F. Stephen Hodi and Mizuki Nishino, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Marcus Ballinger, Benjamin Lyons, Chris McKenna, Ina Rhee, Gregg Fine, Nathan Winslow, and Daniel S. Chen, Genentech, South San Francisco, CA; Jean-Charles Soria, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD; Josep Tabernero, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Thomas Powles, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; David Smith, Compass Oncology, Vancouver, WA; Axel Hoos, GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA; Ulrich Beyer, Roche Innovation Center, Basel, Switzerland; and Jedd D. Wolchok, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 20;36(9):850-858. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.1644. Epub 2018 Jan 17.
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.
目的 使用癌症免疫疗法(CIT)治疗实体瘤可能会产生非常规反应和总体生存(OS)获益,这些获益无法被实体瘤反应评估标准(RECIST)v1.1 充分捕捉到。我们描述了免疫修正的 RECIST(imRECIST)标准,旨在更好地捕捉 CIT 反应。
方法 对非小细胞肺癌、转移性尿路上皮癌、肾细胞癌和黑色素瘤临床试验中的阿特珠单抗数据进行了评估。与 RECIST v1.1 相比,imRECIST 的修改包括允许在疾病进展(PD)后获得最佳总体反应,以及根据新病变(NLs)和非靶病变(NTLs)修改 PD 定义。如果后续扫描显示疾病得到控制,则 imRECIST 无进展生存期(PFS)不计初始 PD 为事件。OS 使用 imRECIST 与 RECIST v1.1 之间 PFS 不同的患者的条件性里程碑进行评估。
结果 与 RECIST v1.1 相比,最佳总体反应高 1%至 2%,疾病控制率高 8%至 13%,imRECIST 中位 PFS 长 0.5 至 1.5 个月。与 RECIST v1.1 相比,imRECIST 的 PFS 延长与 OS 延长或相似相关。进展模式分析显示,与 RECIST v1.1 中 TL 进展的患者相比,出现 NL 而无 TL 进展的患者具有相似或更短的 OS。虽然患者很少出现尖峰模式(TL 先增加,然后减少),但比 TL 未恢复的患者具有更长的 OS。
结论 PFS 和反应及进展模式的评估表明,imRECIST 中允许 PD 后 TL 恢复可能更好地识别具有 OS 获益的患者。然而,仅 NL 出现定义的进展与更长的 OS 无关。这些结果可能为更好地反映 CIT 药物疗效的影像学标准(包括 imRECIST)提供额外的修改信息。