Response criteria for intratumoral immunotherapy in solid tumors: ItRECIST.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3141-3141
Author(s):  
Gregory V. Goldmacher ◽  
Anuradha D. Khilnani ◽  
Robert H. I. Andtbacka ◽  
Jason J. Luke ◽  
F. Stephen Hodi ◽  
...  

3141 Background: The approval of intratumoral (IT) immunotherapy for metastatic melanoma and the active development of numerous novel IT drugs have created a need for standardized evaluation of response to this unique treatment strategy. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) is not suitable for assessing responses separately for injected and noninjected tumors. Building on RECIST concepts, we propose an IT immunotherapy RECIST (itRECIST) to capture data and assess local and systemic responses in a standardized fashion for clinical trials involving IT immunotherapies. Methods: itRECIST will address the unique needs of IT immunotherapy trials but, where possible, aligns with RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST. It does not dictate which lesions to inject but provides guidelines for collecting data and assessing response as treatment evolves. Results: itRECIST enables overall response assessment, separate response assessments in injected and noninjected lesions, and continued assessment following modifications of therapy at initial progression. At baseline, lesions are classified into 4 categories: target injected, target noninjected, nontarget injected, and nontarget noninjected. After baseline, lesions can be reclassified from noninjected to injected if the investigator decides to change the lesions to inject, but target and nontarget designations never change. Overall response at each assessment is based on target lesion response (injected and noninjected), nontarget lesion response, and absence/appearance of new lesions. Noninjected lesion response is determined by comparing tumor burden with baseline and nadir values. Injected lesion assessment is based on visit-to-visit changes in the lesions injected during treatment and on a combined assessment once the patient is off treatment. A new response category is defined to capture progression that would be “confirmed” per iRECIST even though injected lesions are responding and therapy continues. Multiple examples have been created to aid in training and adoption. Conclusions: itRECIST is an important step toward a standardized method of response assessment for this promising and evolving therapeutic modality. The proposed guidelines can be adopted into trial protocols and routine clinical practice without the need for complex additional assessments by treating physicians. Until there is evidence to support wider use, itRECIST is intended only to support standardized collection of data and to facilitate exploratory analysis. Authors G.V.G. and A.D.K. contributed equally to this work.

2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (7) ◽  
pp. 983-991
Author(s):  
Ying-Chieh Lai ◽  
Wen-Cheng Chang ◽  
Chun-Bing Chen ◽  
Chi-Liang Wang ◽  
Yu-Fen Lin ◽  
...  

Background Pseudoprogression is difficult to diagnose in patients undergoing immunotherapy. Subjective response assessment is still common in clinical practice. Purpose To evaluate the differences between response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), immune-related response criteria (irRC), and modified RECIST 1.1 for immunotherapy (iRECIST) through semi-automatic software, and to compare iRECIST-based response evaluation with subjective assessment. Material and Methods The best overall response of each patient based on RECIST 1.1, irRC, and iRECIST was determined on CT scans through semi-automatic software and the differences between the criteria were evaluated. Criteria-based response evaluation through semi-automatic software was compared with subjective assessment on radiology report by correlating the best overall response to overall survival. Results A total of 21 patients were included (five patients with melanoma, 12 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, and four patients with hepatocellular carcinoma). Two patients with progressive disease by RECIST 1.1 but non-progressive disease by irRC and iRECIST eventually experienced tumor response and had favorable outcomes, indicating pseudoprogression. The survival difference between patients with non-progressive disease and progressive disease was better stratified through iRECIST-based response evaluation ( P = 0.078) than that through subjective assessment ( P = 0.501). Conclusion Pseudoprogression in immunotherapy may be captured through semi-automatic software utilizing irRC or iRECIST criteria. iRECIST-based response evaluation may provide a better survival stratification compared with subjective assessment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 850-858 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Stephen Hodi ◽  
Marcus Ballinger ◽  
Benjamin Lyons ◽  
Jean-Charles Soria ◽  
Mizuki Nishino ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13557-e13557
Author(s):  
Manish Sharma ◽  
Anitha Singareddy ◽  
Surabhi Bajpai ◽  
Jayant Narang ◽  
Michael O'Connor ◽  
...  

