Nonconventional patterns of benefit of solid tumors treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors: a systematic review
1Clinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Aim:
The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of solid tumors has been expanding recently. Standard response evaluation criteria are not well suited to evaluate the clinical benefit from these agents. To systematically review the incidence and characteristics of nonconventional patterns of benefit observed in solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Materials & Methods:
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases have been searched. Moreover, reference lists of relevant articles were checked for cross-references.
Selection Criteria:
Clinical studies evaluating PD-(L)1 inhibitors for the management of advanced solid tumors irrespective of the publication status or language. The review author extracted relevant data on the characteristics of participants and the outcomes of the different studies.
Results:
Nineteen prospective trials with 5404 participants were included. Among patients experiencing RECIST-defined progression and continued treatment beyond progression, rates of response beyond progression ranged from 4 to 10% (of the total number of included patients). These findings were similarly observed regardless of the PD-(L)1 inhibitor used, the disease treated, or the dose used indicating that these findings are part of the inherent characteristics of PD-(L)1 inhibitors for solid tumors. These findings need confirmation from the results of other prospective studies. Many additional ongoing trials were identified evaluating the use of PD-(L)1 inhibitors for the management of solid tumors.
Conclusion:
Traditional RECIST criteria are not suited for proper assessment of response to PD-(L)1 inhibitors; and more tailored criteria (e.g. immune-related response criteria) should be employed for patients treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitors; moreover in patients with an evidence of disease progression on initial disease evaluation, treatment should not be stopped except after confirmation of progressive disease with a second evaluation at least 4 weeks later.
Insights
Immune checkpoint inhibitors show benefit beyond RECIST-defined progression in solid tumors. Continued treatment after progression may yield responses, suggesting tailored evaluation criteria are needed for these therapies.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Immunotherapy
- Clinical Trial Analysis
Background:
- Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly used for solid tumors.
- Standard response evaluation criteria (e.g., RECIST) may not fully capture clinical benefit from ICIs.
- Nonconventional patterns of benefit with ICIs require systematic review.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review the incidence and characteristics of nonconventional benefit patterns in solid tumors treated with ICIs.
- To assess response rates beyond initial RECIST-defined progression.
Main Methods:
- Searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, including reference lists of relevant articles.
- Included 19 prospective trials involving 5404 participants evaluating PD-(L)1 inhibitors for advanced solid tumors.
- Extracted data on participant characteristics and study outcomes.
Main Results:
- Nineteen prospective trials with 5404 participants were included.
- Rates of response beyond progression ranged from 4-10% among patients with RECIST-defined progression who continued treatment.
- These findings were consistent across different PD-(L)1 inhibitors, tumor types, and doses.
Conclusions:
- Traditional RECIST criteria are inadequate for assessing response to PD-(L)1 inhibitors.
- Tailored criteria, such as immune-related response criteria, should be used.
- Treatment should continue beyond initial progression if confirmed by a second evaluation at least 4 weeks later.
Related Concept Videos
Tumor Immunotherapy
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...


