Hyperprogressive disease and its clinical impact in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: Korean cancer study group HN 18-12

Advancements in neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous Carcinoma: A narrative review

The prevalent treatment paradigm for locally advanced head and neck squamous carcinoma (HNSCC) typically entails surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Despite this, a significant proportion of patients experience recurrence and metastasis. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), notably pembrolizumab and nivolumab, have been established as the first and second lines of treatment for recurrent and metastatic HNSCC (R/M HNSCC). The application of ICIs as neoadjuvant immunotherapy in this context is currently under rigorous investigation. This review synthesizes data from clinical trials focusing on neoadjuvant ICIs, highlighting that the pathological responses elicited by these treatments are promising. Furthermore, it is noted that the safety profiles of both monotherapy and combination therapies with ICIs are manageable, with no new safety signals identified. The review concludes by contemplating the future direction and challenges associated with neoadjuvant ICI therapy, encompassing aspects such as the refinement of imaging and pathological response criteria, selection criteria for adjuvant therapies, evaluation of the efficacy and safety of various combination treatment modalities, and the identification of responsive patient cohorts.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic indicators in patients with head and neck malignancy treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Tumor immunotherapy has recently emerged as a crucial focal point in oncology treatment research. Among tumor immunotherapy approaches, tumor immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have attracted substantial attention in clinical research. However, this treatment modality has benefitted only a limited number of patients. We conducted a meta-analysis of various biomarkers to decipher their prognostic implications in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) who are treated with ICIs, and thus identify predictive markers with practical clinical relevance.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify clinical studies that examined the correlation between biomarkers and treatment outcomes in the HNSCC patients. The included articles were screened and analyzed to extract data regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

The relationship between the biomarkers included in the summary and prognosis was as follows: HPV positivity was associated with improved OS (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.58-1.99), PFS (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.81-1.67), and response (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.37-2.99). PD-L1 positivity was associated with OS (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59-0.85), PFS (HR = 0.56 95% CI = 0.43-0.73), and response (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.51-3.10). Neither HPV positivity nor PD-L1 positivity was associated with DCR. The following markers were collected for OS and PFS data and were associated with longer OS: lower Glasgow prognostic score (GPS/mGPS) grading, lower PS grading, high body mass index (BMI), low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), low platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), high albumin (Alb), low lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Factors associated with better PFS were lower GPS/mGPS grading, lower PS grading, high BMI, low NLR, high absolute lymphocyte count, and low LDH. Hyperprogressive disease was associated with worse OS and PFS. Fewer clinical studies have been completed on the tumor microenvironment and hypoxia, microsatellite instability/DNA mismatch repair, and microbiome and systematic analysis is difficult.

CONCLUSION

In our meta-analysis, different immune checkpoint factors were associated with different prognoses in HNSCC patients receiving immunotherapy. HPV, PD-L1, BMI, Alb, HPD, PS, GPS/mGPS, LDH, NLR, and PLR predicted the ICI outcome in HNSCC patients.

Correlation of preclinical and clinical biomarkers with efficacy and toxicity of cancer immunotherapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revealed significant clinical values in different solid tumors and hematological malignancy, changing the landscape for the treatment of multiple types of cancer. However, only a subpopulation of patients has obvious tumor response and long-term survival after ICIs treatment, and many patients may experience other undesirable clinical features. Therefore, biomarkers are critical for patients to choose exact optimum therapy. Here, we reviewed existing preclinical and clinical biomarkers of immunotherapeutic efficacy and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Based on efficacy prediction, pseudoprogression, hyperprogressive disease, or irAEs, these biomarkers were divided into cancer cell-derived biomarkers, tumor microenvironment-derived biomarkers, host-derived biomarkers, peripheral blood biomarkers, and multi-modal model and artificial intelligence assessment-based biomarkers. Furthermore, we describe the relation between ICIs efficacy and irAEs. This review provides the overall perspective of biomarkers of immunotherapeutic outcome and irAEs prediction during ICIs treatment.

Hyperprogressive disease in patients suffering from solid malignancies treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a paradoxically rapid disease progression during or shortly after antitumor treatment, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Various diagnosis criteria of HPD cause heterogeneous incidence rates in different clinical research, and there is no consensus on potential risk factors associated with HPD occurrence. Hence, we aimed to summarize incidence of HPD in ICI treatment for solid tumors. Clinicopathological factors associated with HPD are also analyzed.

Methods

Clinical studies about HPD during/after ICI treatment of solid malignancies are included. Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies published before October 7. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Random effect and fixed effect models were, respectively, used for pooling incidence of HPD and analysis of risk factors for HPD. Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and publication bias were also analyzed. All meta-analysis was performed via R software (y -40v4.0.2).

