Dataset Information

Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Despite wide recognition of iRECIST, evidence regarding the impact of iRECIST over RECIST 1.1 is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the impact of iRECIST on assessing treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) over RECIST 1.1. Articles that evaluated the treatment response and outcome based on both RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were eligible. Data regarding overall response rates (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST, and data required to estimate individual patient data of progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted. Estimates were compared using meta-regression and pooled incidence rate ratios. The pooled difference of restricted mean survival time (RMST) of PFS between two criteria were calculated. Eleven studies with 6210 patients were analyzed. The application of iRECIST had no impact on the response-related endpoint by showing no significantly different ORR and DCR from RECIST 1.1 (pooled ORR, 23.6% and 24.7% [p = 0.72]; pooled DCR, 45.3% and 48.7% [p = 0.56] for iRECIST and RECIST 1.1, respectively) and had a minor impact on a survival endpoint by showing longer RMST of PFS than RECIST 1.1 (pooled difference, 0.46 months; 95% CI, 0.10-0.82 months; p = 0.01). Such a modest benefit of iRECIST should be considered when we design a clinical trial for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

SUBMITTER: Park HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7795764 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Park Hyo Jung HJ Kim Gun Ha GH Kim Kyung Won KW Lee Choong Wook CW Yoon Shinkyo S Chae Young Kwang YK Tirumani Sree Harsha SH Ramaiya Nikhil H NH

Cancers 20210101 1

Despite wide recognition of iRECIST, evidence regarding the impact of iRECIST over RECIST 1.1 is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the impact of iRECIST on assessing treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) over RECIST 1.1. Articles that evaluated the treatment response and outcome based on both RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were eligible. Data regarding overall response rates (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST, and data required to estimate individual pat ...[more]

PMID: 33561078

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo 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).MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsEffectiveness 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.

Project description:IntroductionHyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a paradoxically rapid disease progression during or shortly after antitumor treatment, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Various diagnosis criteria of HPD cause heterogeneous incidence rates in different clinical research, and there is no consensus on potential risk factors associated with HPD occurrence. Hence, we aimed to summarize incidence of HPD in ICI treatment for solid tumors. Clinicopathological factors associated with HPD are also analyzed.MethodsClinical studies about HPD during/after ICI treatment of solid malignancies are included. Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies published before October 7. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Random effect and fixed effect models were, respectively, used for pooling incidence of HPD and analysis of risk factors for HPD. Heterogeneity, subgroup analysis, and publication bias were also analyzed. All meta-analysis was performed via R software (y -40v4.0.2).ResultsForty-one studies with 6009 patients were included. The pooled incidence of HPD was 13.2% (95% CI, 11.2%-15.4%). Head and neck cancer (HNC) had the highest incidence of HPD (18.06%), and melanoma had the lowest (9.9%). Tumor types (P = .0248) and gender ratio (P = .0116) are sources of heterogeneity of pooled incidence of HPD. For five clinicopathological factors associated with HPD, only programmed cell death protein 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity was a preventive factor (odds ratio = 0.61, P <.05). High lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (OR = 1.51, P = .01), metastatic sites >2 (OR = 2.38, P <.0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score ≥2 (OR = 1.47, P = .02), and liver metastasis (OR = 3.06, P <.0001) indicate higher risk of HPD.ConclusionsThe pooled incidence of HPD was less than 15%, and HNC had the highest incidence of HPD. LDH and PD-L1 are remarkable biomarkers for prediction of HPD in future medical practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of sarcopenia on the clinical outcomes of patients with malignant neoplasms receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect and survival of patients with malignancies and sarcopenia receiving ICIs.MethodsWe systematically searched related studies in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to March 2021 according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Information pertaining to the hazard ratio (HR) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by univariate and multivariate analyses; the odds ratio (OR) corresponding to the 95% CI of the disease control rate (DCR) and objective response rate (ORR); and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was collected and analyzed using the RevMan 5.4 software. Study heterogeneity and sensitivity were also assessed.ResultsA total of 19 studies were finalized that included 1763patients with lung, gastrointestinal, and head and neck cancers as well as those with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, and soft tissue sarcoma. According to univariate and multivariate analyses, patients with sarcopenia at pre-immunotherapy had poorer PFS and OS than those without. HRs and the corresponding 95% CI of PFS were 1.91(1.55-2.34, p <0.00001) and 1.46 (1.20-1.78, p =0.0001), respectively, and HRs and the corresponding 95% CI of OS were 1.78 (1.47-2.14, p <0.00001) and 1.73 (1.36-2.19, p <0.0001), respectively. Patients with sarcopenia showed poor PFS and OS during treatment. In addition, patients with sarcopenia had worse ORR (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.74, p = 0.001) and DCR (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.64, p<0.0001); however, the incidence of irAEs of any grade and high-grade in patients with sarcopenia did not increase, OR and the corresponding 95% CI were 0.58(0.30-1.12, p = 0.10) and 0.46(0.19-1.09, p = 0.08). Further, we performed subgroup analysis, skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) and psoas muscle mass index (PMI) stratification. In the SMI group, patients with sarcopenia had poor ORR, DCR, PFS, and OS than those without. In the PMI group, sarcopenia had poor ORR,DCR, and was a poor prognostic factor for PFS and OS according to univariate analysis but had no effect on PFS and OS according to multivariate analysis.ConclusionsPatients with malignancies and sarcopenia at pre-immunotherapy or follow-up visits had poorer clinical outcomes than those without, and sarcopenia was a poor predictive factor of ICI immunotherapy outcomes.

Project description:Background: The albumin levels may potentially be used as a prognostic biomarker in patients with cancertreated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) due to its close relationship with nutritional and inflammatory status. However, the available data is limited with heterogeneous patient cohorts, sample sizes and variable cut-offs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between survival outcomes and albumin levels in patients treated with ICIs. Methods: We conducted a systematic review using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases to filter the published studies up to 1 June 2022. The meta-analyses were performed with the generic inverse-variance method with a random-effects model due to the high degree of heterogeneity. The primary outcome measure was hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO registry (Registration Number: CRD42022337746). Results: Thirty-six studies encompassing 8406 cancer patients with advanced disease were included in the meta-analyses. Almost half of the studies were conducted in NSCLC cohorts (n = 15), and 3.5 gr/dL was the most frequently used albumin cut-off in the included studies (n = 20). Patients with lower albumin levels had a significantly increased risk of death (HR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.52-1.80, p < 0.0001) than patients with higher albumin levels. Subgroup analyses for study location, sample size, tumor type and albumin cut-off were demonstrated consistent results. Furthermore, in the subgroup analysis of eight studies using albumin levels as a continuous prognostic factor, every 1 gr/dL decrease in albumin levels was associated with significantly increased risk of death by a factor of 10% (HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05-1.16, p = 0.0002). Similar to analyses with overall survival, the patients with lower albumin levels had an increased risk of progression or death compared to patients with higher albumin levels (HR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.40-2.21, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The available evidence demonstrates that albumin levels may be a prognostic biomarker in advanced cancer patients treated with ICIs. Further research is needed to delineate the role of albumin levels in patients treated with ICIs in the adjuvant setting, as well as the possible benefit of therapeutic approaches to improve hypoalbuminemia.

Dataset Information

Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets