4.7 Review

Hyperprogressive Disease in Cancers Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.678409

Keywords

immune checkpoint inhibitors; hyperprogressive disease; immunotherapy; predictive biomarker; pseudoprogression

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has shown promise in treating cancer by leveraging the immune system, but some patients treated with ICIs may experience hyperprogressive disease (HPD) with unclear mechanisms.
Immunotherapy, which takes advantage of the immune system to eliminate cancer cells, has been widely studied and applied in oncology. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) prevent the immune system from being turned off before cancer cells are eliminated. They have proven to be among the most promising and effective immunotherapies, with significant survival benefits and durable responses in diverse tumor types. However, an increasing number of retrospective studies have found that some patients treated with ICIs experience unusual responses, including accelerated proliferation of tumor cells and rapid progression of the disease, with poor outcomes. Such unexpected adverse events are termed hyperprogressive disease (HPD), and their occurrence suggests that ICIs are detrimental to a subset of cancer patients. HPD is common, with an incidence ranging between 4 and 29% in several cancer types. However, the mechanisms of HPD remain poorly understood, and no clinical predictive factors of HPD have been identified. In this review, we summarize current findings, including retrospective studies and case reports, and focus on several key issues including the defining characteristics, predictive biomarkers, potential mechanisms of HPD, and strategies for avoiding HPD after ICI treatment.

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