e13557 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the world including more than 160,000 deaths in the US. The purpose of the study was to determine whether inter reader variability in Sum of Diameters (SOD) of tumor burden has any correlation with variability in end point assessment in lung cancer progression. RECIST 1.1 is based on the SOD of target lesions seen on imaging studies. Response criteria for evaluation of target lesions include - Complete response (CR), Partial response (PR), Progressive disease (PD) and Stable disease (SD). The key determinant of patient response is based on Target Lesion response which in turn is determined by SOD. Inter reader variability study plays an important role in the development of reliable diagnostic tools and understanding of imaging outcomes given the confounding factors like effusion, atelectasis and consolidation in lung cancer that affect Target Lesion selection. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 470 patients was carried out using RECIST 1.1. Double read with adjudication is the preferred read model for submission studies where images are read by two independent reviewers blinded to treatment allocation. As per RECIST 1.1, lesions were measured in the longest diameter for non-nodal and short axis for nodal lesions. This was followed by the calculation of SOD for total tumor burden. If these two primary reviewers disagree, then a third radiologist, the “adjudicator”, reviews the assessments performed by the first two radiologists and selects between the more accurate one. For further analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups, the one with no adjudication i.e. agreement between both readers and the second group with adjudication i.e. disagreement between both readers and ANOVA was used to perform analysis of Variance. Results: Of 470 patients, 332 patients with disagreement were adjudicated, while there was agreement on 138 patients assessments between both readers. SOD of baseline visits for all patients was assessed using ANOVA - single factor with following results: F ratio of 4.76 for Disagreement group was more than F crit (3.86) with P-value 0.03, while for Agreement group F value was less than F crit. Conclusions: There is a direct relationship of variability in SOD at baseline between two readers to the possibility of disagreement in their end point assessment. Additional rules around selection and measurement of Target Lesions should be proposed in protocol to reduce variability and improve endpoint assessment outcomes.[Table: see text]


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (19) ◽  
pp. 3205-3210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shauna L. Hillman ◽  
Ming-Wen An ◽  
Michael J. O'Connell ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Paul Schaefer ◽  
...  

Purpose In February 2000, the criteria for measuring tumor shrinkage as an indicator of antitumor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). This resulted in simplifying bidimensional to unidimensional measurement of lesions. Under RECIST, all lesions, up to 10, must be measured. Scanning and measuring multiple lesions is costly, time-consuming, and a disincentive to participation in clinical trials. We investigated whether fewer than 10 lesions can be measured without compromising the accuracy of assessing a regimen's activity. Patients and Methods Thirty-two North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials including 2,374 patients were analyzed. Twelve studies were conducted before RECIST; 20 were conducted post-RECIST. Agreement between objective status by cycle, confirmed response, overall response rate, and time to progression (TTP) was evaluated based on all 10 versus the largest one through five lesions. Results The median number of lesions reported on RECIST trials did not differ from pre-RECIST trials (median = 2.0). One lesion at baseline was reported in 49% of patients, two lesions in 28% of patients, three lesions in 12% of patients, four lesions in 6% of patients, and five lesions in 5% of patients in post-RECIST trials. Utilizing the largest two lesions produced excellent concordance with that using all lesions for all end points. In no trial did the overall response rate differ by more than 3% when two versus all lesions were considered. Evaluating more than two lesions did not significantly improve agreement. Conclusion Based on these trials, the assessment of more than two lesions did not alter the conclusions regarding a treatment's efficacy as judged by response rate or TTP.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14245-e14245
Author(s):  
Diana Roettger ◽  
Faiq Shaikh ◽  
Sotirios Bisdas ◽  
Lisa Diana MacDonald ◽  
Stephan Fiset ◽  
...  

e14245 Background: Accurate assessment of tumor response to immunotherapy is challenged by pseudoprogression that mimics true progression. Conventional imaging and RECIST assessment do not adequately distinguish between them given their inability to account for changes in the tumor microenvironment. DPX-Survivac is a novel T cell activating therapy that triggers immune responses against tumors expressing survivin and is being studied in this trial in combination with CPA and pembrolizumab in several solid tumors. Multiparametric MRI approaches - dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging MRI are useful for accurate assessment of structural, perfusion and vascular assessment of the lesion and may identify pseudoprogression and compare to the RECIST-based assessment. Methods: The study will enroll up to 226 evaluable subjects in 5 different cohorts: ovarian cancer, HCC, NSCLC, bladder cancer and MSI-H cancer. These subjects will undergo initial imaging 28 days prior to treatment, to be assessed based on RECIST 1.1, and a pre-treatment tumor biopsy for quantitation of survivin and PD-L1 expression and MSI analyses. Treatment for 35 cycles or until disease progression. All patients will have CT images for RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST assessment. A subset of subjects will undergo mpMRI to calculate advanced imaging biomarkers. Results: MRI, clinical and patient-reported outcomes will be analyzed. Conclusions: This study will provide important evidence on the utility of mpMRI + CT-based assessment of response to immunotherapy and use it as an adjunct to the CT-based RECIST criteria by providing insight on how tumor lesions are impacted by treatment.


Radiology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 269 (3) ◽  
pp. 870-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reineke A. Schoot ◽  
Kieran McHugh ◽  
Rick R. van Rijn ◽  
Leontien C. M. Kremer ◽  
Julia C. Chisholm ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document