Hee Kyung Kim1, Mi Hwa Heo1, Han Sang Lee1, Jong-Mu Sun1, Se-Hoon Lee1, Jin Seok Ahn1, Keunchil Park1, Myung-Ju Ahn2. 1. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea. 2. Division of Hematology-Oncology, Departments of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea. silk.ahn@samsung.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given that immune-related response in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been well evaluated, we assessed tumor response using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) and immune-related response criteria (irRC) to identify atypical responses in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with immunotherapeutic agents. METHODS: Patients received immune-checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and durvalumab plus tremelimumab) to treat metastatic or recurrent NSCLC after failed platinum-based chemotherapy. Tumor response was assessed according to both RECIST v1.1 and irRC. RESULTS: Responses by 41 patients were analyzed. The overall response rate (ORR) was 29.2% (95% CI 17.6-44.5) assessed by RECIST v1.1 and 34.1% (95% CI 21.6-49.4) by irRC, showing similar results from the two methods (p = 0.923). Two patients (4.9%) were defined as having progressive disease as assessed by RECIST but not by irRC. The patients eventually experienced tumor regression, suggesting delayed pseudoprogression. For all patients, the median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI 3.4-6.7) and OS was 18.3 months (95% CI 6.7-29.8). In multivariate analysis, ex- or current smokers (HR 0.34, p = 0.14) and EGFR mutation negativity (HR 0.16, p = 0.05) were associated with significantly longer PFS. CONCLUSION: Our study found that pseudoprogression was not frequently observed in NSCLC. Conventional RECIST v1.1 might underestimate the benefit of immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Given the small number of patients studied, further study is warranted on whether treatment with immune-checkpoint inhibitors beyond RECIST progression benefits patients with advanced NSCLC.
PURPOSE: Given that immune-related response in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been well evaluated, we assessed tumor response using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) and immune-related response criteria (irRC) to identify atypical responses in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with immunotherapeutic agents. METHODS:Patients received immune-checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and durvalumab plus tremelimumab) to treat metastatic or recurrent NSCLC after failed platinum-based chemotherapy. Tumor response was assessed according to both RECIST v1.1 and irRC. RESULTS: Responses by 41 patients were analyzed. The overall response rate (ORR) was 29.2% (95% CI 17.6-44.5) assessed by RECIST v1.1 and 34.1% (95% CI 21.6-49.4) by irRC, showing similar results from the two methods (p = 0.923). Two patients (4.9%) were defined as having progressive disease as assessed by RECIST but not by irRC. The patients eventually experienced tumor regression, suggesting delayed pseudoprogression. For all patients, the median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI 3.4-6.7) and OS was 18.3 months (95% CI 6.7-29.8). In multivariate analysis, ex- or current smokers (HR 0.34, p = 0.14) and EGFR mutation negativity (HR 0.16, p = 0.05) were associated with significantly longer PFS. CONCLUSION: Our study found that pseudoprogression was not frequently observed in NSCLC. Conventional RECIST v1.1 might underestimate the benefit of immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Given the small number of patients studied, further study is warranted on whether treatment with immune-checkpoint inhibitors beyond RECIST progression benefits patients with advanced NSCLC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Immune-checkpoint inhibitor; Immune-related response; Non-small cell lung cancer
Authors: F Peisen; W Thaiss; N Tietze; S Rausch; B Amend; K Nikolaou; J Bedke; A Stenzl; S Kaufmann Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: F Nelli; A Virtuoso; J R Giron Berrios; D Giannarelli; A Fabbri; E Marrucci; E M Ruggeri Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Julie R Brahmer; Ramaswamy Govindan; Robert A Anders; Scott J Antonia; Sarah Sagorsky; Marianne J Davies; Steven M Dubinett; Andrea Ferris; Leena Gandhi; Edward B Garon; Matthew D Hellmann; Fred R Hirsch; Shakuntala Malik; Joel W Neal; Vassiliki A Papadimitrakopoulou; David L Rimm; Lawrence H Schwartz; Boris Sepesi; Beow Yong Yeap; Naiyer A Rizvi; Roy S Herbst Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Selene Ottonello; Carlo Genova; Irene Cossu; Vincenzo Fontana; Erika Rijavec; Giovanni Rossi; Federica Biello; Maria Giovanna Dal Bello; Marco Tagliamento; Angela Alama; Simona Coco; Simona Boccardo; Irene Vanni; Guido Ferlazzo; Lorenzo Moretta; Francesco Grossi; Maria Cristina Mingari; Paolo Carrega; Gabriella Pietra Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 7.561