M Provencio1, E Carcereny2, Á Artal3. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda, Calle Manuel de Falla 1, 28222, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain. mariano.provencio@salud.madrid.org. 2. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Instituto Catalán de Oncología Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many methods used to assess the effectiveness of immune checkpoint (programmed death-ligand 1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are insufficient, as the therapeutic benefit of these agents is often underestimated. Consequently, immune-related evaluation criteria have been developed to better reflect their efficacy. The aim of this consensus was to obtain the opinion of lung cancer experts on the adequacy of immune-response criteria for evaluating the efficacy of these treatments. METHODS: Through two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus, 18 Spanish lung cancer experts participated in a 15-item questionnaire regarding the use of immunotherapies for NSCLC and the assessment criteria used to evaluate their effectiveness. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 80% of the items in the questionnaire. The panelists agreed that although the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are standard for the evaluation of solid tumors, immune-related response criteria would be useful for measuring the efficacy of immunotherapy. In addition, they considered that an overall survival (OS) rate at 2-5 years is the most useful end point for assessing the benefit of immunotherapy, as clinical benefit may extend beyond the RECIST criteria-defined progression of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although immune-related response criteria have been developed to better evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy, their use has not been validated and is restricted to investigational applications. However, they may prove to be a useful tool for measuring the efficacy of immunotherapy agents in NSCLC, especially the OS rate at 2-5 years.
INTRODUCTION: Many methods used to assess the effectiveness of immune checkpoint (programmed death-ligand 1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are insufficient, as the therapeutic benefit of these agents is often underestimated. Consequently, immune-related evaluation criteria have been developed to better reflect their efficacy. The aim of this consensus was to obtain the opinion of lung cancer experts on the adequacy of immune-response criteria for evaluating the efficacy of these treatments. METHODS: Through two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus, 18 Spanish lung cancer experts participated in a 15-item questionnaire regarding the use of immunotherapies for NSCLC and the assessment criteria used to evaluate their effectiveness. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 80% of the items in the questionnaire. The panelists agreed that although the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are standard for the evaluation of solid tumors, immune-related response criteria would be useful for measuring the efficacy of immunotherapy. In addition, they considered that an overall survival (OS) rate at 2-5 years is the most useful end point for assessing the benefit of immunotherapy, as clinical benefit may extend beyond the RECIST criteria-defined progression of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although immune-related response criteria have been developed to better evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy, their use has not been validated and is restricted to investigational applications. However, they may prove to be a useful tool for measuring the efficacy of immunotherapy agents in NSCLC, especially the OS rate at 2-5 years.
Authors: Caroline Robert; Georgina V Long; Benjamin Brady; Caroline Dutriaux; Michele Maio; Laurent Mortier; Jessica C Hassel; Piotr Rutkowski; Catriona McNeil; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Kerry J Savage; Micaela M Hernberg; Celeste Lebbé; Julie Charles; Catalin Mihalcioiu; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Cornelia Mauch; Francesco Cognetti; Ana Arance; Henrik Schmidt; Dirk Schadendorf; Helen Gogas; Lotta Lundgren-Eriksson; Christine Horak; Brian Sharkey; Ian M Waxman; Victoria Atkinson; Paolo A Ascierto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Antoni Ribas; Richard Kefford; Margaret A Marshall; Cornelis J A Punt; John B Haanen; Maribel Marmol; Claus Garbe; Helen Gogas; Jacob Schachter; Gerald Linette; Paul Lorigan; Kari L Kendra; Michele Maio; Uwe Trefzer; Michael Smylie; Grant A McArthur; Brigitte Dreno; Paul D Nathan; Jacek Mackiewicz; John M Kirkwood; Jesus Gomez-Navarro; Bo Huang; Dmitri Pavlov; Axel Hauschild Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joan H Schiller; David Harrington; Chandra P Belani; Corey Langer; Alan Sandler; James Krook; Junming Zhu; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas J Lynch; Igor Bondarenko; Alexander Luft; Piotr Serwatowski; Fabrice Barlesi; Raju Chacko; Martin Sebastian; Joel Neal; Haolan Lu; Jean-Marie Cuillerot; Martin Reck Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan Sandler; Robert Gray; Michael C Perry; Julie Brahmer; Joan H Schiller; Afshin Dowlati; Rogerio Lilenbaum; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Axel Hoos; Alexander M M Eggermont; Sylvia Janetzki; F Stephen Hodi; Ramy Ibrahim; Aparna Anderson; Rachel Humphrey; Brent Blumenstein; Lloyd Old; Jedd Wolchok Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 13.506