Yang Yi, Jiang Xiaolin, Liu Yun, Huang Huan, Xiong Yanli, Xiao He, Gong Kan, Li Xuemei, Kuang Xunjie, Yang Xueqin
Cancer Department, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, No. 10 Changjiang Zhi Road, Daping Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400042, China.
EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Apr 8;46:101381. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101381. eCollection 2022 Apr.
As the immune-related response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (irRECIST) by imaging greatly underestimated the objective response to immunotherapy, we established the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors based on tumor markers (RecistTM) to explore whether RecistTM can compensate for the deficiencies of the irRECIST criteria.
This was an observational study, which consisted of two parts. The first part (Group A) was a retrospective study including the patients with malignant solid tumors. The second part (Group B) was a prospective study, which were EGFR-negative and ALK-negative patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer receiving first-line treatment. From January 2017 to September 2020, one hundred and ten patients with a three-time increase in tumor markers receiving immunotherapy were recruited. The treatment response to immunotherapy was evaluated by irRECIST and RecistTM. Efficacy, overall survival (OS), first evaluation time and earliest response time under the different evaluation criteria were compared by statistics.
The treatment response evaluated by the RecistTM criteria was not consistent with that evaluated by the irRECIST criteria (Kappa = 0.386, < 0.001). RecistTM had a higher completed response (CR) rate compared to irRECIST criteria (20.9% vs 1.8%, < 0.001). The earliest response time under the RecistTM criteria was 3.42 weeks earlier than that under the irRECIST criteria ( = -5.233, < 0.001). There were significant differences in median OS between tumor marker-related complete response (tmCR) and tumor marker-related partial response (tmPR), as well as between tmPR and tumor marker-related stable disease (tmSD) (χ = 15.572, < 0.001; χ = 7.720, = 0.005), but not between tmSD and tumor marker-related progressive disease (tmPD) (χ = 1.596, = 0.206). When applying both criteria together, for patients with immune-related CR / immune-related PR (irCR/irPR) ( = 54) under irRECIST criteria, there was a significant difference in median OS between achieving tmCR ( = 22) and tmPR ( = 32) (χ = 14.011, < 0.001). RecistTM criteria can predict 1-year and 2-year OS more accurately than irRECIST criteria (AUCs:0.862 vs 0.552, 0.649 vs 0.521, respectively;both < 0.001). In RecistTM, 4 patients had been observed with pseudoprogression in tumor markers.
The RecistTM criteria could effectively distinguish CR, PR, and SD, which may help resolve the shortcomings of the RECIST criteria in evaluating the treatment response to immunotherapy, especially in assessing whether patients can achieve deep or even complete response as soon as possible.
This work was supported by the Key projects of Chongqing Health and Family Planning Commission (to Xueqin Yang, 2019ZDXM011).
由于实体瘤免疫相关反应评估标准(irRECIST)通过影像学评估大大低估了免疫治疗的客观反应,我们建立了基于肿瘤标志物的实体瘤反应评估标准(RecistTM),以探讨RecistTM是否可以弥补irRECIST标准的不足。
这是一项观察性研究,包括两个部分。第一部分(A组)是一项回顾性研究,纳入恶性实体瘤患者。第二部分(B组)是一项前瞻性研究,纳入EGFR阴性和ALK阴性的IIIB-IV期非小细胞肺癌接受一线治疗的患者。2017年l月至2020年9月,招募了110例接受免疫治疗且肿瘤标志物三次升高的患者。通过irRECIST和RecistTM评估免疫治疗的反应。通过统计学比较不同评估标准下的疗效、总生存期(OS)、首次评估时间和最早反应时间。
RecistTM标准评估的治疗反应与irRECIST标准评估的不一致(Kappa=0.386,P<0.001)。与irRECIST标准相比,RecistTM的完全缓解(CR)率更高(20.9%对1.8%,P<0.001)。RecistTM标准下的最早反应时间比irRECIST标准早3.42周(t=-5.233,P<oo1)。肿瘤标志物相关完全缓解(tmCR)和肿瘤标志物相关部分缓解(tmPR)之间以及tmPR和肿瘤标志物相关疾病稳定(tmSD)之间的中位OS有显著差异(χ2=15.57l,P<0.001;χ2=7.720,P=0.005),但tmSD和肿瘤标志物相关疾病进展(tmPD)之间无显著差异(χ2=1.596,P=0.206)。当同时应用两种标准时,对于irRECIST标准下免疫相关CR/免疫相关PR(irCR/irPR)(n=54)的患者,达到tmCR(n=22)和tmPR(n=32)的患者之间的中位OS有显著差异(χ2=14.011,P<0.001)。RecistTM标准比irRECIST标准更能准确预测1年和2年OS(AUC分别为0.862对0.552、0.649对0.521;均P<0.001)。在RecistTM中,观察到4例患者肿瘤标志物出现假性进展。
RecistTM标准可以有效区分CR、PR和SD,这可能有助于解决RECIST标准在评估免疫治疗反应方面的不足,特别是在评估患者是否能尽快实现深度甚至完全缓解方面。
本研究得到重庆市卫生和计划生育委员会重点项目资助(给杨学琴,2019ZDXM011)。