Impact of pseudoprogression and treatment beyond progression on outcome in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

The NSCLC immunotherapy response predicted by tumor-infiltrating T cells via a non-invasive radiomic approach

Introductions

Identifying patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are optimal candidates for immunotherapy is a cornerstone in clinical decision-making. The tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) is intricately linked with both the prognosis of the malignancy and the efficacy of immunotherapeutic interventions. CD8+ T cells, and more specifically, tissue-resident memory CD8+ T cells [CD8+ tissue-resident memory T (TRM) cells] are postulated to be pivotal in orchestrating the immune system's assault on tumor cells. Nevertheless, the accurate quantification of immune cell infiltration-and by extension, the prediction of immunotherapeutic efficacy-remains a significant scientific frontier.

Methods

In this study, we introduce a cutting-edge non-invasive radiomic model, grounded in TIME markers (CD3+ T, CD8+ T, and CD8+ TRM cells), to infer the levels of immune cell infiltration in NSCLC patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors and ultimately predict their response to immunotherapy. Data from patients who had surgical resections (cohort 1) were employed to construct a radiomic model capable of predicting the TIME. This model was then applied to forecast the TIME for patients under immunotherapy (cohort 2). Conclusively, the study delved into the association between the predicted TIME from the radiomic model and the immunotherapeutic outcomes of the patients.

Result

For the immune cell infiltration radiomic prediction models in cohort 1, the AUC values achieved 0.765, 0.763, and 0.675 in the test set of CD3+ T, CD8+ T, and CD8+ TRM, respectively. While the AUC values for the TIME-immunotherapy predictive value were 0.651, 0.763, and 0.829 in the CD3-immunotherapy response model, CD8-immunotherapy response model, and CD8+ TRM-immunotherapy response model in cohort 2, respectively. The CD8+ TRM-immunotherapy model exhibited the highest predictive value and was significantly better than the CD3-immunotherapy model in predicting the immunotherapy response. The progression-free survival (PFS) analysis based on the predicted levels of CD3+ T, CD8+ T, and CD8+ TRM immune cell infiltration showed that the CD8+ T cell infiltration level was an independent factor (P=0.014, HR=0.218) with an AUC value of 0.938.

Discussion

Our empirical evidence reveals that patients with substantial CD8+ T cell infiltration experience a markedly improved PFS compared with those with minimal infiltration, asserting the status of the CD8+ T cell as an independent prognosticator of PFS in the context of immunotherapy. Although CD8+ TRM cells demonstrated the greatest predictive accuracy for immunotherapy response, their predictive strength for PFS was marginally surpassed by that of CD8+ T cells. These insights advocate for the application of the proposed non-invasive radiomic model, which utilizes TIME analysis, as a reliable predictor for immunotherapy outcomes and PFS in NSCLC patients.

Repeated dynamic [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging using a high-sensitivity PET/CT scanner for assessing non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing induction immuno-chemotherapy followed by hypo-fractionated chemoradiotherapy and consolidative immunotherapy: report from a prospective observational study (GASTO-1067)

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to investigate the role of dynamic [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging by high-sensitivity PET/CT scanner for assessing patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) who undergo induction immuno-chemotherapy, followed by concurrent hypo-fractionated chemoradiotherapy (hypo-CCRT) and consolidative immunotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with unresectable LA-NSCLC are prospectively recruited. Dynamic [18F]FDG PET/CT scans are conducted at four timepoints: before treatment (Baseline), after induction immuno-chemotherapy (Post-IC), during hypo-CCRT (Mid-hypo-CCRT) and after hypo-CCRT (Post-hypo-CCRT). The primary lung tumors (PTs) are manually delineated, and the metabolic features, including the Patlak-Ki (Ki), maximum SUV (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) have been evaluated. The expressions of CD3, CD8, CD68, CD163, CD34 and Ki67 in primary lung tumors at baseline are assayed by immunohistochemistry. The levels of blood lymphocytes at four timepoints are analyzed with flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Fifteen LA-NSCLC patients are enrolled between December 2020 and December 2022. Baseline Ki of primary tumor yields the highest AUC values of 0.722 and 0.796 for predicting disease progression and patient death, respectively. Patients are classified into the High FDG Ki group (n = 8, Ki > 2.779 ml/min/100 g) and the Low FDG Ki group (n = 7, Ki ≤ 2.779 ml/min/100 g). The High FDG Ki group presents better progression-free survival (P = 0.01) and overall survival (P = 0.025). The High FDG Ki group exhibits more significant reductions in Ki after hypo-CCRT compared to the Low FDG Ki group. Patients with a reduction in Ki > 73.1% exhibit better progression-free survival than those with a reduction ≤ 73.1% in Ki (median: not reached vs. 7.33 months, P = 0.12). The levels of CD3+ T cells (P = 0.003), CD8+ T cells (P = 0.002), CD68+ macrophages (P = 0.071) and CD163+ macrophages (P = 0.012) in primary tumor tissues are higher in the High FDG Ki group. The High FDG Ki group has higher CD3+CD8+ lymphocytes in blood at baseline (P = 0.108), post-IC (P = 0.023) and post-hypo-CCRT (P = 0.041) than the Low FDG Ki group.

CONCLUSIONS

The metabolic features in the High FDG Ki group significantly decrease during the treatment, particularly after induction immuno-chemotherapy. The Ki value of primary tumor shows significant relationship with the treatment response and survival in LA-NSCLC patients by the combined immuno-chemoradiotherapy regimen.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT04654234. Registered 4 December 2020.

Final Results from SAUL, a Single-arm International Study of Atezolizumab in Unselected Patients with Pretreated Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urinary Tract Carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We assessed the safety of atezolizumab in unselected patients (including understudied populations typically excluded from clinical trials) with pretreated urinary tract carcinoma (UTC). The prespecified final analysis updates previously reported safety and efficacy data.

METHODS

The single-arm prospective SAUL study (NCT02928406) enrolled 1004 patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial/non-urothelial UTC that had progressed during/after one to three prior treatment lines for advanced UTC (or <12 mo after [neo]adjuvant therapy). Broad eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with complex comorbidities approximating the real-world setting. Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response and overall survival (OS).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

The treated cohort included 10% of patients with poor performance status, 5% with creatinine clearance <30 ml/min, and 4% with autoimmune disease. At median follow-up of 55 mo, median atezolizumab duration was 2.8 mo (range 0-62); 68 patients (7%) continued atezolizumab for >4 yr. Treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients (death in 1%); 8% discontinued atezolizumab for adverse events. Median OS was 8.6 mo (95% confidence interval 7.8-9.7) and 136 patients (14%) had OS longer than 4 yr. Limitations include the small sample size for some subgroups of special interest.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Long-term safety and efficacy data continue to show a benefit of atezolizumab in unselected patients with UTC. Remarkably, 14% of patients lived for >4 yr after starting atezolizumab. These results can inform multidisciplinary team discussions and treatment decision-making for patients with UTC with complex comorbidities.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The SAUL study looked at how well tolerated a drug called atezolizumab was in patients with urinary tract cancer who had already received up to three previous treatments for their cancer, including people who are usually not included in clinical trials because of other medical conditions. The length of survival after starting treatment was also assessed. Overall, the results show that atezolizumab was well tolerated. People for whom other therapies had failed lived for about 8.6 months on average after starting treatment, and 14% of the patients were still alive after 4 years.

Circulating CD8 lymphocytes predict response to atezolizumab-bevacizumab in hepatocellular carcinoma

Due to the lack of biomarkers predictive of response to atezolizumab-bevacizumab, the standard of care for advanced HCC, we analyzed baseline and early on-treatment variation of peripheral lymphocyte populations of 37 prospective patients treated by atezolizumab-bevacizumab and in 15 prospective patients treated by sorafenib or lenvatinib (TKIs). RNAseq analysis followed by RT-PCR validation on patients-derived PBMC was also performed. At first imaging, re-evaluation 13 patients receiving atezolizumab-bevacizumab, showed an objective response, 17 stable disease, while 7 were nonresponders. Baseline CD8+ and CD8+PD-L1+ peripheral lymphocytes were lower in responders versus nonresponders (T-test, p = 0.012 and 0.004, respectively). At 3 weeks, 28 of 30 responders displayed a rise of CD8+PD1+ lymphocytes with a positive mean fold change of 4.35 (±5.6 SD), whereas 6 of 7 nonresponders displayed a negative fold change of 0.89 (±0.84 SD). These changes were not observed in patients treated by TKIs. TRIM56, TRIM16, TRIM64, and Ki67 mRNAs were validated as upregulated in responders versus nonresponders after 3 weeks after treatment start, providing possible evidence of immune activation. Baseline CD8+ and CD8+PD-L1+ peripheral lymphocytes and early changes in CD8+PD1+ lymphocytes predict response to atezolizumab-bevacizumab providing noninvasive markers to complement clinical practice in the very early phases of treatment of HCC patients.

