Comparison of Radiological Tumor Response Based on iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 in Metastatic Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated with Programmed Cell Death-1 Inhibitor Therapy

Time to strategy failure and treatment beyond progression in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving nivolumab: post-hoc analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study

Background

Immunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy.

Methods

The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS.

Results

Overall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 - 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 - 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59).

Conclusion

We found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

Incidence of immunotherapy-related hyperprogressive disease (HPD) across HPD definitions and cancer types in observational studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While evidence of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) continues to grow, the lack of a consensual definition obscures a proper characterization of HPD incidence. We examined how HPD incidence varies by the tumor type or the type of definition used.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science from database inception to June 21, 2022. Observational studies reporting HPD incidence, in patients diagnosed with solid malignant tumors and treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, and all statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

HPD incidence was 12.4% (95% CI 10.2%-15.0%) with evidence of heterogeneity (Q = 119.32, p < 0.001). Meta-regression showed that the risk of developing HPD was higher in patients with advanced gastric cancer (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.83; 95% CI, 2.14-54.65; p < 0.001), hepatocellular carcinoma (adjusted OR, 7.99; 95% CI, 1.68-38.13; p = 0.006), non-small cell lung cancer (adjusted OR, 7.14; 95% CI, 1.58-32.29; p = 0.005), and mixed or other types (adjusted OR, 5.09; 95% CI, 1.12-23.14, p = 0.018) than in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Across definitions, HPD defined as a tumor growth kinetics ratio ≥ 2 (adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.08-3.07; p = 0.025) based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) reported higher incidence than when HPD was defined as RECIST-defined progressive disease and a change in the tumor growth rate (TGR) exceeding 50% (∆TGR > 50).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of immunotherapy-related HPD may vary across tumor types and definitions used, supporting the argument for a uniform and improved method of HPD evaluation for informed clinical decision-making.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors: Assessment of the performance and the agreement of iRECIST, irRC, and irRECIST

INTRODUCTION

Immunotherapy has become more widely accepted and used by medical oncologists. Radiologists face challenges in assessing tumor response and becoming more involved in the management of treatment. We aimed to assess the agreement between immune-related response criteria (irRC), immune-related RECIST (irRECIST), and immune RECIST (iRECIST) to correlate the response measured by them with overall survival (OS), and to determine the confirmation rate of progressive disease (PD).

METHODS

A total of 43 patients (28 men, 15 women; average age = 54.6 ± 15.7 years) treated with immunotherapy were included in this study. Pairwise agreements between iRECIST, irRC, and irRECIST were calculated using Cohen's kappa statistics. The correlation of the criteria-based response and OS was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. A confirmation rate with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated in patients with PD.

RESULTS

The kappa values between iRECIST and irRC, iRECIST and irRECIST, and irRC and irRECIST were 0.961 (almost perfect; P < 0.001), 0.961 (almost perfect; P < 0.001), and 0.922 (almost perfect; P < 0.001), respectively. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test showed for each criterion a statistically significant correlation with OS (P < 0.05). The confirmation rates of PD for irRC, irRECIST, and iRECIST were 95% (19/20; 95% CI = 76.4-99.1%), 90% (18/20; 95% CI = 69.9-97.2%), and 90.5% (19/21; 95% CI = 71.1-97.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There was an almost perfect and statistically significant agreement between iRECIST, irRC, and irRECIST. The measurements performed with them significantly correlated with the OS; their confirmation rates were similar. iRECIST and irRECIST might be favored over irRC because of their relative ease of use.

Comprehensive Systematic Review of Biomarkers in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Predictors, Prognostics, and Therapeutic Monitoring

BACKGROUND

Challenges remain in determining the most effective treatment strategies and identifying patients who would benefit from adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of biomarkers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and their utility in prediction of treatment response, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring in patients receiving systemic therapy for metastatic disease.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed database for relevant studies published between January 2017 and December 2022. The search focused on biomarkers associated with mRCC and their relationship to immune checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapy, and VEGF inhibitors in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic settings.

RESULTS

The review identified various biomarkers with predictive, prognostic, and therapeutic monitoring potential in mRCC. The review also discussed the challenges associated with anti-angiogenic and immune-checkpoint monotherapy trials and highlighted the need for personalized therapy based on molecular signatures.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive review provides valuable insights into the landscape of biomarkers in mRCC and their potential applications in prediction of treatment response, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring. The findings underscore the importance of incorporating biomarker assessment into clinical practice to guide treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes in mRCC.

Association between age and efficacy of first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies for mRCC: a meta-analysis

Aim: To compare the efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients stratified by chronological age. Methods: According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, hazard ratios for overall survival (OS) from randomized controlled trials were synthesized. Results: Five RCTs were eligible for meta-analyses. ICI-based combinations significantly improved OS compared with sunitinib alone, both in younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients, whereas the OS benefit was significantly better in younger patients (p = 0.007). ICI-based combinations did not improve OS in patients aged ≥75 years. Treatment rankings showed age-related differential recommendations regarding improved OS. Conclusion: OS benefit from first-line ICI-based combinations was significantly greater in younger patients. Age-related differences could help enrich shared decision-making.

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.

Response criteria for immunotherapy and the radiologic patterns of immune-related adverse events

Immunotherapy has revolutionized clinical outcomes in both early-stage and advanced-stage malignancies. Immunotherapy has improved patient survival in both solid and hematologic disorders with the potential added benefit of less toxicity compared to conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. Imaging plays a fundamental role in monitoring treatment response and assessment of immune-related adverse events, e.g. pneumonitis, colitis, etc. Familiarity with the current strategies of immune-related response evaluation and their limitations is essential for radiologists to guide clinicians with their treatment decisions. Radiologists should be aware of the wide spectrum of immune-related adverse events and their various radiological features as well as the patterns of treatment response associated with immunotherapies.