Dataset Information

Definition, Incidence, and Challenges for Assessment of Hyperprogressive Disease During Cancer Treatment With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a recognized pattern of rapid tumor progression during immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. Definitions of HPD have not been standardized, posing the risk of capturing different tumoral behaviors.

Objectives

To provide a systematic summary of definitions and the incidence of HPD in patients undergoing ICI treatment and discuss the challenges of current assessment of HPD.

Data sources

Articles that evaluated HPD published before March 3, 2020, were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE.

Study selection

Clinical trials and observational studies providing the incidence and definition of HPD from patients with cancer treated with ICIs.

Data extraction and synthesis

Factors included in the analysis comprised authors, year of publication, cancer type, ICI type, number of previous treatment lines, definition of HPD, time frame used to assess HPD, number of patients with HPD, onset of HPD, and prognosis of patients with HPD. Quantitative and qualitative syntheses for the incidence of HPD were performed.

Main outcomes and measures

Definitions of HPD were categorized and the range of incidence of HPD was evaluated. Subgroup analysis on the incidence of HPD according to the category was performed and the challenges associated with current HPD assessment were evaluated.

Results

Twenty-four studies with 3109 patients were analyzed. The incidence of HPD varied from 5.9% to 43.1%. The definitions were divided into 4 categories based on the calculation of tumor growth acceleration: tumor growth rate ratio (pooled incidence of HPD, 9.4%; 95% CI, 6.9%-12.0%), tumor growth kinetics ratio (pooled incidence, 15.8%; 95% CI, 8.0%-23.7%), early tumor burden increase (pooled incidence, 20.6%; 95% CI, 9.3%-31.8%), and combinations of the above (pooled incidence, 12.4%; 95% CI, 7.3%-17.5%). Hyperprogressive disease could be overestimated or underestimated if the assessment was limited to tumor growth rate or tumor growth kinetics ratio, target lesions, or response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST)-defined progressors, or if the assessment time frame conformed to RECIST. Study results on clinical outcome were heterogeneous on discriminating patients with HPD from those with natural progressive disease.

Conclusions and relevance

Definitions of HPD appear to be diverse, with the incidence of HPD varying from 5.9% to 43.1% across studies examined in this meta-analysis. Varying incidence and definitions of HPD indicate the need for establishing its uniform and clinically relevant criteria based on currently available evidence.

SUBMITTER: Park HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7991969 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common malignancy worldwide, and is especially common in China. A total of 70%-80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and can receive only palliative care. Sorafenib has been the standard of care for a decade, and promising results for regorafenib as a second-line and lenvatinib as a first-line treatment were reported only 1 or 2 years ago. FOLFOX4 was recently recommended as a clinical practice guideline by the China Food and Drug Administration. All approved systemic therapies remain unsatisfactory, with limited objective response rates and poor overall survival. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) offer great promise in the treatment of a rapidly expanding spectrum of solid tumors. Immune checkpoint molecules are involved in almost the whole process of viral-related hepatitis with cirrhosis and HCC and in the most important resistance mechanism of sorafenib. The approval of nivolumab by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on September 23, 2017, for the treatment of patients with HCC, based only on a phase I/II clinical trial, is a strong hint that immunotherapy will introduce a new era of HCC therapy. CPI-based strategies will soon be a main approach in anticancer treatment for HCC, and we will observe the rapid advances in the therapeutic use of CPIs, even in an adjuvant setting, with great interest. How shall we face the opportunities and challenges? Can we dramatically improve the prognosis of patients with HCC? This review may provide some informed guidance. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Immune checkpoint molecules are involved in almost the whole process of viral-related hepatitis with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and in the most important resistance mechanism of sorafenib. As all approved systemic therapies in HCC remain unsatisfactory, checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based strategies will soon be a main approach in anticancer treatment for advanced stage of HCC, even in an adjuvant setting. In virus-related HCC, especially hepatitis B virus-related HCC, whether CPIs can control virus relapse should be further investigated. Combination strategies involving conventional therapies and immunotherapies are needed to increase clinical benefit and minimize adverse toxicities with regard to the underlying liver disease.

Project description:BackgroundFatigue is one of the most common adverse effects associated with cancer immunotherapy using checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Because treatment-related fatigue also frequently occurs in patients treated with non-immunological therapies, our study aimed to compare the incidence of fatigue in CPI-treated patients with that associated with non-immune therapies in randomised trials.MethodsPubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for phase III studies using a CPI alone or in combination with chemotherapy or non-immunologic targeted therapy in the experimental arm and control arm using inactive therapies such as placebo or observation, chemotherapy, or non-immunologic targeted therapy. Adverse events listed in the full texts as well as those available from clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed for all identified studies.ResultsA total of 60 studies involving 41 435 patients were included in the analysis. All-grade fatigue was reported in 30.4% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.9% to 31.0%] in the immunotherapy arms of the analysed studies. Using anti-programmed cell death protein 1 agents as reference, the odds ratio (OR) for fatigue was significantly higher both for anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 agents (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04-2.04) and the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 and anti-programmed cell death protein agents (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.83). Fatigue was significantly less likely to occur in patients treated with CPI compared with patients receiving chemotherapy (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85), but significantly was more common in patients receiving the combination of CPI/chemotherapy compared with patients receiving chemotherapy alone (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03-1.22).ConclusionsAlthough immunotherapy using CPIs was associated with treatment-related fatigue, the occurrence of all-grade fatigue was significantly higher in patients treated with chemotherapy compared with patients receiving CPIs. The risk of fatigue was higher for CPI/chemotherapy combinations than for chemotherapy alone. These results suggest that although the effects of CPIs and chemotherapy are additive, chemotherapy was the dominant cause of treatment-related fatigue in the analysed trials.