Atypical Response Patterns in Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors-Navigating the Radiologic Potpourri.
abscopal response
atypical response patterns
dissociated response
pseudoprogression
renal cell carcinoma
stereotactic body radiation therapy
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Apr 2021
02 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
03
03
2021
revised:
23
03
2021
accepted:
31
03
2021
entrez:
30
4
2021
pubmed:
1
5
2021
medline:
1
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Atypical response patterns have been a topic of increasing relevance since the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), challenging the traditional RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) method of tumor response assessment. Newer immune-related response criteria can allow for the evolution of radiologic pseudoprogression, but still fail to capture the full range of atypical response patterns encountered in clinical reporting. We did a detailed lesion-by-lesion analysis of the serial imaging of 46 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with ICIs with the aim of capturing the full range of radiologic behaviour. Atypical response patterns observed included pseudoprogression ( There is a high incidence of atypical response patterns in RCC patients receiving ICIs and the study contributes to the growing literature on the abscopal effect. The recognition of these interesting and overlapping radiologic patterns challenges the oncologist to tweak treatment options such that the clinical benefits of ICIs are potentially maximized.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Atypical response patterns have been a topic of increasing relevance since the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), challenging the traditional RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) method of tumor response assessment. Newer immune-related response criteria can allow for the evolution of radiologic pseudoprogression, but still fail to capture the full range of atypical response patterns encountered in clinical reporting.
METHODS
METHODS
We did a detailed lesion-by-lesion analysis of the serial imaging of 46 renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with ICIs with the aim of capturing the full range of radiologic behaviour.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Atypical response patterns observed included pseudoprogression (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is a high incidence of atypical response patterns in RCC patients receiving ICIs and the study contributes to the growing literature on the abscopal effect. The recognition of these interesting and overlapping radiologic patterns challenges the oncologist to tweak treatment options such that the clinical benefits of ICIs are potentially maximized.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33918397
pii: cancers13071689
doi: 10.3390/cancers13071689
pmc: PMC8038243
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 May 30;20(11):
pubmed: 31151303
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 5;373(19):1803-13
pubmed: 26406148
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jan 26;13(3):
pubmed: 33530329
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Feb;8(1):
pubmed: 32114501
Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2014 Sep;8(3):258-64
pubmed: 25090288
Front Pharmacol. 2019 May 14;10:511
pubmed: 31156434
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Jan;88:38-47
pubmed: 29182990
N Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 05;378(14):1277-1290
pubmed: 29562145
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;4(11):1543-1552
pubmed: 30193240
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Feb;16(2):123-135
pubmed: 30401936
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2019 Jul;31(7):432-443
pubmed: 31005381
Cancer Treat Rev. 2015 Jun;41(6):503-10
pubmed: 25872878
BMC Cancer. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):778
pubmed: 29162045
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 4;7(1):7342
pubmed: 28779136
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020 Mar 18;12:1758835920907504
pubmed: 32215057
Urol Oncol. 2009 Mar-Apr;27(2):149-54
pubmed: 18439851
Future Oncol. 2019 Jun;15(16):1911-1920
pubmed: 31020849
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 1;27(34):5794-9
pubmed: 19826129
Blood. 2016 Nov 24;128(21):2489-2496
pubmed: 27574190
J Nucl Med. 2019 Mar;60(3):335-341
pubmed: 30413661
Front Oncol. 2020 Sep 18;10:566297
pubmed: 33072599
EJNMMI Res. 2019 Jan 29;9(1):8
pubmed: 30694399
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Sep;101:160-164
pubmed: 30071444
J Nucl Med. 2009 May;50 Suppl 1:122S-50S
pubmed: 19403881
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:169-178
pubmed: 30231380
Front Oncol. 2012 May 18;2:49
pubmed: 22655275
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Sep 1;2(9):1179-86
pubmed: 27243803
Eur Urol. 2017 Sep;72(3):368-376
pubmed: 28410865
Ann Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;30(3):385-396
pubmed: 30657859
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun 1;36(16):1611-1618
pubmed: 29437535
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Dec 1;15(23):7412-20
pubmed: 19934295
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 8;366(10):925-31
pubmed: 22397654
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Apr 15;23(8):1920-1928
pubmed: 27827313
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):e143-e152
pubmed: 28271869
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Feb;8(1):
pubmed: 32107275
Radiology. 2020 Oct;297(1):87-96
pubmed: 32749204
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Jun 15;26(12):2777-2782
pubmed: 32047000
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):154-60
pubmed: 25466943
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2018 Jul;67(7):1105-1111
pubmed: 29728723
Cancer Immunol Res. 2016 Jan;4(1):12-7
pubmed: 26589768