Firas S Ahmed1, Laurent Dercle2, Gregory V Goldmacher3, Hao Yang2, Dana Connors4, Ying Tang5, Sanja Karovic6, Binsheng Zhao2, Richard D Carvajal2, Caroline Robert7, Michael L Maitland6, Geoffrey R Oxnard8, Lawrence H Schwartz2. 1. Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 622 W 168th Street, PHB-1, New York, NY, 10032, USA. fsa2101@columbia.edu. 2. Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 622 W 168th Street, PHB-1, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 3. Merck & Co. Pharmaceutical, Warrington, PA, USA. 4. Foundation for the National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. CCS Associates, San Jose, CA, USA. 6. Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Washington, DC, USA. 7. Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Paris, France. 8. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare tumor best overall response (BOR) by RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST, to explore the incidence of pseudoprogression in melanoma treated with pembrolizumab, and to assess the impact of pseudoprogression on overall survival (OS). METHODS: A total of 221 patients with locally advanced/unresectable melanoma who received pembrolizumab as part of KEYNOTE-002 trial were included in this study. Radiological assessment of imaging was centrally reviewed to assess tumor response. Incidence of discordance in BOR between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST as well as rate of pseudoprogression were measured. OS of patients with pseudoprogression was compared with that of those with uncontrolled disease. RESULTS: Of the 221 patients in this cohort, 136 patients developed PD as per RECIST v1.1 and 78 patients with PD continued treatment and imaging beyond initial RECIST 1.1-defined PD. Among the 78 patients who continued therapy and imaging post-progression, RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were discordant in 10 patients (12.8%) and pseudoprogression was encountered in 14 patients (17.9%). OS of patients with pseudoprogression was longer than that of patients with uncontrolled disease/true progression (29.9 months versus 8.0 months, p value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of immunotherapy in clinical trials depends on the criterion used to assess tumor response (RECIST 1.1 vs iRECIST) with iRECIST being more appropriate to detect pseudoprogression and potentially prevent premature termination of effective therapy. Pseudoprogression was associated with improved OS in comparison with that of patients with uncontrolled disease. KEY POINTS: • Discordance between iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 was found in 12.8% of unresectable melanoma patients on pembrolizumab who continued therapy beyond initial RECIST 1.1-defined progression. • Pseudoprogression, captured with iRECIST, occurred in 17.9% and was significantly associated with improved overall survival in comparison with uncontrolled disease.
OBJECTIVES: To compare tumor best overall response (BOR) by RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST, to explore the incidence of pseudoprogression in melanoma treated with pembrolizumab, and to assess the impact of pseudoprogression on overall survival (OS). METHODS: A total of 221 patients with locally advanced/unresectable melanoma who received pembrolizumab as part of KEYNOTE-002 trial were included in this study. Radiological assessment of imaging was centrally reviewed to assess tumor response. Incidence of discordance in BOR between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST as well as rate of pseudoprogression were measured. OS of patients with pseudoprogression was compared with that of those with uncontrolled disease. RESULTS: Of the 221 patients in this cohort, 136 patients developed PD as per RECIST v1.1 and 78 patients with PD continued treatment and imaging beyond initial RECIST 1.1-defined PD. Among the 78 patients who continued therapy and imaging post-progression, RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were discordant in 10 patients (12.8%) and pseudoprogression was encountered in 14 patients (17.9%). OS of patients with pseudoprogression was longer than that of patients with uncontrolled disease/true progression (29.9 months versus 8.0 months, p value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of immunotherapy in clinical trials depends on the criterion used to assess tumor response (RECIST 1.1 vs iRECIST) with iRECIST being more appropriate to detect pseudoprogression and potentially prevent premature termination of effective therapy. Pseudoprogression was associated with improved OS in comparison with that of patients with uncontrolled disease. KEY POINTS: • Discordance between iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 was found in 12.8% of unresectable melanoma patients on pembrolizumab who continued therapy beyond initial RECIST 1.1-defined progression. • Pseudoprogression, captured with iRECIST, occurred in 17.9% and was significantly associated with improved overall survival in comparison with uncontrolled disease.
Authors: Kaitlyn Johnson; Axel Gomez; Jackson Burton; Douglas White; Arijit Chakravarty; Annette Schmid; Dean Bottino Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lucian Beer; Maximilian Hochmair; Alexander R Haug; Bernhard Schwabel; Daria Kifjak; Wolfgang Wadsak; Thorsten Fuereder; Hannah Fabikan; Andreas Fazekas; Sophia Schwab; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Christian Herold; Helmut Prosch Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas; Jacob Schachter; Ana Arance; Jean-Jacques Grob; Laurent Mortier; Adil Daud; Matteo S Carlino; Catriona M McNeil; Michal Lotem; James M G Larkin; Paul Lorigan; Bart Neyns; Christian U Blank; Teresa M Petrella; Omid Hamid; Shu-Chih Su; Clemens Krepler; Nageatte Ibrahim; Georgina V Long Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Antoni Ribas; Igor Puzanov; Reinhard Dummer; Dirk Schadendorf; Omid Hamid; Caroline Robert; F Stephen Hodi; Jacob Schachter; Anna C Pavlick; Karl D Lewis; Lee D Cranmer; Christian U Blank; Steven J O'Day; Paolo A Ascierto; April K S Salama; Kim A Margolin; Carmen Loquai; Thomas K Eigentler; Tara C Gangadhar; Matteo S Carlino; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Stergios J Moschos; Jeffrey A Sosman; Simone M Goldinger; Ronnie Shapira-Frommer; Rene Gonzalez; John M Kirkwood; Jedd D Wolchok; Alexander Eggermont; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; Wei Zhou; Adriane M Zernhelt; Joy Lis; Scot Ebbinghaus; S Peter Kang; Adil Daud Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Simon Burgermeister; Hubert S Gabryś; Lucas Basler; Sabrina A Hogan; Matea Pavic; Marta Bogowicz; Julia M Martínez Gómez; Diem Vuong; Stephanie Tanadini-Lang; Robert Foerster; Martin W Huellner; Reinhard Dummer; Mitchell P Levesque; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 5.738