Literature DB >> 29341833

Immune-Modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (imRECIST): Refining Guidelines to Assess the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Immunotherapy.

F Stephen Hodi1, Marcus Ballinger1, Benjamin Lyons1, Jean-Charles Soria1, Mizuki Nishino1, Josep Tabernero1, Thomas Powles1, David Smith1, Axel Hoos1, Chris McKenna1, Ulrich Beyer1, Ina Rhee1, Gregg Fine1, Nathan Winslow1, Daniel S Chen1, Jedd D Wolchok1.   

Abstract

Purpose Treating solid tumors with cancer immunotherapy (CIT) can result in unconventional responses and overall survival (OS) benefits that are not adequately captured by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. We describe immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST) criteria, designed to better capture CIT responses. Patients and Methods Atezolizumab data from clinical trials in non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic urothelial carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and melanoma were evaluated. Modifications to imRECIST versus RECIST v1.1 included allowance for best overall response after progressive disease (PD) and changes in PD definitions per new lesions (NLs) and nontarget lesions. imRECIST progression-free survival (PFS) did not count initial PD as an event if the subsequent scan showed disease control. OS was evaluated using conditional landmarks in patients whose PFS differed by imRECIST versus RECIST v1.1. Results The best overall response was 1% to 2% greater, the disease control rate was 8% to 13% greater, and the median PFS was 0.5 to 1.5 months longer per imRECIST versus RECIST v1.1. Extension of imRECIST PFS versus RECIST v1.1 PFS was associated with longer or similar OS. Patterns of progression analysis revealed that patients who developed NLs without target lesion (TL) progression had a similar or shorter OS compared with patients with RECIST v1.1 TL progression. Patients infrequently experienced a spike pattern (TLs increase, then decrease) but had longer OS than patients without TL reversion. Conclusion Evaluation of PFS and patterns of response and progression revealed that allowance for TL reversion from PD per imRECIST may better identify patients with OS benefit. Progression defined by the isolated appearance of NLs, however, is not associated with longer OS. These results may inform additional modifications to radiographic criteria (including imRECIST) to better reflect efficacy with CIT agents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29341833     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.1644

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  101 in total

Review 1.  TGFβ biology in cancer progression and immunotherapy.

Authors:  Rik Derynck; Shannon J Turley; Rosemary J Akhurst
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Assessing the impact of the addition of dendritic cell vaccination to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A model-based characterization approach.

Authors:  Belén P Solans; Ascensión López-Díaz de Cerio; Arlette Elizalde; Luis Javier Pina; Susana Inogés; Jaime Espinós; Esteban Salgado; Luis Daniel Mejías; Iñaki F Trocóniz; Marta Santisteban
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer: what makes the difference?

Authors:  Melissa Bersanelli; Fausto Petrelli
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO): An American Society of Clinical Oncology-Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Statement.

Authors:  Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Laura A Levit; Richard L Schilsky; Steven D Averbuch; Daniel Chen; John M Kirkwood; Lisa M McShane; Elad Sharon; Kathryn F Mileham; Michael A Postow
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  irRECIST for the Evaluation of Candidate Biomarkers of Response to Nivolumab in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of a Phase II Prospective Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Jean-Christophe Pignon; Opeyemi Jegede; Sachet A Shukla; David A Braun; Christine E Horak; Megan Wind-Rotolo; Yuko Ishii; Paul J Catalano; Jonian Grosha; Abdallah Flaifel; Jesse S Novak; Kathleen M Mahoney; Gordon J Freeman; Arlene H Sharpe; F Stephen Hodi; Robert J Motzer; Toni K Choueiri; Catherine J Wu; Michael B Atkins; David F McDermott; Sabina Signoretti
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Need for prospective collection of experience and repeated samples in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Yasuo Hamamoto
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Which criteria should we use to evaluate the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors?

Authors:  Yuki Kataoka; Katsuya Hirano
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-06

Review 8.  [Influence of immunomodulators on urological imaging].

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

Review 9.  Immunotherapy of Melanoma: Facts and Hopes.

Authors:  Sarah A Weiss; Jedd D Wolchok; Mario Sznol
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Immunotherapy: Immune-modified response criteria - an iterative learning process?

Authors:  Patrick A Ott
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 66.675

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.