免疫相关不良事件管理实践的演变:IMMUCARE 多学科委员会的见解。

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Romain Varnier, Clara Fontaine-Delaruelle, Nathalie Freymond, Aurore Essongue, Anissa Bouali, Gilles Boschetti, Fanny Lebosse, Sophie Tartas, Sarah Milley, Christine Cugnet-Anceau, Etienne Novel-Catin, Bastien Joubert, Emmanuel Massy, Stéphane Dalle, Denis Maillet
{"title":"免疫相关不良事件管理实践的演变:IMMUCARE 多学科委员会的见解。","authors":"Romain Varnier, Clara Fontaine-Delaruelle, Nathalie Freymond, Aurore Essongue, Anissa Bouali, Gilles Boschetti, Fanny Lebosse, Sophie Tartas, Sarah Milley, Christine Cugnet-Anceau, Etienne Novel-Catin, Bastien Joubert, Emmanuel Massy, Stéphane Dalle, Denis Maillet","doi":"10.1200/OP.24.00042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requires multidisciplinary boards to handle complex cases. This study aimed to examine the evolving practices of the IMMUCARE board and to evaluate its impact on clinical practices.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The IMMUCARE board gathers oncologists and organ specialists from the Cancerology Institute of the Lyon University Hospital since 2018. We conducted a retrospective analysis of its activity (participants' specialty, referred cases, and recommendations) from 2018 to 2021, coupled with a survey among the physicians who participated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 68 board meetings, 245 cases from 195 patients were discussed. Each board had a median of six participants (IQR, 5-8). Participation rates varied across specialties and also over time (participation of nephrologists and rheumatologists significantly increased over time, whereas it decreased for endocrinologists). Most of the referred patients (89%) were treated at our center. Only 4% of referrals concerned eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), whereas the majority pertained to irAEs. The board recommended ICI interruption for 56% and steroids for 41% of them. Immunosuppressants were recommended in 17% of cases, with a notable increase over time. ICI reintroduction was debated in 50% of cases, and the board identified a definitive contraindication in 26% of them. The survey of 49 of 98 physicians showed that the board significantly affected immunosuppressant introduction and ICI rechallenge decisions. The board's educational and collaborative benefits were highlighted, but time constraints posed challenges.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our 4-year analysis of irAE management practices reveals changing patterns in the distribution of cases presented and in specialists' involvement. Dedicated multidisciplinary boards remain essential, particularly for intricate cases. Expanding access to these boards is crucial to ensure comprehensive care for all patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evolving Practices in Immune-Related Adverse Event Management: Insights From the IMMUCARE Multidisciplinary Board.\",\"authors\":\"Romain Varnier, Clara Fontaine-Delaruelle, Nathalie Freymond, Aurore Essongue, Anissa Bouali, Gilles Boschetti, Fanny Lebosse, Sophie Tartas, Sarah Milley, Christine Cugnet-Anceau, Etienne Novel-Catin, Bastien Joubert, Emmanuel Massy, Stéphane Dalle, Denis Maillet\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/OP.24.00042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requires multidisciplinary boards to handle complex cases. This study aimed to examine the evolving practices of the IMMUCARE board and to evaluate its impact on clinical practices.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The IMMUCARE board gathers oncologists and organ specialists from the Cancerology Institute of the Lyon University Hospital since 2018. We conducted a retrospective analysis of its activity (participants' specialty, referred cases, and recommendations) from 2018 to 2021, coupled with a survey among the physicians who participated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 68 board meetings, 245 cases from 195 patients were discussed. Each board had a median of six participants (IQR, 5-8). Participation rates varied across specialties and also over time (participation of nephrologists and rheumatologists significantly increased over time, whereas it decreased for endocrinologists). Most of the referred patients (89%) were treated at our center. Only 4% of referrals concerned eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), whereas the majority pertained to irAEs. The board recommended ICI interruption for 56% and steroids for 41% of them. Immunosuppressants were recommended in 17% of cases, with a notable increase over time. ICI reintroduction was debated in 50% of cases, and the board identified a definitive contraindication in 26% of them. The survey of 49 of 98 physicians showed that the board significantly affected immunosuppressant introduction and ICI rechallenge decisions. The board's educational and collaborative benefits were highlighted, but time constraints posed challenges.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our 4-year analysis of irAE management practices reveals changing patterns in the distribution of cases presented and in specialists' involvement. Dedicated multidisciplinary boards remain essential, particularly for intricate cases. Expanding access to these boards is crucial to ensure comprehensive care for all patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO oncology practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO oncology practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00042\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00042","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:免疫相关不良事件(irAEs)的管理需要多学科委员会来处理复杂病例。本研究旨在考察IMMUCARE委员会不断发展的实践,并评估其对临床实践的影响:自2018年起,IMMUCARE委员会聚集了里昂大学医院癌症研究所的肿瘤专家和器官专家。我们对其2018年至2021年的活动(参与者的专业、转诊病例和建议)进行了回顾性分析,并对参与的医生进行了调查:在 68 次委员会会议上,讨论了来自 195 名患者的 245 个病例。每个委员会的参与者中位数为 6 人(IQR,5-8)。各专科的参与率不尽相同,而且随时间推移而变化(肾病学家和风湿病学家的参与率随时间推移显著增加,而内分泌学家的参与率则有所下降)。大多数转诊患者(89%)都在本中心接受了治疗。仅有 4% 的转诊患者符合使用免疫检查点抑制剂 (ICI) 的条件,而大多数患者则与虹膜不良反应有关。委员会建议56%的患者中断使用ICI,41%的患者使用类固醇。17%的病例被建议使用免疫抑制剂,随着时间的推移,比例明显增加。50%的病例对重新使用 ICI 进行了辩论,委员会确定了其中 26% 的病例有明确的禁忌症。对 98 名医生中的 49 名医生进行的调查显示,委员会对免疫抑制剂的引入和 ICI 重新挑战的决定有重大影响。委员会在教育和合作方面的优势得到了强调,但时间限制带来了挑战:我们对irAE管理实践进行的4年分析表明,提交病例的分布和专家参与的模式正在发生变化。专门的多学科委员会仍然至关重要,尤其是对于复杂的病例。要确保为所有患者提供全面的治疗,扩大这些委员会的服务范围至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evolving Practices in Immune-Related Adverse Event Management: Insights From the IMMUCARE Multidisciplinary Board.

Purpose: The management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requires multidisciplinary boards to handle complex cases. This study aimed to examine the evolving practices of the IMMUCARE board and to evaluate its impact on clinical practices.

Materials and methods: The IMMUCARE board gathers oncologists and organ specialists from the Cancerology Institute of the Lyon University Hospital since 2018. We conducted a retrospective analysis of its activity (participants' specialty, referred cases, and recommendations) from 2018 to 2021, coupled with a survey among the physicians who participated.

Results: Across 68 board meetings, 245 cases from 195 patients were discussed. Each board had a median of six participants (IQR, 5-8). Participation rates varied across specialties and also over time (participation of nephrologists and rheumatologists significantly increased over time, whereas it decreased for endocrinologists). Most of the referred patients (89%) were treated at our center. Only 4% of referrals concerned eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), whereas the majority pertained to irAEs. The board recommended ICI interruption for 56% and steroids for 41% of them. Immunosuppressants were recommended in 17% of cases, with a notable increase over time. ICI reintroduction was debated in 50% of cases, and the board identified a definitive contraindication in 26% of them. The survey of 49 of 98 physicians showed that the board significantly affected immunosuppressant introduction and ICI rechallenge decisions. The board's educational and collaborative benefits were highlighted, but time constraints posed challenges.

Conclusion: Our 4-year analysis of irAE management practices reveals changing patterns in the distribution of cases presented and in specialists' involvement. Dedicated multidisciplinary boards remain essential, particularly for intricate cases. Expanding access to these boards is crucial to ensure comprehensive care for all patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信