Comparison of the Immunotherapy Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (iRECIST) with RECIST for capturing treatment response of patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with pembrolizumab

Association between age and efficacy of first-line immunotherapy-based combination therapies for mRCC: a meta-analysis

Aim: To compare the efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combinations in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients stratified by chronological age. Methods: According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, hazard ratios for overall survival (OS) from randomized controlled trials were synthesized. Results: Five RCTs were eligible for meta-analyses. ICI-based combinations significantly improved OS compared with sunitinib alone, both in younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients, whereas the OS benefit was significantly better in younger patients (p = 0.007). ICI-based combinations did not improve OS in patients aged ≥75 years. Treatment rankings showed age-related differential recommendations regarding improved OS. Conclusion: OS benefit from first-line ICI-based combinations was significantly greater in younger patients. Age-related differences could help enrich shared decision-making.

Response Evaluation and Survival Prediction Following PD-1 Inhibitor in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of the RECIST 1.1, iRECIST, and mRECIST Criteria

Background

Precise evaluation of the efficacy of immunotherapy is critical in the effective management and treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the response assessments achieved by different criteria and to evaluate the correlation between survival outcome and response assessment in HCC treated with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor.

Methods

Fifty patients with advanced HCC treated with first-line PD-1 inhibitor with baseline and follow‐up CT images were analyzed. The patients were categorized into responders and nonresponders according to the criteria.

Results

When the response assessments between RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST were compared, no statistically significant differences were observed. Overall response rate was 16% by RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST and was 24% by mRECIST. According to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not statistically different between the complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) groups and the stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) groups. The OS and PFS were significantly different between responders and nonresponders according to mRECIST. The Cohen’s Kappa for RECIST 1.1, iRECIST, and mRECIST was 0.534, 0.438, and 0.363, respectively.

Conclusion

The mRECIST criteria have a powerful ability to discriminate between responders and nonresponders and demonstrated significantly longer OS and PFS in responders than in nonresponders. However, mRECIST needs to be further improved in order for it to be widely used in the clinical evaluation of immunotherapy in HCC.

Comparison of RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

It is controversial whether iRECIST has a significant impact over RECIST 1.1 in evaluating the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. We aimed to evaluate the impact of iRECIST on assessing treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors over RECIST 1.1 through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to RECIST 1.1, iRECIST had no impact on the overall response rate and disease control rate but detected 3.9% of patients with discordance in the date of progressive disease determination due to pseudoprogression and prolonged restricted mean progression-free survival time by 0.46 months. Therefore, the application of iRECIST had no impact on the response-related endpoints but had a minor impact on the survival endpoint, compared to RECIST 1.1. Such a modest benefit of iRECIST should be considered when we design a clinical trial for immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Abstract

Despite wide recognition of iRECIST, evidence regarding the impact of iRECIST over RECIST 1.1 is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the impact of iRECIST on assessing treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) over RECIST 1.1. Articles that evaluated the treatment response and outcome based on both RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST were eligible. Data regarding overall response rates (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST, and data required to estimate individual patient data of progression-free survival (PFS) were extracted. Estimates were compared using meta-regression and pooled incidence rate ratios. The pooled difference of restricted mean survival time (RMST) of PFS between two criteria were calculated. Eleven studies with 6210 patients were analyzed. The application of iRECIST had no impact on the response-related endpoint by showing no significantly different ORR and DCR from RECIST 1.1 (pooled ORR, 23.6% and 24.7% [p = 0.72]; pooled DCR, 45.3% and 48.7% [p = 0.56] for iRECIST and RECIST 1.1, respectively) and had a minor impact on a survival endpoint by showing longer RMST of PFS than RECIST 1.1 (pooled difference, 0.46 months; 95% CI, 0.10–0.82 months; p = 0.01). Such a modest benefit of iRECIST should be considered when we design a clinical trial for immune checkpoint inhibitors.