Introduction

Thyroid dysfunction is the most frequent endocrine immune related adverse event (irAE) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), typically arising 3-6 months into immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, but arising after ICI cessation, in some cases. Due to limited post-treatment adverse event reporting requirements on ICI trials, the incidence of ICI-induced thyroid dysfunction arising after therapy is unclear. We investigated ICI-induced thyroid dysfunction in a cohort of 294 NSCLC patients, with a specific focus on the post-treatment setting.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of ICI-induced thyroid dysfunction (clinically acted upon or laboratory only) was performed in 294 UCLA NSCLC patients treated 2012-2018. Clinically acted upon thyroid dysfunction was defined as thyroid diagnosis documentation and/or thyroid medication administration. Laboratory only dysfunction was defined as abnormal thyroid labs in the absence of clinical action. Timing of thyroid dysfunction relative to ICI treatment and thyroid monitoring patterns were also assessed.

Results

82% (241/294) of ICI treated NSCLC patients had thyroid labs during treatment. Of these 241 patients, 13% (31/241) had clinically acted upon thyroid dysfunction prior to, 8% (18/241) during, and 4% (9/241) after ICI. Most patients, 66% (159/241), did not have thyroid labs after ICI, but in the 53 patients with labs and no prior clinical dysfunction, 17% (9/53) developed clinical dysfunction after ICI. In these 9 patients, median time from ICI initiation to dysfunction was 253 days. Two patients with post-treatment laboratory only dysfunction were observed.

Conclusions

ICI-induced thyroid dysfunction arising post-treatment appears more common than previously appreciated, warranting additional evaluation.

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA^1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency^4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.