Rofo 2020; 192(03): 235-245
DOI: 10.1055/a-1015-6869
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Radiological Monitoring of Modern Immunotherapy: A Novel Challenge for Interdisciplinary Patient Care

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Simon Lennartz
1   University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University-Hospital Cologne, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
2   Else-Kröner-Forschungskolleg Clonal Evolution in Cancer, University-Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
,
Stefan Diederich
3   Department of Radiology, Marien-Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Christian Doehn
4   Urologikum Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
,
Bernhard Gebauer
5   Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany
,
Viktor Grünwald
6   Clinic for Internal Medicine (Tumor Research) and Clinic for Urology, University-Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
,
Mike Notohamiprodjo
7   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University-Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
8   Die Radiologie, Munich, Germany
,
Wieland Sommer
9   Department of Radiology, LMU-University-Hospital, Munich, Germany
9   Department of Radiology, LMU-University-Hospital, Munich, Germany
,
Heinz-Peter Schlemmer
11   Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
,
Thorsten Persigehl
1   University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University-Hospital Cologne, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

30 April 2019

19 August 2019

Publication Date:
28 January 2020 (online)

Abstract

Background Immunotherapy represents an effective therapeutic approach for many malignant diseases that were previously difficult to treat. However, since immunotherapy can lead to atypical therapy response patterns in the form of pseudo-progression or mixed responses and comprise an altered spectrum of adverse reactions, they present a new challenge for oncologic imaging. Detailed knowledge in this area is essential for oncologic clinical radiologists, since the radiological report is a cornerstone of response assessment, and increasingly influences therapy regimens and coverage by health insurances.

Method This white paper is based on an expert meeting in Frankfurt am Main and subsequent discussions between the authors. Based on the iRECIST criteria, it is intended to provide orientation for a response assessment of oncologic patients undergoing immunotherapy that can be applied in the clinical routine.

Results Radiological therapy monitoring outside clinical studies is subject to inherent limitations, but should be performed based on iRECIST criteria, according to the opinion of the expert panel. It should be taken into account that immunotherapies can in principle lead to pseudo-progression and autoimmunological side effects. Since radiological follow-up is currently the only method to accurately distinguish real progressive disease from pseudo-progression, clinically stable patients with disease progression under immunotherapy should undergo additional short-term follow-up imaging according to the suspected diagnosis. Biopsy should be used cautiously and predominately in curative settings.

Conclusion For response assessment of immunotherapy in clinical studies, the new iRECIST criteria were published in 2017. Outside studies, the application of iRECIST criteria in the clinical routine is subject to several limitations. The recommendations implied in these criteria can, however, be used in conjunction with the current literature as a guideline in clinical practice and outside studies.

Key points:

  • Novel immunotherapies can cause atypical response patterns like pseudo-progression

  • Compared to real progressive disease, pseudo-progression occurs rather rarely, yet can influence therapy

  • Short-term follow-up according to iRECIST can help to distinguish pseudo-progression from real progression

  • Hence, radiological follow-up outside clinical studies should be oriented towards iRECIST criteria

Citation Format

  • Lennartz S, Diederich S, Doehn C et al. Radiological Monitoring of Modern Immunotherapy: A Novel Challenge for Interdisciplinary Patient Care. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2020; 192: 235 – 244

 
  • References

  • 1 Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nature reviews. Cancer 2012; 12: 252-264
  • 2 Seetharamu N, Preeshagul IR, Sullivan KM. New PD-L1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer – impact of atezolizumab. Lung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.) 2017; 8: 67-78
  • 3 Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R. et al. Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma. The New England journal of medicine 2017; 377: 1345-1356
  • 4 Hude I, Sasse S, Engert A. et al. The emerging role of immune checkpoint inhibition in malignant lymphoma. Haematologica 2017; 102: 30-42
  • 5 Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R. et al. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. The New England journal of medicine 2015; 372: 2018-2028
  • 6 Ferris RL, Blumenschein G, Fayette J. et al. Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck. The New England journal of medicine 2016; 375: 1856-1867
  • 7 Sharma P, Retz M, Siefker-Radtke A. et al. Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): A multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. The Lancet Oncology 2017; 18: 312-322
  • 8 Frederickson AM, Arndorfer S, Zhang I. et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis. Immunotherapy 2019; 11: 407-428
  • 9 Gandhi L, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Gadgeel S. et al. Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. The New England journal of medicine 2018; 378: 2078-2092
  • 10 Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H. et al. Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study. The Lancet Oncology 2016; 17: 1497-1508
  • 11 Callahan MK, Postow MA, Wolchok JD. Targeting T Cell Co-receptors for Cancer Therapy. Immunity 2016; 44: 1069-1078
  • 12 Shih K, Arkenau HT, Infante JR. Clinical impact of checkpoint inhibitors as novel cancer therapies. Drugs 2014; 74: 1993-2013
  • 13 Chiou VL, Burotto M. Pseudoprogression and Immune-Related Response in Solid Tumors. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2015; 33: 3541-3543
  • 14 Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S. et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: Immune-related response criteria. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2009; 15: 7412-7420
  • 15 Hodi FS, Sznol M, Kluger HM. et al. Long-term survival of ipilimumab-naive patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) treated with nivolumab (anti-PD-1, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in a phase I trial. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2014; 9002: 9002
  • 16 Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R. et al. Evaluation of Immune-Related Response Criteria and RECIST v1.1 in Patients With Advanced Melanoma Treated With Pembrolizumab. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2016; 34: 1510-1517
  • 17 Tanizaki J, Hayashi H, Kimura M. et al. Report of two cases of pseudoprogression in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab-including histological analysis of one case after tumor regression. Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2016; 102: 44-48
  • 18 Nishino M, Ramaiya NH, Chambers ES. et al. Immune-related response assessment during PD-1 inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Journal for immunotherapy of cancer 2016; 4: 84
  • 19 Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DF. et al. Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2015; 33: 1430-1437
  • 20 Powles T, Eder JP, Fine GD. et al. MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer. Nature 2014; 515: 558-562
  • 21 Nishino M, Giobbie-Hurder A, Hatabu H. et al. Incidence of Programmed Cell Death 1 Inhibitor-Related Pneumonitis in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA oncology 2016; 2: 1607-1616
  • 22 Gedye C, van der Westhuizen A, John T. Checkpoint immunotherapy for cancer: Superior survival, unaccustomed toxicities. Internal medicine journal 2015; 45: 696-701
  • 23 Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A. et al. iRECIST: Guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. The Lancet Oncology 2017; 18: e143-e152
  • 24 Ferté C, Marabelle A. iRECIST: A clarification of tumour response assessment in the immunotherapy era. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 2017; 77: 165-167
  • 25 Wang Q, Gao J, Wu X. Pseudoprogression and hyperprogression after checkpoint blockade. International immunopharmacology 2018; 58: 125-135
  • 26 Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L. et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. The New England journal of medicine 2015; 373: 1627-1639
  • 27 Kumagai T, Kimura M, Inoue T. et al. Delayed pseudoprogression of lung adenocarcinoma accompanied with interstitial lung disease during chemotherapy after nivolumab treatment. Thoracic cancer 2017; 8: 275-277
  • 28 Seiwert TY, Burtness B, Mehra R. et al. Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-012): An open-label, multicentre, phase 1b trial. The Lancet Oncology 2016; 17: 956-965
  • 29 Robert C, Long GV, Brady B. et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. The New England journal of medicine 2015; 372: 320-330
  • 30 Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW. et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2016; 387: 1540-1550
  • 31 Champiat S, Dercle L, Ammari S. et al. Hyperprogressive Disease Is a New Pattern of Progression in Cancer Patients Treated by Anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2017; 23: 1920-1928
  • 32 Kato S, Goodman A, Walavalkar V. et al. Hyperprogressors after Immunotherapy: Analysis of Genomic Alterations Associated with Accelerated Growth Rate. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2017; 23: 4242-4250
  • 33 Saâda-Bouzid E, Defaucheux C, Karabajakian A. et al. Hyperprogression during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 2017; 28: 1605-1611
  • 34 Chae YK, Wang S, Nimeiri H. et al. Pseudoprogression in microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer during treatment with combination T cell mediated immunotherapy: A case report and literature review. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 57889-57897