Cited by 118Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersImmunotoxicology and immune responsesImmunotherapy and Immune Responses

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: systems-based approaches to improve patient care and research

Johnson, Douglas B, Reynolds, Kerry L, Sullivan, Ryan J, Balko, Justin M, Patrinely, James R, Cappelli, Laura C, Naidoo, Jarushka, Moslehi, Javid J·2020·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have now been approved in numerous and diverse cancer types and combination regimens. Effective recognition and treatment of ICI toxicities, which might occur acutely, affect any organ system, and produce many distinct clinical syndromes, have emerged as essential goals of ICI management. Thus, developing robust diagnostic and management approaches for ICI toxicity across the health-care system is an urgent and unmet clinical need. In this Personal View, we describe barriers to high-quality care that have constrained the most effective management of patients with cancer receiving ICI treatment. We review education initiatives to enhance patient and physician awareness, which is necessary given the broad spectrum of ICI toxicities often experienced by patients, and assess various systems-based approaches that maximise the chances of appropriate management. In addition, we describe research pipelines that broaden evidence-based approaches and the pathobiology of these novel events. Developing effective, systematic approaches for the recognition and treatment of ICI toxicities will continue to grow in importance as these agents proliferate in cancer care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30107-8

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ICI targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4 is clinically effective in enhancing T-cell-mediated antitumor responses.

    “Although proving to be clinically effective in enhancing T-cell-mediated antitumor responses”

    From Autoimmune Myocarditis, Old Dogs and New Tricks. (2024) · cites this paper as [170]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, D. B., Reynolds, K. L., Sullivan, R. J., Balko, J. M., Patrinely, J. R., Cappelli, L. C., Naidoo, J., & Moslehi, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Douglas B
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
21
Issue
8
Pages
e398-e404
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3047192227
Cited by
118
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (K23 CA204726, R01-HL14146, R01CA227481)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23-AR075872)
  • Melanoma Research Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
Keywords
immune checkpoint inhibitors, immune-related adverse events, systems approach, diagnostic approach, research pipeline, cancer care
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological, Patient Care, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Patient Education as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review