Consensus disease definitions for ophthalmic immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors

作者：Eileen Chang, Renee Liu, Kiandokht Keyhanian, Katie Huynh, Meghan Berkenstock, M. Tariq Bhatti, John J. Chen, James Chodosh, Fiona Costello, Lauren A. Dalvin, Lindsey B. De Lott, Marc Dinkin, Robert A. Egan, Clare L Fraser, Suzanne K. Freitag, Sapna Gangaputra, Lynn K. Gordon, Amanda C. Guidon, Douglas B. Johnson, Ninani Kombo, Michal Kramer, Andrew G. Lee, Michaël Levy, Anne-Marie Lobo-Chan, Dimosthenis Mantopoulos, George N. Papaliodis, Misha Pless, Julia Pimkina, Krista M. Rubin, H. Nida Sen, Afreen Shariff, Prem S. Subramanian, Edmund Tsui, Michael K. Yoon, Jon McDunn, Johnathan Rine, Kerry L. Reynolds, Lucia Sobrin, Bart K. Chwalisz · 发表于：Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · 年份：2025 · DOI：10.1136/jitc-2024-011049 · 被引用次数：20 · 研究领域：Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers、Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research、Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments

Ophthalmic immune-related adverse events (Eye-irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause visual morbidity. The absence of standardized definitions for Eye-irAEs not only impedes the development of evidence-based treatments but also progress in translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to Eye-irAEs.Four ophthalmic physicians (uveitis specialists and neuro-ophthalmologists) drafted Eye-irAE consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Eye-irAE definition panel. The panel was divided into Group A (Neuro-ophthalmology/Orbital Disease) and Group B (Uveitis/Ocular Surface Disease). A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. For each disorder, five diagnostic components were evaluated: symptoms, examination findings, laboratory studies/imaging findings, diagnostic criteria, and treatment. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free-text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND Corporation/ University of California Los Angeles Health Services Utilization Study (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions.29 panelists from 25 academic medical centers voted on 114 rating scales (66 neuro-o...