Dataset Information

Comparison of tumor assessments using RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST, and association with overall survival.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may experience pseudoprogression, which can be classified as progressive disease (PD) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1 and could lead to inappropriate treatment discontinuation. Immune-response criteria were developed to better capture novel response patterns seen with ICIs.

Methods

We pooled data from 1765 patients with 12 types of advanced solid tumors treated with avelumab (an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody) monotherapy in the JAVELIN Solid Tumor and JAVELIN Merkel 200 trials, conducted a comparative analysis of tumor assessments by investigators according to RECIST 1.1 and immune-related RECIST (irRECIST), and evaluated the correlation between progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

In total, 147 patients (8.3%) had a best overall response (BOR) of PD by RECIST 1.1 but had immune-related disease control by irRECIST (defined as immune-related BOR (irBOR) of immune-related stable disease or better). This discordance was seen irrespective of PD-L1 status and observed across all tumor types. Overall, PFS and immune-related PFS showed similar imputed rank correlations with OS.

Conclusions

The use of irRECIST identified a subset of patients with a BOR of PD by RECIST 1.1 but an irBOR of immune-related disease control by irRECIST with a distinctive survival curve, thereby providing more clinically relevant information than RECIST 1.1 alone. However, as a surrogate endpoint for OS in the whole population, immune-related PFS by irRECIST did not show improved predictive value compared with PFS by RECIST 1.1.

SUBMITTER: Manitz J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8886415 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of tumor assessments using RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST, and association with overall survival.

Manitz Juliane J D'Angelo Sandra P SP Apolo Andrea B AB Eggleton S Peter SP Bajars Marcis M Bohnsack Oliver O Gulley James L JL

Journal for immunotherapy of cancer 20220201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may experience pseudoprogression, which can be classified as progressive disease (PD) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1 and could lead to inappropriate treatment discontinuation. Immune-response criteria were developed to better capture novel response patterns seen with ICIs.<h4>Methods</h4>We pooled data from 1765 patients with 12 types of advanced solid tumors treated with avelumab (an ant ...[more]

PMID: 35228264

Similar Datasets

Project description:Reader variability is intrinsic to radiologic oncology assessments, necessitating measures to enhance consistency and accuracy. RECIST 1.1 criteria play a crucial role in mitigating this variability by standardizing evaluations, aiming to establish an accepted "truth" confirmed by histology or patient survival. Clinical trials utilize Blind Independent Centralized Review (BICR) techniques to manage variability, employing double reads and adjudicators to address inter-observer discordance effectively. It is essential to dissect the root causes of variability in response assessments, with a specific focus on the factors influencing RECIST evaluations. We propose proactive measures for radiologists to address variability sources such as radiologist expertise, image quality, and accessibility of contextual information, which significantly impact interpretation and assessment precision. Adherence to standardization and RECIST guidelines is pivotal in diminishing variability and ensuring uniform results across studies. Variability factors, including lesion selection, new lesion appearance, and confirmation bias, can have profound implications on assessment accuracy and interpretation, underscoring the importance of identifying and addressing these factors. Delving into the causes of variability aids in enhancing the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, underscoring the role of standardized evaluation protocols and mitigating risk factors that contribute to variability. Access to contextual information is crucial. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By understanding the causes of diagnosis variability, we can enhance the accuracy and consistency of response assessments in oncology, ultimately improving patient care and clinical outcomes. KEY POINTS: Baseline lesion selection and detection of new lesions play a major role in the occurrence of discordance. Image interpretation is influenced by contextual information, the lack of which can lead to diagnostic uncertainty. Radiologists must be trained in RECIST criteria to reduce errors and variability.

Project description:BackgroundIn imaging-based clinical trials, it is common practice to perform double reads for each image, discrepant interpretations can result from these two different evaluations. In this study we analyzed discrepancies that occurred between local investigators (LI) and blinded independent central review (BICR) by comparing reader-selected imaging scans and lesions. Our goal was to identify the causes of discrepant declarations of progressive disease (PD) between LI and BICR in a clinical trial.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed imaging data from a RECIST 1.1-based, multi-sites, phase II clinical trial of 179 patients with adult small cell lung cancer, treated with Cabazitaxel compared to Topotecan. Any discrepancies in the determination of PD between LI and BICR readers were reviewed by a third-party adjudicator. For each imaging time point and reader, we recorded the selected target lesions, non-target lesions, and new lesions. Odds ratios were calculated to measure the association between discrepant declarations of PD and the differences in reviewed imaging scans (e.g. same imaging modality but with different reconstruction parameters) and selected lesions. Reasons for discrepancies were analyzed.ResultsThe average number of target lesions found by LI and BICR was respectively 2.9 and 3.4 per patient (p < 0.05), 18.4% of these target lesions were actually non-measurable. LI and BICR performed their evaluations based on different baseline imaging scans for 59% of the patients, they selected at least one different target lesion in 85% of patients. A total of 36.7% of patients required adjudication. Reasons of adjudication included differences in 1) reporting new lesions (53.7%), 2) the measured change of the tumor burden (18.5%), and 3) the progression of non-target lesions (11.2%). The rate of discrepancy was not associated with the selection of non-measurable target lesions or with the readers' assessment of different images. Paradoxically, more discrepancies occurred when LI and BICR selected exactly the same target lesions at baseline compared to when readers selected not exactly the same lesions.ConclusionsFor a large proportion of evaluations, LI and BICR did not select the same imaging scans and target lesions but with a limited impact on the rate of discrepancy. The majority of discrepancies were explained by the difference in detecting new lesions.Trial registrationARD12166 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01500720 ).

Project description:Accurate appraisal of treatment response in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is challenging in view of remarkable tumor heterogeneity and the available choices among many established and novel therapeutic approaches. The purpose of this single-center prospective study was to evaluate the comparative prognostic utility of PERCIST 1.0 in predicting overall survival (OS) in patients with mCRPC compared to RECIST 1.1 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based treatment response assessments. Methods: Patients with mCRPC were prospectively enrolled if they were beginning systemic medical therapy or transitioning to new systemic therapy after not responding to a prior treatment. All patients underwent a baseline 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (PET/CT) prior to the initiation of treatment and again 4 months after the start of therapy. Patients' responses to treatment at 4 months compared to baseline were evaluated with RECIST 1.1, PERCIST 1.0 and PSA response criteria. The associations between patients' response categories and OS were evaluated. OS was defined as the duration in time between the date of baseline PET/CT to death from any cause. Patients with different response status were compared with logrank tests. Survival probabilities were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Patients with progressive disease by PSA response criteria at 4 months demonstrated significantly shorter OS (24-month OS probability: 18% ± 11%) compared to patients with stable disease, SD, (44% ± 19%, p=0.03) and complete response, CR, or partial response, PR, (53% ± 11%, p=0.03). RECIST 1.1 response criteria demonstrated a similar trend in OS, however no statistically significant differences were noted between patients with PD (25% ± 15%) compared to SD/non-CR, non-PD (54% ± 13%) and CR/PR (54% ± 14%) (p=0.13). PERCIST 1.0 criteria demonstrated significant differences in OS between responders, CMR/PMR (56% ± 12%), compared to SMD (38% ± 17%, p=0.03) and PMD (21% ± 10%, p=0.01). Patients with progressive disease by both PERICST 1.0 and PSA response criteria demonstrated significantly worse OS (24-month OS: 0%, 12-month OS: 31% ± 14%) compared to patients with progressive disease by either response criteria. Conclusion: PERCIST 1.0 may provide significant prognostic information for patients with mCRPC undergoing systemic chemotherapy, particularly when incorporated with PSA treatment response criteria.

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical trials with imaging, Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) with double reads ensures data blinding and reduces bias in drug evaluations. As double reads can cause discrepancies, evaluations require close monitoring which substantially increases clinical trial costs. We sought to document the variability of double reads at baseline, and variabilities across individual readers and lung trials.Material and methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from five BICR clinical trials evaluating 1720 lung cancer patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Fifteen radiologists were involved. The variability was analyzed using a set of 71 features derived from tumor selection, measurements, and disease location. We selected a subset of readers that evaluated ≥50 patients in ≥two trials, to compare individual reader's selections. Finally, we evaluated inter-trial homogeneity using a subset of patients for whom both readers assessed the exact same disease locations. Significance level was 0.05. Multiple pair-wise comparisons of continuous variables and proportions were performed using one-way ANOVA and Marascuilo procedure, respectively.ResultsAcross trials, on average per patient, target lesion (TL) number ranged 1.9 to 3.0, sum of tumor diameter (SOD) 57.1 to 91.9 mm. MeanSOD=83.7 mm. In four trials, MeanSOD of double reads was significantly different. Less than 10% of patients had TLs selected in completely different organs and 43.5% had at least one selected in different organs. Discrepancies in disease locations happened mainly in lymph nodes (20.1%) and bones (12.2%). Discrepancies in measurable disease happened mainly in lung (19.6%). Between individual readers, the MeanSOD and disease selection were significantly different (p<0.001). In inter-trials comparisons, on average per patient, the number of selected TLs ranged 2.1 to 2.8, MeanSOD 61.0 to 92.4 mm. Trials were significantly different in MeanSOD (p<0.0001) and average number of selected TLs (p=0.007). The proportion of patients having one of the top diseases was significantly different only between two trials for lung. Significant differences were observed for all other disease locations (p<0.05).ConclusionsWe found significant double read variabilities at baseline, evidence of reading patterns and a means to compare trials. Clinical trial reliability is influenced by the interplay of readers, patients and trial design.

Project description:PurposeTo develop a novel criterion based on the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) and evaluate its performance in tumor response for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) receiving conversion-radiotherapy before hepatectomy.MethodFrom June 2012 to December 2020, a total of 39 patients with uHCC, who received intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) before hepatectomy, were retrospectively included in this study. Pre- and post-treatment contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) scans were performed in all patients. Eight modified criteria were developed with the combination of RECIST 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST), and the percentage change of AFP, baseline AFP. The endpoint events were recurrence-free survival (RFS).ResultsThe median RFS and OS was 26.5 (IQR, 15.7-43.1), 38.8 (IQR, 18.4-53.6) months. An optimal revised evaluation criterion named α-RECIST (alpha fetoprotein-RECIST 1.1) was developed by combining the RECIST 1.1 with the AFPΔ (cut-off value, 76%). Patients defined as responders by α-RECIST showed significantly better RFS and OS than those defined as non-responders (p = 0.035, 0.048). The other criteria (RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, αΔ-mRECIST, α&Δ-RECIST, α&Δ-mRECIST, αBL-RECIST, αBL-mRECIST, α&BL-RECIST, α&BL-mRECIST) all failed to identify responders from non-responders (p = 0.405, 0.201, 0.773, 0.424, 0.266, 0.060, 0.721, 0.644, 0.910, respectively) when correlated with RFS. Responders according to α-RECIST showed significant better RFS compared to non-responders [HR, 0.31 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.98); p=0.046], but no statistical significance was observed in terms of OS [HR, 0.33 (95% CI: 0.11, 1.05); p = 0.06].ConclusionsPatients identified as responders by α-RECIST provided significant better RFS. The α-RECIST criteria might be a promising tool for identifying tumor response of conversion-radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma before hepatectomy.

Project description:Endpoints related to tumor progression are commonly used in clinical trials of novel therapeutic agents for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Whether improved tumor control translates into improved overall survival (OS), however, is uncertain. We assessed associations between tumor progression endpoints and OS in observational cohorts of patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors treated with somatostatin analogs or with everolimus. We identified 440 patients with advanced NET who had received treatment with single-agent somatostatin analogs and 109 patients treated with everolimus, all of whom were treated at our institution and were evaluable for both tumor progression and survival. We assessed associations between progression-free survival (PFS) and OS by using the Kendall tau test, and we assessed associations between tumor progression and OS by using a landmark analysis. In the 440 patients treated with somatostatin analogs, we observed a significant correlation between PFS and OS by using the Kendall tau test (0.31; p < .0001). Additionally, the development of progressive disease was associated with OS in a landmark analysis, at landmark times of 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. In the 109 patients treated with everolimus, we similarly observed a significant correlation between PFS and OS by using the Kendall tau test (0.44; p < .0001) and associations between progressive disease and OS by using a landmark analysis at 3, 6, and 12 months. In these observational cohorts of patients with metastatic NET treated with single-agent somatostatin analogs or everolimus, longer times to disease progression and longer PFS were both associated with improved OS. Our findings support the continued use of disease progression endpoints in NET clinical trials. The Oncologist 2017;22:165-172Implications for Practice: Clinical trials in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors have used progression-free survival as a primary endpoint. While there is a general assumption that slowing or halting tumor growth is beneficial, little direct evidence links improvements in progression endpoints to improvements in overall survival. This study assessed associations between tumor progression endpoints and overall survival in observational cohorts of patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumor treated with somatostatin analogs or everolimus. Longer times to disease progression and improved progression-free survival were both associated with improved overall survival. The findings support the continued use of tumor progression endpoints in clinical trials for neuroendocrine tumors.

Dataset Information

Comparison of tumor assessments using RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST, and association with overall survival.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of tumor assessments using RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST, and association with overall survival.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets