4.6 Article

A Comparative Retrospective Study of Immunotherapy RANO Versus Standard RANO Criteria in Glioblastoma Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.679331

Keywords

glioblastoma; immunotherapy; magnetic resonance imaging; disease progression; pseudoprogression; response assessment in neuro-oncology criteria; immunotherapy response assessment for neuro-oncology

Categories

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health [NIH R01LM012434]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC1309100]
  3. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [81925023]
  4. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [81601469, 82072090, 81771912]
  5. Guangzhou Science and Technology Project of Health [20191A011002]
  6. China Scholarship Council [201808440033, 201706210406]
  7. National Cancer Institute [K12CA090354]
  8. Conquer Cancer Foundation/Sontag Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the response assessment of GBM patients on ICB using iRANO and RANO criteria, showing high concordance in assessing progressive disease within 6 months of treatment initiation.
Objectives Real-time assessment of treatment response in glioblastoma (GBM) patients on immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) remains challenging because inflammatory effects of therapy may mimic progressive disease, and the temporal evolution of these inflammatory findings is poorly understood. We compare GBM patient response during ICB as assessed with the Immunotherapy Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (iRANO) and the standard Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) radiological criteria. Methods 49 GBM patients (seven newly diagnosed and 42 recurrent) treated with ICBs at a single institution were identified. Tumor burden was quantified on serial MR scans according to RANO criteria during ICB. Radiographic response assessment by iRANO and RANO were compared. Results 82% (40/49) of patients received anti-PD-1, 16% (8/49) received anti-PD-L1, and 2% (1/49) received anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 treatment. Change in tumor burden and best overall response ranged from -100 to +557% (median: +48%). 12% (6/49) of patients were classified as concordant non-progressors by both RANO and iRANO (best response: one CR, one PR, and four SD). Another12% (6/49) had discordant assessments: 15% (6/41) of RANO grade progressive disease (PD) patients had iRANO grade of progressive disease unconfirmed (PDU). The final classification of these discordant patients was pseudoprogression (PsP) in three of six, PD in two of six, and PDU in one of six who went off study before the iRANO assessment of PDU. iRANO delayed diagnosis of PD by 42 and 93 days in the two PD patients. 76% (37/49) patients were classified as concordant PD by both RANO and iRANO. 12% (6/49) of all patients were classified as PsP, starting at a median of 12 weeks (range, 4-30 weeks) after ICB initiation. Conclusions Standard RANO and iRANO have high concordance for assessing PD in patients within 6 months of ICB initiation. iRANO was beneficial in 6% (3/49) cases later proven to be PsP, but delayed confirmation of PD by <3 months in 4% (2/49). PsP occurred in 12% of patients, starting at up to 7 months after initiation of ICB. Further study to define the utility of modified RANO compared with iRANO in ICB GBM patients is needed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available