open access

Vol 13, No 2 (2017)
Review paper
Published online: 2017-08-25
Get Citation

Pseudoprogression during immunotherapy of cancers

Renata Duchnowska
DOI: 10.5603/OCP.2017.0009
·
Oncol Clin Pract 2017;13(2):57-60.

open access

Vol 13, No 2 (2017)
REVIEW ARTICLES
Published online: 2017-08-25

Abstract

Pseudoprogression denotes apparent, early progression of disease followed by long-lasting regression. This phenomenon is observed during the treatment of different cancers and in approximately 10% of patients receiving immunotherapy. The appearance of pseudoprogression could make difficult the assessment of treatment response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST). In this report, the scope of pseudoprogression was discussed as well as currently proposed alternative methods of treatment response assessment according to Immune-related Response Criteria (irRC).

Abstract

Pseudoprogression denotes apparent, early progression of disease followed by long-lasting regression. This phenomenon is observed during the treatment of different cancers and in approximately 10% of patients receiving immunotherapy. The appearance of pseudoprogression could make difficult the assessment of treatment response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST). In this report, the scope of pseudoprogression was discussed as well as currently proposed alternative methods of treatment response assessment according to Immune-related Response Criteria (irRC).

Get Citation

Keywords

pseudoprogression, immunotherapy, cancer, irRC

About this article
Title

Pseudoprogression during immunotherapy of cancers

Journal

Oncology in Clinical Practice

Issue

Vol 13, No 2 (2017)

Article type

Review paper

Pages

57-60

Published online

2017-08-25

DOI

10.5603/OCP.2017.0009

Bibliographic record

Oncol Clin Pract 2017;13(2):57-60.

Keywords

pseudoprogression
immunotherapy
cancer
irRC

Authors

Renata Duchnowska

References (23)
  1. Rossleigh MA, Lovegrove FT, Reynolds PM, et al. The assessment of response to therapy of bone metastases in breast cancer. Aust N Z J Med. 1984; 14(1): 19–22.
  2. Parbhoo SP. Usefulness of current techniques in detecting and monitoring bone metastases from breast cancer. J R Soc Med. 1985; 78 Suppl 9: 7–10.
  3. Janicek MJ, Hayes DF, Kaplan WD. Healing flare in skeletal metastases from breast cancer. Radiology. 1994; 192(1): 201–204.
  4. Coleman RE, Mashiter G, Whitaker KB, et al. Bone scan flare predicts successful systemic therapy for bone metastases. J Nucl Med. 1988; 29(8): 1354–1359.
  5. Vogel CL, Schoenfelder J, Shemano I, et al. Worsening bone scan in the evaluation of antitumor response during hormonal therapy of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13(5): 1123–1128.
  6. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, et al. Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(7): 1148–1159.
  7. Hygino da Cruz LC, Rodriguez I, Domingues RC, et al. Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: imaging challenges in the assessment of posttreatment glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011; 32(11): 1978–1985.
  8. Reimer C, Deike K, Graf M, et al. Differentiation of pseudoprogression and real progression in glioblastoma using ADC parametric response maps. PLoS One. 2017; 12(4): e0174620.
  9. Ellingson BM, Chung C, Pope WB, et al. Pseudoprogression, radionecrosis, inflammation or true tumor progression? challenges associated with glioblastoma response assessment in an evolving therapeutic landscape. J Neurooncol. 2017 [Epub ahead of print].
  10. Saenger YM, Wolchok JD. The heterogeneity of the kinetics of response to ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma: patient cases. Cancer Immun. 2008; 8: 1.
  11. Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, et al. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(10): 1020–1030.
  12. Hodi FS, Ribas A, Daud A, et al. Evaluation of immune-related response criteria (irRC) in patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) treated with the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody MK-3475. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(supl): 15s.
  13. Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, et al. POPLAR Study Group. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10030): 1837–1846.
  14. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(17): 1627–1639.
  15. Nanda R, Chow LQM, Dees EC, et al. Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(21): 2460–2467.
  16. Emens LA, Butterfield LH, Hodi FS, et al. Cancer immunotherapy trials: leading a paradigm shift in drug development. J Immunother Cancer. 2016; 4: 42.
  17. Emens LA, Braiteh FS, Cassier PA, et al. Abstract 2859: Inhibition of PD-L1 by MPDL3280A leads to clinical activity in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cancer Research. 2015; 75(15 Supplement): 2859–2859.
  18. Dirix LY, Takacs I, Nikolinakos P, et al. Abstract S1-04: Avelumab (MSB0010718C), an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: A phase Ib JAVELIN solid tumor trial. Cancer Research. 2016; 76(4 Supplement): S1-04-S1–04.
  19. Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O'Day S, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009; 15(23): 7412–7420.
  20. Ribas A, Chmielowski B, Glaspy JA. Do we need a different set of response assessment criteria for tumor immunotherapy? Clin Cancer Res. 2009; 15(23): 7116–7118.
  21. Motzer R, Escudier B, McDermott D, et al. Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015; 373(19): 1803–1813.
  22. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, et al. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981; 47(1): 207–214, doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19810101)47:1<207::aid-cncr2820470134>3.0.co;2-6.
  23. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45(2): 228–247.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Wydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl