.1 Subsequent to the published recommendations, a number of clinicians made comments and recommendations to members of the AJCC Melanoma Staging Committee. In addition, a major database analysis of prognostic factors involving 17,600 patients from 13 cancer centers and organizations was performed to validate the original proposal.2 Results from the prognostics factors analyses, as well as input from melanoma clinicians, were used by the AJCC Melanoma Staging Committee to make final adjustments to the melanoma staging system, changes that largely impacted the stage grouping criteria. The AJCC Executive Committee has approved the final version of the melanoma staging system. It will become official with publication of the sixth edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual in the year 2002.The AJCC Melanoma Staging Committee used the following guidelines to determine which criteria should be used in the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification and the stage groupings. First, the staging system must be practical, reproducible, and applicable to the diverse needs of all medical disciplines. Second, the criteria must accurately reflect the biology of melanoma based on consistent outcome results of patients treated at multiple institutions from multiple countries. Third, the criteria used must be evidence-based and reflect the dominant prognostic factors cons...

A B S T R A C T PurposeA randomized, phase III trial demonstrated superiority of sunitinib over interferon alfa (IFN-␣) in progression-free survival (primary end point) as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Final survival analyses and updated results are reported. Patients and MethodsSeven hundred fifty treatment-naïve patients with metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily on a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off dosing schedule or to IFN-␣ 9 MU subcutaneously thrice weekly. Overall survival was compared by two-sided log-rank and Wilcoxon tests. Progression-free survival, response, and safety end points were assessed with updated follow-up. ResultsMedian overall survival was greater in the sunitinib group than in the IFN-␣ group (26.4 v 21.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] ϭ 0.821; 95% CI, 0.673 to 1.001; P ϭ .051) per the primary analysis of unstratified log-rank test (P ϭ .013 per unstratified Wilcoxon test). By stratified log-rank test, the HR was 0.818 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.999; P ϭ .049). Within the IFN-␣ group, 33% of patients received sunitinib, and 32% received other vascular endothelial growth factor-signaling inhibitors after discontinuation from the trial. Median progression-free survival was 11 months for sunitinib compared with 5 months for IFN-␣ (P Ͻ .001). Objective response rate was 47% for sunitinib compared with 12% for IFN-␣ (P Ͻ .001). The most commonly reported sunitinib-related grade 3 adverse events included hypertension (12%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (9%), and hand-foot syndrome (9%). ConclusionSunitinib demonstrates longer overall survival compared with IFN-␣ plus improvement in response and progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic RCC. The overall survival highlights an improved prognosis in patients with RCC in the era of targeted therapy.

The results of this evidence-based methodology were incorporated into the AJCC melanoma staging as described in the companion publication.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTL A-4), anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and anti-programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibodies, are arguably the most important development in cancer therapy over the past decade. The indications for these agents continue to expand across malignancies and disease settings, thus reshaping many of the previous standard-of-care approaches and bringing new hope to patients. One of the costs of these advances is the emergence of a new spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often distinctly different from the classical chemotherapy-related toxicities. Owing to the growing use of ICIs in oncology, clinicians will increasingly be confronted with common but also rare irAEs; hence, awareness needs to be raised regarding the clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of these toxicities. In this Review, we provide an overview of the various types of irAEs that have emerged to date. We discuss the epidemiology of these events and their kinetics, risk factors, subtypes and pathophysiology, as well as new insights regarding screening and surveillance strategies. We also highlight the most important aspects of the management of irAEs.

for the RECORD-1 Study Group BACKGROUND: A phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority at interim analysis for everolimus over placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) progressing on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Final results and analysis of prognostic factors are reported. METHODS: Patients with mRCC (N ¼ 416) were randomized (2:1) to everolimus 10 mg/d (n ¼ 277) or placebo (n ¼ 139) plus best supportive care. Progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were assessed to the end of double-blind treatment. Mature overall survival (OS) data were analyzed, and prognostic factors for survival were investigated by multivariate analyses. A rank-preserving structural failure time model estimated the effect on OS, correcting for crossover from placebo to everolimus. RESULTS: The median PFS was 4.9 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; P < .001) by independent central review and 5.5 months (everolimus) versus 1.9 months (placebo) (HR, 0.32; P < .001) by investigators. Serious adverse events with everolimus, independent of causality, in !5% of patients included infections (all types, 10%), dyspnea (7%), and fatigue (5%). The median OS was 14.8 months (everolimus) versus 14.4 months (placebo) (HR, 0.87; P ¼ .162), with 80% of patients in the placebo arm crossed over to everolimus. By the rank-preserving structural failure time model, the survival corrected for crossover was 1.9-fold longer (95% confidence interval, 0.5-8.5) with everolimus compared with placebo only. Independent prognostic factors for shorter OS in the study included low performance status, high corrected calcium, low hemoglobin, and prior sunitinib (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: These results established the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with mRCC after progression on sunitinib and/or sorafenib. Cancer 2010;116:4256-65.

BACKGROUND Merkel-cell carcinoma is an aggressive skin cancer that is linked to exposure to ultraviolet light and the Merkel-cell polyomavirus (MCPyV). Advanced Merkel-cell carcinoma often responds to chemotherapy, but responses are transient. Blocking the programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune inhibitory pathway is of interest, because these tumors often express PD-L1, and MCPyV-specific T cells express PD-1. METHODS In this multicenter, phase 2, noncontrolled study, we assigned adults with advanced Merkel-cell carcinoma who had received no previous systemic therapy to receive pembrolizumab (anti–PD-1) at a dose of 2 mg per kilogram of body weight every 3 weeks. The primary end point was the objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Efficacy was correlated with tumor viral status, as assessed by serologic and immunohistochemical testing. RESULTS A total of 26 patients received at least one dose of pembrolizumab. The objective response rate among the 25 patients with at least one evaluation during treatment was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35 to 76); 4 patients had a complete response, and 10 had a partial response. With a median follow-up of 33 weeks (range, 7 to 53), relapses occurred in 2 of the 14 patients who had had a response (14%). The response duration ranged from at least 2.2 months to at least 9.7 months. The rate of progression-free survival at 6 months was 67% (95% CI, 49 to 86). A total of 17 of the 26 patients (65%) had virus-positive tumors. The response rate was 62% among patients with MCPyV-positive tumors (10 of 16 patients) and 44% among those with virus-negative tumors (4 of 9 patients). Drug-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 15% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS In this study, first-line therapy with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced Merkel-cell carcinoma was associated with an objective response rate of 56%. Responses were observed in patients with virus-positive tumors and those with virus-negative tumors. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02267603.)