Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 2, 2025

Predictive Immune Modeling of Solid Tumors
Published on: February 25, 2020
Immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for assessment of atypical responses after immunotherapy
Davide Ippolito1, Cesare Maino2, Maria Ragusi2
1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, H. S. Gerardo Monza, School of Medicine, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza 20900, Italy. davide.atena@tiscali.it.
In 2017, immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) were introduced to validate radiologic and clinical interpretations and to better analyze tumor's response to immunotherapy, considering the different time of following and response, between this new therapy compared to the standard one. However, even if the iRECIST are worldwide accepted, to date, different aspects should be better underlined and well reported, especially in clinical practice. Clinical experience has demonstrated that in a non-negligible percentage of patients, it is challenging to determine the correct category of response (stable disease, progression disease, partial or complete response), and consequently, to define which is the best management for those patients. Approaching radiological response in patients who underwent immunotherapy, a new uncommon kind of target lesions behavior was found. This phenomenon is mainly due to the different mechanisms of action of immunotherapeutic drug. Therefore, new groups of response have been described in clinical practice, defined as "atypical responses," and categorized into three new groups: pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, and dissociated response. This review summarizes and reports these patterns, helping clinicians and radiologists get used to atypical responses, in order to identify patients that respond best to treatment.
In 2017, immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) were introduced to validate radiologic and clinical interpretations and to better analyze tumor's response to immunotherapy, considering the different time of following and response, between this new therapy compared to the standard one. However, even if the iRECIST are worldwide accepted, to date, different aspects should be better underlined and well reported, especially in clinical practice. Clinical experience has demonstrated that in a non-negligible percentage of patients, it is challenging to determine the correct category of response (stable disease, progression disease, partial or complete response), and consequently, to define which is the best management for those patients. Approaching radiological response in patients who underwent immunotherapy, a new uncommon kind of target lesions behavior was found. This phenomenon is mainly due to the different mechanisms of action of immunotherapeutic drug. Therefore, new groups of response have been described in clinical practice, defined as "atypical responses," and categorized into three new groups: pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, and dissociated response. This review summarizes and reports these patterns, helping clinicians and radiologists get used to atypical responses, in order to identify patients that respond best to treatment.
More Related Videos
08:30Immunophenotyping of Orthotopic Homograft Syngeneic of Murine Primary KPC Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma by Flow Cytometry
Published on: October 9, 2018
06:16Generation of Orthotopic Pancreatic Tumors and Ex vivo Characterization of Tumor-Infiltrating T Cell Cytotoxicity
Published on: December 7, 2019