Elsevier

Seminars in Oncology

Volume 44, Issue 1, February 2017, Pages 3-7
Seminars in Oncology

Characterization of outcomes in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated with programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors past RECIST version 1.1–defined disease progression in clinical trials

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2017.01.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Based on anecdotal cases of clinically important decreases in tumor size following initial evidence of disease progression when treating patients with anti-PD-1 therapies, investigators have conducted clinical trials in patients with metastatic non-small lung cancer (mNSCLC) receiving anti–PD-1 therapy allowing for treatment past RECIST-defined disease progression (TPP). We describe the findings of a pooled analysis of three clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug administration (FDA) where treatment of patients with mNSCLC permitted TPP in terms of reduction in the sum of target lesions following initial RECIST-defined progression. We identified patients who received TPP and the characteristics and post-TPP change in tumor burden. All patients had advanced or mNSCLC and had previously received a platinum-based doublet regimen. In total, 535 patients were treated with anti–PD-1 therapy in three clinical trials of which 121 patients (23%) received TPP. Among all 535 patients treated with anti–PD-1 therapy, the partial response (PR) rate (≥30% reduction in the size of target lesions compared to baseline) following TPP was 1.9% (10 of 535) or 8.3% (10 of 121) in the TPP subgroup. Patients who responded to TPP were more likely to have responded to the initial course of anti–PD-1 therapy, prior to progression. The subgroup of patients who received TPP appeared to have similar baseline characteristics and response to initial treatment compared to the overall population. This suggests that a treatment strategy that includes TPP may not benefit the overall population. The risks of TPP should be weighed against the low likelihood of a PR and the potential for changing to a different therapy with a higher likelihood of benefit.

Introduction

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Estimates for lung cancer in the United States for 2016 are 224,390 new cases and 27% of all cancer deaths [1]. A number of risk factors in the development of lung cancer have been identified; the leading cause is exposure to cigarette smoke [2]. In the second-line setting in patients with tumors that do not harbor EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 alterations, until 2015, docetaxel with or without ramucirumab, pemetrexed (non-squamous only), and erlotinib were the only therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [3], [4], [5]. However, between 2015–2016, the immune checkpoint inhibitors, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab were approved for the second-line treatment of mNSCLC without ALK or EGFR mutations [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. These PD-1 inhibitors block T-cell inhibitory signal pathways by preventing engagement of PD-1 to its ligands (PD-L1/2).

In clinical trials, the magnitude of tumor response with checkpoint inhibitors did not fully characterize the clinical benefit of these agents nor suggest that they would extend survival. This observation led to uncertainty on whether the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1–defined response or progression [11] are appropriate endpoints for immunotherapy trials. RECIST version 1.1 was developed to replace more cumbersome bi-dimensional criteria for tumor response used to assess the activity of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and predated therapies engaging the immune system. According to RECIST, a ≥20% increase in the size of tumor lesions or development of new lesions established disease progression. Therefore, pseudo-progression resulting from an influx of inflammatory cells in tumor sites could lead to treatment discontinuation [12], [13]. Also, some have suggested that patients without a traditional response, or with focal progression amenable to local therapy, or asymptomatic, slow progression, may derive clinical benefit from immunotherapy agents [14]. Anecdotal cases reported of “clinically important” decreases in tumor size following initial evidence of RECIST-defined disease progression has led to clinical trials permitting treatment past RECIST-defined progression (TPP) as long as certain criteria are met (eg, stable performance status, no impending organ dysfunction, tolerability, re-consent of the patient) [14].

With the advent of immunotherapies, further evaluation is needed in describing patterns of tumor response and their association with clinical benefit. In this manuscript, we describe the findings in patients treated beyond RECIST-defined disease progression (TPP) in a pooled dataset from clinical trials of patients with metastatic non-small lung cancer (mNSCLC) who received an anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody submitted to the FDA. We conducted this analysis to understand the frequency of further tumor reduction after RECIST-defined progression and to characterize the patterns of progression in patients who receive TPP.

