{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0258732212160414, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00517464424320828, 'mean_word_length': 6.166666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Patterns of immunotherapy use and management of toxicities in regional and tertiary settings

The introduction of the cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated antigen 4 (CTLA‐4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD‐1) immune checkpoint inhibitors and their subsequent listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for use in metastatic melanomas, renal cell carcinomas and non‐small‐cell lung cancers has resulted in routine use of these agents in oncology practices, including in regional areas. Although immunotherapeutic agents generally have a favourable toxicity profile compared to chemotherapy, they can provoke immune‐related adverse effects (irAE) caused by an unregulated and hyperstimulated immune response. Some of these effects can be serious and life‐threatening.