A novel [89Zr]-anti-PD-1-PET-CT to assess response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in lung cancer

Background

Harnessing the anti-tumor immune system response by targeting the program cell death protein (PD-1) and program cell death ligand protein (PD-L1) axis has been a major breakthrough in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy. Nonetheless, conventional imaging tools cannot accurately assess response in immunotherapy-treated patients. Using a lung cancer syngeneic mouse model responder to immunotherapy, we aimed to demonstrate that [89Zr]-anti-PD-1 immuno-PET is a safe and feasible imaging modality to assess the response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in NSCLC.

Materials and methods

A syngeneic mouse model responder to anti-PD-1 therapy was used. Tumor growth and response to PD-1 blockade were monitored by conventional 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]-FDG) PET scans. Additionally, tumor lymphocyte infiltration was analyzed by the use of an [89Zr]-labeled anti-PD-1 antibody and measured as 89Zr tumor uptake.

Results

Conventional [18F]-FDG-PET scans failed to detect the antitumor activity exerted by anti-PD-1 therapy. However, [89Zr]-anti-PD-1 uptake was substantially higher in mice that responded to PD-1 blockade. The analysis of tumor-infiltrating immune cell populations and interleukins demonstrated an increased anti-tumor effect elicited by activation of effector immune cells in PD-1-responder mice. Interestingly, a positive correlation between [89Zr]-anti-PD-1 uptake and the proportion of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) was found (Cor = 0.8; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Our data may support the clinical implementation of immuno-PET as a promising novel imaging tool to predict and assess the response of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with NSCLC.

Expanding the applications of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced lung cancer beyond disease progression

Background

Immunotherapy, particularly the utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), assumes a pivotal role in the comprehensive management of advanced lung cancer. There has been substantial deliberation regarding the appropriateness of extending ICIs treatment beyond the point of disease progression. This study delves into the potential benefits of sustained utilization of ICIs subsequent to disease progression in patients.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 248 patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer who received treatment with ICIs. The study population comprised 99 patients in the treatment beyond progression (TBP) group and 42 patients in the non-treatment beyond progression (NTBP) group. Parameters including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were assessed. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was employed to analyze prognostic factors related to immunotherapy.

Results

Patients undergoing primary treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibited a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.3 months. In the context of disease progression, a comparison between the TBP and NTBP groups was performed with respect to mPFS. The results demonstrated that the TBP group manifested an mPFS of 8.6 months, contrasting with the NTBP group's mPFS of 4.0 months (p=0.028). The mean overall survival (mOS) in the TBP group exhibited a statistically significant increase in comparison to the NTBP group (14.1 months vs. 6.0 months, p=0.028). Evaluation of the objective response rate (ORR) between the TBP and NTBP groups revealed a substantial distinction. The TBP group displayed an ORR of 12.1%, while the NTBP group exhibited a lower ORR of 2.4%. The statistical analysis yielded a p-value of 0.068, signifying a notable trend towards significance. The disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed and exhibited a noteworthy variance between the two groups, with a higher DCR of 92.9% in contrast to 71.4% in the control group (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Subsequent to ICIs treatment, a subset of patients may derive continued benefits from anticancer therapy, notwithstanding the progression of their advanced lung cancer.

Atypical Response in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors: Radiographic Patterns and Clinical Value of Local Therapy

PURPOSE

To explore the clinical characteristics, management, and survival outcomes of advanced NSCLC patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors who presented with an atypical response (AR).

METHODS

A total of 926 PD-1/PD-L1-inhibitor-treated patients with metastatic NSCLC from three academic centers were retrospectively reviewed. All measurable lesions were evaluated by RECIST version 1.1.

RESULTS

Fifty-six (6.1%) patients developed AR. The median time to the occurrence of AR was 2.0 months. Patients with no fewer than 3 metastatic organs at baseline were more prone to develop AR in advanced NSCLC (p = 0.038). The common sites of progressive lesions were lymph nodes (33.8%) and lungs (29.7%). The majority (78.2%) of patients with AR had only 1-2 progressive tumor lesions, and most (89.1%) of the progressive lesions developed from originally existing tumor sites. There was no significance in terms of survival between patients with AR and those with typical response (TR). Local therapy was an independent predictor for PFS of patients with AR (p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

AR was not an uncommon event in patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and it had a comparable prognosis to those with TR. Proper local therapy targeting progressive lesions without discontinuing original PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors may improve patient survival.

Treatment beyond progression in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment beyond progression (TBP) is defined as treatment continuing in spite of disease progression, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence for the effects of TBP on lung cancer survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study has been conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials from the inception of each database to December 2021 was conducted. Two authors independently reviewed articles for inclusion and extract data from all the retrieved articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Hazard ratios (HRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for survival outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified five (15.6%) prospective randomized trials and twenty-seven (84.4%) retrospective observational studies of a total of 9,631 patients for the meta-analysis. 3,941 patients (40.9%) were in a TBP group and 5,690 patients (59.1%) were in a non-TBP group. There is a statistically significant advantage for patients who received TBP compared with those who did not in post progression progression-free survival (ppPFS), post progression overall survival (ppOS), and overall survival (OS) from initiation of drugs (ppPFS: HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.644-0.865; P<0.001; ppOS: HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.596-0.797; P<0.001; OS from initiation of drugs: HR, 0.515; 95% CI, 0.387-0.685; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence in support of TBP for NSCLC, however, these results require cautious interpretation. Large, randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TBP in lung cancer treatment are warranted.

SYSTEMIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ identifier CRD42021285147.

Evolution of Radiological Treatment Response Assessments for Cancer Immunotherapy: From iRECIST to Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence

Immunotherapy has revolutionized and opened a new paradigm for cancer treatment. In the era of immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapy, precision medicine has gained emphasis, and an early response assessment is a key element of this approach. Treatment response assessment for immunotherapy is challenging for radiologists because of the rapid development of immunotherapeutic agents, from immune checkpoint inhibitors to chimeric antigen receptor-T cells, with which many radiologists may not be familiar, and the atypical responses to therapy, such as pseudoprogression and hyperprogression. Therefore, new response assessment methods such as immune response assessment, functional/molecular imaging biomarkers, and artificial intelligence (including radiomics and machine learning approaches) have been developed and investigated. Radiologists should be aware of recent trends in immunotherapy development and new response assessment methods.

Rechallenge of immunotherapy beyond progression in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

Background: Rechallenge of immunotherapy beyond progression (RIBP) has been demonstrably effective in a variety of cancers. Our study aims to investigate the efficacy of RIBP in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients under real-world conditions.

Methods: SCLC patients who experienced progressive disease after receiving programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy from January 2017 to October 2021 were enrolled. The study population was divided into two groups: the RIBP group and the discontinuation of immunotherapy beyond progression (DIBP) group. Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) method was used to balance the clinical baseline characteristics. The short-term and long-term efficacy of the two groups was compared.

Results: 100 SCLC patients were included in this study. There were 45 patients in the RIBP group and 55 patients in the DIBP group. The disease control rate (DCR) and the proportion of durable clinical benefit (DCB) were significantly higher in the RIBP group (DCR: 79.7% vs. 55.7%, p = 0.027; DCB: 40.7 vs. 20.7%, p = 0.025) after weighting. The median progressive-free survival (PFS) in the RIBP group was significantly longer than the DIBP group in the total population (mPFS: 4.8 vs. 2.4 months, p = 0.002), while there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) of the two groups (mOS: 17.4 vs. 8.0 months, p = 0.098). In the weighted first-line initial immunotherapy subgroup, PFS and OS were significantly improved in the RIBP group (mPFS: 4.5 vs. 2.8 months, p = 0.017; mOS: 11.6 vs. 5.4 months, p = 0.028). After weighting, the RIBP group had a significantly longer PFS than the DIBP group in the SD/PD response to the initial immunotherapy subgroup (mPFS: 6.8 vs. 1.8 months, p = 0.026).

Conclusion: Rechallenge of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors could bring benefits to SCLC patients, especially in the first-line initial immunotherapy subgroup or SD/PD response to the initial immunotherapy subgroup.

Oncologic Outcome and Immune Responses of Radiotherapy with Anti-PD-1 Treatment for Brain Metastases Regarding Timing and Benefiting Subgroups

While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with radiotherapy (RT) are widely used for patients with brain metastasis (BM), markers that predict treatment response for combined RT and ICI (RT-ICI) and their optimal dosing and sequence for the best immunogenic effects are still under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic factors for therapeutic outcome and to compare effects of concurrent and non-concurrent RT-ICI. We retrospectively analyzed data of 93 patients with 319 BMs of different cancer types who received PD-1 inhibitors and RT at the University Hospital Cologne between September/2014 and November/2020. Primary study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local control (LC). We included 66.7% melanoma, 22.8% lung, and 5.5% other cancer types with a mean follow-up time of 23.8 months. Median OS time was 12.19 months. LC at 6 months was 95.3% (concurrent) vs. 69.2% (non-concurrent; p = 0.008). Univariate Cox regression analysis detected following prognostic factors for OS: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio NLR favoring <3 (low; HR 2.037 (1.184−3.506), p = 0.010), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) favoring ≤ULN (HR 1.853 (1.059−3.241), p = 0.031), absence of neurological symptoms (HR 2.114 (1.285−3.478), p = 0.003), RT concept favoring SRS (HR 1.985 (1.112−3.543), p = 0.019), RT dose favoring ≥60 Gy (HR 0.519 (0.309−0.871), p = 0.013), and prior anti-CTLA4 treatment (HR 0.498 (0.271−0.914), p = 0.024). Independent prognostic factors for OS were concurrent RT-ICI application (HR 0.539 (0.299−0.971), p = 0.024) with a median OS of 17.61 vs. 6.83 months (non-concurrent), ECOG performance status favoring 0 (HR 7.756 (1.253−6.061), p = 0.012), cancer type favoring melanoma (HR 0.516 (0.288−0.926), p = 0.026), BM volume (PTV) favoring ≤3 cm3 (HR 1.947 (1.007−3.763), p = 0.048). Subgroups with the following factors showed significantly longer OS when being treated concurrently: RT dose <60 Gy (p = 0.014), PTV > 3 cm3 (p = 0.007), other cancer types than melanoma (p = 0.006), anti-CTLA4-naïve patients (p < 0.001), low NLR (p = 0.039), steroid intake ≤4 mg (p = 0.042). Specific immune responses, such as abscopal effects (AbEs), pseudoprogression (PsP), or immune-related adverse events (IrAEs), occurred more frequently with concurrent RT-ICI and resulted in better OS. Other toxicities, including radionecrosis, were not statistically different in both groups. The concurrent application of RT and ICI, the ECOG-PS, cancer type, and PTV had an independently prognostic impact on OS. In concurrently treated patients, treatment response (LC) was delayed and specific immune responses (AbE, PsP, IrAE) occurred more frequently with longer OS rates. Our results suggest that concurrent RT-ICI application is more beneficial than sequential treatment in patients with low pretreatment inflammatory status, more and larger BMs, and with other cancer types than melanoma.

Monitoring tumor growth rate to predict immune checkpoint inhibitors’ treatment outcome in advanced NSCLC

Introduction:

Radiological response assessment to immune checkpoint inhibitor is challenging due to atypical pattern of response and commonly used RECIST 1.1 criteria do not take into account the kinetics of tumor behavior. Our study aimed at evaluating the tumor growth rate (TGR) in addition to RECIST 1.1 criteria to assess the benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Methods:

Tumor real volume was calculated with a dedicated computed tomography (CT) software that semi-automatically assess tumor volume. Target lesions were identified according to RECIST 1.1. For each patient, we had 3 measurement of tumor volume. CT-1 was performed 8–12 weeks before ICI start, the CT at baseline for ICI was CT0, while CT + 1 was the first assessment after ICI. We calculated the percentage increase in tumor volume before (TGR1) and after immunotherapy (TGR2). Finally, we compared TGR1 and TGR2. If no progressive disease (PD), the group was disease control (DC). If PD but TGR2 < TGR1, it was called LvPD and if TGR2 ⩾ TGR1, HvPD.

Results:

A total of 61 patients who received ICIs and 33 treated with chemotherapy (ChT) were included. In ICI group, 18 patients were HvPD, 22 LvPD, 21 DC. Median OS was 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.0–6.8, reference) for HvPD, 7.1 months (95% CI 5.4–8.8) for LvPD, p = 0.018, and 20.9 months (95% CI: 12.5–29.3) for DC, p < 0.001. In ChT group, 7 were categorized as HvPD, 17 as LvPD and 9 as DC. No difference in OS was observed in the ChT group (p = 0.786)

Conclusion:

In the presence of PD, a decrease in TGR may result in a clinical benefit in patients treated with ICI but not with chemotherapy. Monitoring TGR changes after ICIs administration can help physician in deciding to treat beyond PD.

Efficacy of immunotherapy beyond RECIST progression in advanced melanoma: a real-world evidence

Immunotherapy (ITH) holds the possibility of tumor burden decrease after initial RECIST 1.1 defined progression. The clinical concept of treating selected patients (pts) beyond disease progression (PD) is supported by so-called pseudoprogression phenomenon. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-life practice and outcomes related to treatment beyond (RECIST) progression (TBP) in advanced melanoma patients. Of 584 subsequent melanoma pts analyzed 77 (13.2%) received TBP. In this cohort, the median time to first PD (TTFP) was 5.29 months (m), while time to second PD (TTSP)-8.02 m. On TBP 23.4% pts achieved an objective response (OR), and next 42.9%-stabilization of the disease (SD). 1st PD was reported most often as the development of a new lesion or increase (> 20%) of the diameter of three or more targets. In about 50% second PD was observed as an increase in the diameter of different targets that in 1st PD. Multimodal treatment resulted in 9.82 m TTSP, while ITH alone-4.93 m (p = 0.128). An oligoprogressive pattern of first PD was associated with longer TTSP (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.94). Median OS after first PD was 28.75 months and correlated with OR during TBP (HR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.004-0.76). Selected clinically fit melanoma patients, despite evidence of first radiographic progression, may benefit from continued treatment with PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors, but the findings should be validated in larger prospective trials. Multidisciplinary treatment should be offered to advanced melanoma patients, including radiosurgery or stereotactic radiotherapy of single loci progressing during immunotherapy.

Immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: rationale, recent advances and future perspectives

Lung cancer, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being the major type, is the second most common malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related death globally. Immunotherapy, represented by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has been one of the greatest advances in recent years for the treatment of solid tumors including NSCLC. However, not all NSCLC patients experience an effective response to immunotherapy with the established selection criteria of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and tumor mutational burden (TMB). Furthermore, a considerable proportion of patients experience unconventional responses, including pseudoprogression or hyperprogressive disease (HPD), immune-related toxicities, and primary or acquired resistance during the immunotherapy process. To better understand the immune response in NSCLC and provide reference for clinical decision-making, we herein review the rationale and recent advances in using immunotherapy to treat NSCLC. Moreover, we discuss the current challenges and future strategies of this approach to improve its efficacy and safety in treating NSCLC.

Successful Re-administration of Atezolizumab for a Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patient after Cardiac Tamponade Development as a Manifestation of Pseudo-progression Induced by Combination Treatment with Atezolizumab and Cytotoxic Chemotherapy

Pseudo-progression is a phenomenon induced by treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and is characterized by an increase in tumor size or the appearance of new lesions, followed by tumor regression. However, life-threatening conditions, such as cardiac tamponade, can develop in such patients. We herein report on a 69-year-old man with lung adenocarcinoma who developed cardiac tamponade as a manifestation of pseudo-progression induced by treatment with atezolizumab combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy. After managing the cardiac tamponade, atezolizumab was successfully re-administered along with cytotoxic chemotherapy without disease progression.

Long-Term Survival With Pembrolizumab Re-administration After Pseudo-Progression With Immune-Related Interstitial Lung Disease in a Patient With Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors may cause specific immune-related reactions, such as pseudo-progression. In particular, malignant pleural effusion tends to worsen due to this phenomenon. However, the appropriate management in such cases is unclear.

We report a 73-year-old man with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and malignant pleural effusion who developed pseudo-progression with immune-related interstitial lung disease (irILD) induced by pembrolizumab (Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, USA). After managing them with steroid treatments and chemotherapy, pembrolizumab was re-administered. At the time of writing, 30 months have passed since the re-administration of pembrolizumab without disease progression. This clinical course conveys an appropriate management strategy for patients with pseudo-progression and irILD.

Utilization of target lesion heterogeneity for treatment efficacy assessment in late stage lung cancer

RATIONALE

Recent studies have discovered several unique tumor response subgroups outside of response classification by Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST), such as mixed response and oligometastasis. These subtypes have a distinctive property, lesion heterogeneity defined as diversity of tumor growth profiles in RECIST target lesions. Furthermore, many cancer clinical trials have been activated to evaluate various treatment options for heterogeneity-related subgroups (e.g., 29 trials so far listed in clinicaltrials.gov for cancer patients with oligometastasis). Some of the trials have shown survival benefit by tailored treatment strategies. This evidence presents the unmet need to incorporate lesion heterogeneity to improve RECIST response classification.

METHOD

An approach for Lesion Heterogeneity Classification (LeHeC) was developed using a contemporary statistical approach to assess target lesion variation, characterize patient treatment response, and translate informative evidence to improving treatment strategy. A mixed effect linear model was used to determine lesion heterogeneity. Further analysis was conducted to classify various types of lesion variation and incorporate with RECIST to enhance response classification. A study cohort of 110 target lesions from 36 lung cancer patients was used for evaluation.

RESULTS

Due to small sample size issue, the result was exploratory in nature. By analyzing RECIST target lesion data, the LeHeC approach detected a high prevalence (n = 21; 58%) of lesion heterogeneity. Subgroup classification revealed several informative distinct subsets in a descending order of lesion heterogeneity: mix of progression and regression (n = 7), mix of progression and stability (n = 9), mix of regression and stability (n = 5), and non-heterogeneity (n = 15). Evaluation for association of lesion heterogeneity and RECIST best response classification showed lesion heterogeneity commonly occurred in each response group (stable disease: 16/27; 59%; partial response: 3/5; 60%; progression disease: 2/4; 50%). Survival analysis showed a differential trend of overall survival between heterogeneity and non-heterogeneity in RECIST response groups.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate lesion heterogeneity, an underappreciated metric, for RECIST application in oncology clinical trials. Results indicated lesion heterogeneity is not an uncommon event. The LeHeC approach could enhance RECIST response classification by utilizing granular lesion level discovery of heterogeneity.

CDISC-compliant clinical trial imaging management system with automatic verification and data Transformation: Focusing on tumor response assessment data in clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Major issues in imaging data management of tumor response assessment in clinical trials include high human errors in data input and unstandardized data structures, warranting a new breakthrough IT solution. Thus, we aim to develop a Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC)-compliant clinical trial imaging management system (CTIMS) with automatic verification and transformation modules for implementing the CDISC Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) in the tumor response assessment dataset of clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In accordance with various CDISC standards guides and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines, the overall system architecture of CDISC-compliant CTIMS was designed. Modules for standard-compliant electronic case report form (eCRF) to verify data conformance and transform into SDTM data format were developed by experts in diverse fields such as medical informatics, medical, and clinical trial. External validation of the CDISC-compliant CTIMS was performed by comparing it with our previous CTIMS based on real-world data and CDISC validation rules by Pinnacle 21 Community Software.

RESULTS

The architecture of CDISC-compliant CTIMS included the standard-compliant eCRF module of RECIST, the automatic verification module of the input data, and the SDTM transformation module from the eCRF input data to the SDTM datasets based on CDISC Define-XML. This new system was incorporated into our previous CTIMS. External validation demonstrated that all 176 human input errors occurred in the previous CTIMS filtered by a new system yielding zero error and CDISC-compliant dataset. The verified eCRF input data were automatically transformed into the SDTM dataset, which satisfied the CDISC validation rules by Pinnacle 21 Community Software.

CONCLUSIONS

To assure data consistency and high quality of the tumor response assessment data, our new CTIMS can minimize human input error by using standard-compliant eCRF with an automatic verification module and automatically transform the datasets into CDISC SDTM format.

Definition, Incidence, and Challenges for Assessment of Hyperprogressive Disease During Cancer Treatment With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a recognized pattern of rapid tumor progression during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. Definitions of HPD have not been standardized, posing the risk of capturing different tumoral behaviors.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a systematic summary of definitions and the incidence of HPD in patients undergoing ICI treatment and discuss the challenges of current assessment of HPD.

DATA SOURCES

Articles that evaluated HPD published before March 3, 2020, were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials and observational studies providing the incidence and definition of HPD from patients with cancer treated with ICIs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Factors included in the analysis comprised authors, year of publication, cancer type, ICI type, number of previous treatment lines, definition of HPD, time frame used to assess HPD, number of patients with HPD, onset of HPD, and prognosis of patients with HPD. Quantitative and qualitative syntheses for the incidence of HPD were performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Definitions of HPD were categorized and the range of incidence of HPD was evaluated. Subgroup analysis on the incidence of HPD according to the category was performed and the challenges associated with current HPD assessment were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies with 3109 patients were analyzed. The incidence of HPD varied from 5.9% to 43.1%. The definitions were divided into 4 categories based on the calculation of tumor growth acceleration: tumor growth rate ratio (pooled incidence of HPD, 9.4%; 95% CI, 6.9%-12.0%), tumor growth kinetics ratio (pooled incidence, 15.8%; 95% CI, 8.0%-23.7%), early tumor burden increase (pooled incidence, 20.6%; 95% CI, 9.3%-31.8%), and combinations of the above (pooled incidence, 12.4%; 95% CI, 7.3%-17.5%). Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated if the assessment was limited to tumor growth rate or tumor growth kinetics ratio, target lesions, or response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST)-defined progressors, or if the assessment time frame conformed to RECIST. Study results on clinical outcome were heterogeneous on discriminating patients with HPD from those with natural progressive disease.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Definitions of HPD appear to be diverse, with the incidence of HPD varying from 5.9% to 43.1% across studies examined in this meta-analysis. Varying incidence and definitions of HPD indicate the need for establishing its uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.

Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

It is controversial whether iRECIST has a significant impact over RECIST 1.1 in evaluating the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. We aimed to evaluate the impact of iRECIST on assessing treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors over RECIST 1.1 through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to RECIST 1.1, iRECIST had no impact on the overall response rate and disease control rate but detected 3.9% of patients with discordance in the date of progressive disease determination due to pseudoprogression and prolonged restricted mean progression-free survival time by 0.46 months. Therefore, the application of iRECIST had no impact on the response-related endpoints but had a minor impact on the survival endpoint, compared to RECIST 1.1. Such a modest benefit of iRECIST should be considered when we design a clinical trial for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Abstract

Despite wide recognition of iRECIST, evidence regarding the impact of iRECIST over RECIST 1.1 is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the impact of iRECIST on assessing treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) over RECIST 1.1. Articles that evaluated the treatment response and outcome based on both RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were eligible. Data regarding overall response rates (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST, and data required to estimate individual patient data of progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted. Estimates were compared using meta-regression and pooled incidence rate ratios. The pooled difference of restricted mean survival time (RMST) of PFS between two criteria were calculated. Eleven studies with 6210 patients were analyzed. The application of iRECIST had no impact on the response-related endpoint by showing no significantly different ORR and DCR from RECIST 1.1 (pooled ORR, 23.6% and 24.7% [p = 0.72]; pooled DCR, 45.3% and 48.7% [p = 0.56] for iRECIST and RECIST 1.1, respectively) and had a minor impact on a survival endpoint by showing longer RMST of PFS than RECIST 1.1 (pooled difference, 0.46 months; 95% CI, 0.10–0.82 months; p = 0.01). Such a modest benefit of iRECIST should be considered when we design a clinical trial for immune checkpoint inhibitors.