Toward common response evaluation criteria for solid tumors and lymphomas: RECIL and RECIST?

A perspective: the integration of ctDNA into Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 for phase II immunotherapy clinical trials

A consensus guideline, iRECIST, was developed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) working group for the use of the modified RECIST version 1.1 in cancer immunotherapy trials. iRECIST was designed to separate pseudoprogression from real progression. However, this is not the only ambiguous situation. In clinical immunotherapy trials, stable disease may reflect three tumor responses, including real stable disease, progressive disease and responsive disease. The prediction of a "true complete/partial response" is also important. Much data has accumulated showing that ctDNA can guide decisions at this point; thus, integrating ctDNA into the RECIST 1.1 criteria may help to distinguish a true tumor response type earlier in patients treated with immunotherapy; however, prospectively designed validation studies are needed.

A model to predict the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma based on ultrasound images

The purpose of this paper was to assess the value of ultrasonography in the prognosis of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by developing a new prognostic model. One hundred and eleven DLBCL patients with complete clinical information and ultrasound findings were enrolled in our study. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to assess the accuracy of the international prognostic index (IPI) and new model in DLBCL risk stratification. The results suggested that hilum loss and ineffective treatment were independent risk variables for both PFS and OS in DLBCL patients. Additionally, the new model that added hilum loss and ineffective treatment to IPI had a better AUC for PFS and OS than IPI alone (AUC: 0.90, 0.88, and 0.82 vs. 0.71, 0.74, and 0.68 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year PFS, respectively; AUC: 0.92, 0.85 and 0.86 vs. 0.71, 0.75 and 0.76, for 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS, respectively). The model based on ultrasound images could better suggest PFS and OS of DLBCL, allowing for better risk stratification.

FDG-PET/CT in the Monitoring of Lymphoma Immunotherapy Response: Current Status and Future Prospects

Cancer immunotherapy has been extensively investigated in lymphoma over the last three decades. This new treatment modality is now established as a way to manage and maintain several stages and subtypes of lymphoma. The establishment of this novel therapy has necessitated the development of new imaging response criteria to evaluate and follow up with cancer patients. Several FDG PET/CT-based response criteria have emerged to address and encompass the various most commonly observed response patterns. Many of the proposed response criteria are currently being used to evaluate and predict responses. The purpose of this review is to address the efficacy and side effects of cancer immunotherapy and to correlate this with the proposed criteria and relevant patterns of FDG PET/CT in lymphoma immunotherapy as applicable. The latest updates and future prospects in lymphoma immunotherapy, as well as PET/CT potentials, will be discussed.

PET/CT-Based Response Evaluation in Cancer-a Systematic Review of Design Issues

Positron emission tomography/x-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) has long been discussed as a promising modality for response evaluation in cancer. When designing respective clinical trials, several design issues have to be addressed, especially the number/timing of PET/CT scans, the approach for quantifying metabolic activity, and the final translation of measurements into a rule. It is unclear how well these issues have been tackled in quest of an optimised use of PET/CT in response evaluation. Medline via Ovid and Science Citation Index via Web of Science were systematically searched for articles from 2015 on cancer patients scanned with PET/CT before and during/after treatment. Reports were categorised as being either developmental or evaluative, i.e. focusing on either the establishment or the evaluation of a rule discriminating responders from non-responders. Of 124 included papers, 112 (90 %) were accuracy and/or prognostic studies; the remainder were response-curve studies. No randomised controlled trials were found. Most studies were prospective (62 %) and from single centres (85 %); median number of patients was 38.5 (range 5-354). Most (69 %) of the studies employed only one post-baseline scan. Quantification was mainly based on SUVmax (91 %), while change over time was most frequently used to combine measurements into a rule (79 %). Half of the reports were categorised as developmental, the other half evaluative. Most development studies assessed only one element (35/62, 56 %), most frequently the choice of cut-off points (25/62, 40 %). In summary, the majority of studies did not address the essential open issues in establishing PET/CT for response evaluation. Reasonably sized multicentre studies are needed to systematically compare the many different options when using PET/CT for response evaluation.

Report of the 14th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) Closed Workshop on Future Design of Clinical Trials in Lymphomas

The 14th ICML held in Lugano in June 2017 was preceded by a closed workshop (organized in collaboration with the American Association for Cancer Research and the European School of Oncology) where experts in preclinical and clinical research in lymphomas met to discuss the current drug development landscape focusing on critical open questions that need to be addressed in the future to permit a more efficient drug development paradigm in lymphoma. Topics discussed included both preclinical models that can be used to test new drugs and drug combinations, as well as the optimal design of clinical trials and the endpoints that should be used to facilitate accelerated progress. This report represents a summary of the workshop. Clin Cancer Res; 24(13); 2993-8. ©2018 AACR.