Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 11, pp 1464–1471 | Cite as

Consensus on the use of immune-related response criteria to evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer

  • M. ProvencioEmail author
  • E. Carcereny
  • Á. Artal
Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Many methods used to assess the effectiveness of immune checkpoint (programmed death-ligand 1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are insufficient, as the therapeutic benefit of these agents is often underestimated. Consequently, immune-related evaluation criteria have been developed to better reflect their efficacy. The aim of this consensus was to obtain the opinion of lung cancer experts on the adequacy of immune-response criteria for evaluating the efficacy of these treatments.

Methods

Through two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus, 18 Spanish lung cancer experts participated in a 15-item questionnaire regarding the use of immunotherapies for NSCLC and the assessment criteria used to evaluate their effectiveness.

Results

Consensus was achieved on 80% of the items in the questionnaire. The panelists agreed that although the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are standard for the evaluation of solid tumors, immune-related response criteria would be useful for measuring the efficacy of immunotherapy. In addition, they considered that an overall survival (OS) rate at 2–5 years is the most useful end point for assessing the benefit of immunotherapy, as clinical benefit may extend beyond the RECIST criteria-defined progression of disease.

Conclusions

Although immune-related response criteria have been developed to better evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy, their use has not been validated and is restricted to investigational applications. However, they may prove to be a useful tool for measuring the efficacy of immunotherapy agents in NSCLC, especially the OS rate at 2–5 years.

Keywords

Immunotherapy Immune checkpoint Overall survival Response criteria 

Abbreviations

CTLA-4

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein

NSCLC

Non-small cell lung cancer

OS

Overall survival

PD-1

Programmed cell death protein 1

PD-L1

Programmed death-ligand 1

PFS

Progression-free survival

RECIST

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all panelists that participated in this project: Joaquim Bosch (Instituto Catalán de Oncología – Hospital Dr.Trueta, Girona), Manuel Cobo (Hospital Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga), Juan Coves (Hospital Son Llatzer, Palma de Mallorca), Ramón de las Peñas (Hospital Provincial de Castellón, Castellón), Manuel Dómine (Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid), Enriqueta Felip (Hospital Universitario Vall D’Hebron, Barcelona), Rosario García Campelo (Hospital Teresa Herrera, A Coruña), Javier Garde (Hospital Arnau de Vilanova de Valencia, Valencia), José Luis González-Larriba (Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid), Mónica Guillot (Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca), María Guirado (Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Alicante), Amelia Insa (Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia), Dolores Isla (Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza), Guillermo López-Vivanco (Hospital de Cruces Baracaldo, Vizcaya), Bartomeu Massutí (Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante), Ana Laura Ortega (Hospital Ciudad de Jaen, Jaén), Luis Paz-Ares (Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid), Delvys Rodríguez (Hospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria). Also, the authors thank Dr. Fernando Sánchez Barbero who provided assistance in the preparation of this manuscript on behalf of Springer Healthcare, and Sarah Greig, PhD, of Springer Healthcare Communications, for editing the manuscript before submission. This medical writing assistance was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb promoted and financed this study without participating in its design, analysis of data, or preparation of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

M Provencio has served as consultant or advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, and Roche. E. Carcereny has served as consultant or advisor for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche; and has received travel and expenses funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. Á. Artal has participated on the speaker´s bureau and advisory boards for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche-Genentech; and has received travel and expenses funding form Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors, so informed consent was not required.

Supplementary material

12094_2019_2072_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, Krook J, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(2):92–8.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa011954.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haslam S, Chrisp P. Bevacizumab: the evidence for its clinical potential in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer. Core Evid. 2007;2(1):31–49.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, Ramlau R, Gorbounova V, Hirsh V, et al. Phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either placebo or bevacizumab as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: AVAil. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):1227–34.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, Brahmer J, Schiller JH, Dowlati A, et al. Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(24):2542–50.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa061884.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Socinski MA, Saleh MN, Trent DF, Dobbs TW, Zehngebot LM, Levine MA, et al. A randomized, phase II trial of two dose schedules of carboplatin/paclitaxel/cetuximab in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Ann Oncol. 2009;20(6):1068–73.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30.  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lynch TJ, Bondarenko I, Luft A, Serwatowski P, Barlesi F, Chacko R, et al. Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(17):2046–54.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.38.4032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1627–39.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1507643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, Crino L, Eberhardt WE, Poddubskaya E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):123–35.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504627.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R, Leighl N, Balmanoukian AS, Eder JP, et al. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(21):2018–28.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1501824.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herbst RS, Baas P, Pérez-Gracia JL, Felip E, Kim DW, Han JY, et al. PD1.06 (also presented as P2.41): pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated NSCLC (KEYNOTE-010): archival versus new tumor samples for PD-L1 assessment. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11(10S):S174–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.08.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, Park K, Ciardiello F, von Pawel J, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10066):255–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32517-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, Kowanetz M, Vansteenkiste J, Mazieres J, et al. 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):1837–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00587-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(4):252–64.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3239.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbe C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(23):7412–20.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1624.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nishino M, Jagannathan JP, Krajewski KM, O’Regan K, Hatabu H, Shapiro G, et al. Personalized tumor response assessment in the era of molecular medicine: cancer-specific and therapy-specific response criteria to complement pitfalls of RECIST. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(4):737–45.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7483.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nishino M, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gargano M, Suda M, Ramaiya NH, Hodi FS. Developing a common language for tumor response to immunotherapy: immune-related response criteria using unidimensional measurements. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(14):3936–43.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0895.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoos A, Britten C. The immuno-oncology framework: enabling a new era of cancer therapy. Oncoimmunology. 2012;1(3):334–9.  https://doi.org/10.4161/onci.19268.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, Macapinlac HA, Burgess MA, Patel SR, et al. Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(13):1753–9.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee HY, Lee KS, Hwang HS, Lee JW, Ahn MJ, Park K, et al. Molecularly targeted therapy using bevacizumab for non-small cell lung cancer: a pilot study for the new CT response criteria. Korean J Radiol. 2010;11(6):618–26.  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2010.11.6.618.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crabb SJ, Patsios D, Sauerbrei E, Ellis PM, Arnold A, Goss G, et al. Tumor cavitation: impact on objective response evaluation in trials of angiogenesis inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(3):404–10.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.16.2545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Weber JS, Daud A, Hamid O, et al. Evaluation of immune-related response criteria and RECIST v1.1 in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(13):1510–7.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.64.0391.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lázaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.
  27. 27.
    Dolgin E. Cancer immunology community seeks better end points. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(12):807–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoos A, Eggermont AM, Janetzki S, Hodi FS, Ibrahim R, Anderson A, et al. Improved endpoints for cancer immunotherapy trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(18):1388–97.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, Punt CJ, Haanen JB, Marmol M, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(5):616–22.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.44.6112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nishino M, Ramaiya NH, Chambers ES, Adeni AE, Hatabu H, Janne PA, et al. Immune-related response assessment during PD-1 inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients. J Immunother Cancer. 2016;4:84.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-016-0193-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reck M, Bondarenko I, Luft A, Serwatowski P, Barlesi F, Chacko R, et al. Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(1):75–83.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Spiegel ML, editor. A phase I study of exemestane with carboplatin and pemetrexed in postmenopausal women with metastatic, non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (Poster P.3.01). In:16th World conference on lung cancer; 2015 September 6–9; Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mazieres J, Fehrenbacher L, Rittmeyer A, Spira AI, Park K, Smith DA, Artal-Cortes A, Lewanski CR, Braiteh FS, Yi J, He P, Kowanetz M, Waterkamp D, Ballinger M, Chen DS, Sandler A, Vansteenkiste JF. Non-classical response measured by immune-modified RECIST and post-progression treatment effects of atezolizumab in 2L/3L NSCLC: results from the randomized phase II study POPLAR. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(15_suppl):9032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taylor M, Dutcus CE, Schmidt E, Bagulho T, Li D, Shumaker R, et al. A phase 1b trial of lenvatinib (LEN) plus pembrolizumab (PEM) in patients with selected solid tumors. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(6):266–95.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim HK, Heo MH, Lee HS, Sun JM, Lee SH, Ahn JS, et al. Comparison of RECIST to immune-related response criteria in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2017;80(3):591–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-017-3396-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tazdait M, Mezquita L, Lahmar J, Ferrara R, Bidault F, Ammari S, et al. Patterns of responses in metastatic NSCLC during PD-1 or PDL-1 inhibitor therapy: comparison of RECIST 1.1, irRECIST and iRECIST criteria. Eur J Cancer. 2018;88:38–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.10.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petrelli F, Coinu A, Cabiddu M, Borgonovo K, Ghilardi M, Lonati V, et al. Early analysis of surrogate endpoints for metastatic melanoma in immune checkpoint inhibitor trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(26):e3997.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Dutriaux C, Maio M, Mortier L, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):320–30.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1412082.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, Robert C, Grossmann K, McDermott D, et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(21):2006–17.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1414428.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Oncology DepartmentHospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro MajadahondaMajadahonda, MadridSpain
  2. 2.Medical Oncology DepartmentHospital Instituto Catalán de Oncología Germans Trias i PujolBadalona, BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Medical Oncology DepartmentHospital Universitario Miguel ServetZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations