Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 22, 2025
Predictive Immune Modeling of Solid Tumors
Published on: February 25, 2020
Pooled Rate of Pseudoprogression, Patterns of Response, and Tumor Burden Analysis in Patients Undergoing
S Morrissey1, A G Vasconcelos2, C L Wang3
1OncoRad Research Core, Department of Radiology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Aims:
Assess rates of true pseudoprogression in unconfirmed progressive disease (iUPD) in a pool of immunotherapy clinical trials for different cancers, analyze tumor characteristics that drive iUPD classification, and investigate potentials predictors of pseudoprogression.
Materials And Methods:
Retrospective interpretation of prospectively acquired data. Patients from 18 immunotherapy clinical trials with two arms (RECIST 1.1, iRECIST), of 10 cancer types were selected. Pooled rate of true pseudoprogression among iUPD was estimated using a common effect meta-analysis. Target, Non-target, and new lesions as the trigger of confirmed-vs pseudo-progression were compared using Chi-Square and Fisher exact tests. Conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the association between age, sex, tumor burden at baseline, and number of follow ups and pseudoprogression.
Results:
60/287 (21%) patients (17 women) were classified as iUPD with at least one subsequent confirmatory timepoint. The overall pooled estimate of pseudoprogression was 15% (95%CI: 8%--26%). Nontarget lesions were significantly more frequent the cause of iUPD than change in Target lesions size (p< 0.001). Most observations of true pseudoprogression occurred in the first follow-up (77%), whereas confirmed progression occurred in later time points during the trial. Pseudoprogression was not significantly associated with age, sex, tumor burden at baseline, or number of timepoints.
Conclusion:
In a pool of immunotherapy trials, the rate of true pseudoprogression was 15%, most often in the first timepoint after baseline than later in treatment. iUPD categorization was mostly driven by changes in NT lesions rather than objective changes in measurements of target lesions.