Section snippets

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched for clinical trials evaluating anti–PD-1 antibodies for mNSCLC submitted to the FDA in support of initial or supplemental New Biologics License Applications between 2014 and 2016 that enrolled at least 100 patients with mNSCLC who had previously received at least one prior line of chemotherapy, regardless of PD-L1 expression in tumor, where patients received an anti–PD-1 antibody at the FDA-approved dose and schedule. In addition, the clinical protocols allowed patients to receive

Results

We identified three multicenter, international, open-label trials where 535 patients received an anti–PD-1 antibody. Patients initiated therapy between October 2012 and January 2014. Among the 535 patients (all patients who actually received anti–PD-1 therapy), at the time of analysis, 420 patients (78.5%) had progressive disease on study. The median duration of follow-up was approximately 16 months. In accordance with the clinical trial protocols, patients were imaged radiographically every 6

Discussion

Immunotherapies are revolutionizing treatment paradigms for an increasing number of cancer indications. Notably, PD-1 and/or PD-L1 inhibitors have been found to be efficacious and have received FDA approval in Hodgkin lymphoma, melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, head and neck carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma, in addition to NSCLC, and are likely to be demonstrated as beneficial in additional cancer indications in the near future [7], [8], [9], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. In the

Conclusions

A small percentage of patients continuing anti–PD-1 therapy past RECIST-defined progression may subsequently have further tumor reduction of prolonged duration. The decision to treat patients past progression should be weighed against possible immune-mediated adverse reactions of anti–PD-1 antibodies, as well as other therapies that the patient may benefit from.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank Kirsten Goldberg for her attentive editing of the manuscript.

There is no funding source for this work.

References (25)

  • E.A. Eisenhauer et al.

    New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)

    Eur J Cancer

    (2009)
  • R.L. Siegel et al.

    Cancer statistics, 2016

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2016)
  • R.S. Herbst et al.

    Lung Master Protocol (Lung-MAP)—a biomarker-driven protocol for accelerating development of therapies for squamous cell lung cancer: SWOG S1400

    Clin Cancer Res

    (2015)
  • F.A. Shepherd et al.

    prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

    J Clin Oncol

    (2000)
  • N. Hanna et al.

    Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy

    J Clin Oncol

    (2004)
  • F.A. Shepherd et al.

    Erlotinib in previously treated non–small-cell lung cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (2005)
  • N.A. Rizvi et al.

    Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non–small cell lung cancer

    Science

    (2015)
  • D. Kazandjian et al.

    Benefit-risk summary of nivolumab for patients with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy: a report from the US Food and Drug Administration

    JAMA Oncol

    (2015)
  • D. Kazandjian et al.

    FDA approval summary: nivolumab for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy

    Oncologist

    (2016)
  • J. Sul et al.

    FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors express programmed death-ligand 1

    Oncologist

    (2016)
  • M. Davies

    New modalities of cancer treatment for NSCLC: focus on immunotherapy

    Cancer Manag Res

    (2014)
  • J.D. Wolchok et al.

    Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria

    Am Assoc Cancer Res

    (2009)
  • Cited by (81)

    • Intra- and inter-reader agreement of iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 criteria for the assessment of tumor response in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for lung cancer

      2021, Lung Cancer
      Citation Excerpt :

      The frequency of pseudo-progression in oncologic patients receiving immunotherapy is low and has been described in 0% to 5% of patients with lung cancer [37–39]. In a recent pooled analysis, 10 of 535 NSCLC patients (1.9%) treated with checkpoint inhibitors therapy had a partial response after radiologic progressive disease [40]. iRECIST was published in an attempt to provide detailed guidelines and standardize response assessment in the immunotherapy setting; however, variability in lesion measurements or target selection could impact tumor response classification [41].

    • Treatment after progression in the era of immunotherapy

      2020, The Lancet Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      In this analysis, pseudoprogression was identified in all cancer types except for tumours with mismatch repair deficiency and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.14 Current evidence suggests that pseudoprogression is more common in melanoma (4·6–9·3%),15–19 non-small-cell lung cancer (1·6–6·9%),13,20–24 and renal cell carcinoma (4·9–7·1%),25,26 and is rarely observed in urothelial carcinoma (1·6%)27,28 and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (1·3%; table 2).29,30 Only one study with 140 patients investigated pseudoprogression with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ipilimumab combined with nivolumab, or with pembrolizumab) in metastatic melanoma, and showed a relatively high pseudoprogression (9·3%).19

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text