All-cause and immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury in immune checkpoint inhibitor users: a meta-analysis of occurrence rate, risk factors and mortality.

What was known:

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) might entail a risk for both all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI. Yet, the occurrence rates of all-cause AKI or ICI-related AKI and the influence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)/proton pump inhibitor (PPI) exposure on ICI-related AKI risk lack systematic examination.

This study adds:

Approximately 1 in 13 and 1 in 33 adult ICI recipients may experience all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI, respectively. The occurrence rates for severe all-cause AKI and severe ICI-related AKI were 1.8% and 1.2%, respectively. PPI or NSAID exposure was associated with an increased odds ratio for both all-cause and ICI-related AKI in the current study.

Potential impact:

Identifying all-cause and ICI-related AKI is crucial. Further prospective studies with histopathology examination are needed to further explore the true incidence. It is advisable for adult ICI recipients to avoid unnecessary PPI or NSAID exposure.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 2 decades, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have seen increasing utilization in the treatment of

advanced-stage malignancies, following their initial approval for metastatic melanoma [ 1 , 2 ]. Three major types of ICIs are focused on different pathways. These include anti-PD-1 antibodies (such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab and cemiplimab), used for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer, renal cell carcinoma, lymphoma and colon cancer. Additionally, anti-CTLA-4 antibodies (ipilimumab) are employed in the treatment of colon cancer, renal cell carcinoma and melanoma. Lastly, anti-PD-L1 antibodies (such as atezolizumab, avelumab and durvalumab) are utilized for non-small-cell lung cancer, bladder cancer and breast cancer [ 3 ]. However, the enhancement of anti-cancer immune responses through the inhibition of negative immunologic regulation pathways has resulted in unique systemic side effects known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Renal irAEs have become a topic of interest among nephrologists and oncologists due to the growing prescription of ICIs in recent years [ 3 , 4 ]. The primary pathological finding in ICI-related acute kidney injury (AKI) is acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (ATIN), although other conditions such as glomerulonephritis or thrombotic microangiopathy have also been reported [ 3 , 4 ].

Previous publications have demonstrated that the occurrence rate of all-cause AKI in cancer patients treated with ICIs is relatively low in prospective clinical studies [ 5 , 6 ], compared with a higher rate reported in real-world evidence [ 7 ]. When compared with traditional standard therapy, the combination of PD-1 inhibitors or PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy appears to pose a higher risk for all-cause AKI in ICI recipients [ 8 ]. Additionally, the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be associated with an increased risk of all-cause AKI or tubulointerstitial nephritis in the general population [ 7 ]. However, published meta-analyses have primarily concentrated on discussions related to all-cause AKI, leaving ICI-related AKI relatively unexplored in a systematic manner. This gap in research can be attributed to the lack of a definitive definition for ICI-related AKI. Furthermore, the intricate mechanisms underlying AKI present a challenge in differentiating ICI-related AKI from AKI caused by other disease-associated factors. Furthermore, the impact of PPI and NSAID exposure on both all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI in cancer patients treated with ICIs remains inconclusive. Additionally, the occurrence rates of severe AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI have not been studied.

The primary objective of this study was to separately analyse the occurrence rates of all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI in adult ICI recipients, to assess the occurrence rates of severe AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search strategy

This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines [ 9 ]. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335237). Two independent reviewers (J.J.C. and T.H.L.) conducted a comprehensive systematic review and searched for articles published until 10 October 2023 in PubMed, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Embase. Detailed search strategies are provided in Supplementary Table S1 . Review articles were not included in the present analysis, however, the references were screened for relevant studies. There were no limitations on language or article type.

Study eligibility criteria

The titles and abstracts of the studies extracted from the search were independently examined by two reviewers (J.J.C. and T.H.L.) and articles were excluded during initial screening if the titles or abstracts indicated that they were clearly irrelevant to the objective of the current study. The full texts of the relevant articles were reviewed to determine whether the studies were eligible for inclusion.

Studies that enrolled adult patients with malignancies receiving ICIs were included. The other inclusion criteria were that the study reported at least one of the following outcomes of interest: the occurrence rate of AKI with various definitions [either guideline-based AKI criteria such as the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN), Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) or predefined AKI criteria by individual studies] or ICI-related AKI; all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI with a record of exposure to PPIs or NSAIDs; and the mortality rates of all-cause AKI or ICI-related AKI versus a non-AKI group.

A third reviewer (G.K.) was consulted in order to reach an agreement through consensus in case of any disagreement regarding eligibility. Studies were excluded if they were duplicate cohorts or had insufficient information about the outcomes.

Data extraction and outcome measurement

Two investigators (J.J.C. and T.H.L.) independently extracted the outcomes of interest and characteristics information of the included studies. The outcomes of interest were the occurrence rates of all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI, the occurrence rate of severe AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI, the association between potential risk factors (exposure to PPIs and NSAIDs) and the development of all-cause or ICI-related AKI. Severe AKI in this study was defined based on stage 2–3 AKI according to the KDIGO and AKIN criteria, or as at least grade 3 according to the CTCAE criteria. For studies that reported elevated serum creatinine levels according to CTCAE criteria (staging determined by either the upper normal limit or baseline creatinine level) and did not separately report the number of patients whose stages were determined by baseline creatinine, we considered these studies as having no relevant outcomes. The secondary outcomes aimed to examine the association between the occurrence of AKI in the context of ICI treatment and death.

The present study also extracted relevant variables including the mean age, sex, most common and second most common types of malignancy, AKI definition, ICI-related AKI definition, classification of ICIs and the locations and countries in which the study was performed. Disagreements about data extraction between the two authors (J.J.C. and T.H.L.) were resolved through discussion with a third author (G.K.).

Data synthesis and analysis

To pool the all-cause AKI occurrence rate and the ICI-related AKI occurrence rate, we employed a random effects model with the inverse variance method in meta-analyses of proportions. We used the restricted maximum likelihood method to estimate between-study variance (τ 2 ) and used the Hartung–Knapp procedure to construct confidence intervals (CIs). We conducted subgroup analyses to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity in AKI occurrence rate by dividing the studies according to the study design (retrospective cohort studies or prospective clinical trials), the major malignancy type in each study (melanoma, lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, others or not reported), the AKI definition (KDIGO, AKIN, CTACE and other criteria), study location (single centre, multicentre, not reported), mean age (≥65 or <65 years old) and sample size (≤400 or >400).

To examine the relationship between exposure to PPIs or NSAIDs and the development of AKI, and to examine the outcome impact of AKI, the number of patients with exposure, the number of all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI in the drug exposure and non-exposure groups and the number of mortalities were extracted and pooled odds ratios (ORs) were used to estimate overall effects. In this study we used a random effects model for pooling estimated effects and the Hartung–Knapp method for constructing CIs. The restricted maximum likelihood method was applied to assess between-study variance. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between drug exposure and the development of AKI, utilizing methods such as multivariate meta-regression (detailed methodology provided in Supplementary Document 1 ) in considering drug interaction. In addition, we applied the trim-and-fill method [ 10 , 11 ] and conducted a limited meta-analysis [ 12 ] to account for potential publication bias in the studies included in this analysis, as they were predominantly based on published cohort studies. These approaches were utilized to adjust the results regarding drug exposure and the development of AKI.

The binary outcome analysis was conducted using the metabin function and the pooled occurrence rate was analysed using the metaprop function in the R package meta (version 4.18-2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [ 13 ]. Subgroup analysis in the pooled AKI occurrence rate was conducted using the update.meta function. Heterogeneity was examined using the I 2 index ( I 2 < 25%, 25–50% or >50%, indicating mild, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively). Small study bias was assessed by the arcsine test [ 14 ]. The trim-and-fill method was conducted using the Trimfill function in the meta package and limited meta-analysis by the limitmeta function in the metasens package.

We also accessed the quality of evidence regarding PPI and NSAID exposure and the development of AKI by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology [ 15 ]. The certainty of evidence regarding AKI as a prognosticator in ICI recipients was assessed by an adapted GRADE framework [ 16 ].

Risk of bias assessment

For pooled all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI occurrence rate, the Hoy risk of bias tool was used [ 17 , 18 ]. This tool consists of 10 items ( Supplementary Document 2 ) that are ranked as 1 (yes) or 0 (no). The summed scores range from 8 to 10, with a score of 6–7 indicating moderate risk of bias and a score <6 indicating a high risk of bias. For the prognostic impact of AKI, the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool was used for risk of bias assessment [ 19 ]. For PPI and NSAID exposure, we used the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS), which allocates a maximum of 9 points for three major domains: quality of the selection, comparability and outcome of the study populations [ 20 ]. Scores ranging from 7 to 9, from 4 to 6 and <4 indicate low, moderate and high risk of bias, respectively. The quality of the enrolled studies was assessed independently by two authors (J.J.C. and T.H.L.). Disagreements between the two investigators were resolved through consensus with a third author (G.K.).

RESULTS

Search results and study characteristics

A flowchart of the literature search is provided in Supplementary Fig. S1 . The electronic database search identified 353 potentially eligible studies from PubMed, 972 from Embase, 179 from CNKI, 314 from MEDLINE. After removing duplicate articles, the remaining articles were screened. After screening the titles and abstracts, the full texts of 170 studies were reviewed to assess their eligibility. After excluding 50 studies for various reasons [no outcome of interest ( n = 35), duplication cohort ( n = 6), adverse report system cohort without event number ( n = 2), biopsy cohort ( n = 7)] ( Supplementary Table S2 ), 120 studies comprising 46 594 patients were included for analysis [ 21–140 ].

Detailed characteristics of the enrolled studies are presented in Supplementary Table S3 and summarized in Table 1 . The most common study design was a prospective clinical trial (73 of the 120 studies) and 4 were matched case–control in design [ 25 , 28 , 30 , 92 ]. The most commonly used all-cause AKI criteria (77 of 120) in the enrolled studies was the CTCAE AKI definition, followed by KDIGO criteria (31 of 120), other predefined criteria in 3 studies and AKIN criteria in 2 studies. Seven of the 120 enrolled studies did not report the AKI definition. It should be noted that the outcome of ICI-related AKI was reported in less than half of the enrolled studies (29 of 120). For ICI-related AKI, 14 of 29 relevant studies were determined by nephrologists or oncologists ( Supplementary Tables S3 and S4 ). Other studies defined ICI-related AKI either following the American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines [ 5 ], using an acute interstitial nephritis prediction model [ 141 ] with probability >90%, or by its own predefined criteria.

Occurrence rate of all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI

Three of the four matched case–control studies [ 25 , 28 , 30 ] and one of the retrospective studies reported ICI-related AKI [ 41 ] and were therefore excluded. Thus, by including 116 studies with 44 158 patients, the pooled all-cause AKI occurrence rate was 7.4% (95% CI 5.8–9.0) with high heterogeneity [ I 2 = 98% (95% CI 98–98)] (Fig. 1 ). The occurrence rate from retrospective studies was significantly higher than from prospective clinical trials (14.6% versus 1.2%; P for subgroup difference <.01).

By including 25 retrospective cohort studies with 21 568 patients, the pooled ICI-related AKI occurrence rate was 3.2% (95% CI 2.2–4.3) with high heterogeneity [ I 2 = 93% (95% CI 90–94)] (Fig. 2 ). One outlier study [ 41 ] was noted.

Subgroup analysis was performed and the enrolled studies were divided into different groups according to AKI definition and major malignancy type. There was a significant subgroup all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI occurrence rate difference between the studies with different major cancer types and AKI definitions ( Supplementary Figs. S2 and S3 ). Sample size and study location difference also resulted in all-cause AKI occurrence heterogeneity.

Occurrence rates of severe AKI and dialysis-requiring AKI

The occurrence rates of severe all-cause AKI and severe ICI-related AKI were 1.79% (95% CI 1.36–2.11; pooled occurrence rate: 3.82% from retrospective cohort studies and 0.37% from prospective clinical trials) and 1.21% (95% CI 0.60–1.82), respectively (Fig. 3 , Supplementary Figs. S4 and S5 ). The occurrence rates for dialysis-requiring all-cause AKI and dialysis-requiring ICIs-related AKI were 0.15% (95% CI 0.07–0.22) and 0.05% (95% CI 0.01–0.08), respectively (Fig. 3 , Supplementary Figs. S6 and S7 ).

Exposure to PPIs and NSAIDs and the development of all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI

Thirteen studies with 8555 patients were included to analyse the relationship between PPI exposure and all-cause AKI development. The OR of all-cause AKI was 77% higher for those exposed to PPIs versus those unexposed [OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.43–2.18)] with low heterogeneity [ I 2 = 22% (95% CI 0–59)] (Fig. 4A ). Eleven studies with 8214 patients were included to analyse the relationship between NSAID exposure and all-cause AKI development. The OR of all-cause AKI was 77% higher for those exposed to NSAIDs versus those unexposed [OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.10–2.83)] with high heterogeneity [ I 2 = 80% (95% CI 66–89)] (Fig. 4B ).

The OR of ICI-related AKI was 142% higher for those exposed to PPIs versus those unexposed [OR 2.42 (95% CI 1.96–2.97)] with low heterogeneity [ I 2 = 14% (95% CI 0–54)] (Fig. 5A ). The OR of ICI-related AKI was 157% higher for those exposed to NSAIDs versus those unexposed [OR 2.57 (95% CI 1.68–3.93)] with moderate heterogeneity [ I 2 = 43% (95% CI 0–73)] (Fig. 5B ).

Sensitivity analysis

Multivariate meta-regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between the use of PPIs or NSAIDs and the development of all-cause AKI and ICIs-related AKI, while accounting for potential correlations within the two drug exposure groups ( Supplementary Document 1 ). The results of the multivariate meta-regression analysis indicated that PPIs and NSAIDs were associated with increased odds of AKI compared with the non-exposure group ( Supplementary Table S5 ). Moreover, the trim-and-fill method and limited meta-analysis further supported these findings, demonstrating that exposure to PPIs or NSAIDs was associated with an increased adjusted OR for both all-cause and ICI-related AKI development when considering potential publication bias ( Supplementary Table S5 ).

AKI and mortality

In eight studies with 6435 patients, development of AKI had an OR of 1.77 (95% CI 1.06–2.94) for mortality in adult ICI recipients with a heterogeneity of I 2 = 73% (95% CI 45–87) compared with non-AKI patients ( Supplementary Fig. S8 ).

Risk of bias in enrolled studies

We assessed funnel plot asymmetry using the arcsine test for PPIs as a risk factor for all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI, obtaining P -values of .49 and .23, respectively. For NSAIDs, the P -values were .38 for all-cause AKI and .55 for ICI-related AKI ( Supplementary Fig. S9 ). Reporting bias may still exist in the enrolled retrospective cohort studies even though the result of the asymmetry examination was not statistically significant and we conducted further trim-and-fill and limited meta-analysis to examine the robustness of this result ( Supplementary Table S5 ).

The risk of bias was assessed within the 116 studies included in the analysis of all-cause AKI. Among these studies, 43 (37.1%) were classified as having a low risk of bias, while 70 and 3 were categorized as having a moderate and high risk of bias, respectively ( Supplementary Table S6 ). For pooled ICI-related AKI, all studies had moderate risk except one, [ 73 ] which was ranked as a high risk of bias ( Supplementary Table S7 ). In the analysis of PPI/NSAID exposure and all-cause AKI development, 12 of 13 studies had a low risk of bias ( Supplementary Table S8 ). Similarly, 7 of 12 studies analysing PPI/NSAID exposure and ICI-related AKI development had a low risk of bias ( Supplementary Table S9 ). The risk of bias within eight studies analysing mortality in ICIs recipients with AKI was also provided ( Supplementary Table S10 ).

Quality of evidence assessment

The certainty of the evidence of the relationship between PPI and NSAID exposure and AKI development was assessed and is presented in Supplementary Tables S11 and S12 . The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, owing to the nature of observational studies, and the risk of bias was detected in the study limitation domain. The studies included in our analysis were directly relevant to our research question. Therefore, we believe there is no risk associated with the indirectness domain. When examining the relationship between PPI and NSAID exposure and AKI development, we analysed data from >2000 participants. Consequently, we considered the risk of imprecision to be low. The studies examining the association between NSAID exposure and all-cause AKI exhibited high heterogeneity, raising concerns about inconsistency. The certainty of the evidence assessment of the relationship between AKI development and mortality is provided in Supplementary Table S13 .

DISCUSSION

This study revealed four key findings: the occurrence rate of all-cause AKI in real-world studies is 14.6%; the occurrence rate of ICI-related AKI is 3.2%; severe all-cause AKI occurs at a rate of 1.8%, while severe ICI-related AKI occurs at a rate of 1.2%; and PPI or NSAID exposure is associated with an increased OR of both all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI.

According to the findings of this meta-analysis, the overall pooled occurrence rate of all-cause AKI was 7.4%. Interestingly, a higher occurrence rate of 14.6% was observed when considering real-world evidence. Large cohort studies reported the occurrence rate of AKI in patients with malignancy ranged from 9.3 to 20.2% [ 142–144 ]. Carlos et al. [ 145 ] mentioned this relatively higher rate of AKI occurrence in real-world data than in controlled studies. This discrepancy may be explained by the inclusion of a more complex and critically ill patient population, as well as a higher frequency of exposure to potential nephrotoxic agents in real-world settings. The CTCAE AKI definition might also underestimate the occurrence of mild AKI. Overall, the occurrence rate of AKI in ICI recipients varies across studies, likely due to heterogeneity in patient populations.

Animal models have demonstrated a protective role of PD-L1 in AKI [ 146 ] and nephrotoxic agent exposure [ 147 ]. One study demonstrated an enrichment of T cells originating from kidney-infiltrating T cells in the urine of ICI-related nephritis patients [ 148 ]. The possible mechanism of an increased risk of ICI-related AKI with exposure to nephrotoxic agent is that ICI therapy might disrupt the established immune tolerance of T cells primed toward PPIs [ 4 , 145 ]. Although a limited number of studies have investigated the relationship between drug exposure and AKI development compared with those examining AKI in ICI recipients, reporting bias should be considered. Despite conducting sensitivity analyses accounting for drug interactions and publication bias, the findings consistently suggest that PPIs and NSAIDs are associated with an increased OR for AKI. However, caution is advised when interpreting these results.

The present study has several strengths. First, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the occurrence rate of all-cause AKI and may be the first to evaluate the occurrence rate of ICI-related AKI. Second, we investigated the relationship between PPI and NSAID exposure and the risk of both all-cause AKI and ICI-related AKI development. Lastly, we conducted sensitivity analyses to further examine the association between drug exposure and AKI development.

The present study has several limitations. First, our analysis was conducted using published aggregate data rather than individual patient-level data, which could potentially provide more informative insights. Specifically, for small-scale studies, particularly trials, with limited event occurrences and participant numbers, accurately estimating the true occurrence rate can be challenging. Moreover, while we identified study design, primary cancer type and sample size as potential heterogeneity sources, the lack of detailed baseline data and traditional AKI risk factors, like proteinuria and diabetes mellitus, underscores that significant heterogeneity, not addressed in our analysis, remains a primary limitation. Second, it is important to note the absence of universally accepted criteria for ICI-related AKI. The answer of whether to perform a biopsy in patients with suspected ICI-related AKI remains unclear and may be impractical in routine clinical care. Additionally, further large-scale prospective cohorts may be necessary to comprehensively assess the incidence rate and histopathological features of this condition. The assessment of whether the development of AKI is associated with a long-term risk of chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease in adult recipients of ICIs is important; however, this aspect could not be evaluated in the current study. Third, the exposure to PPIs and NSAIDs relied on retrospective cohort or health record studies, with uncertainty regarding concurrent or prior usage. Fourth, we only included published studies in our analysis, which may result in our search for clinical trials being less comprehensive. The aggregated occurrence rate of dialysis-requiring AKI is calculated based on rare events, and numerous studies have not differentiated this outcome from severe AKI. Furthermore, in frail cancer patients, factors such as mortality and the initiation of palliative care could obfuscate accurate estimation of the incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI in this demographic. The aforementioned dilemma extends to analysis of the association between AKI development and mortality, wherein the influence of other underlying disease factors may overshadow the impact of AKI.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our study found a 14.6% occurrence rate of all-cause AKI in real-world cases, with approximately 1 in 33 adult ICI recipients at risk for ICI-related AKI. Further research is needed to explore the role of PPIs and NSAIDs as risk factors and understand their underlying mechanisms. It is advisable to limit unnecessary use of these medications. Large prospective studies, including renal pathology assessments, are warranted to determine the true incidence and histopathological features of ICI-related AKI.

Supplementary Material

Click here for additional data file.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Cheng-Chen Tai of the Medical Library, Department of Medical Education, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Main Branch (ORCID: 0000-0002-1577-5357) for assistance with refining the search strategies.

Contributor Information

Jia-Jin Chen, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Tao-Han Lee, Nephrology Department, Chansn Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.

George Kuo, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Chieh-Li Yen, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Cheng-Chia Lee, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Chih-Hsiang Chang, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Kun-Hua Tu, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Yung-Chang Chen, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Ji-Tseng Fang, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Cheng-Chieh Hung, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Chih-Wei Yang, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Wen-Chi Chou, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou and College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Ching-Chi Chi, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University; Department of Dermatology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Yu-Kang Tu, Graduate Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Huang- Yu Yang, Kidney Research Center, Nephrology Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Linkou, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

FUNDING

This article was supported by grants from the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CMRPG3K0241-2).

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

J.J.C. and H.Y.Y. were responsible for the research idea and study design. J.J.C., T.H.L., G.K. and K.H.T. were responsible for literature acquisition, data extraction and appraised risk of bias. J.J.C., C.L.Y., C.C.L., C.H.C., C.C.H. were responsible for data interpretation. J.J.C., T.H.L. and K.H.T. were responsible for table and figure formation. J.J.C., G.K. and Y.K.T. were responsible for statistical analysis. H.Y.Y. was responsible for funding and project initiation. H.Y.Y., Y.C.C., K.H.T., H.Y.Y. and Y.K.T. were responsible for administrative, technical or material support. W.C.C., J.T.F., C.W.Y., H.Y.Y. and C.C.C. were responsible for supervision. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None declared.

REFERENCES

1. Seethapathy H, Herrmann SM, Sise ME. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and kidney toxicity: advances in diagnosis and management. Kidney Med 2021;3:1074–81. 10.1016/j.xkme.2021.08.008

2. Twomey JD, Zhang B. Cancer immunotherapy update: FDA-approved checkpoint inhibitors and companion diagnostics. AAPS J 2021;23:39. 10.1208/s12248-021-00574-0

3. Ramos-Casals M, Brahmer JR, Callahan MKet al. Immune-related adverse events of checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2020;6:38. 10.1038/s41572-020-0160-6

4. Gupta S, Cortazar FB, Riella LVet al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor nephrotoxicity: update 2020. Kidney360 2020;1:130–40. 10.34067/KID.0000852019

5. Schneider BJ, Naidoo J, Santomasso BDet 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. 10.1200/JCO.21.01440

6. Manohar S, Kompotiatis P, Thongprayoon Cet al. Programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor treatment is associated with acute kidney injury and hypocalcemia: meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2019;34:108–17. 10.1093/ndt/gfy105

7. Xie W, Xiao S, Li Xet al. Incidence, mortality, and risk factors of acute kidney injury after immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence. Eur J Intern Med 2023;115:88–95. 10.1016/j.ejim.2023.05.034

8. Trisal SR, Low G, Pathan Fet al. Kidney adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2023;18:843–9. 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000160

9. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PMet al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2021;18:e1003583. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583

10. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455–63. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

11. Shi L, Lin L. The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e15987. 10.1097/MD.0000000000015987

12. Rucker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JRet al. Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis. Biostatistics 2011;12:122–42. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq046

13. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 2010;36:1–48. 10.18637/jss.v036.i03

14. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPet al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002. 10.1136/bmj.d4002

15. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt Get al. GRADE handbook. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html

16. Huguet A, Hayden JA, Stinson Jet al. Judging the quality of evidence in reviews of prognostic factor research: adapting the GRADE framework. Syst Rev 2013;2:71. 10.1186/2046-4053-2-71

17. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf Aet al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:934–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014

18. Zhao S, Lan X, Wu Jet al. Protocol of global incidence and progression of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e14645. 10.1097/MD.0000000000014645

19. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JLet al. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:280–6. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009

20. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell Det al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

21. Abdelrahim M, Mamlouk O, Lin Het al. Incidence, predictors, and survival impact of acute kidney injury in patients with melanoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a 10-year single-institution analysis. Oncoimmunology 2021;10:1927313. 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1927313

22. Baker ML, Yamamoto Y, Perazella MAet al. Mortality after acute kidney injury and acute interstitial nephritis in patients prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. J Immunother Cancer 2022;10:e004421. 10.1136/jitc-2021-004421

23. Bao Z, Luo L, Xu Tet al. Risk factors and prognostic role of renal adverse event in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: analysis of data from a retrospective cohort study. Ann Transl Med 2022;10:967. 10.21037/atm-22-3684

24. Blanchette PS, Richard L, Shariff Set al. Factors associated with acute kidney injury among patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 2022;40(16 Suppl):2584.

25. Cortazar FB, Kibbelaar ZA, Glezerman IGet al. Clinical features and outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated AKI: a multicenter study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2020;31:435–46. 10.1681/ASN.2019070676

26. Espi M, Teuma C, Novel-Catin Eet al. Renal adverse effects of immune checkpoints inhibitors in clinical practice: ImmuNoTox study. Eur J Cancer 2021;147:29–39. 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.01.005

27. García-Carro C, Bolufer M, Bury Ret al. Acute kidney injury as a risk factor for mortality in oncological patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2022;37:887–94.

28. Gerard AO, Barbosa S, Parassol Net al. Risk factors associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced acute kidney injury compared with other immune-related adverse events: a case–control study. Clin Kidney J 2022;15:1881–7. 10.1093/ckj/sfac109

29. De Giglio A, Grandinetti V, Aprile Met al. Patterns of renal toxicity from the combination of pemetrexed and pembrolizumab for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a single-center experience. Lung Cancer 2022;174:91–6. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.10.007

30. Gupta S, Short SAP, Sise MEet al. Acute kidney injury in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer 2021;9:e003467. 10.1136/jitc-2021-003467

31. Liu K, Qin Z, Ge Yet al. Acute kidney injury in advanced lung cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: a single center observational study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023;149:5061–70.

32. Isik B, Alexander MP, Manohar Set al. Biomarkers, clinical features, and rechallenge for immune checkpoint inhibitor renal immune-related adverse events. Kidney Int Rep 2021;6:1022–31. 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.01.013

33. Ji MS, Wu R, Feng Zet al. Incidence, risk factors and prognosis of acute kidney injury in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective study. Sci Rep 2022;12:18752. 10.1038/s41598-022-21912-y

34. Koks MS, Ocak G, Suelmann BBMet al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury and mortality: an observational study. PLoS One 2021;16:e0252978. 10.1371/journal.pone.0252978

35. Meraz-Muñoz A, Amir E, Ng Pet al. Acute kidney injury associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: incidence, risk factors and outcomes. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8:e000467. 10.1136/jitc-2019-000467

36. Oleas D, Bolufer M, Agraz Iet al. Acute interstitial nephritis associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a single-centre experience. Clin Kidney J 2021;14:1364–70. 10.1093/ckj/sfaa008

37. Patel V, Elias R, Formella Jet al. Acute interstitial nephritis, a potential predictor of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8:e001198. 10.1136/jitc-2020-001198

38. Qin Z, Liu K, Xu Xet al. Incidence, predictors and 6-month overall outcome of acute kidney injury in Chinese patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors. Future Oncol 2022;18:1951–62. 10.2217/fon-2021-1004

39. Seethapathy H, Zhao S, Chute DFet al. The incidence, causes, and risk factors of acute kidney injury in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019;14:1692–700. 10.2215/CJN.00990119

40. Seethapathy H, Zhao S, Strohbehn IAet al. Incidence and clinical features of immune-related acute kidney injury in patients receiving programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors. Kidney Int Rep 2020;5:1700–5. 10.1016/j.ekir.2020.07.011

41. Shimamura Y, Watanabe S, Maeda Tet al. Incidence and risk factors of acute kidney injury, and its effect on mortality among Japanese patients receiving immune check point inhibitors: a single-center observational study. Clin Exp Nephrol 2021;25:479–87. 10.1007/s10157-020-02008-1

42. Sorah JD, Rose TL, Radhakrishna Ret al. Incidence and prediction of Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related nephrotoxicity. J Immunother 2021;44:127–31. 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000338

43. Stein C, Burtey S, Mancini Jet al. Acute kidney injury in patients treated with anti-programmed death receptor-1 for advanced melanoma: a real-life study in a single-centre cohort. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2021;36:1664–74. 10.1093/ndt/gfaa137

44. Seylanova N, Cennamo A, Flanders Let al. Pos-209 immune checkpoints inhibitors-associated acute kidney injury: a single-centre study. Kidney Int Rep 2021;6(4 Suppl):S87–8. 10.1016/j.ekir.2021.03.222

45. Trevisani F, Di Marco F, Floris Met al. Renal function outcomes in metastatic non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients treated with chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors: an unexpected scenario. Vaccines (Basel) 2022;10:679.

46. Goldberg SB, Gettinger SN, Mahajan Aet al. Pembrolizumab for patients with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer and untreated brain metastases: early analysis of a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:976–83. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30053-5

47. Kaufman HL, Russell J, Hamid Oet al. Avelumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1374–85. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30364-3

48. Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei Het al. Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1497–508. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30498-3

49. Massard C, Gordon MS, Sharma Set al. Safety and efficacy of durvalumab (MEDI4736), an anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with advanced urothelial bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:3119–25. 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9761

50. Barata P, Hatton W, Desai Aet al. Outcomes with first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a multi-institutional cohort. Front Oncol 2020;10:581189. 10.3389/fonc.2020.581189

51. Garon EB, Aerts J, Kim JSet al. Safety of pemetrexed plus platinum in combination with pembrolizumab for metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer: a post hoc analysis of KEYNOTE-189. Lung Cancer 2021;155:53–60. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.02.021

52. Goldberg SB, Schalper KA, Gettinger SNet al. Pembrolizumab for management of patients with NSCLC and brain metastases: long-term results and biomarker analysis from a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:655–63. 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30111-X

53. Middleton G, Brock K, Savage Jet al. Pembrolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer of performance status 2 (PePS2): a single arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8:895–904. 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30033-3

54. Powles T, van der Heijden MS, Castellano Det 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. 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30541-6

55. Malhotra J, Nikolinakos P, Leal Tet al. A phase 1-2 study of rovalpituzumab tesirine in combination with nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab in patients with previously treated extensive-stage SCLC. J Thorac Oncol 2021;16:1559–69. 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.02.022

56. Trevisani F, Di Marco F, Raggi Det al. Renal function outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and radical cystectomy in the PURE-01 study. Int J Cancer 2021;149:186–90. 10.1002/ijc.33554

57. Yu EY, Petrylak DP, O'Donnell PHet al. Enfortumab vedotin after PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (EV‑201): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:872–82. 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00094-2

58. Altman D, Weight RM, Shah MRet al. Thyroid-related laboratory abnormalities to predict treatment-limiting adverse events in melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade. Am Soc Clin Oncol 2016;34:e14536. 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.e14536

59. Antonia SJ, Balmanoukian A, Brahmer Jet al. Clinical activity, tolerability, and long-term follow-up of durvalumab in patients with advanced NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 2019;14:1794–806. 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.06.010

60. Antonia SJ, Borghaei H, Ramalingam SSet al. Four-year survival with nivolumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1395–408. 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30407-3

61. Armand P, Lesokhin A, Borrello Iet al. A phase 1b study of dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 or KIR blockade in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoid malignancies. Leukemia 2021;35:777–86. 10.1038/s41375-020-0939-1

62. Balar AV, Castellano D, O'Donnell PHet al. First-line pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-052): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1483–92. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30616-2

63. Basak EA, Vermeer NS, de Joode Ket al. Associations between patient and disease characteristics and severe adverse events during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: an observational study. Eur J Cancer 2022;174:113–20. 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.015

64. Barlesi F, Vansteenkiste J, Spigel Det al. Avelumab versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (JAVELIN Lung 200): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:1468–79. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30673-9

65. Bellmunt J, Hussain M, Gschwend JEet al. Adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor010): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:525–37. 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00004-8

66. Calabro L, Morra A, Giannarelli Det al. Tremelimumab combined with durvalumab in patients with mesothelioma (NIBIT-MESO-1): an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study. Lancet Respir Med 2018;6:451–60. 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30151-6

67. Le Cesne A, Marec-Berard P, Blay JYet al. Programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) targeting in patients with advanced osteosarcomas: results from the PEMBROSARC study. Eur J Cancer 2019;119:151–7. 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.07.018

68. Chau I, Penel N, Soriano AOet al. Ramucirumab in combination with pembrolizumab in treatment-naive advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma: safety and antitumor activity from the phase 1a/b JVDF trial. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:2985. 10.3390/cancers12102985

69. Desai J, Fong P, Moreno Vet al. A phase 1/2 study of the PD-L1 inhibitor, BGB-A333, alone and in combination with the PD-1 inhibitor, tislelizumab, in patients with advanced solid tumours. Br J Cancer 2023;128:1418–28. 10.1038/s41416-022-02128-3

70. Feun LG, Li YY, Wu Cet al. Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab and circulating biomarkers to predict anticancer response in advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 2019;125:3603–14. 10.1002/cncr.32339

71. Guven DC, Ozbek DA, Sahin TKet al. The incidence and risk factors for acute kidney injury in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Anticancer Drugs 2023;34:783–90. 10.1097/CAD.0000000000001463

72. Hellmann MD, Rizvi NA, Goldman JWet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): results of an open-label, phase 1, multicohort study. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:31–41. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30624-6

73. Hoffman-Censits J, Pal S, Kaiser Cet al. Atezolizumab in patients with renal insufficiency and mixed variant histology: analyses from an expanded access program in platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8:e000419. 10.1136/jitc-2019-000419

74. Kanbay M, Yildiz AB, Siriopol Det al. Immune checkpoints inhibitors and its link to acute kidney injury and renal prognosis. Int Urol Nephrol 2023;55:1025–32. 10.1007/s11255-022-03395-y

75. Lee EK, Xiong N, Cheng SCet al. Combined pembrolizumab and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in platinum resistant ovarian cancer: a phase 2 clinical trial. Gynecol Oncol 2020;159:72–8. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.07.028

76. Long GV, Dummer R, Hamid Oet al. Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma (ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1083–97. 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30274-8

77. Manohar S, Goksu BNB, Finnes HDet al. Prevalence of AKI in PD-1 inhibitors: a single center experience. J Am Soc Nephrol 2018;29:1034.

78. Mateos MV, Orlowski RZ, Ocio EMet al. Pembrolizumab combined with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: phase I KEYNOTE-023 study. Br J Haematol 2019;186:e117–21. 10.1111/bjh.15946

79. Moreau P, Ghori R, Farooqui Met al. Pembrolizumab combined with carfilzomib and low-dose dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: cohort 2 of the phase I KEYNOTE-023 study. Br J Haematol 2021;194:e48–51. 10.1111/bjh.17448

80. Raghav KP, Stephen B, Karp DDet al. Efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced cancer of unknown primary (CUP): a phase 2 non-randomized clinical trial. J Immunother Cancer 2022;10:e004822. 10.1136/jitc-2022-004822

81. Rao S, Anandappa G, Capdevila Jet al. A phase II study of retifanlimab (INCMGA00012) in patients with squamous carcinoma of the anal canal who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy (POD1UM-202). ESMO Open 2022;7:100529. 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100529

82. Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Brahmer JRet al. Nivolumab in combination with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2969–79. 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.9861

83. Rodrigues M, Vanoni G, Loap Pet al. Nivolumab plus chemoradiotherapy in locally-advanced cervical cancer: the NICOL phase 1 trial. Nat Commun 2023;14:3698. 10.1038/s41467-023-39383-8

84. Rose TL, Harrison MR, Deal AMet al. Phase II study of gemcitabine and split-dose cisplatin plus pembrolizumab as neoadjuvant therapy before radical cystectomy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:3140–8. 10.1200/JCO.21.01003

85. Seydel F, Delecluse S, Zeier Met al. Efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitor treatment in patients with advanced renal or urothelial cell carcinoma and concomitant chronic kidney disease: a retrospective cohort study. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:1623. 10.3390/cancers13071623

86. Sezer A, Kilickap S, Gumus Met al. Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397:592–604. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00228-2

87. Sharma P, Callahan MK, Bono Pet al. Nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1590–8. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30496-X

88. Sonpavde GP, Maughan BL, McGregor BAet al. Phase II trial of CV301 vaccine combined with atezolizumab in advanced urothelial carcinoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2023;72:775–82. 10.1007/s00262-022-03274-6

89. Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MKet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2013;369:122–33. 10.1056/NEJMoa1302369

90. Winer EP, Lipatov O, Im SAet al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-119): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:499–511. 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30754-3

91. Wise-Draper TM, Gulati S, Palackdharry Set al. Phase II clinical trial of neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab in resectable local-regionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2022;28:1345–52. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3351

92. Yu X, Wu R, Ji Yet al. Identifying patients at risk of acute kidney injury among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a machine learning approach. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022;12:3157.

93. Zinzani PL, Santoro A, Gritti Get al. Nivolumab combined with brentuximab vedotin for relapsed/refractory primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma: efficacy and safety from the phase II CheckMate 436 study. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:3081–9. 10.1200/JCO.19.01492

94. Tanizaki J, Yonemori K, Akiyoshi Ket al. Open-label phase II study of the efficacy of nivolumab for cancer of unknown primary. Ann Oncol 2022;33:216–26. 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.11.009

95. Balanchivadze N, Nasser Z, Shahid Met al. 1317P Renal toxicity in black patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer treated with combination platinum-pemetrexed-pembrolizumab therapy. Ann Oncol 2021;32(Suppl 5):S1013. 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.1919

96. Lumlertgul N, Vassallo P, Tydeman Fet al. Acute kidney injury in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a retrospective real-world study. Eur J Cancer 2023;191:112967. 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.112967

97. Lou Q, Gong J, Ye Bet al. Acute kidney injury in patients with cancer receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies: incidence, risk factors, and prognosis. Ren Fail 2023;45:2238823. 10.1080/0886022X.2023.2238823

98. Dirix LY, Takacs I, Jerusalem Get al. Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1b JAVELIN Solid Tumor study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018;167:671–86. 10.1007/s10549-017-4537-5

99. Stratigos AJ, Sekulic A, Peris Ket al. Cemiplimab in locally advanced basal cell carcinoma after hedgehog inhibitor therapy: an open-label, multi-centre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:848–57. 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00126-1

100. Dang E, Vallee A, Lepage-Seydoux Cet al. Clinical benefit of pembrolizumab in advanced urothelial cancer patients in real-life setting: an efficacy and safety monocentric study. Curr Oncol 2022;29:945–55. 10.3390/curroncol29020080

101. Gulati S, Crist M, Riaz MKet al. Durvalumab plus cetuximab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: an open-label, nonrandomized, phase II clinical trial. Clin Cancer Res 2023;29:1906–15. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3886

102. Rosenberg JE, Park SH, Kozlov Vet al. Durvalumab plus olaparib in previously untreated, platinum-ineligible patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial (BAYOU). J Clin Oncol 2023;41:43–53. 10.1200/JCO.22.00205

103. Tanaka T, Hatakeyama S, Numakura Ket al. Efficacy and safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study. Int J Urol 2020;27:1095–100. 10.1111/iju.14363

104. Fedorova LV, Lepik KV, Volkov NPet al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab combined with brentuximab vedotin after nivolumab monotherapy failure in patients with relapsed and refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Int J Clin Oncol 2022;27:626–32. 10.1007/s10147-021-02085-6

105. Martin C, Lupinacci L, Perazzo Fet al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: real world experience in Argentina. Clin Lung Cancer 2020;21:e380–7. 10.1016/j.cllc.2020.02.014

106. Paz-Ares L, Ciuleanu TE, Cobo Met 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. 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30641-0

107. Dummer R, Corrie P, Gutzmer Ret al. First-line, fixed-duration nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab in clinically diverse patient populations with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma: CheckMate 401. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:3917–29. 10.1200/JCO.22.02199

108. Heppt MV, Eigentler TK, Kahler KCet al. Immune checkpoint blockade with concurrent electrochemotherapy in advanced melanoma: a retrospective multicenter analysis. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2016;65:951–9. 10.1007/s00262-016-1856-z

109. Knox A, Cloney T, Janssen Het al. Immune-related acute kidney injury in Australian non-small cell lung cancer patients: real-world results. Lung Cancer 2023;184:107325. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107325

110. Egelston CA, Guo W, Yost SEet al. Immunogenicity and efficacy of pembrolizumab and doxorubicin in a phase I trial for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2023;72:3013–27. 10.1007/s00262-023-03470-y

111. Ascierto PA, Del Vecchio M, Robert Cet al. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:611–22. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30231-0

112. Garcia P, Stedman MR, Merlo Set al. Kidney function while on immune checkpoint inhibitors: trends in incidence of acute kidney injury, and its causes and outcomes. J Onco-Nephrol 2023;7:23993693231161875.

113. Leon CA. Nephrotoxicity due to immune checkpoint inhibitors in rural oncology. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(15 Suppl):e15084.

114. Reiss KA, Mick R, Teitelbaum Uet 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. 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00369-2

115. Overman MJ, McDermott R, Leach JLet 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. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30422-9

116. Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DFet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1370–85. 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30413-9

117. Gettinger SN, Redman MW, Bazhenova Let al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab for previously treated patients with stage IV squamous cell lung cancer: the Lung-MAP S1400I phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2021;7:1368–77. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2209

118. Dizman N, Meza L, Bergerot Pet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomized phase 1 trial. Nat Med 2022;28:704–12. 10.1038/s41591-022-01694-6

119. Vano YA, Elaidi R, Bennamoun Met al. Nivolumab, nivolumab-ipilimumab, and VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (BIONIKK): a biomarker-driven, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2022;23:612–24. 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00128-0

120. Albiges L, Gurney H, Atduev Vet al. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-B61): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2023;24:881–91. 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00276-0

121. Kuruvilla J, Ramchandren R, Santoro Aet al. Pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin in relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (KEYNOTE-204): an interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:512–24. 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00005-X

122. Powles T, Tomczak P, Park SHet al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as post-nephrectomy adjuvant therapy for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-564): 30-month follow-up analysis of a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2022;23:1133–44. 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00487-9

123. D'Souza A, Hari P, Pasquini Met al. A phase 2 study of pembrolizumab during lymphodepletion after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2019;25:1492–7. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.04.005

124. Tsung I, Green E, Palmbos Pet al. A phase 2 trial of Nab-paclitaxel in combination with anti-PD1 therapy in advanced urothelial cancer. J Urol 2023;209:121–30. 10.1097/JU.0000000000002969

125. Tuscano JM, Maverakis E, Groshen Set al. A phase I study of the combination of rituximab and Ipilimumab in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:7004–13. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0438

126. Li H, Sahu KK, Brundage Jet al. Phase I trial of combination therapy with avelumab and cabozantinib in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Oncologist 2023;28:737–e693. 10.1093/oncolo/oyad019

127. Taylor MH, Lee CH, Makker Vet al. Phase IB/II trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, endometrial cancer, and other selected advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:1154–63. 10.1200/JCO.19.01598

128. Patel SP, Othus M, Chae YKet al. A phase II basket trial of dual anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 blockade in rare tumors (DART SWOG 1609) in patients with nonpancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:2290–6. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3356

129. Oh CR, Kim JE, Hong YSet al. Phase II study of durvalumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient or POLE-mutated metastatic or unresectable colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 2022;150:2038–45. 10.1002/ijc.33966

130. Brastianos PK, Strickland MR, Lee EQet al. Phase II study of ipilimumab and nivolumab in leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Nat Commun 2021;12:5954. 10.1038/s41467-021-25859-y

131. Yam C, Mittendorf EA, Garber HRet al. A phase II study of neoadjuvant atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in patients with anthracycline-resistant early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023;199:457–69. 10.1007/s10549-023-06929-9

132. Carlo MI, Attalla K, Mazaheri Yet al. Phase II study of neoadjuvant nivolumab in patients with locally advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma undergoing nephrectomy. Eur Urol 2022;81:570–3. 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.043

133. Shah AN, Flaum L, Helenowski Iet al. Phase II study of pembrolizumab and capecitabine for triple negative and hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative endocrine-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Immunother Cancer 2020;8:e000173. 10.1136/jitc-2019-000173

134. Sternberg CN, Loriot Y, James Net al. Primary results from SAUL, a multinational single-arm safety study of Atezolizumab therapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial or nonurothelial carcinoma of the urinary tract. Eur Urol 2019;76:73–81. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.03.015

135. Herbst RS, Arkenau HT, Santana-Davila Ret al. Ramucirumab plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, gastro-oesophageal cancer, or urothelial carcinomas (JVDF): a multicohort, non-randomised, open-label, phase 1a/b trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1109–23. 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30458-9

136. Baggi A, Quaglino P, Rubatto Met al. Real world data of cemiplimab in locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2021;157:250–8. 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.08.018

137. Grimm MO, Grunwald V, Muller-Huesmann Het al. Real-world data on the use of nivolumab monotherapy in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma after prior therapy: interim results from the noninterventional NORA study. Eur Urol Focus 2022;8:1289–99. 10.1016/j.euf.2021.11.006

138. Taylor MH, Betts CB, Maloney Let al. Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in combination with acalabrutinib in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: phase 2 proof-of-concept study. Clin Cancer Res 2022;28:903–14. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2547

139. Irwin CT, Panic J, Lodhi FAet al. A single-center cohort study of nephrotoxicity due to immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Am Soc Nephrol 2020;31:661–2.

140. Mushtaq S, Kerr DA, Mirza A-Set al. A single-institution study of renal outcomes in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors. J Clin Oncol 2018;36(15 Suppl):e15079.

141. Moledina DG, Eadon MT, Calderon Fet al. Development and external validation of a diagnostic model for biopsy-proven acute interstitial nephritis using electronic health record data. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2022;37:2214–22. 10.1093/ndt/gfab346

142. Christiansen CF, Johansen MB, Langeberg, WJet al. Incidence of acute kidney injury in cancer patients: a Danish population-based cohort study. Eur J Intern Med 2011;22:399–406. 10.1016/j.ejim.2011.05.005

143. Jin J, Wang Y, Shen Qet al. Acute kidney injury in cancer patients: a nationwide survey in China. Sci Rep 2019;9:3540. 10.1038/s41598-019-39735-9

144. Kitchlu A, McArthur E, Amir Eet al. Acute kidney injury in patients receiving systemic treatment for cancer: a population-based cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019;111:727–36. 10.1093/jnci/djy167

145. Carlos CA, Hsu RK. Acute kidney injury with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a push beyond case reports. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019;14:1679–81. 10.2215/CJN.12621019

146. Jaworska K, Ratajczak J, Huang Let al. Both PD-1 ligands protect the kidney from ischemia reperfusion injury. J Immunol 2015;194:325–33. 10.4049/jimmunol.1400497

147. Menke J, Lucas JA, Zeller GCet al. Programmed death 1 ligand (PD-L) 1 and PD-L2 limit autoimmune kidney disease: distinct roles. J Immunol 2007;179:7466–77. 10.4049/jimmunol.179.11.7466

148. Singh S, Clemente LC, Parra ERet al. Urinary T cells are detected in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated immune nephritis that are clonotypically identical to kidney T cell infiltrates. Oncoimmunology 2022;11:2124678. 10.1080/2162402X.2022.2124678

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.