Explore the vast range of titles available.

The immunotherapeutic treatment of various cancers with an increasing number of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has profoundly improved the clinical management of advanced diseases. However, just a fraction of patients clinically responds to and benefits from the mentioned therapies; a large proportion of patients do not respond or quickly become resistant, and hyper- and pseudoprogression occur in certain patient populations. Furthermore, no effective predictive factors have been clearly screened or defined. In this review, we discuss factors underlying the elucidation of potential immunotherapeutic resistance mechanisms and the identification of predictive factors for immunotherapeutic responses. Considering the heterogeneity of tumours and the complex immune microenvironment (composition of various immune cell subtypes, disease processes, and lines of treatment), checkpoint expression levels may not be the only factors underlying immunotherapy difficulty and resistance. Researchers should consider the tumour microenvironment (TME) landscape in greater depth from the aspect of not only immune cells but also the tumour histology, molecular subtype, clonal heterogeneity and evolution as well as micro-changes in the fine structural features of the tumour area, such as myeloid cell polarization, fibroblast clusters and tertiary lymphoid structure formation. A comprehensive analysis of the immune and molecular profiles of tumour lesions is needed to determine the potential predictive value of the immune landscape on immunotherapeutic responses, and precision medicine has become more important.

Background: Mucosal and acral melanoma respond worse to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) than cutaneous melanoma. MDM2/4 as well as EGFR amplifications are supposed to be associated with hyperprogression on ICI in diverse cancers. We therefore investigated the response of metastatic acral and mucosal melanoma to ICI in regard to MDM2/4 or EGFR amplifications and melanoma type. Methods: We conducted a query of our melanoma registry, looking for patients with metastatic acral or mucosal melanoma treated by ICI. Whole exome sequencing, FISH and immunohistochemistry on melanoma tissue could be performed on 45 of the total cohort of 51 patients. Data were correlated with patients’ responses to ICI and survival. Results: 22 out of 51 patients had hyperprogressive disease (an increase in tumor load of >50% at the first staging). Hyperprogression occurred more often in case of MDM2/4 or EGFR amplification or <1% PD-L1 positive tumor cells. Nevertheless, this association was not significant. Interestingly, the anorectal melanoma type and the presence of liver metastases were significantly associated with worse survival. Conclusions: So far, we found no reliable predictive marker for patients who develop hyperprogression on ICI, specifically with regard to MDM2/4 or EGFR amplifications. Nevertheless, patients with anorectal melanoma, liver metastases or melanoma with amplified MYC seem to have an increased risk of not benefitting from ICI.

Immunotherapy is now widely prescribed in oncology, leading to the observation of new types of responses, including rapid disease progression sometimes reported as hyperprogression. However, only a few studies have assessed the question of hyperprogression and there is no consensual definition of this phenomenon. We reviewed existing data on hyperprogression in published studies, focusing on reported definitions, predictive factors, and potential biological mechanisms. Seven studies retrospectively assessed hyperprogression incidence, using various definitions, some based on the tumoral burden variation across time with repeated computed-tomography (CT) scan, others based on an association of radiological and clinical criteria. Reported hyperprogression incidence varied between 4% and 29% of all responses, mostly in multi-tumor cohorts and with patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Hyperprogression correlated with worse chances of survival than standard progression in two studies. However, no strong predictive factors of hyperprogression were identified, and none were consistent across studies. In total, hyperprogression is a frequent pattern of response under immunotherapy, with a strong impact on patient outcome. There is a need for a consensual definition of hyperprogression. Immunotherapy should be stopped early in cases where there is suspicion of hyperprogression.

Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a recently acknowledged pattern of rapid tumor progression after the initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitors. HPD has been observed across various types of tumors and has been associated with poor survival. We performed a meta-analysis to identify baseline (i.e., prior to programmed cell death 1 [PD-1, PDCD1] / programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 [PD-L1, CD274] inhibitor therapy) patient factors associated with risks of developing HPD during PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy. We searched eight databases until 6 June 2019. We calculated the summary odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model and explored between-study heterogeneity and small-study effects. A total of nine articles was eligible (217 HPD cases, 1519 cancer patients) for meta-analysis. There was no standard definition of HPD, and the incidence of HPD ranged from 1 to 30%. We identified twenty-three baseline patient factors, of which five factors were statistically significantly associated with HPD. These were serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) above the upper normal limit (OR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.02–3.49, p = 0.043), more than two metastatic sites (OR = 1.86, 1.34–2.57, p < 0.001), liver metastases (OR = 3.33, 2.07–5.34, p < 0.001), Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score of 2 or above (OR = 3.33, 1.96–5.66, p < 0.001), and positive PD-L1 expression status that was inversely correlated with HPD (OR = 0.60, 0.36–0.99, p = 0.044). Between-study heterogeneity was low. Evidence of small-study effect was found in one association (PD-L1 expression). Subset analyses of patients with non-small cell lung cancer showed similar results. Future studies are warranted to identify underlying molecular mechanisms and to test their roles as predictive biomarkers of HPD.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care for a variety of cancers, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this study, we investigated the frequency of pseudoprogression and hyperprogression in lung cancer patients treated with ICIs in the real world and aimed to discover a novel candidate marker to distinguish pseudoprogression from hyperprogression soon after ICI treatment.MethodsThis study included 74 patients with advanced NSCLC who were treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors at Chungnam National University Hospital (CNUH) between January 2018 and August 2020. Chest X-rays were examined on day 7 after the first ICI dose to identify changes in the primary mass, and the response was assessed by computed tomography (CT). We evaluated circulating regulatory T (Treg) cells using flow cytometry and correlated the findings with clinical outcomes.ResultsThe incidence of pseudoprogression was 13.5%, and that of hyperprogression was 8.1%. On day 7 after initiation of treatment, the frequency of CD4+CD25+CD127loFoxP3+ Treg cells was significantly decreased compared with baseline (P = 0.038) in patients who experienced pseudoprogression and significantly increased compared with baseline (P = 0.024) in patients who experienced hyperprogression. In the responder group, the frequencies of CD4+CD25+CD127loFoxP3+ Treg cells and PD-1+CD4+CD25+CD127loFoxP3+ Treg cells were significantly decreased 7 days after commencement of treatment compared with baseline (P = 0.034 and P < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionCirculating Treg cells represent a promising potential dynamic biomarker to predict efficacy and differentiate atypical responses, including pseudoprogression and hyperprogression, after immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC.

PurposeImmune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with clinical benefit in lung cancer. However, response patterns to immunotherapy, including pseudoprogression and hyperprogression, are difficult to diagnose, and their mechanisms remain unclear. This review aimed to describe two response patterns observed in lung cancer, namely pseudoprogression and hyperprogression, including their epidemiology, diagnostic characteristics, and plausible mechanisms.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search in the PubMed database, using keywords “pseudoprogression”, “hyperprogression”, and “lung cancer”, among others. The literature was examined for pseudoprogression and hyperprogression characteristics and plausible mechanisms.ResultsPseudoprogression manifests in multiple forms; however, the immune system-related response criteria and biopsy data are helpful to make accurate diagnosis. Serological biomarkers, such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), might help distinguish pseudoprogression from true progression. The incidence of hyperprogression ranges within 5–19.2%, depending on definition. The unique response pattern of rapid progression is observed not only with immunotherapy, but also with other treatment regimens. Molecular mutations and amplifications may result in hyperprogression; however, the exact mechanism remains unclear.ConclusionAtypical response patterns, such as pseudoprogression and hyperprogression, are increasingly common in clinical practice. Immune-related response criteria can help diagnose pseudoprogression. Molecular mechanisms of hyperprogression remain unclear. Biomarkers for pseudoprogression and hyperprogression are required.

Abstract Background Monotherapy immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) used in second- or later-line settings has been reported to induce hyperprogression. This study evaluated hyperprogression risk with ICI (atezolizumab) in the first-, second-, or later-line treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and provides insights into hyperprogression risk with contemporary first-line ICI treatment. Methods Hyperprogression was identified using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST)-based criteria in a dataset of pooled individual-participant level data from BIRCH, FIR, IMpower130, IMpower131, IMpower150, OAK, and POPLAR trials. Odds ratios were computed to compare hyperprogression risks between groups. Landmark Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between hyperprogression and progression-free survival/overall survival. Secondarily, putative risk factors for hyperprogression among second- or later-line atezolizumab-treated patients were evaluated using univariate logistic regression models. Results Of the included 4644 patients, 119 of the atezolizumab-treated patients (n = 3129) experienced hyperprogression. Hyperprogression risk was markedly lower with first-line atezolizumab—either chemoimmunotherapy or monotherapy—compared to second/later-line atezolizumab monotherapy (0.7% vs. 8.8%, OR = 0.07, 95% CI, 0.04-0.13). Further, there was no statistically significant difference in hyperprogression risk with first-line atezolizumab-chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (0.6% vs. 1.0%, OR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.22-1.36). Sensitivity analyses using an extended RECIST-based criteria including early death supported these findings. Hyperprogression was associated with worsened overall survival (HR = 3.4, 95% CI, 2.7-4.2, P < .001); elevated neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was the strongest risk factor for hyperprogression (C-statistic = 0.62, P < .001). Conclusions This study presents first evidence for a markedly lower hyperprogression risk in advanced NSCLC patients treated with first-line ICI, particularly with chemoimmunotherapy, as compared to second- or later-line ICI treatment. This study evaluated hyperprogression risk with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) in the first-, second-, or later-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, providing insight into hyperprogression risk with contemporary first-line ICI treatment.

Abstract Background A minority subset of immunotherapy patients manifests hyperprogressive disease (HPD), with the disparity in melanoma subtypes yet to be reported. This study aimed to delineate the proportion and prognosis of HPD in patients receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy and to identify patient with HPD clinical characteristics across melanoma subtypes to inform clinical decision making. Methods Utilizing 4 established HPD definitions, the incidence of HPD in patients with advanced melanoma on anti-PD-1 monotherapy was determined. The incidence rates and prognostic abilities of various HPD definitions were compared to elect the most effective one. This facilitated a comparative analysis of subtypes and clinical features between patients with HPD and traditional progression. Results A total of 262 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy from 5 prospectively registered clinical trials were included in the study. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) was 21% and 58%, respectively, with 42% showcasing progression disease. The HPD incidences by 4 definitions were 13.2%, 16.8%, 10.8%, and 28.2%. All definitions effectively segregated HPD patients, with significantly poorer outcome than other progressive patients. The Delta TGR > 100 definition was the most indicative of a reduced overall survival, corroborated by the highest hazard ratio and statistical significance. The number of metastatic organs over 2 is a risk factor for HPD (OR = 4.18, P = .0103). Mucosal melanoma was the HPD prevalent subtype (OR = 3.13, P = .0489) in multivariable analysis, which is also indicated by RECIST criteria (P = .005). Conclusion A delta TGR exceeding 100 best identified HPD patients in the advanced melanoma population treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy. Hyperprogression was notably prevalent in mucosal melanoma patients with multiple metastatic organs. Caution against HPD is warranted when applying anti-PD-1 monotherapy in mucosal subtype. This study aimed to delineate the proportion and prognosis of patients with hyperprogressive disease (HPD) receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy and to identify patient with HPD clinical characteristics across melanoma subtypes to inform clinical decision making.

ObjectivesA small subset of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors manifest atypical patterns of response, the so-called pseudoprogression (PP) and hyperprogression (HP). Their prevalence in urothelial (UC) and renal cancer (RCC) remains, to date, mostly uninvestigated. Therefore, we aimed to provide a summary of the current knowledge about PP and HP during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in UC and RCC patients.Methods and materialsA systematic medline/pubmed© literature search was performed. The atypical patterns of response to systemic immunotherapy were reviewed. Endpoints were PP and HP in UC and RCC.ResultsTumors respond differently to immunotherapy compared to systemic chemotherapy. To evaluate response to immunotherapy, new guidelines (iRECIST) have been developed. To date, no studies focused on PP in UC and RCC, and the only way to evaluate its role is to take patients who respond to treatment beyond progression as surrogate for pseudoprogressors. PP seems to occur in a non-negligible rate of UC and RCC (from 1.5 to 17% and from 5 to 15%, respectively). The concept of HP, defined as a rapid progression after treatment, just took the first steps, and therefore, data from ongoing trials are awaited to elucidate its impact in genitourinary cancers.ConclusionsPP and HP are not uncommon entities in UC and RCC patients, treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Further investigation is warranted to define which patients are likely to experience PP and could benefit from treatment beyond progression and which ones will instead rapidly experience progression despite treatment and should, therefore, avoid systemic immunotherapy.

The 5-year survival rate of primary anorectal malignant melanoma is less than 20%. Optimal treatment of this condition remains controversial regarding locally disease, and whether any preferential survival benefit arises from either abdominoperineal resection or wide local excision remains unknown. The majority of patients progress to metastatic disease, and for decades, the use of chemotherapies, such as platines or dacarbazine, has been advocated to improve overall survival. The therapeutic use of new checkpoint inhibitors in a variety of trials has provided evidence for an antitumoral effect of PD-1 and/or CTL4 inhibitors in mucosal melanomas, but these treatments must still be further evaluated. Some anecdotal occurrences of rapid progression [i.e., hyperprogressive disease (HPD)] while using these immune agents have been described, suggesting potentially deleterious effects of these drugs for some patients. We report a 77-year-old male metastatic anorectal melanoma patient presenting with HPD over 2 months of a PD1 inhibitor treatment course and document this HPD blood phenotype.