Results

Forty-one studies with 6009 patients were included. The pooled incidence of HPD was 13.2% (95% CI, 11.2%–15.4%). Head and neck cancer (HNC) had the highest incidence of HPD (18.06%), and melanoma had the lowest (9.9%). Tumor types (P = .0248) and gender ratio (P = .0116) are sources of heterogeneity of pooled incidence of HPD. For five clinicopathological factors associated with HPD, only programmed cell death protein 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity was a preventive factor (odds ratio = 0.61, P <.05). High lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (OR = 1.51, P = .01), metastatic sites >2 (OR = 2.38, P <.0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score ≥2 (OR = 1.47, P = .02), and liver metastasis (OR = 3.06, P <.0001) indicate higher risk of HPD.

Conclusions

The pooled incidence of HPD was less than 15%, and HNC had the highest incidence of HPD. LDH and PD-L1 are remarkable biomarkers for prediction of HPD in future medical practice.

Assessment of hyperprogression versus the natural course of disease development with nivolumab with or without ipilimumab versus placebo in phase III, randomized, controlled trials

Background

Retrospective studies have suggested a potential risk of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We compared the incidence of HPD during treatment with nivolumab±ipilimumab versus natural tumor progression with placebo in post hoc analyses of two randomized, double-blind clinical trials.

Methods

ATTRACTION-2 randomized patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) and progression on ≥2 prior regimens to nivolumab 3 mg/kg Q2W or placebo. CheckMate 451 randomized patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) and ongoing complete/partial response or stable disease after first-line chemotherapy to nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, nivolumab 1 mg/kg+ipilimumab 3 mg/kg Q3W for four doses then nivolumab 240 mg Q2W, or placebo. Patients receiving ≥1 dose of study drug and with tumor scans at baseline and the first on-treatment evaluation were included in the HPD analyses. HPD definitions were ≥20%, ≥50%, and ≥100% increase in target lesion sum of the longest diameters (SLD) at the first on-treatment assessment.

Results

In the ATTRACTION-2 HPD-evaluable population, 243 patients received nivolumab and 115 placebo. Fewer patients receiving nivolumab versus placebo had increases in SLD ≥20% (33.7% vs 46.1%) and ≥50% (6.2% vs 11.3%); similar proportions had increases in SLD ≥100% (1.6% vs 1.7%). In the CheckMate 451 HPD-evaluable population, 177 patients received nivolumab, 179 nivolumab+ipilimumab, and 175 placebo. Fewer patients receiving nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab versus placebo had increases in SLD ≥20% (27.1%, 27.4% vs 45.7%), ≥50% (10.2%, 11.2% vs 22.3%), and ≥100% (2.8%, 2.8% vs 6.3%).

Conclusions

Nivolumab±ipilimumab was not associated with an increased rate of progression versus placebo in patients with GC, GEJC, or ED SCLC, suggesting that previous reports of HPD may reflect the natural disease course in some patients rather than ICI-mediated progression.

Trial registration number

NCT02538666; NCT02267343.

Current Understanding and Future Perspectives on Hyperprogressive Disease Highlight the Tumor Microenvironment

Cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized traditional cancer therapy. Although many patients have achieved long-term survival benefits from immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment, there are still some patients who develop rapid tumor progression after immunotherapy, known as hyperprogressive disease. Here we summarize current knowledge on hyperprogressive disease after immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment to promote more thorough understanding of the disease. This review focuses on multiple aspects of hyperprogressive disease, especially the tumor microenvironment, with the hope that more reliable biomarkers and therapeutics could be established for hyperprogressive disease in the future. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for assessment of atypical responses after immunotherapy

In 2017, immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) were introduced to validate radiologic and clinical interpretations and to better analyze tumor’s response to immunotherapy, considering the different time of following and response, between this new therapy compared to the standard one. However, even if the iRECIST are worldwide accepted, to date, different aspects should be better underlined and well reported, especially in clinical practice. Clinical experience has demonstrated that in a non-negligible percentage of patients, it is challenging to determine the correct category of response (stable disease, progression disease, partial or complete response), and consequently, to define which is the best management for those patients. Approaching radiological response in patients who underwent immunotherapy, a new uncommon kind of target lesions behavior was found. This phenomenon is mainly due to the different mechanisms of action of immunotherapeutic drug. Therefore, new groups of response have been described in clinical practice, defined as “atypical responses,” and categorized into three new groups: pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, and dissociated response. This review summarizes and reports these patterns, helping clinicians and radiologists get used to atypical responses, in order to identify patients that respond best to treatment.