Immunotherapy pp 309-324 | Cite as

Cancer Imaging in Immunotherapy

  • Mira Ayoub
  • Yousra Eleneen
  • Rivka R. ColenEmail author
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1244)


Immune therapeutics are revolutionizing cancer treatments. In tandem, new and confounding imaging characteristics have appeared that are distinct from those typically seen with conventional cytotoxic therapies. In fact, only 10% of patients on immunotherapy may show tumor shrinkage, typical of positive responses on conventional therapy. Conversely, those on immune therapies may initially demonstrate a delayed response, transient enlargement followed by tumor shrinkage, stable size, or the appearance of new lesions. New imaging response criteria, such as the immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST) and immune-related Response Criteria (irRC), are being implemented in many trials. However, FDA approval of emerging therapies, including immunotherapies, still relies on the current RECIST criteria. In this chapter, we review the traditional and new imaging response criteria for evaluation of solid tumors and briefly touch on some of the more commonly associated immunotherapy-induced adverse events.


Cancer imaging irRC Immune imaging criteria irRECIST Immunotherapy 


  1. 1.
    Kwak JJ, Tirumani SH, Van den Abbeele AD, Koo PJ, Jacene HA. Cancer immunotherapy: imaging assessment of novel treatment response patterns and immune-related adverse events. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):424–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nishino M, Tirumani SH, Ramaiya NH, Hodi FS. Cancer immunotherapy and immune-related response assessment: the role of radiologists in the new arena of cancer treatment. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(7):1259–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Okada H, Weller M, Huang R, Finocchiaro G, Gilbert MR, Wick W, et al. Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(15):e534–e42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolchok JD, Hoos A, Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbé 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tirkes T, Hollar MA, Tann M, Kohli MD, Akisik F, Sandrasegaran K. Response criteria in oncologic imaging: review of traditional and new criteria. Radiographics. 2013;33(5):1323–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer. 1981;47:207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Organization. W.H. WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment: offset publication no. 481979.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, Beaugrand M, Lencioni R, Burroughs AK, et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL Conference. J Hepatol. 2001;35(3):421–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    for the Panel of Experts in HCCDCT, Di Bisceglie AM, Zhu AX, Kramer BS, Gores GJ, Talwalkar J, et al. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2008;100(10):698–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van den Abbeele AD, Badawi RD. Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:S60–S5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinker K, Riedl C, Weber WA. Evaluating tumor response with FDG PET: updates on PERCIST, comparison with EORTC criteria and clues to future developments. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(1):55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Subbiah V, Chuang HH, Kairemo K, Gambhire D. Defining clinical response criteria and early response criteria for precision oncology: current state-of-the-art and future perspectives. Diagnostics (2075–4418). 2017;7(1):10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vossen JA, Buijs M, Kamel IR. Assessment of tumor response on MR imaging after locoregional therapy. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;9(3):125–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, Lodge MA. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellingson BM, Wen PY, Cloughesy TF. Modified criteria for radiographic response assessment in glioblastoma clinical trials. Neurotherapeutics: J Am Soc Exp NeuroTherap. 2017;14(2):307–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wen PY, Chang S, Van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Macdonald DR, Lee EQ. Response assessment in neuro-oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alexander BM, Brown PD, Ahluwalia MS, Aoyama H, Baumert BG, Chang SM, et al. Clinical trial design for local therapies for brain metastases: a guideline by the response assessment in neuro-oncology brain metastases working group. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):e33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(5):579–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nishino M, Gargano M, Suda M, Ramaiya NH, Hodi FS. Optimizing immune-related tumor response assessment: does reducing the number of lesions impact response assessment in melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab? J Immunother Cancer. 2014;2(1):17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aarntzen EHJG, Srinivas M, Radu CG, Punt CJA, Boerman OC, Figdor CG, et al. In vivo imaging of therapy-induced anti-cancer immune responses in humans. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2013;70(13):2237–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Somarouthu B, Lee SI, Urban T, Sadow CA, Harris GJ, Kambadakone A. Immune-related tumour response assessment criteria: a comprehensive review. Br J Radiol. 2018;91(1084):20170457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Porcu M, Solinas C, Garofalo P, de Azambuja E, Scartozzi M, Willard-Gallo K, et al. Radiological evaluation of response to immunotherapy in brain tumors: where are we now and where are we going? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018;126:135–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, Ford R, Schwartz LH, Mandrekar S, et al. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3):e143–e52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Srishti Abrol GT HA, Kotrotsou A, Alfaro-Munoz KD, de Groot JF, Zinn P, Colen RR. Radiomics differentiate between true progression and pseudo-progression in GBM patients: annual meeting of the American society of neuroradiology—ASNR. 2016.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lambregts DMJ, Lalezari F, Kurilova I, RGH B-T, Trebeschi S, HJWL A, et al. Predicting response to cancer immunotherapy using non-invasive radiomic biomarkers. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(6):998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    El Naqa I, Ten Haken RK. Can radiomics personalise immunotherapy? Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(9):1138–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abrol S, Kotrotsou A, Hassan A, Elshafeey N, Hassan I, Idris T, et al. Radiomic analysis of pseudo-progression compared to true progression in glioblastoma patients: a large-scale multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15_suppl):2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elshafeey N, Kotrotsou A, Giniebra Camejo D, Abrol S, Hassan I, El Salek K, et al. Multicenter study to demonstrate radiomic texture features derived from MR perfusion images of pseudoprogression compared to true progression in glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15_suppl):2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abrol S, Kotrotsou A, Hassan A, Elshafeey N, Idris T, Manohar N, et al. Abstract 3040: radiomics discriminates pseudo-progression from true progression in glioblastoma patients: a large-scale multi-institutional study. Cancer Res. 2018;78(13 Supplement):3040.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Elakkad A, Hassan A, Kotrotsou A, Kumar AM, McDonald C, Kogias E, et al. 213 radiomic machine learning algorithms discriminate pseudo-progression from true progression in glioblastoma patients: a multi-institutional study. Neurosurgery. 2018;65(CN_suppl_1):119–20.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weber JS, Dummer R, de Pril V, Lebbé C, Hodi FS, for the MDXI. Patterns of onset and resolution of immune-related adverse events of special interest with ipilimumab. Cancer. 2013;119(9):1675–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barjaktarevic IZ, Qadir N, Suri A, Santamauro JT, Stover D. Organizing pneumonia as a side effect of ipilimumab treatment of melanoma. Chest. 2013;143(3):858–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bronstein Y, Ng CS, Hwu P, Hwu W-J. Radiologic manifestations of immune-related adverse events in patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing anti–CTLA-4 antibody therapy. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(6):W992–W1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Colen RR, Fujii T, Bilen MA, Kotrotsou A, Abrol S, Hess KR, et al. Radiomics to predict immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis: proof of concept. Investig New Drugs. 2018;36(4):601–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hillman Cancer Center - Department of RadiologyUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations