4.7 Review

Incidence of Pseudoprogression during Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 297, Issue 1, Pages 87-96

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA (RSNA)
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020200443

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been increasingly used in cancer treatment, and a subset of patients undergo pseudoprogression. Recognizing the incidence of pseudoprogression is critical for clinical practice. Purpose: To evaluate by systematic review and meta-analysis the incidence of pseudoprogression in cancer treatment with ICIs, and compare the incidence according to response criteria, tumor types, and immunotherapeutic agents. Materials and Methods: Medline and Embase were searched to identify relevant studies published before December 31, 2018. Clinical trials, post hoc analysis of clinical trials, and prospective studies on ICI treatment in patients with malignant solid tumors were included. Pooled incidence of pseudoprogression for all included studies, per definition of pseudoprogression, cancer type, and drug type, was obtained by random-effects models with inverse variance weighting model. Results: Seventeen studies with 3402 patients were analyzed. The pooled incidence of pseudoprogression was 6.0% (95% confidence interval: 5.0%, 7.0%). The definition of pseudoprogression were divided into four categories: progressive disease followed by partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) but not stable disease (SD) with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 (six studies); progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with RECIST 1.1 (five studies); progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with RECIST 1.0 (three studies); and progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with immune-related response criteria (irRC) (three studies). Incidence of pseudoprogression varied from 4.5% to 8.0% per definition, ranged from 5.0% to 7.0% per cancer type, and was 5.6% with the monotherapy of programmed cell death-1 inhibitor. Conclusion: The overall incidence of pseudoprogression was 6.0% and was less than 10% in subgroup analyses according to the definitions of pseudoprogression, cancer type, and immune checkpoint inhibitor type. Varying definitions across trials and studies indicates the need for uniform criteria of pseudoprogression for solid tumors. (C) RSNA, 2020

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available