Review ArticleReview
Open Access

Current status of management of immune-related adverse events and practical needs for oncologist education

Binhe Tian, Yuanmei Yang, Shuman Kuang, Mingjian Piao, Chengjie Li, Haitao Zhao and Hanping Wang
Cancer Biology & Medicine September 2025, 20250346; DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0346

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have markedly improved outcomes in patients with multiple advanced malignancies. However, their widespread use has markedly increased the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). irAEs can affect a wide range of organ systems and are characterized by heterogeneous onset, broad toxicity spectra, and complex management requirements, thus ultimately impairing treatment continuation and patient quality of life. This review systematically summarizes the epidemiological features, clinical progression, and current management of irAEs. Existing guidelines largely focus on acute toxicities but have not provided structured strategies for chronic, delayed-onset, or multisystem irAEs. Moreover, clinical practice is hampered by incomplete multidisciplinary collaboration, insufficient training of oncologists, and fragmented treatment pathways, all of which limit the efficacy of irAE management. We propose incorporating irAE management into core oncology training and call for the establishment of comprehensive interdisciplinary frameworks to ensure the standardized long-term use of immunotherapy.

keywords

Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) restore antitumor immune responses by increasing inhibitory signals on T cells, thereby substantially improving the prognosis of various cancers1–5. However, immune activation can also result in off-target effects leading to immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are among the major limitations to the safety and continuation of immunotherapy6. irAEs result from immune-mediated attacks on healthy tissues, can affect nearly all organ systems, and notably have nonspecific presentation and unpredictable timing.

ICIs enhance antitumor immunity by blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 pathways, but they also disrupt self-tolerance and trigger irAEs. Three major immune mechanisms contribute to irAE pathogenesis: (1) aberrant activation of self-reactive T cells, such as CD8+ T cells targeting bile duct epithelium in hepatitis, or T cells recognizing cardiac myosin or gangliosides in myocarditis and neurologic irAEs7,8; (2) autoantibody-mediated damage, including anti-TPO and anti-ACTH antibodies in thyroiditis and hypophysitis, and anti-platelet or anti-alveolar antibodies in hematologic and pulmonary toxicities9,10; and (3) innate immune dysregulation and cytokine storms, wherein IL-6, IL-17, and TNF-α promote tissue infiltration and injury11–13. These immunotoxic patterns are further shaped by organ-specific immune niches—such as PD-L1 expression in the liver or blood-nerve barrier permeability—and by host-intrinsic factors including HLA haplotypes and gut microbiota diversity.

ICIs have received approval for more than 100 indications by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the number continues to increase14. With expanding indications and prolonged treatment durations, the clinical manifestations of irAEs continue to evolve. These include concurrent or sequential involvement of multiple organ systems, overlapping symptoms, chronic irAEs that persist after treatment cessation, and delayed-onset irAEs occurring months after treatment discontinuation. Current management strategies largely use an organ-specific, acute toxicity-based approach. However, because they lack guidance regarding disease fluctuation, coordination of treatment rhythms, and long-term toxicity dynamics, they are insufficient for current clinical scenarios.

Oncologists, despite being the primary prescribers of ICIs, often lack formal training in irAE recognition and management, and rely on subspecialty consultation. However, these specialists’ often limited understanding of the timing of immunotherapy and risk profiles can further exacerbate decision-making disjunctions.

Whereas prior high-impact reviews have provided comprehensive insights into both the clinical and mechanistic aspects of irAEs6,15,16, this article offers a complementary perspective by summarizing the overall landscape of irAEs and emphasizing the under-addressed need for structured oncologist education. Rather than focusing on pathogenesis or treatment nuances, we describe practical gaps in real-world irAE management, and we highlight the importance of preparing oncologists for immune toxicity recognition, interdisciplinary coordination, and informed therapeutic decision-making. By framing irAE education as a critical component of immunotherapy implementation, this review is aimed at bridging the gap between knowledge and practice in oncology care. A structured literature search was performed to support the review (search strategy and selection flowchart in Supplementary Methods and Figure S1).

Epidemiology and clinical presentation of irAEs

Incidence of irAEs

The incidence of irAEs varies with ICI type, dosage, and regimen (Table 1). CTLA-4 inhibitors are associated with higher irAE rates than PD-(L)1 inhibitors37. CTLA-4 inhibitors (e.g., ipilimumab) have an overall irAE incidence as high as 60%, and 10%–30% of these irAEs are grade ≥ 3 events, thereby indicating dose dependence38,39. In high-dose adjuvant settings, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 irAEs may exceed 50%38. In contrast, PD-1 inhibitors (e.g., nivolumab and pembrolizumab) cause irAEs in 5%–20% of patients, and grade ≥ 3 events occur in ~10% of patients; these events often include endocrine disorders, pneumonitis, hepatitis, or cutaneous toxicity40,41. PD-L1 inhibitors (e.g., atezolizumab) generally have low toxicity, particularly regarding pulmonary events42,43. Combining CTLA-4 inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors markedly increases both the incidence and severity of irAEs, such that grade ≥ 3 events occur in more than 50% of patients, usually in early treatment phases1,44,45.

View this table:
Table 1

Frequencies of treatment-related irAEs in selected cohorts

Broad organ involvement and heterogeneous toxicity spectrum

irAEs can affect almost any organ system: they commonly involve the skin, gastrointestinal tract, liver, lungs, thyroid, and pituitary glands, but can also affect the heart, nervous system, kidneys, skeletal muscles, and hematopoietic tissues (Figure 1)46. Toxicity profiles vary by ICI type: PD-(L)1 inhibitors tend to cause thyroid dysfunction, pneumonitis, and rash, whereas CTLA-4 inhibitors more commonly cause colitis, hypophysitis, and severe skin reactions46. Combination therapy further amplifies both the toxicity spectrum and severity46.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Systemic distribution of irAEs. This schematic provides a comprehensive overview of irAEs affecting various organ systems. Manifestations are grouped by system and illustrated anatomically: ocular (uveitis, keratitis, and conjunctivitis), neurologic (immune-mediated encephalitis, peripheral neuropathy, myasthenia gravis, and Guillain–Barré syndrome), endocrine (thyroiditis/hypothyroidism/hyperthyroidism, adrenal insufficiency, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and hypophysitis), cardiovascular (myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, and heart failure), pulmonary (pneumonitis), gastrointestinal (colitis, hepatitis, and pancreatitis), musculoskeletal (arthritis, myositis, and polymyalgia rheumatica), other irAEs (sicca syndrome, sarcoidosis, and multisystem inflammatory syndrome), hematologic (hemolytic anemia, immune thrombocytopenia, aplastic anemia, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis), renal (glomerulonephritis and acute interstitial nephritis), and dermatologic (rash, pruritus, vitiligo, bullous dermatitis, and Stevens–Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis). HLH, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitor; irAE, immune-related adverse event; SJS/TEN, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Organ-specific irAE patterns can also be influenced by the tumor type and microenvironment, and the presence of shared immunogenic antigens across tumors and healthy tissues15. For example, melanoma is associated with elevated rates of skin and gastrointestinal irAEs, whereas patients with non-small cell lung cancer develop pulmonary toxicities47.

Risk factors

irAE risk is influenced by interrelated patient-related, treatment-related, and immune-related factors15. The patient factors include performance status, age, lifestyle (diet and exercise), microbiome composition (gut, skin, and lungs), and genetic background. Treatment-related factors, such as ICI type, dose, and regimen, influence the magnitude of immune activation. The immune-related factors include tumor type and microenvironment, immune cell subpopulations, TCR/BCR diversity, and inflammatory mediators, such as IL-648. Whereas some of these factors, such as lifestyle and treatment choices, are modifiable49,50, genetic predisposition is not, thus highlighting the need for multidimensional risk assessment tools.

Onset timing

irAEs can arise at any time during or after treatment, even months after discontinuation15,51. CTLA-4-based regimens are associated with earlier irAE onset than PD-(L)1 monotherapy52. Some irAEs (e.g., rash, diarrhea, and transaminitis) may occur within days or weeks, whereas others (e.g., endocrine dysfunction and neurological irAEs) emerge later. The timing of irAEs also varies by organ; whereas dermatologic and gastrointestinal toxicities typically appear early, hepatic, pulmonary, and neurologic irAEs may arise later or recur post-remission52,53.

Mortality

Fatal irAEs often occur early and progress rapidly, particularly with combination regimens (Table 2). The overall fatality rate is 0.3%–2%69,70, and the drug-specific rates are 0.4% for PD-1 inhibitors and 1.2% for PD-1/PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 combinations70. The types of fatal irAEs also differ. CTLA-4-related deaths are due primarily to colitis (70%), whereas PD-(L)1-related deaths are associated with pneumonitis, hepatitis, and neurotoxicity. Combination regimens are frequently associated with fatal colitis (37%) and myocarditis (25%), the latter of which shows the highest mortality rate (39.7%)70.

View this table:
Table 2

Frequencies of treatment-related deaths in selected cohorts

Clinical evolution of irAEs

Although the widespread use of ICIs has substantially prolonged patient survival, improved survivability has introduced new challenges, including the emergence of multisystem, delayed, and chronic irAEs. These findings underscore the extended and complex clinical course of irAEs in terms of timing and presentation.

Multisystem irAEs

Although irAEs typically involve a single organ system, multisystem involvement is not uncommon and may occur concurrently or during steroid tapering. Multisystem irAEs are defined as those affecting multiple distinct organ systems or different tissues within the same system71–73. Among patients receiving PD-(L)1 monotherapy, the incidence is approximately 5%–9%, and these irAEs most frequently involve dermatologic and endocrine toxicities71,74. In combination therapies, the incidence increases to 16%–40%, and gastrointestinal toxicities are relatively common75,76. These cases often include overlapping symptoms that complicate diagnosis and require coordinated multidisciplinary decision-making.

Chronic irAEs

Chronic irAEs are defined as irAEs persisting for more than 3 months after ICI discontinuation73. The most frequently reported chronic irAEs involve the endocrine system, arthritis, xerostomia, neurotoxicity, and ocular toxicity. In contrast, gastrointestinal, hepatic, pulmonary, and renal toxicities are less likely to become chronic and are generally reversible77.

Johnson et al. have proposed a hypothetical framework for the pathophysiological mechanisms of chronic irAEs and have suggested that they are driven primarily by smoldering inflammation and burnout78. Smoldering inflammation refers to persistent immune activation after ICI therapy, wherein continued immune cell infiltration into normal tissues leads to fluctuating or recurrent symptoms, as observed in immune-mediated colitis and arthritis. These conditions often remain responsive to immunosuppressive therapies such as corticosteroids or TNF/IL-6 inhibitors78,79. In contrast, burnout refers to functional impairment of organs or glands caused by early inflammatory injury, in which the inflammatory process has subsided, but irreversible dysfunction persists. Examples include hypothyroidism, hypophysitis, and type 1 diabetes. These toxicities are typically unresponsive to corticosteroid therapy and require lifelong hormone replacement80,81. For certain irAEs, reversibility can often be assessed only retrospectively after treatment.

In a retrospective multicenter cohort study in 387 patients with melanoma receiving adjuvant PD-1 inhibitor therapy, 43% developed chronic irAEs, 96% of which were mild. At a median follow-up of 35 months, 65% of chronic irAEs were ongoing77,82. In another study in 437 patients, 35.7% of irAEs lasted for at least 24 months83. Among patients with non-endocrine chronic irAEs, 60% permanently discontinued ICI therapy, and 76% required corticosteroid treatment (91% of patients with severe irAEs). Additional immunosuppressive agents or other interventions were also necessary for some patients. Nearly one-quarter of patients required hospitalization, and 6% experienced adverse effects due to immunosuppressive therapy.

Although persistent irAEs might indicate favorable antitumor responses84, they can impose substantial functional and quality-of-life burdens on patients85. Studies have linked chronic irAEs to diminished quality of life. In a small cohort study on ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis, the observation of pronounced emotional and physical impairments highlighted the clinical importance of understanding chronic irAEs86. Moreover, the long-term use of immunosuppressants might have additional adverse effects.

Historically, the clinical focus has been primarily on acute irAEs. Key guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)87 and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)88 emphasize acute toxicity management but lack specific recommendations for chronic irAEs. However, growing evidence suggests that chronic irAEs are prevalent and require sustained interventions. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has proposed a treatment-oriented classification of chronic irAEs as either active or inactive, according to the need for, and efficacy of, anti-inflammatory interventions73. Importantly, these categories should be viewed as 2 ends of a clinical activity spectrum, with potential overlap between them. The lack of histopathological confirmation in most chronic irAEs complicates the assessment of residual inflammatory activity, thereby increasing the uncertainty in therapeutic decision-making73,78. This uncertainty directly affects treatment decisions regarding continued immunosuppression vs. transition to supportive care, increasing decision-making complexity and communication burden. As indications for ICIs increase in neoadjuvant89,90 and adjuvant settings91, clinicians must better understand chronic irAEs to accurately inform patients regarding the potential long-term risks and benefits.

Delayed irAEs

Delayed irAEs are defined as those occurring >3 months after ICI discontinuation73. These events are often underrecognized and underdiagnosed, possibly because of persistent immune activation and dysregulated feedback despite drug clearance. In the CheckMate 238 trial, delayed irAEs occurred in approximately 4%–6% of patients, and grade ≥ 3 events occurred in 1%–2% of patients. The most common manifestations were colitis, pneumonitis, and rash92,93. In a pooled analysis of 1,567 patients with melanoma treated with pembrolizumab, 14 (0.9%) developed new irAEs more than 2 years after treatment initiation94. The actual incidence might have been underestimated because of the reliance on voluntary reporting. The temporal heterogeneity of these events complicates their attribution and necessitates ongoing clinical vigilance throughout the treatment continuum.

Other long-term risks and special toxicities

ICIs have been reported to accelerate atherosclerotic plaque progression and increase the risk of cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, by more than threefold95,96. ICIs might also impair fertility, although the current evidence is limited, and further monitoring and management are needed97–99.

irAEs in special populations: older and autoimmune patients receiving ICI therapy

Although ICIs have transformed cancer therapy, evidence of their safety and efficacy in special populations remains limited. Older patients and those with pre-existing autoimmune diseases are underrepresented in clinical trials, yet real-world data suggest that they might experience distinct patterns of irAEs100. The following section summarizes current insights into irAEs within these vulnerable groups.

In patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases, irAEs are notably more frequent and exhibit distinct clinical features from those observed in the general population101,102. Across real-world studies and meta-analyses, the overall incidence of irAEs in patients with pre-existing autoimmune diseases ranges from 60% to 62%; 25%–36% experience flares of their underlying autoimmune condition, and 23%–35% develop de novo irAEs. Psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis are particularly prone to flares. Although most irAEs are grade 1–2 and manageable, approximately one-third of patients require hospitalization, and severe events (grade ≥ 3) are not negligible. Despite the elevated risk, treatment-related mortality remains low (0.07%–0.80%), and only a minority of patients discontinue therapy because of toxicity103–105.

In older patients receiving ICIs, irAEs exhibit distinct characteristics and clinical implications. Although several large real-world studies have shown that the overall incidence of irAEs in older adults is comparable to that in younger patients, certain toxicities—particularly cutaneous, renal, and gastrointestinal toxicities—occur more frequently in older populations106,107. Moreover, in older patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), specific severe irAEs, such as pneumonitis, arrhythmias, hepatitis, and colitis, have been associated with markedly elevated risks of mortality and treatment discontinuation, thereby indicating diminished tolerability in this subgroup108,109. Importantly, the occurrence of irAEs in older adults, in contrast to younger populations, does not consistently correlate with improved clinical outcomes; consequently, irAEs might lack predictive value for therapeutic benefit in this age group109. Therefore, when administering ICIs to patients ≥ 75 years of age, careful monitoring and individualized toxicity management are essential. Functional status and comorbidities should be thoroughly evaluated to balance efficacy and safety, particularly in vulnerable populations underrepresented in clinical trials100,106,107,109.

Toxicity profiles of emerging ICIs

Beyond PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4, the principal next-generation ICIs under development target LAG-3, TIM-3, TIGIT, VISTA, BTLA, and the SIRPα–CD47 axis110–116. Most of these agents remain in clinical trials; to date, only relatlimab—co-formulated with nivolumab—has obtained the FDA approval for melanoma.117,118, whereas others, such as tiragolumab, have been discontinued because of inadequate efficacy in small-cell lung cancer119. Progress is constrained by several factors: (i) modest single-agent activity, because clinically meaningful responses generally emerge only when the drugs are combined with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade; (ii) pathway redundancy and compensatory up-regulation of alternative inhibitory axes, which blunt efficacy after a single checkpoint is blocked; (iii) a scarcity of target-specific biomarkers, diluting the proportion of truly responsive patients enrolled in clinical trials; and (iv) a 1.5- to 2-fold increase in grade ≥ 3 irAEs—including rash, hepatitis, pneumonitis, and endocrine dysfunction—when these agents are used with PD-(L)1 inhibitors or chemotherapy120–123. Moreover, SIRPα–CD47 blockade can induce anemia and thrombocytopenia, because CD47 is ubiquitously expressed on hematopoietic cells124.

Diagnosis and current management of irAEs

During ICI treatment, the onset of any new symptoms should prompt consideration of irAEs. However, diagnosing irAEs is challenging, because of their organ-specific presentation and frequent overlap with symptoms of tumor progression, comorbidities, or other treatment-related adverse effects. Early manifestations are often nonspecific, and include fatigue, appetite loss, or mild dermatological changes, which might represent the initial signs of an irAE or reflect unrelated conditions. For example, checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis is often misdiagnosed as an infection, radiation-induced injury, or disease progression. Neurological irAEs, such as encephalitis or polyneuropathy, can be mistaken for central nervous system metastases or underlying neurological disorders. Currently, no standardized diagnostic tests are available, and irAE diagnoses remain largely exclusionary. Differential diagnoses include tumor progression, infections, and other drug-related toxicities87,88,125.

First-line treatment generally involves ICI discontinuation (Figure 2). For grade 2 irAEs and most grade ≥ 3 irAEs, systemic immunosuppressive therapy is required. High-dose corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment, and initial dosing is based on irAE severity and typically comprises prednisolone at 0.5–2.0 mg/kg. The treatment follows a stepwise tapering strategy. In the event of an insufficient early response, dose escalation or the addition of second-line immunosuppressants might be required. After symptoms resolve, steroids are tapered over weeks to months, depending on irAE type and severity87,88,125.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Multidisciplinary management flowchart for irAEs. This flowchart depicts a decision-making model for irAE management based on severity and organ involvement. The process begins with initial recognition and CTCAE-based grading by the ICI-prescribing oncologist. If irAE severity reaches grade ≥ 2 or multiple organs are suspected to be involved, multidisciplinary consultation is initiated. Common subspecialties include rheumatology, pulmonology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, neurology, dermatology, ophthalmology, and cardiology. Management is stratified by CTCAE grade: grade 1 involves continued ICI with monitoring; grade 2 requires ICI withholding and corticosteroids (e.g., prednisone 0.5–1.0 mg/kg/day); and grade ≥ 3 necessitates hospitalization and pulse-dose steroids. Treatment may escalate to second-line immunosuppressants (e.g., mycophenolate, infliximab, or tocilizumab), particularly for steroid-refractory cases. Endocrinopathies are managed with hormone replacement. Final steps involve assessing the treatment response and making informed decisions regarding ICI resumption or further escalation. CTCAE, common terminology criteria for adverse events; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitor; irAE, immune-related adverse event; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.

Compared with classical autoimmune diseases, irAEs often respond more rapidly to steroids, and most patients show notable improvement within several days126. However, the dynamic nature of irAEs complicates their management. Some patients experience symptom recurrence during steroid tapering or after steroid cessation. Long-term high-dose steroid use carries risks, such as increased infection rates and osteoporosis, that require careful balancing between inflammation control and minimizing steroid-associated toxicity127.

Second-line treatment for irAEs is warranted in patients who do not respond adequately to corticosteroids or who experience steroid-related toxicity. This approach involves immunomodulatory agents tailored to the affected organ system and severity of toxicity. Anti-TNF-α agents such as infliximab are commonly used in steroid-refractory colitis, whereas vedolizumab offers a gut-selective alternative with a potentially lower risk of systemic immunosuppression126,128,129. Mycophenolate mofetil is frequently used in hepatic, renal, or pulmonary irAEs, and IL-6 receptor blockade with tocilizumab has demonstrated efficacy in inflammatory arthritis and myositis130. For B cell-driven complications, including autoimmune cytopenias and neurologic syndromes, rituximab and intravenous immunoglobulin are appropriate options. In cases of severe or multisystem toxicities, agents such as abatacept or cyclophosphamide may be considered. The choice of second-line therapy should be guided by a multidisciplinary team, to balance irAE control with preservation of anti-tumor immunity87,88,125.

Predictive biomarkers for irAE

A range of biomarkers have been identified to predict irAEs in patients receiving ICIs. Hematologic markers such as a low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR < 3), elevated derived NLR (dNLR > 3), diminished ALC, and clonal expansion of CD8+ T cells (>55) are positively associated with irAE risk. Diminished regulatory T cells and altered PLR, ANC, and MLR also have predictive value131–134. Cytokines, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-17, CXCL9/10/11, and TNF-α, particularly IL-17 in gastrointestinal irAEs, markedly rise after ICI. Lower interferon-γ levels and elevated CRP (>50 mg/L) further correlate with pneumonitis and systemic inflammation135–140.

Autoantibodies such as ANA, anti-TPO, and soluble CTLA-4 (>200 pg/mL) are associated with endocrine and systemic irAEs112–117. Serum proteins such as elevated TSH, troponin, ferritin, and low albumin (<3.6 g/dL) also have predictive significance135,141–144. Genetic markers, particularly HLA-DRB111:01, DQB103:01, and DR4 subtypes, are associated with organ-specific irAEs145–149. MicroRNA variants (e.g., miR-146a rs2910164) and gene expression changes (e.g., CD177 and CEACAM1) further support genetic predisposition150,151.

Finally, gut microbiota patterns—such as enrichment in Faecalibacterium and Firmicutes, depletion of Bacteroidetes—and stool calprotectin levels (>150 mg/g) correlate with gastrointestinal irAEs152–155. Together, these markers offer a promising approach for early irAE risk stratification and individualized ICI management.

Limitations of current management models

Current toxicity grading systems (e.g., Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, CTCAE) are designed primarily for conventional chemotherapy-related toxicities but might be inadequate for assessing irAEs156,157. For instance, the CTCAE grading of rash is based on body surface area, whereas irAE-associated skin reactions often require the evaluation of histological features (e.g., pemphigoid-like lesions) and systemic symptoms158.

The lack of standardized diagnostic and classification frameworks contributes to variability in irAE assessment across clinicians and institutions. Given the diversity in clinical presentation, affected organs, and timing, irAE management typically requires multidisciplinary coordination. However, perspectives on treatment goals differ across specialties. Subspecialists often focus on preserving organ function, whereas oncologists aim to maintain the treatment rhythm within a tolerable toxicity range, while balancing efficacy and safety159–162.

Numerous studies have shown that irAEs are associated with improved survival outcomes, including prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR)71,72,160,163–165. These findings might indicate stronger immune activation. Consequently, oncologists tend to favor active toxicity management over premature therapy discontinuation, even in the face of complex, overlapping, multisystem irAEs. In contrast, subspecialists might be unaware of this correlation and often use conservative strategies, thus overlooking the potential link between irAEs and treatment response. A lack of familiarity with immunotherapy rechallenge criteria and risk mitigation strategies might also lead to recommendations that are disconnected from the broader therapeutic context.

Differences in priorities and risk tolerance among specialties can result in disagreements regarding key decisions, such as treatment interruption, intervention intensity, and therapy scheduling. Clinical decisions are often compromised in the absence of standardized prioritization mechanisms or coordination frameworks. However, such compromises might fail to optimize toxicity control and treatment continuation.

A more fundamental issue lies in the structural disjunction across specialties. Oncologists, the primary agents of immunotherapy, often lack leadership and independent decision-making capacity in irAE management. Faced with organ-specific toxicities, they must rely on specialist consultations, because of their limited immunologic and subspecialty knowledge. In contrast, specialists’ frequent lack of understanding of the broader immunotherapy context can further fragment decision-making. Therefore, treatment strategies are often not based on longitudinal assessments by oncologists, and key decisions, such as when to resume ICI treatment, are frequently not made by those most familiar with the overall therapeutic landscape. A structural dilemma involving no central oversight by specialists and no decisive authority by oncologists therefore undermines treatment coherence and efficiency.

In addition, the current clinical workflow is often fragmented. When multisystem toxicities occur, patients are typically referred to different specialists for separate organ-based management. As a result, patients often experience prolonged diagnostic and treatment timelines, increased communication costs, and neglect of inter-organ toxicity interactions.

One potential solution to this dilemma is oncologist-led coordination models that leverage digital platforms for real-time communication. In our institutional experience, tumor-specific, oncologist-led coordination—supported by an asynchronous encrypted messaging platform—has shown promise in streamlining irAE triage and treatment. Although the full implementation details have been reported elsewhere, this model exemplifies how frontline oncologists can facilitate timely, multidisciplinary input and serve as central integrators of irAE care. This communication-based approach offers a scalable, low-cost solution, particularly for centers lacking embedded multidisciplinary clinics, and can help facilitate earlier recognition and timely management of irAEs, thereby reducing unnecessary ICI interruptions and interruptions of antitumor treatment.

Educational gaps and practical solutions

Although international oncology education systems have become increasingly standardized, and organizations such as the ESMO and ASCO have developed global curricula and promoted multidisciplinary training166–170, current medical education lacks systematic content specific to irAE management. Oncologists are frequently undertrained in this domain. Existing training is often institution-led and consists mainly of lectures or case discussions focusing on individual toxicities without a structured theoretical or procedural framework. Consequently, because most oncologists rely on experience and are poorly equipped to assess and manage complex or dynamic multisystem irAEs, their ability to take initiative in multidisciplinary decision-making is limited.

To address this capability gap, we propose a structured, competency-based re-education framework tailored for oncologists (Figure 3). This framework comprises 5 progressive modules: (1) foundational knowledge, including the pathophysiology of irAEs and toxicity grading based on CTCAE; (2) recognition and differential diagnosis of common irAEs through clinical manifestations, onset timing, and radiographic features; (3) evidence-based treatment strategies, including rational use, tapering, and escalation principles for corticosteroids and second-line immunosuppressants; (4) multidisciplinary collaboration skills to enhance communication and decision-making within multidisciplinary team (MDT); and (5) long-term irAE management and patient education.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Structured education framework for oncologists in irAE management. This framework outlines a multidimensional educational strategy for oncologists managing irAEs. Core modules cover foundational knowledge (e.g., irAE pathogenesis and CTCAE grading), diagnostic reasoning (e.g., symptom triage and differential diagnosis), pharmacologic strategies (e.g., corticosteroid tapering and second-line agents), interdisciplinary collaboration, and long-term patient education. Instructional methods include structured lectures, case-based learning, simulation and role-play, and joint MDT training. Outcome-based assessments include post-session quizzes, case-solving, simulated patient communication, Mini-CEX, and steroid escalation planning. This system is aimed at standardizing oncologist education and enhancing readiness for irAE management across specialties. CTCAE, common terminology criteria for adverse events; ICIs, Immune checkpoint inhibitors; irAE, immune-related adverse event; MDT, multidisciplinary team; Mini-CEX, Mini-clinical evaluation exercise.

The training program emphasizes the integration of theoretical foundations with practical clinical application and uses diverse instructional methods. Case-based teaching focuses on real-world decision-making scenarios, thereby enabling participants to recognize typical presentations and develop appropriate management strategies. Simulation-based training reinforces clinical reasoning and intervention skills in complex situations. For instance, in the simulation of immune-related pneumonitis, trainees are guided to distinguish this condition from infectious pneumonitis, radiation-induced lung injury, and disease progression by integrating symptomatology, imaging findings, and temporal patterns. In the elevated liver enzyme module, trainees assess prior treatment history and lesion distribution to differentiate among immune-related hepatitis, locoregional therapy-induced hepatic injury, and tumor progression. Furthermore, interdisciplinary modules promote coordinated management among oncology, pulmonology, endocrinology, neurology, and gastroenterology specialties, by leveraging regular MDT case discussions.

The evaluation system adopts a multidimensional approach encompassing knowledge acquisition (post-training quizzes and case-based questions), clinical reasoning (Mini-clinical evaluation exercise, Mini-CEX and group case discussions), communication skills [empathy scoring and standardized patient objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)], and practical competencies (e.g., CTCAE grading exercises and immunosuppressive treatment planning). This integrative educational framework is aimed at not only enhancing individual oncologists’ capabilities in managing complex irAEs but also advancing standardization and quality improvement in irAE management across healthcare systems.

Conclusions

IrAEs have become a critical bottleneck in the safe and effective use of ICIs. Although the clinical spectrum of irAEs continues to evolve—ranging from acute to chronic, multisystemic, and delayed manifestations—current management remains fragmented, largely reactive, and insufficiently integrated into oncology training. This review underscores the urgent need for oncologist-led, multidisciplinary frameworks and competency-based re-education to address this complexity. Empowering oncologists with structured knowledge and practical tools will be essential to ensure timely recognition, coordinated intervention, and long-term patient safety in the era of immunotherapy.

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Hanping Wang, Haitao Zhao.

Collected the data: Binhe Tian, Yuanmei Yang, Shuman Kuang, Mingjian Piao, Chengjie Li.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Binhe Tian, Yuanmei Yang, Shuman Kuang.

Performed the analysis: Binhe Tian, Yuanmei Yang, Shuman Kuang.

Wrote the paper: Binhe Tian, Yuanmei Yang, Shuman Kuang.

  • Received August 4, 2025.
  • Accepted August 14, 2025.

References

  1. 1.↵
    2. Schadendorf D,
    3. Hodi FS,
    4. Robert C,
    5. Weber JS,
    6. Margolin K,
    7. Hamid O, et al.
    Pooled analysis of long-term survival data from phase II and phase III trials of ipilimumab in unresectable or metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 1889–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.
    2. Long GV,
    3. Larkin J,
    4. Schadendorf D,
    5. Grob J-J,
    6. Lao CD,
    7. Márquez-Rodas I, et al.
    Pooled long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2025; 43: 938–48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.
    2. Motzer RJ,
    3. Tannir NM,
    4. McDermott DF,
    5. Arén Frontera O,
    6. Melichar B,
    7. Choueiri TK, et al.
    Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1277–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    2. Overman MJ,
    3. McDermott R,
    4. Leach JL,
    5. Lonardi S,
    6. Lenz H-J,
    7. Morse MA, et al.
    Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017; 18: 1182–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    2. Antonia SJ,
    3. López-Martin JA,
    4. Bendell J,
    5. Ott PA,
    6. Taylor M,
    7. Eder JP, et al.
    Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 883–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    2. Martins F,
    3. Sofiya L,
    4. Sykiotis GP,
    5. Lamine F,
    6. Maillard M,
    7. Fraga M, et al.
    Adverse effects of immune-checkpoint inhibitors: epidemiology, management and surveillance. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019; 16: 563–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    2. De Martin E,
    3. Fulgenzi CAM,
    4. Celsa C,
    5. Laurent-Bellue A,
    6. Torkpour A,
    7. Lombardi P, et al.
    Immune checkpoint inhibitors and the liver: balancing therapeutic benefit and adverse events. Gut. 2025; 74: 1165–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    2. O’Hare M,
    3. Guidon AC.
    Peripheral nervous system immune-related adverse events due to checkpoint inhibition. Nat Rev Neurol. 2024; 20: 509–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    2. Wright JJ,
    3. Powers AC,
    4. Johnson DB.
    Endocrine toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2021; 17: 389–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    2. Kroll MH,
    3. Rojas-Hernandez C,
    4. Yee C.
    Hematologic complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Blood. 2022; 139: 3594–604.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    2. Thuny F,
    3. Naidoo J,
    4. Neilan TG.
    Cardiovascular complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer. Eur Heart J. 2022; 43: 4458–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    2. Ramos-Casals M,
    3. Brahmer JR,
    4. Callahan MK,
    5. Flores-Chávez A,
    6. Keegan N,
    7. Khamashta MA, et al.
    Immune-related adverse events of checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020; 6: 38.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    2. Sullivan RJ,
    3. Weber JS.
    Immune-related toxicities of checkpoint inhibitors: mechanisms and mitigation strategies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2022; 21: 495–508.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    2. Scott EC,
    3. Baines AC,
    4. Gong Y,
    5. Moore R Jr.,
    6. Pamuk GE,
    7. Saber H, et al.
    Trends in the approval of cancer therapies by the FDA in the twenty-first century. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023; 22: 625–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    2. Suijkerbuijk KPM,
    3. van Eijs MJM,
    4. van Wijk F,
    5. Eggermont AMM.
    Clinical and translational attributes of immune-related adverse events. Nat Cancer. 2024; 5: 557–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    2. Kennedy LB,
    3. Salama AKS.
    A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020; 70: 86–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    2. Haddad R,
    3. Fayette J,
    4. Teixeira M,
    5. Prabhash K,
    6. Mesia R,
    7. Kawecki A, et al.
    Atezolizumab in high-risk locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2025; 333: 1599–607.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.
    2. Finn RS,
    3. Qin S,
    4. Ikeda M,
    5. Galle PR,
    6. Ducreux M,
    7. Kim T-Y, et al.
    Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 1894–905.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.
    2. Pal SK,
    3. Albiges L,
    4. Tomczak P,
    5. Suárez C,
    6. Voss MH,
    7. de Velasco G, et al.
    Atezolizumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib monotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma after progression with previous immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (CONTACT-03): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2023; 402: 185–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.
    2. Felip E,
    3. Altorki N,
    4. Zhou C,
    5. Csőszi T,
    6. Vynnychenko I,
    7. Goloborodko O, et al.
    Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021; 398: 1344–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    2. Powles T,
    3. van der Heijden MS,
    4. Castellano D,
    5. Galsky MD,
    6. Loriot Y,
    7. Petrylak DP, et al.
    Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: 1574–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    2. Paz-Ares L,
    3. Dvorkin M,
    4. Chen Y,
    5. Reinmuth N,
    6. Hotta K,
    7. Trukhin D, et al.
    Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019; 394: 1929–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    2. Antonia SJ,
    3. Villegas A,
    4. Daniel D,
    5. Vicente D,
    6. Murakami S,
    7. Hui R, et al.
    Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 1919–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    2. Chong WQ,
    3. Low JL,
    4. Tay JK,
    5. Le TBU,
    6. Goh GS-Q,
    7. Sooi K, et al.
    Pembrolizumab with or without bevacizumab in platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2025; 26: 175–86.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.
    2. Powles T,
    3. Valderrama BP,
    4. Gupta S,
    5. Bedke J,
    6. Kikuchi E,
    7. Hoffman-Censits J, et al.
    Enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab in untreated advanced urothelial cancer. N Engl J Med. 2024; 390: 875–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    2. Rha SY,
    3. Oh DY,
    4. Yañez P,
    5. Bai Y,
    6. Ryu M-H,
    7. Lee J, et al.
    Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-859): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023; 24: 1181–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    2. O’Brien M,
    3. Paz-Ares L,
    4. Marreaud S,
    5. Dafni U,
    6. Oselin K,
    7. Havel L, et al.
    Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 1274–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    2. Mai HQ,
    3. Chen Q-Y,
    4. Chen D,
    5. Hu C,
    6. Yang K,
    7. Wen J, et al.
    Toripalimab plus chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the JUPITER-02 randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2023; 330: 1961–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.
    2. Cascone T,
    3. Awad MM,
    4. Spicer JD,
    5. He J,
    6. Lu S,
    7. Sepesi B, et al.
    Perioperative nivolumab in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2024; 390: 1756–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.
    2. Reiss KA,
    3. Mick R,
    4. Teitelbaum U,
    5. O’Hara M,
    6. Schneider C,
    7. Massa R, et al.
    Niraparib plus nivolumab or niraparib plus ipilimumab in patients with platinum-sensitive advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised, phase 1b/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 1009–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    2. Janjigian YY,
    3. Shitara K,
    4. Moehler M,
    5. Garrido M,
    6. Salman P,
    7. Shen L, et al.
    First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021; 398: 27–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    2. Ready N,
    3. Farago AF,
    4. de Braud F,
    5. Atmaca A,
    6. Hellmann MD,
    7. Schneider JG, et al.
    Third-line nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent SCLC: CheckMate 032. J Thorac Oncol. 2019; 14: 237–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    2. Mirza MR,
    3. Chase DM,
    4. Slomovitz BM,
    5. dePont Christensen R,
    6. Novák Z,
    7. Black D, et al.
    Dostarlimab for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023; 388: 2145–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    2. Ren Z,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Bai Y,
    5. Xu A,
    6. Cang S,
    7. Du C, et al.
    Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22: 977–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    2. O’Malley DM,
    3. Neffa M,
    4. Monk BJ,
    5. Melkadze T,
    6. Huang M,
    7. Kryzhanivska A, et al.
    Dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 Checkpoint blockade using balstilimab and zalifrelimab combination as second-line treatment for advanced cervical cancer: an open-label phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40: 762–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.
    2. Paz-Ares L,
    3. Ciuleanu TE,
    4. Cobo M,
    5. Schenker M,
    6. Zurawski B,
    7. Menezes J, et al.
    First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22: 198–211.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    2. Wolchok JD,
    3. Chiarion-Sileni V,
    4. Gonzalez R,
    5. Grob J-J,
    6. Rutkowski P,
    7. Lao CD, et al.
    Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40: 127–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    2. Eggermont AM,
    3. Chiarion-Sileni V,
    4. Grob JJ,
    5. Dummer R,
    6. Wolchok JD,
    7. Schmidt H, et al.
    Prolonged survival in stage III melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1845–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    2. Weber JS,
    3. Kähler KC,
    4. Hauschild A.
    Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 2691–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    2. Robert C,
    3. Long GV,
    4. Brady B,
    5. Dutriaux C,
    6. Maio M,
    7. Mortier L, et al.
    Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 320–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    2. Paz-Ares L,
    3. Luft A,
    4. Vicente D,
    5. Tafreshi A,
    6. Gümüş M,
    7. Mazières J, et al.
    Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 2040–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    2. Khunger M,
    3. Rakshit S,
    4. Pasupuleti V,
    5. Hernandez AV,
    6. Mazzone P,
    7. Stevenson J, et al.
    Incidence of pneumonitis with use of programmed death 1 and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials. Chest. 2017; 152: 271–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    2. Pillai RN,
    3. Behera M,
    4. Owonikoko TK,
    5. Kamphorst AO,
    6. Pakkala S,
    7. Belani CP, et al.
    Comparison of the toxicity profile of PD-1 versus PD-L1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic analysis of the literature. Cancer. 2018; 124: 271–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    2. Larkin J,
    3. Chiarion-Sileni V,
    4. Gonzalez R,
    5. Grob JJ,
    6. Cowey CL,
    7. Lao CD, et al.
    Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 1270–1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    2. Postow MA,
    3. Chesney J,
    4. Pavlick AC,
    5. Robert C,
    6. Grossmann K,
    7. McDermott D, et al.
    Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2006–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    2. Khoja L,
    3. Day D,
    4. Wei-Wu Chen T,
    5. Siu LL,
    6. Hansen AR.
    Tumour- and class-specific patterns of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: 2377–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    2. Nguyen N,
    3. Wan G,
    4. Ugwu-Dike P,
    5. Alexander NA,
    6. Raval N,
    7. Zhang S, et al.
    Influence of melanoma type on incidence and downstream implications of cutaneous immune-related adverse events in the setting of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023; 88: 1308–16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    2. Hailemichael Y,
    3. Johnson DH,
    4. Abdel-Wahab N,
    5. Foo WC,
    6. Bentebibel S-E,
    7. Daher M, et al.
    Interleukin-6 blockade abrogates immunotherapy toxicity and promotes tumor immunity. Cancer Cell. 2022; 40: 509–23.e506.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    2. Bolte LA,
    3. Lee KA,
    4. Björk JR,
    5. Leeming ER,
    6. Campmans-Kuijpers MJE,
    7. de Haan JJ, et al.
    Association of a mediterranean diet with outcomes for patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade for advanced melanoma. JAMA Oncol. 2023; 9: 705–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    2. Verheijden RJ,
    3. Cabané Ballester A,
    4. Smit KC,
    5. van Eijs MJM,
    6. Bruijnen CP,
    7. van Lindert ASR, et al.
    Physical activity and checkpoint inhibition: association with toxicity and survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2024; 116: 573–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    2. Postow MA,
    3. Sidlow R,
    4. Hellmann MD.
    Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 158–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    2. Tang SQ,
    3. Tang LL,
    4. Mao Y-P,
    5. Li W-F,
    6. Chen L,
    7. Zhang Y, et al.
    The pattern of time to onset and resolution of immune-related adverse events caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer: a pooled analysis of 23 clinical trials and 8,436 patients. Cancer Res Treat. 2021; 53: 339–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    2. Weber JS,
    3. Hodi FS,
    4. Wolchok JD,
    5. Topalian SL,
    6. Schadendorf D,
    7. Larkin J, et al.
    Safety profile of nivolumab monotherapy: a pooled analysis of patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 785–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.
    2. Chen EX,
    3. Jonker DJ,
    4. Loree JM,
    5. Kennecke HF,
    6. Berry SR,
    7. Couture F, et al.
    Effect of combined immune checkpoint inhibition vs best supportive care alone in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.26 Study. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 831–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55.
    2. Johnson ML,
    3. Cho BC,
    4. Luft A,
    5. Alatorre-Alexander J,
    6. Geater SL,
    7. Laktionov K, et al.
    Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: the phase III POSEIDON study. J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41: 1213–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.
    2. Kato K,
    3. Cho BC,
    4. Takahashi M,
    5. Okada M,
    6. Lin C-Y,
    7. Chin K, et al.
    Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma refractory or intolerant to previous chemotherapy (ATTRACTION-3): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20: 1506–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.
    2. Waterhouse DM,
    3. Garon EB,
    4. Chandler J,
    5. McCleod M,
    6. Hussein M,
    7. Jotte R, et al.
    Continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration nivolumab in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 153. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38: 3863–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.
    2. Zamarin D,
    3. Burger RA,
    4. Sill MW,
    5. Powell DJ,
    6. Lankes HA,
    7. Feldman MD, et al.
    Randomized phase II trial of nivolumab versus nivolumab and ipilimumab for recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer: an NRG oncology study. J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38: 1814–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.
    2. Spigel D,
    3. Jotte R,
    4. Nemunaitis J,
    5. Shum M,
    6. Schneider J,
    7. Goldschmidt J, et al.
    Randomized phase 2 studies of checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with pegilodecakin in patients with metastatic NSCLC (CYPRESS 1 and CYPRESS 2). J Thorac Oncol. 2021; 16: 327–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  60. 60.
    2. Borghaei H,
    3. Gettinger S,
    4. Vokes EE,
    5. Chow LQM,
    6. Burgio MA,
    7. de Castro Carpeno J, et al.
    Five-year outcomes from the randomized, phase III trials CheckMate 017 and 057: nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39: 723–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.
    2. Forde PM,
    3. Spicer J,
    4. Lu S,
    5. Provencio M,
    6. Mitsudomi T,
    7. Awad MM, et al.
    Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022; 386: 1973–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.
    2. Mok TSK,
    3. Wu Y-L,
    4. Kudaba I,
    5. Kowalski DM,
    6. Cho BC,
    7. Turna HZ, et al.
    Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019; 393: 1819–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.
    2. Lorusso D,
    3. Xiang Y,
    4. Hasegawa K,
    5. Scambia G,
    6. Leiva M,
    7. Ramos-Elias P, et al.
    Pembrolizumab or placebo with chemoradiotherapy followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer (ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2024; 403: 1341–50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. 64.
    2. Horn L,
    3. Mansfield AS,
    4. Szczęsna A,
    5. Havel L,
    6. Krzakowski M,
    7. Hochmair MJ, et al.
    First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 2220–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    2. Dent R,
    3. André F,
    4. Gonçalves A,
    5. Martin M,
    6. Schmid P,
    7. Schütz F, et al.
    IMpassion132 double-blind randomised phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab for early relapsing unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2024; 35: 630–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 66.
    2. Macarulla T,
    3. Ren Z,
    4. Chon HJ,
    5. Park JO,
    6. Kim JW,
    7. Pressiani T, et al.
    Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in advanced biliary tract cancer: clinical and biomarker data from the randomized phase II IMbrave151 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2025; 43: 545–57.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.
    2. Xia F,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Wang H,
    5. Shen L,
    6. Xiang Z,
    7. Zhao Y, et al.
    Randomized phase II trial of immunotherapy-based total neoadjuvant therapy for proficient mismatch repair or microsatellite stable locally advanced rectal cancer (TORCH). J Clin Oncol. 2024; 42: 3308–18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  68. 68.
    2. Kim S,
    3. Wuthrick E,
    4. Blakaj D,
    5. Eroglu Z,
    6. Verschraegen C,
    7. Thapa R, et al.
    Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma: a randomised, open label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2022; 400: 1008–19.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    2. Ruste V,
    3. Goldschmidt V,
    4. Laparra A,
    5. Messayke S,
    6. Danlos F-X,
    7. Romano-Martin P, et al.
    The determinants of very severe immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a prospective study of the French REISAMIC registry. Eur J Cancer. 2021; 158: 217–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. 70.↵
    2. Wang DY,
    3. Salem JE,
    4. Cohen JV,
    5. Chandra S,
    6. Menzer C,
    7. Ye F, et al.
    Fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4: 1721–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    2. Kichenadasse G,
    3. Miners JO,
    4. Mangoni AA,
    5. Rowland A,
    6. Hopkins AM,
    7. Sorich MJ.
    Multiorgan immune-related adverse events during treatment with atezolizumab. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020; 18: 1191–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    2. Shankar B,
    3. Zhang J,
    4. Naqash AR,
    5. Forde PM,
    6. Feliciano JL,
    7. Marrone KA, et al.
    Multisystem immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 1952–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    2. Naidoo J,
    3. Murphy C,
    4. Atkins MB,
    5. Brahmer JR,
    6. Champiat S,
    7. Feltquate D, et al.
    Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) consensus definitions for immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated immune-related adverse events (irAEs) terminology. J Immunother Cancer. 2023; 11: e006398.
  74. 74.↵
    2. Laparra A,
    3. Kfoury M,
    4. Champiat S,
    5. Danlos FX,
    6. Martin-Romano P,
    7. Simonaggio A, et al.
    Multiple immune-related toxicities in cancer patients treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 immunotherapies: a new surrogate marker for clinical trials? Ann Oncol. 2021; 32: 936–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    2. Abu-Sbeih H,
    3. Tang T,
    4. Ali FS,
    5. Johnson DH,
    6. Qiao W,
    7. Diab A, et al.
    The impact of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events and their immunosuppressive treatment on patients’ outcomes. J Immuno Precis Oncol. 2020; 1: 7–18.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    2. Li Y,
    3. Pond G,
    4. McWhirter E.
    Multisystem immune-related adverse events from dual-agent immunotherapy use. Curr Oncol. 2024; 31: 425–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    2. Patrinely JR Jr.,
    3. Johnson R,
    4. Lawless AR,
    5. Bhave P,
    6. Sawyers A,
    7. Dimitrova M, et al.
    Chronic immune-related adverse events following adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for high-risk resected melanoma. JAMA Oncol. 2021; 7: 744–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    2. Johnson DB,
    3. Nebhan CA,
    4. Moslehi JJ,
    5. Balko JM.
    Immune-checkpoint inhibitors: long-term implications of toxicity. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2022; 19: 254–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    2. Luoma AM,
    3. Suo S,
    4. Williams HL,
    5. Sharova T,
    6. Sullivan K,
    7. Manos M, et al.
    Molecular pathways of colon inflammation induced by cancer immunotherapy. Cell. 2020; 182: 655–71.e622.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    2. Ma C,
    3. Hodi FS,
    4. Giobbie-Hurder A,
    5. Wang X,
    6. Zhou J,
    7. Zhang A, et al.
    The impact of high-dose glucocorticoids on the outcome of immune-checkpoint inhibitor-related thyroid disorders. Cancer Immunol Res. 2019; 7: 1214–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    2. Faje AT,
    3. Lawrence D,
    4. Flaherty K,
    5. Freedman C,
    6. Fadden R,
    7. Rubin K, et al.
    High-dose glucocorticoids for the treatment of ipilimumab-induced hypophysitis is associated with reduced survival in patients with melanoma. Cancer. 2018; 124: 3706–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    2. Goodman RS,
    3. Lawless A,
    4. Woodford R,
    5. Fa’ak F,
    6. Tipirneni A,
    7. Patrinely JR, et al.
    Long-term outcomes of chronic immune-related adverse events from adjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy for high-risk resected melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41: 9591.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    2. Ghisoni E,
    3. Wicky A,
    4. Bouchaab H,
    5. Imbimbo M,
    6. Delyon J,
    7. Gautron Moura B, et al.
    Late-onset and long-lasting immune-related adverse events from immune checkpoint-inhibitors: an overlooked aspect in immunotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2021; 149: 153–64.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    2. Watson AS,
    3. Goutam S,
    4. Stukalin I,
    5. Ewanchuk BW,
    6. Sander M,
    7. Meyers DE, et al.
    Association of immune-related adverse events, hospitalization, and therapy resumption with survival among patients with metastatic melanoma receiving single-agent or combination immunotherapy. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5: e2245596.
  85. 85.↵
    2. Schulz TU,
    3. Zierold S,
    4. Sachse MM,
    5. Ewanchuk BW,
    6. Sander M,
    7. Meyers DE, et al.
    Persistent immune-related adverse events after cessation of checkpoint inhibitor therapy: prevalence and impact on patients’ health-related quality of life. Eur J Cancer. 2022; 176: 88–99.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    2. Cappelli LC,
    3. Grieb SM,
    4. Shah AA,
    5. Bingham CO 3rd.,
    6. Orbai AM.
    Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis: a qualitative study identifying unmet patient needs and care gaps. BMC Rheumatol. 2020; 4: 32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    2. Schneider BJ,
    3. Naidoo J,
    4. Santomasso BD,
    5. Lacchetti C,
    6. Adkins S,
    7. Anadkat M, et al.
    Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39: 4073–126.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    2. Haanen J,
    3. Obeid M,
    4. Spain L,
    5. Carbonnel F,
    6. Wang Y,
    7. Robert C, et al.
    Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022; 33: 1217–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    2. Mittendorf EA,
    3. Burgers F,
    4. Haanen J,
    5. Cascone T.
    Neoadjuvant immunotherapy: leveraging the immune system to treat early-stage disease. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2022; 42: 1–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  90. 90.↵
    2. Tang Q,
    3. Zhao S,
    4. Zhou N,
    5. He J,
    6. Zu L,
    7. Liu T, et al.
    PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in neoadjuvant therapy for solid tumors (Review). Int J Oncol. 2023; 62: 49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    2. Robert C.
    A decade of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy. Nat Commun. 2020; 11: 3801.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    2. Owen CN,
    3. Bai X,
    4. Quah T,
    5. Lo SN,
    6. Allayous C,
    7. Callaghan S, et al.
    Delayed immune-related adverse events with anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy in melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2021; 32: 917–25.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    2. Ascierto PA,
    3. Del Vecchio M,
    4. Mandalá M,
    5. Gogas H,
    6. Arance AM,
    7. Dalle S, et al.
    Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: 1465–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    2. Robert C,
    3. Hwu WJ,
    4. Hamid O,
    5. Ribas A,
    6. Weber JS,
    7. Daud AI, et al.
    Long-term safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy and relationship with clinical outcome: a landmark analysis in patients with advanced melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2021; 144: 182–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    2. Drobni ZD,
    3. Alvi RM,
    4. Taron J,
    5. Zafar A,
    6. Murphy SP,
    7. Rambarat PK, et al.
    Association between immune checkpoint inhibitors with cardiovascular events and atherosclerotic plaque. Circulation. 2020; 142: 2299–311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    2. Laenens D,
    3. Yu Y,
    4. Santens B,
    5. Jacobs J,
    6. Beuselinck B,
    7. Bechter O, et al.
    Incidence of cardiovascular events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 40: 3430–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. 97.↵
    2. Garutti M,
    3. Lambertini M,
    4. Puglisi F.
    Checkpoint inhibitors, fertility, pregnancy, and sexual life: a systematic review. ESMO Open. 2021; 6: 100276.
  98. 98.
    2. Scovell JM,
    3. Benz K,
    4. Samarska I,
    5. Kohn TP,
    6. Hooper JE,
    7. Matoso A, et al.
    Association of impaired spermatogenesis with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic melanoma. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 1297–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  99. 99.↵
    2. Salzmann M,
    3. Tosev G,
    4. Heck M,
    5. Schadendorf D,
    6. Maatouk I,
    7. Enk AH, et al.
    Male fertility during and after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a cross-sectional pilot study. Eur J Cancer. 2021; 152: 41–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    2. Dhodapkar K,
    3. Portielje J.
    Minority report on cancer immunotherapy: focus on elderly and other understudied populations. J Immunother Cancer. 2024; 12.
  101. 101.↵
    2. Yamaguchi A,
    3. Saito Y,
    4. Okamoto K,
    5. Narumi K,
    6. Furugen A,
    7. Takekuma Y, et al.
    Preexisting autoimmune disease is a risk factor for immune-related adverse events: a meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2021; 29: 7747–53.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    2. Le J,
    3. Sun Y,
    4. Deng G,
    5. Dian Y,
    6. Xie Y,
    7. Zeng F.
    Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients with autoimmune disease: safety and efficacy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2025; 21: 2458948.
  103. 103.↵
    2. Fountzilas E,
    3. Lampaki S,
    4. Koliou G-A,
    5. Koumarianou A,
    6. Levva S,
    7. Vagionas A, et al.
    Real-world safety and efficacy data of immunotherapy in patients with cancer and autoimmune disease: the experience of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2022; 71: 327–37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  104. 104.
    2. Tison A,
    3. Quéré G,
    4. Misery L,
    5. Funck-Brentano E,
    6. Danlos F-X,
    7. Routier E, et al.
    Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer and preexisting autoimmune disease: a nationwide, multicenter cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71: 2100–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    2. Lopez-Olivo MA,
    3. Kachira JJ,
    4. Abdel-Wahab N,
    5. Pundole X,
    6. Aldrich JD,
    7. Carey P, et al.
    A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and uncontrolled trials reporting on the use of checkpoint blockers in patients with cancer and pre-existing autoimmune disease. Eur J Cancer. 2024; 207: 114148.
  106. 106.↵
    2. Gawaz A,
    3. Wolff I,
    4. Nanz L,
    5. Flatz L,
    6. Forschner A.
    Efficacy of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab or nivolumab in melanoma patients ≥ 75 years: results of a real-world cohort including 456 patients. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2024; 73: 185.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    2. Stoff R,
    3. Grynberg S,
    4. Asher N,
    5. Laks S,
    6. Steinberg Y,
    7. Schachter J, et al.
    Efficacy and toxicity of Ipilimumab-Nivolumab combination therapy in elderly metastatic melanoma patients. Front Oncol. 2022; 12: 1020058.
  108. 108.↵
    2. Rong Y,
    3. Ramachandran S,
    4. Bhattacharya K,
    5. Yang Y,
    6. Earl S,
    7. Chang Y, et al.
    The association between toxicity and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in older adults with NSCLC. Immunotherapy. 2024; 16: 1057–68.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. 109.↵
    2. Matsukane R,
    3. Oyama T,
    4. Tatsuta R,
    5. Kimura S,
    6. Hata K,
    7. Urata S, et al.
    Real-world prevalence and tolerability of immune-related adverse events in older adults with non-small cell lung cancer: a multi-institutional retrospective study. Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16.
  110. 110.↵
    2. Rui R,
    3. Zhou L,
    4. He S.
    Cancer immunotherapies: advances and bottlenecks. Front Immunol. 2023; 14: 1212476.
  111. 111.
    2. Maruhashi T,
    3. Sugiura D,
    4. Okazaki I-M,
    5. Okazaki T.
    LAG-3: from molecular functions to clinical applications. J Immunother Cancer. 2020; 8: e001014.
  112. 112.↵
    2. Gomes de Morais AL,
    3. Cerdá S,
    4. de Miguel M.
    New checkpoint inhibitors on the road: targeting TIM-3 in solid tumors. Curr Oncol Rep. 2022; 24: 651–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  113. 113.
    2. Niu J,
    3. Maurice-Dror C,
    4. Lee DH,
    5. Kim D-W,
    6. Nagrial A,
    7. Voskoboynik M, et al.
    First-in-human phase 1 study of the anti-TIGIT antibody vibostolimab as monotherapy or with pembrolizumab for advanced solid tumors, including non-small-cell lung cancer(☆). Ann Oncol. 2022; 33: 169–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. 114.
    2. Nishizaki D,
    3. Kurzrock R,
    4. Miyashita H,
    5. Adashek JJ,
    6. Lee S,
    7. Nikanjam M, et al.
    Viewing the immune checkpoint VISTA: landscape and outcomes across cancers. ESMO Open. 2024; 9: 102942.
  115. 115.
    2. Sordo-Bahamonde C,
    3. Lorenzo-Herrero S,
    4. Granda-Díaz R,
    5. Martínez-Pérez A,
    6. Aguilar-García C,
    7. Rodrigo JP, et al.
    Beyond the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 era: promising role of the BTLA/HVEM axis as a future target for cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer. 2023; 22: 142.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  116. 116.↵
    2. Wu ZH,
    3. Li N,
    4. Mei X-F,
    5. Chen J,
    6. Wang X-Z,
    7. Guo T-T, et al.
    Preclinical characterization of the novel anti-SIRPα antibody BR105 that targets the myeloid immune checkpoint. J Immunother Cancer. 2022; 10.
  117. 117.↵
    2. Raschi E,
    3. Comito F,
    4. Massari F,
    5. Gelsomino F.
    Relatlimab and nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma: insight into RELATIVITY. Immunotherapy. 2023; 15: 85–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. 118.↵
    2. Davar D,
    3. Anderson AC,
    4. Diaz-Padilla I.
    Therapeutic potential of targeting LAG-3 in cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 2025; 13.
  119. 119.↵
    2. Brazel D,
    3. Ou SI,
    4. Nagasaka M.
    Tiragolumab (anti-TIGIT) in SCLC: Skyscraper-02, a Towering Inferno. Lung Cancer (Auckl). 2023; 14: 1–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  120. 120.↵
    2. Curigliano G,
    3. Gelderblom H,
    4. Mach N,
    5. Doi T,
    6. Tai D,
    7. Forde PM, et al.
    Phase I/Ib clinical trial of sabatolimab, an anti-TIM-3 antibody, alone and in combination with spartalizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2021; 27: 3620–29.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  121. 121.
    2. Tawbi HA,
    3. Schadendorf D,
    4. Lipson EJ,
    5. Ascierto PA,
    6. Matamala L,
    7. Castillo Gutiérrez E, et al.
    Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2022; 386: 24–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.
    2. Frentzas S,
    3. Kao S,
    4. Gao R,
    5. Zheng H,
    6. Rizwan A,
    7. Budha N, et al.
    AdvanTIG-105: a phase I dose escalation study of the anti-TIGIT monoclonal antibody ociperlimab in combination with tislelizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Immunother Cancer. 2023; 11.
  123. 123.↵
    2. Hsiehchen D,
    3. Kainthla R,
    4. Kline H,
    5. Siglinsky E,
    6. Ahn C,
    7. Zhu H.
    Dual TIGIT and PD-1 blockade with domvanalimab plus zimberelimab in hepatocellular carcinoma refractory to anti-PD-1 therapies: the phase 2 LIVERTI trial. Nat Commun. 2025; 16: 5819.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  124. 124.↵
    2. Lentz RW,
    3. Colton MD,
    4. Mitra SS,
    5. Messersmith WA.
    Innate immune checkpoint inhibitors: the next breakthrough in medical oncology? Mol Cancer Ther. 2021; 20: 961–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. 125.↵
    2. Brahmer JR,
    3. Abu-Sbeih H,
    4. Ascierto PA,
    5. Brufsky J,
    6. Cappelli LC,
    7. Cortazar FB, et al.
    Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events. J Immunother Cancer. 2021; 9.
  126. 126.↵
    2. Zou F,
    3. Faleck D,
    4. Thomas A,
    5. Harris J,
    6. Satish D,
    7. Wang X, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of vedolizumab and infliximab treatment for immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis in patients with cancer: a two-center observational study. J Immunother Cancer. 2021; 9.
  127. 127.↵
    2. Liu D,
    3. Ahmet A,
    4. Ward L,
    5. Krishnamoorthy P,
    6. Mandelcorn ED,
    7. Leigh R, et al.
    A practical guide to the monitoring and management of the complications of systemic corticosteroid therapy. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2013; 9: 30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. 128.↵
    2. Abu-Sbeih H,
    3. Ali FS,
    4. Alsaadi D,
    5. Jennings J,
    6. Luo W,
    7. Gong Z, et al.
    Outcomes of vedolizumab therapy in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis: a multi-center study. J Immunother Cancer. 2018; 6: 142.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  129. 129.↵
    2. Zou F,
    3. Shah AY,
    4. Glitza IC,
    5. Richards D,
    6. Thomas AS,
    7. Wang Y.
    S0137 Comparative study of vedolizumab and infliximab treatment in patients with immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020; 115: S68.
    OpenUrl
  130. 130.↵
    2. Bass AR,
    3. Abdel-Wahab N,
    4. Reid PD,
    5. Sparks JA,
    6. Calabrese C,
    7. Jannat-Khah DP, et al.
    Comparative safety and effectiveness of TNF inhibitors, IL6 inhibitors and methotrexate for the treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023; 82: 920–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.↵
    2. Michailidou D,
    3. Khaki AR,
    4. Morelli MP,
    5. Diamantopoulos L,
    6. Singh N,
    7. Grivas P.
    Association of blood biomarkers and autoimmunity with immune related adverse events in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 9029.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. 132.
    2. Chu X,
    3. Zhao J,
    4. Zhou J,
    5. Zhou F,
    6. Jiang T,
    7. Jiang S, et al.
    Association of baseline peripheral-blood eosinophil count with immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis and clinical outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Lung Cancer. 2020; 150: 76–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  133. 133.
    2. Nakamura Y,
    3. Tanaka R,
    4. Maruyama H,
    5. Ishitsuka Y,
    6. Okiyama N,
    7. Watanabe R, et al.
    Correlation between blood cell count and outcome of melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 antibodies. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019; 49: 431–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. 134.↵
    2. Lee PY,
    3. Oen KQX,
    4. Lim GRS,
    5. Hartono JL,
    6. Muthiah M,
    7. Huang DQ, et al.
    Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio Predicts development of immune-related adverse events and outcomes from immune checkpoint blockade: a case-control study. Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13: 1308.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  135. 135.↵
    2. Oyanagi J,
    3. Koh Y,
    4. Sato K,
    5. Mori K,
    6. Teraoka S,
    7. Akamatsu H, et al.
    Predictive value of serum protein levels in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab. Lung Cancer. 2019; 132: 107–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  136. 136.
    2. Valpione S,
    3. Pasquali S,
    4. Campana LG,
    5. Piccin L,
    6. Mocellin S,
    7. Pigozzo J, et al.
    Sex and interleukin-6 are prognostic factors for autoimmune toxicity following treatment with anti-CTLA4 blockade. J Transl Med. 2018; 16: 94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. 137.
    2. Lim SY,
    3. Lee JH,
    4. Gide TN,
    5. Menzies AM,
    6. Guminski A,
    7. Carlino MS, et al.
    Circulating cytokines predict immune-related toxicity in melanoma patients receiving anti-PD-1-based immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 25: 1557–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. 138.
    2. Fujimura T,
    3. Sato Y,
    4. Tanita K,
    5. Kambayashi Y,
    6. Otsuka A,
    7. Fujisawa Y, et al.
    Serum levels of soluble CD163 and CXCL5 may be predictive markers for immune-related adverse events in patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab: a pilot study. Oncotarget. 2018; 9: 15542–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  139. 139.
    2. Hirashima T,
    3. Kanai T,
    4. Suzuki H,
    5. Yoshida H,
    6. Matsushita A,
    7. Kawasumi H, et al.
    The levels of interferon-gamma release as a biomarker for non-small-cell lung cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Anticancer Res. 2019; 39: 6231–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. 140.↵
    2. Abolhassani AR,
    3. Schuler G,
    4. Kirchberger MC,
    5. Heinzerling L.
    C-reactive protein as an early marker of immune-related adverse events. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019; 145: 2625–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  141. 141.↵
    2. Luongo C,
    3. Morra R,
    4. Gambale C,
    5. Porcelli T,
    6. Sessa F,
    7. Matano E, et al.
    Higher baseline TSH levels predict early hypothyroidism during cancer immunotherapy. J Endocrinol Invest. 2021; 44: 1927–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  142. 142.
    2. Brilli L,
    3. Danielli R,
    4. Campanile M,
    5. Secchi C,
    6. Ciuoli C,
    7. Calabrò L, et al.
    Baseline serum TSH levels predict the absence of thyroid dysfunction in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy. J Endocrinol Invest. 2021; 44: 1719–26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  143. 143.
    2. Yoon JH,
    3. Hong AR,
    4. Kim HK,
    5. Kang H-C.
    Characteristics of immune-related thyroid adverse events in patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2021; 36: 413–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  144. 144.↵
    2. Duvall LE.
    The use of peripheral blood biomarkers for predicting the risk of immune-related adverse events in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Ann Clin Biochem. 2025; 62: 236–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  145. 145.↵
    2. Stamatouli AM,
    3. Quandt Z,
    4. Perdigoto AL,
    5. Clark PL,
    6. Kluger H,
    7. Weiss SA, et al.
    Collateral damage: insulin-dependent diabetes induced with checkpoint inhibitors. Diabetes. 2018; 67: 1471–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. 146.
    2. Yano S,
    3. Ashida K,
    4. Sakamoto R,
    5. Sakaguchi C,
    6. Ogata M,
    7. Maruyama K, et al.
    Human leucocyte antigen DR15, a possible predictive marker for immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced secondary adrenal insufficiency. Eur J Cancer. 2020; 130: 198–203.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  147. 147.
    2. Cappelli LC,
    3. Dorak MT,
    4. Bettinotti MP,
    5. Bingham CO,
    6. Shah AA.
    Association of HLA-DRB1 shared epitope alleles and immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2019; 58: 476–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. 148.
    2. Araújo M,
    3. Ligeiro D,
    4. Costa L,
    5. Marques F,
    6. Trindade H,
    7. Correia JM, et al.
    A case of fulminant Type 1 diabetes following anti-PD1 immunotherapy in a genetically susceptible patient. Immunotherapy. 2017; 9: 531–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  149. 149.↵
    2. Hasan Ali O,
    3. Berner F,
    4. Bomze D,
    5. Fässler M,
    6. Diem S,
    7. Cozzio A, et al.
    Human leukocyte antigen variation is associated with adverse events of checkpoint inhibitors. Eur J Cancer. 2019; 107: 8–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. 150.↵
    2. Abdel-Wahab N,
    3. Diab A,
    4. Yu RK,
    5. Futreal A,
    6. Criswell LA,
    7. Tayar JH, et al.
    Genetic determinants of immune-related adverse events in patients with melanoma receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021; 70: 1939–49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  151. 151.↵
    2. Marschner D,
    3. Falk M,
    4. Javorniczky NR,
    5. Hanke-Müller K,
    6. Rawluk J,
    7. Schmitt-Graeff A, et al.
    MicroRNA-146a regulates immune-related adverse events caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors. JCI Insight. 2020; 5: e132334.
  152. 152.↵
    2. Zou F,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Glitza Oliva IC,
    5. McQuade JL,
    6. Wang J,
    7. Zhang HC, et al.
    Fecal calprotectin concentration to assess endoscopic and histologic remission in patients with cancer with immune-mediated diarrhea and colitis. J Immunother Cancer. 2021; 9: e002058.
  153. 153.
    2. Dubin K,
    3. Callahan MK,
    4. Ren B,
    5. Khanin R,
    6. Viale A,
    7. Ling L, et al.
    Intestinal microbiome analyses identify melanoma patients at risk for checkpoint-blockade-induced colitis. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 10391.
  154. 154.
    2. Tan B,
    3. Chen MJ,
    4. Guo Q,
    5. Tang H,
    6. Li Y,
    7. Jia X-M, et al.
    Clinical-radiological characteristics and intestinal microbiota in patients with pancreatic immune-related adverse events. Thorac Cancer. 2021; 12: 1814–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  155. 155.↵
    2. Chaput N,
    3. Lepage P,
    4. Coutzac C,
    5. Soularue E,
    6. Le Roux K,
    7. Monot C, et al.
    Baseline gut microbiota predicts clinical response and colitis in metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: 1368–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. 156.↵
    2. Yu Y,
    3. Ruddy KJ,
    4. Tsuji S,
    5. Hong N,
    6. Liu H,
    7. Shah N, et al.
    Coverage evaluation of CTCAE for capturing the immune-related adverse events leveraging text mining technologies. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2019; 2019: 771–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  157. 157.↵
    2. Hsiehchen D,
    3. Watters MK,
    4. Lu R,
    5. Xie Y,
    6. Gerber DE.
    Variation in the assessment of immune-related adverse event occurrence, grade, and timing in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2: e1911519.
  158. 158.↵
    2. Gault A,
    3. Anderson AE,
    4. Plummer R,
    5. Stewart C,
    6. Pratt AG,
    7. Rajan N.
    Cutaneous immune-related adverse events in patients with melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors. Br J Dermatol. 2021; 185: 263–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  159. 159.↵
    2. Dall’Olio FG,
    3. Rizzo A,
    4. Mollica V,
    5. Massucci M,
    6. Maggio I,
    7. Massari F.
    Immortal time bias in the association between toxicity and response for immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Immunotherapy. 2021; 13: 257–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  160. 160.↵
    2. Hussaini S,
    3. Chehade R,
    4. Boldt RG,
    5. Raphael J,
    6. Blanchette P,
    7. Maleki Vareki S, et al.
    Association between immune-related side effects and efficacy and benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021; 92: 102134.
  161. 161.
    2. Eggermont AMM,
    3. Kicinski M,
    4. Blank CU,
    5. Mandala M,
    6. Long GV,
    7. Atkinson V, et al.
    Association between immune-related adverse events and recurrence-free survival among patients with stage III melanoma randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 519–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  162. 162.↵
    2. Verheijden RJ,
    3. van Eijs MJM,
    4. May AM,
    5. van Wijk F,
    6. Suijkerbuijk KPM.
    Immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events during checkpoint inhibition: an intricate balance. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2023; 7: 41.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  163. 163.↵
    2. Lin L,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Chen C,
    5. Wei A,
    6. Li W.
    Association between immune-related adverse events and immunotherapy efficacy in non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2023; 14: 1190001.
  164. 164.
    2. Zhou X,
    3. Yao Z,
    4. Yang H,
    5. Liang N,
    6. Zhang X,
    7. Zhang F.
    Are immune-related adverse events associated with the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2020; 18: 87.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  165. 165.↵
    2. Huang Y,
    3. Ma W,
    4. Wu D,
    5. Lyu M,
    6. Zheng Q,
    7. Wang T, et al.
    Prognostic relevance of immune-related adverse events in lung cancer patients undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2024; 13: 1559–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  166. 166.↵
    2. Nassif EF,
    3. Roland CL,
    4. Keung EZ.
    Reflections on the value of multidisciplinary oncology training by a medical oncologist. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023; 49: 1046–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  167. 167.
    2. Popescu RA,
    3. Schäfer R,
    4. Califano R,
    5. Eckert R,
    6. Coleman R,
    7. Douillard J-Y, et al.
    The current and future role of the medical oncologist in the professional care for cancer patients: a position paper by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Ann Oncol. 2014; 25: 9–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. 168.
    2. Pavlidis N,
    3. Alba E,
    4. Berardi R,
    5. Bergh J,
    6. El Saghir N,
    7. Jassem J, et al.
    The ESMO/ASCO Global Curriculum and the evolution of medical oncology training in Europe. ESMO Open. 2016; 1: e000004.
  169. 169.
    2. Cufer T,
    3. Kosty M,
    4. Osterlund P,
    5. Jezdic S,
    6. Pyle D,
    7. Awada A, et al.
    Current landscape of ESMO/ASCO Global Curriculum adoption and medical oncology recognition: a global survey. ESMO Open. 2021; 6: 100219.
  170. 170.↵
    2. Pavlidis N,
    3. Peccatori F,
    4. Aapro M,
    5. Rolfo C,
    6. Cervantes A,
    7. Stahel R, et al.
    Changing the education paradigm in oncology: ESO masterclass, 17 years of continuous success. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2020; 146: 102798.
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords