Time to strategy failure and treatment beyond progression in pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients receiving nivolumab: post-hoc analysis of the Meet-URO 15 study.

Background: Immunotherapies exhibit peculiar cancer response patterns in contrast to chemotherapy and targeted therapy. Some patients experience disease response after initial progression or durable responses after treatment interruption. In clinical practice, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be continued after radiological progression if clinical benefit is observed. As a result, estimating progression-free survival (PFS) based on the first disease progression may not accurately reflect the actual benefit of immunotherapy. Methods: The Meet-URO 15 study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of 571 pretreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients receiving nivolumab. Time to strategy failure (TSF) was defined as the interval from the start of immunotherapy to definitive disease progression or death. This post-hoc analysis compared TSF to PFS and assess the response and survival outcomes between patients treatated beyond progression (TBP) and non-TBP. Moreover, we evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the Meet-URO score versus the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) score based on TSF and PFS. Results: Overall, 571 mRCC patients were included in the analysis. Median TSF was 8.6 months (95% CI: 7.0 - 10.1), while mPFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 5.7 - 8.5). TBP patients (N = 93) had significantly longer TSF (16.3 vs 5.5 months; p < 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (34.8 vs 17.9 months; p < 0.001) but similar PFS compared to non-TBP patients. In TBP patients, a median delay of 9.6 months (range: 6.7-16.3) from the first to the definitive disease progression was observed, whereas non-TBP patients had overlapped median TSF and PFS (5.5 months). Moreover, TBP patients had a trend toward a higher overall response rate (33.3% vs 24.3%; p = 0.075) and disease control rate (61.3% vs 55.5%; p = 0.31). Finally, in the whole population the Meet-URO score outperformed the IMDC score in predicting both TSF (c-index: 0.63 vs 0.59) and PFS (0.62 vs 0.59). Conclusion: We found a 2-month difference between mTSF and mPFS in mRCC patients receiving nivolumab. However, TBP patients had better outcomes, including significantly longer TSF and OS than non-TBP patients. The Meet-URO score is a reliable predictor of TSF and PFS.

Expanding the applications of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced lung cancer beyond disease progression.

Background: Immunotherapy, particularly the utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), assumes a pivotal role in the comprehensive management of advanced lung cancer. There has been substantial deliberation regarding the appropriateness of extending ICIs treatment beyond the point of disease progression. This study delves into the potential benefits of sustained utilization of ICIs subsequent to disease progression in patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 248 patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer who received treatment with ICIs. The study population comprised 99 patients in the treatment beyond progression (TBP) group and 42 patients in the non-treatment beyond progression (NTBP) group. Parameters including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were assessed. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was employed to analyze prognostic factors related to immunotherapy. Results: Patients undergoing primary treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibited a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.3 months. In the context of disease progression, a comparison between the TBP and NTBP groups was performed with respect to mPFS. The results demonstrated that the TBP group manifested an mPFS of 8.6 months, contrasting with the NTBP group's mPFS of 4.0 months (p=0.028). The mean overall survival (mOS) in the TBP group exhibited a statistically significant increase in comparison to the NTBP group (14.1 months vs. 6.0 months, p=0.028). Evaluation of the objective response rate (ORR) between the TBP and NTBP groups revealed a substantial distinction. The TBP group displayed an ORR of 12.1%, while the NTBP group exhibited a lower ORR of 2.4%. The statistical analysis yielded a p-value of 0.068, signifying a notable trend towards significance. The disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed and exhibited a noteworthy variance between the two groups, with a higher DCR of 92.9% in contrast to 71.4% in the control group (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Subsequent to ICIs treatment, a subset of patients may derive continued benefits from anticancer therapy, notwithstanding the progression of their advanced lung cancer.

Ramucirumab beyond progression plus TAS-102 in patients with advanced or metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, after treatment failure on a ramucirumab-based therapy.

Based on results of prior trials (TAGS, REGARD, RAINBOW), the combination of ramucirumab beyond progression with TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) seems to be promising in advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA). In this multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, investigator-initiated pilot trial, ramucirumab-pretreated patients with metastatic EGA received a maximum of 4 cycles of ramucirumab (8 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 and 15, Q2W) plus TAS-102 (35 mg/m2 p.o. bid on day 1-5 and day 8-12; Q2W). Primary endpoint was tolerability and toxicity, defining a positive trial if the SAE rate according to CTCAE 5.0 will increase <30% (up to 55%) compared to historical results from TAGS trial (SAE rate 43%). Secondary endpoints were further evaluation of safety and assessment of efficacy according to tumor response and overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS). Twenty patients, 20% gastric and 80% GEJ cancers and 55% with ECOG 0 were enrolled. In total, nine SAEs were reported in 25% [95% CI: 8.7-49.1] of the patients, all without relationship to the systemic therapy. The median OS and PFS were 9.1 months [5.4-10.1] and 2.9 months [1.7-4.8], respectively. In addition, a disease control rate of 45% was obtained. The trial showed a favorable safety profile with a numerically lower incidence of SAEs for the combination of ramucirumab with TAS-102 compared to historical TAGS trial. Furthermore, the combination demonstrated efficacy in the beyond progression setting and therefore warrants further evaluation in a randomized trial compared to TAS-102 alone.

Clinical outcomes of immunotherapy continued beyond radiographic disease progression in older adult patients with advanced non­small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment strategy for older adult patients (aged ≥70 years) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Unfortunately, most patients who receive immunotherapy eventually exhibit disease progression during treatment. The present study reports on a subset of older adult patients with advanced NSCLC who could effectively continue immunotherapy beyond radiographic disease progression due to perceived clinical benefit. Local consolidative radiotherapy may be used in select older adult patients to prolong the duration of immunotherapy they receive, with a particular consideration of their preexisting co-morbidities, performance status and tolerance of potential toxicities associated with combined modality therapy. However, prospective research is needed to determine which patients benefit most from the addition of local consolidative radiotherapy, including whether type of disease progression (i.e., sites of progression, pattern of progression) and/or extent of consolidation offered (i.e., complete or incomplete) impact clinical outcomes. Further research is also warranted to determine which patients would most benefit from the continuation of immunotherapy beyond documented radiographic disease progression.

Pseudoprogression and Mixed Responses in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Treated With Nivolumab: A Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are part of the current standard of care for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC). ICI can elicit diverse tumor response, including atypical responses such as pseudoprogression (psPD), mixed responses (MR) and late responses. We aimed to analyze the occurrence and prognostic impact of atypical responses in m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab in first or subsequent therapy line between November 2012 and July 2022 was performed. All radiographic evaluations of eligible patients were analyzed using the iRECIST consensus guideline. RESULTS: We assessed 247 baseline target lesions in 94 eligible patients. MR occurred in 11 (11.7%) patients: in 7 at first CT (computed tomography) evaluation (CT1) and in 4 at second CT evaluation (CT2). In 8 patients (73%), MR evolved to confirmed PD. In 3 patients (27%), MR evolved towards a partial response (PR) and was thus a psPD. psPD occurred in 8 (8.5%) patients: with psPD features at CT1 in 3 patients, with psPD features at CT2 in 2 patients, and with MR features at CT1 in 3 patients. psPD patients had similar progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients displaying PR as best response without a phase of psPD. 76 patients were treated beyond immune unconfirmed progressive disease (iUPD) at any moment: 12 (16%) of them evolved towards PR or stable disease (SD). Treatment beyond immune confirmed PD (iCPD) in 20 patients did not lead to PR or SD. CONCLUSION: Atypical responses such as psPD and MR occurred in 8.5% and 11.7% of m-ccRCC patients treated with nivolumab at CT1 and CT2. Patients with psPD had favorable outcomes, while MR most often evolved to progression. Treatment with nivolumab beyond iCPD did not lead to tumor stabilization or regression.

Treatment beyond progression in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Treatment beyond progression (TBP) is defined as treatment continuing in spite of disease progression, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence for the effects of TBP on lung cancer survival. Materials and methods: This study has been conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials from the inception of each database to December 2021 was conducted. Two authors independently reviewed articles for inclusion and extract data from all the retrieved articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Hazard ratios (HRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for survival outcomes. Results: We identified five (15.6%) prospective randomized trials and twenty-seven (84.4%) retrospective observational studies of a total of 9,631 patients for the meta-analysis. 3,941 patients (40.9%) were in a TBP group and 5,690 patients (59.1%) were in a non-TBP group. There is a statistically significant advantage for patients who received TBP compared with those who did not in post progression progression-free survival (ppPFS), post progression overall survival (ppOS), and overall survival (OS) from initiation of drugs (ppPFS: HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.644-0.865; P<0.001; ppOS: HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.596-0.797; P<0.001; OS from initiation of drugs: HR, 0.515; 95% CI, 0.387-0.685; P<0.001). Conclusion: This study provides further evidence in support of TBP for NSCLC, however, these results require cautious interpretation. Large, randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TBP in lung cancer treatment are warranted. Systemic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ identifier CRD42021285147.

Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Anti-PD-(L)1 Therapy Among Older Adults With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: As a result of the approval of several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), many older adults are being treated with ICIs. Older adults are underrepresented in most pharmaceutical clinical trials. Therapy outcomes in this population with ICIs is particularly important since, age related factors may have an influence on the immune system. METHODS: We utilized the MD Anderson Cancer Center Gemini Team's Lung Cancer Database to retrospectively study patients ≥70 years of age with advanced NSCLC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy to look at the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 179 patients met the inclusion criteria for this retrospective analysis. There were 106 men and 73 women. The median age of the cohort was 74.9 years, and overall survival was 20.6 months. 27.6% of all patients had an objective response to therapy. In 33 patients who had radiological progression, treatment continued beyond progression due to clinical benefit. In this group, 6 patients had subsequent improvement in radiologic assessment. Age groups were not significantly associated with differences in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy is effective and well tolerated among older adults with advanced NSCLC. While pseudoprogression is rare, treatment beyond progression may provide clinical benefit in a subset of patients and warrants further investigation.

Circulating Cytokines in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Select Different Prognostic Groups and Patients Who Might Benefit from Treatment beyond Progression.

Cancer induces immune suppression to overcome its recognition and eradication by the immune system. Cytokines are messengers able to modulate immune response or suppression. There is great interest in the evaluation of their changes during treatment in order to identify their relationship with clinical outcome. We evaluated 18 cytokines in breast cancer patients treated with eribulin before starting treatment (T0) and after four courses of therapy (T1). Longitudinal modifications were considered and cytokine clusters through PCA and HCPC correlated to patients' outcomes were identified. Forty-one metastatic breast cancer patients and fifteen healthy volunteers were included. After clustering, we identified at T0 six patient clusters with different risk of relapse and death. At T1, only four clusters were identified, and three of them accounted for thirty-eight of forty-one patients, suggesting a possible role of treatment in reducing heterogeneity. The cluster with the best survival at T1 was characterized by low levels of IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, CCL-2, CCL-4, and TGF-ß. The cluster showing the worst survival encompassed high levels of IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, CCL-2, and IFN-γ. A subgroup of patients with short progression-free survival (PFS) and long overall survival (OS) was comprised in the cluster characterized by low levels of CCL-2, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-12 at T0. Our data support the prognostic significance of longitudinal serum cytokine analysis. This approach may help identify patients for whom early treatment stop avoids needless toxicity or might justify treatment beyond early progression. Further investigations are required to validate this hypothesis.

Efficacy of immunotherapy beyond RECIST progression in advanced melanoma: a real-world evidence.

Immunotherapy (ITH) holds the possibility of tumor burden decrease after initial RECIST 1.1 defined progression. The clinical concept of treating selected patients (pts) beyond disease progression (PD) is supported by so-called pseudoprogression phenomenon. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-life practice and outcomes related to treatment beyond (RECIST) progression (TBP) in advanced melanoma patients. Of 584 subsequent melanoma pts analyzed 77 (13.2%) received TBP. In this cohort, the median time to first PD (TTFP) was 5.29 months (m), while time to second PD (TTSP)-8.02 m. On TBP 23.4% pts achieved an objective response (OR), and next 42.9%-stabilization of the disease (SD). 1st PD was reported most often as the development of a new lesion or increase (> 20%) of the diameter of three or more targets. In about 50% second PD was observed as an increase in the diameter of different targets that in 1st PD. Multimodal treatment resulted in 9.82 m TTSP, while ITH alone-4.93 m (p = 0.128). An oligoprogressive pattern of first PD was associated with longer TTSP (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.94). Median OS after first PD was 28.75 months and correlated with OR during TBP (HR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.004-0.76). Selected clinically fit melanoma patients, despite evidence of first radiographic progression, may benefit from continued treatment with PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors, but the findings should be validated in larger prospective trials. Multidisciplinary treatment should be offered to advanced melanoma patients, including radiosurgery or stereotactic radiotherapy of single loci progressing during immunotherapy.

Continuation of Lorlatinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC Beyond Progressive Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib, a potent, selective third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), exhibited overall and intracranial antitumor activity in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: Retrospective analyses in the ongoing phase 2 trial (NCT01970865) investigated the clinical benefit of continuing lorlatinib beyond progressive disease (LBPD). Patients with previous crizotinib treatment as the only ALK TKI were group A (n = 28); those with at least one previous second-generation ALK TKIs were group B (n = 74). LBPD was defined as greater than 3 weeks of lorlatinib treatment after investigator-assessed progressive disease. Only patients with the best overall response of complete or partial response or stable disease were included. RESULTS: There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The median duration of treatment for patients who continued LBPD was 32.4 months (group A) and 16.4 months (group B) versus 12.5 months (group A) and 7.7 months (group B) for patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival in group A was not reached (NR) in patients who continued LBPD versus 24.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.1-NR); group B's median was 26.5 months (95% CI: 18.7-35.5) in patients who continued LBPD versus 14.7 months (95% CI: 9.3-38.5) in patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival postprogression for groups A and B was NR (95% CI: 21.4-NR) and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.2-19.2) in patients who continued LBPD and 8.0 months (95% CI: 1.5-NR) versus 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.8-14.3) in patients who did not continue LBPD. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing LBPD is a viable treatment strategy for select patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on lorlatinib.

Cabozantinib beyond progression improves survival in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients: the CABEYOND study (Meet-URO 21).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib improves survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after prior antiangiogenics. The best treatment at disease progression (PD) is unknown. Being also a AXL/MET inhibitor, involved in acquired resistance, we hypothesized a prolonged tumor growth control in patients continuing cabozantinib despite PD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study enrolled patients receiving cabozantinib after the first line between 2014 and 2020. We compared patients maintaining cabozantinib after first PD due to clinical benefit and good tolerability with those who changed therapy. The postprogression survival (PPS) of both was our primary endpoint. RESULTS: We analyzed 89 patients: 45 received cabozantinib beyond PD and 44 switched therapy. 40.4%, 31.5%, and 28.1% of patients received 1, 2, or >2 prior treatment, respectively. 84.3% were intermediate-poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database risk. Patients continuing cabozantinib showed a higher response rate to cabozantinib before PD (46.7% vs 25%, p = 0.03) and were more heavily pretreated. Continuing cabozantinib showed a significantly longer PPS compared with switching therapy (median PPS 16.9 vs 13.2 months, HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.48-0.92, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: We observed longer PPS in patients continuing cabozantinib beyond PD, suggesting that this could be an effective option.

Treatment beyond progression and locoregional approaches in selected patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

The clinical management of BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma had an important turning point after the introduction of the targeted therapy. Despite the efficacy and good tolerability of this treatment, the development of resistance mechanisms causes disease progression. The aim of this review is to investigate the role of treatment beyond progression and locoregional approaches in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma and provide oncologists dealing with this malignancy a useful road map on when and why to choose this strategy. The article is structured in the form of a narrative review reporting the most significant studies on the subject. Most of the available articles are represented by retrospective studies and case reports, leading to limitations in the final interpretations. Nevertheless, a correct analysis of the selected studies allows the drawing of some conclusions. In well-selected cases, treatment beyond progression could play an important role in the treatment sequence of patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma and would seem to produce good disease control rates and positive survival outcomes. A careful evaluation of the radiological examinations and laboratory tests, based on the clinical conditions, allows the identification of which patients can benefit from this strategy. Such patients are those who, at the time of progression, have favourable features such as a lower performance status according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG-PS), normal lactate dehydrogenase levels and lower disease burden. The clinical benefit is also consolidated by the addition of locoregional approaches. Locoregional approaches can include electrochemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery, and their use provides local disease control and a better quality of life for patients.

Treatment Following Progression in Metastatic Melanoma: the State of the Art from Scientific Literature to Clinical Need.

INTRODUCTION: In the last few years, the advent of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has improved the management and the prognosis of metastatic melanoma, but the spread of resistance mechanisms can lead to disease progression. The clinical management in this setting can be challenging because the oncologist has to decide what is the best treatment strategy among therapy beyond progression (TBP), therapy change, and the rechallenge approach. This review of the relevant scientific literature is intended to clarify which patients with progressing metastatic melanoma will benefit from continuation of ongoing therapy and which ones will not. The data are based on a total of about 4300 patients coming from the main retrospective studies in the chosen field. The article body is divided into four sections which analyze respectively the targeted therapy beyond progression, the immunotherapy beyond progression, the possible treatment sequences, and finally the rechallenge strategy. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the possible approaches of TBP or rechallenge, the patient may not have an optimal response and may need new therapy, which is currently missing. To broaden the pharmacological offer in the fight against melanoma, cancer research is studying new disease targets, like the NRAS, PI3K, and cKIT pathways or combination treatment of targeted therapy plus immunotherapy. Despite the limitations of this work, mainly due to the limited number of studies, their retrospective nature and the lack of comparative studies, the analysis performed allows us to draw some important conclusions: therapy beyond progression, both targeted therapy and immunotherapy, represents a valid treatment option with positive effects on disease control and survival outcomes for patients with low clinical risk, expressed as low disease burden, normal LDH levels, and good performance status; moreover, the prognosis and quality of life of these patients improve when TBP is associated with locoregional treatments. In patients with progressive metastatic melanoma and high clinical risk (high disease burden, high LDH levels, and poor performance status), it is recommended to change therapy, without ever forgetting the possibility of enrolling the patient in a clinical trial. Finally, an efficacious treatment alternative is the rechallenge strategy; this approach consists in a re-treatment with the same drug after a variable interval of discontinuation. Preliminary studies seem to have demonstrated that patients retreated with targeted therapy achieved a greater benefit if they had a low clinical risk and if the drug doublet (BRAF + MEK inhibitors) was used. On the side of immunotherapy, the rechallenge strategy produced a major benefit in patients who prior experienced a severe toxic episode.

Treatment beyond progression with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based regimens in advanced solid tumors: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment beyond progression with immunotherapy may be appropriate in selected patients based on the potential for late responses. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the impact of treatment beyond progression in patients receiving an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 based regimen for an advanced solid tumor. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify prospective clinical trials reporting data on overall response rate by immune-related criteria and/or the number of patients treated beyond conventional criteria-defined PD and/or the number of patients achieving a clinical benefit after an initial PD with regimens including an anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agent which received the FDA approval for the treatment of an advanced solid tumor. RESULTS: 254 (4.6%) responses after an initial RECIST-defined progressive disease were observed among 5588 patients, based on 35 trials included in our analysis reporting this information. The overall rate of patients receiving treatment beyond progressive disease was 30.2%, based on data on 5334 patients enrolled in 36 trials, and the rate of patients who achieved an unconventional response among those treated beyond progressive disease was 19.7% (based on 25 trials for a total of 853 patients). CONCLUSION: The results of our systematic review support the clinical relevance of unconventional responses to anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based regimens; however, most publications provided only partial information regarding immune-related clinical activity, or did not provide any information at all, highlighting the need of a more comprehensive report of such data in trials investigating immunotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced tumors.

Progression Patterns, Treatment, and Prognosis Beyond Resistance of Responders to Immunotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, resistance is inevitable. The disease progression patterns, sequential treatment, and prognosis beyond ICI resistance are not completely understood. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed stage IV NSCLC patients who underwent ICI treatment at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital between January 2016 and January 2020 and who suffered disease progression after at least stable disease on immunotherapy for more than 3 months (at least two cycles). Oligoprogression and systematic progression were defined as previous reports. The main outcome measures were progression-free survival (PFS), second PFS (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Totally 1,014 NSCLC patients were administered immunotherapy. Of them, 208 NSCLC patients were included in this retrospective study. The estimated PFS, PFS2 and OS were 6.3 months (95% CI 5.6-7.0 months), 10.7 months (95% CI 10.1-12.7 months), and 21.4 months (95% CI 20.6-26.4 months), respectively. After resistance, 55.3% (N = 115) patients developed oligoprogression, and 44.7% (N = 93) systemic progression. For patients with systemic progression, chemotherapy (N = 35, 37.6%), best supportive care (N = 30, 32.3%), and antiangiogenic therapy alone (N = 11, 11.8%) were the major strategies. A combination of local radiotherapy (N = 38, 33.0%) with continued ICIs was the most common treatment used in oligoprogression group, followed by continued immunotherapy with antiangiogenic therapy (N = 19, 16.5%) and local radiotherapy only (N = 17, 14.9%). For patients with oligoprogression, continued immunotherapy plus local radiotherapy can lead to a significantly longer PFS2 (12.9 vs. 10.0 months; p = 0.006) and OS (26.3 vs. 18.5 months, p = 0.001). The PFS2 and OS of patients with oligoprogression were superior to those of patients with systemic progression (PFS2: 13.1 vs. 10.0 months, p = 0.001; OS: 25.8 vs. 19.1 months, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The major progression pattern after acquired resistance from immunotherapy is oligoprogression. Local radiotherapy with continued immunotherapy beyond oligoprogression in responders was feasible and led to prolonged PFS2 and OS in advanced NSCLC patients.

Nivolumab in previously treated advanced gastric cancer (ATTRACTION-2): 3-year update and outcome of treatment beyond progression with nivolumab.

BACKGROUND: ATTRACTION-2 demonstrated that nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) vs placebo in patients with advanced gastric cancer treated with ≥ 2 chemotherapy regimens. However, its long-term efficacy and outcome of treatment beyond progression (TBP) with nivolumab have not been clarified. METHODS: The 3-year follow-up data were collected. A subset analysis was performed to explore the efficacy of TBP by assessing postprogression survival (PPS) after the first event of disease progression. RESULTS: Overall, 493 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive nivolumab (n = 330) or placebo (n = 163). With a median follow-up of 38.5 (range 36.1-47.5) months, OS of the nivolumab group was significantly longer compared to the placebo group (median 5.3 vs 4.1 months; 3-year survival rate, 5.6% vs 1.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.75], P < 0.0001). The median OS of responders (n = 32) who achieved complete response or partial response was 26.7 months and the 3-year survival rate was 35.5% in the nivolumab group. Overall, 109 patients in the nivolumab group and 37 patients in the placebo group received TBP. PPS tended to be longer in the nivolumab group vs placebo group (median 5.8 vs 4.5 months; HR [95% CI], 0.69 [0.47-1.01], P = 0.057). In contrast, PPS was similar between both treatment groups in non-TBP patients (median 2.3 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.90, P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term efficacy of nivolumab was confirmed at the 3-year follow-up, and a survival benefit of TBP with nivolumab was suggested. Biomarkers for selecting patients suitable for TBP with nivolumab should be identified in the future.

Treatment beyond progression with chemo-immunotherapy in an advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patient: a case report.

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive and common malignancy in Asian countries. Due to late diagnosis and limited treatments, the prognosis of esophageal cancer is still very poor. Although immune checkpoint inhibitors have become promising second-line treatments for esophageal cancer, there are limited evidences for first-line treatments. Here, we reported a case of successful treatment beyond progression with chemo-immunotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Combined with local resection of several metastases during chemo-immunotherapy, the patient achieved a long survival time of 22 months and a good quality of life. Samples of the primary tumor and three metastases of testicle, skin nodule and left adrenal were obtained to perform whole exome sequencing (WES), RNA sequencing and immunohistochemistry. The skin nodule metastasis was resected after partial response, while the other two metastases of testicle and adrenal gland were removed after disease progression. Immunohistochemistry results exhibited low/negative PD-L1 expression and WES results showed intermediate TMB and MSI-L for all three lesions. However, RNA sequencing results presented a higher percentage of infiltrating CD8+ T cells, higher signature scores of T cell status and higher expression level of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes in skin nodule metastasis than the other two metastases. This case provided a clinical evidence of beneficial treatment beyond progression with chemo-immunotherapy for ESCC. In addition, tumor microenvironment might be essential for clinical responses at the sampling time point.

Favorable clinical outcomes of checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations after progression with immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Aim: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically changed the treatment paradigm in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, progression patterns with immunotherapy are currently unclear and therapeutic options beyond resistance remain challenging. Methods: We reviewed advanced NSCLC patients between January 2016 and December 2019 who were treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in our center and identified those who developed disease progression. Later-line treatment strategies were collected and objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: Of the 118 patients, 46 (39.0%) showed oligoprogression and 72 (61.0%) showed systemic progression. No difference in progression patterns was observed between monotherapy and combination therapy. Systemic progression was strongly associated with never-smokers (51.4% vs. 21.7%, P = 0.001) and ECOG PS = 2 (13.9% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.048) at baseline. The distribution of progression sites was roughly similar between oligoprogression and systemic progression, and the most commonly affected anatomic site was lung (66.9%), followed by bone (12.7%) and lymph nodes (11.0%). For patients beyond first disease progression, checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations could lead to a significantly longer PFS2 compared with ICIs monotherapy (9.63 months vs. 4.23 months, P = 0.004, HR = 0.394, 95%CI: 0.174-0.893) and other therapy (9.63 months vs. 4.07 months, P = 0.046, HR = 0.565, 95%CI: 0.326-0.980). Median OS of the ICIs combination group was not reached but was significantly longer than other therapy group (NR vs. 14.37 months, P = 0.010, HR = 0.332, 95%CI: 0.167-0.661). Conclusion: Systemic progression occurs more frequently among NSCLC patients receiving ICIs. Checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations show favorable outcomes as subsequent treatment strategies after the failure of previous ICIs treatment.

Immune Response Evaluation and Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Beyond Clinical Progression: Response Assessments for Cancer Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides a comprehensive assessment of recent literature reports describing atypical response patterns observed with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), modifications to response evaluation criteria for ICIs, and treatment beyond progression in clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Certain response patterns such as durable response, pseudoprogression, hyperprogression, and dissociated responses can be seen with ICI treatment. These patterns carry differing prognoses and are associated with varied factors. There are multiple modifications of standard Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) that have been proposed to better characterize immunotherapy response; however, standard RECIST1.1 remains most commonly used in clinical trials. Treatment beyond progression varies in frequency and benefit depending on assessment criteria and cancer type. Future research incorporating modified imaging criteria and biomarker assessments may serve to clarify who will benefit most from treatment beyond progression.

Treatment beyond progression with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: The treatment paradigm of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer has recently changed with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). It is common practice to continue treatment beyond progression (TBP) in selected cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate real life practice and outcomes related to TBP. Materials & methods: We retrospectively evaluated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with ICI therapy and identified patients who were treated beyond progression. Results: Of 207 patients included in this analysis, 22% patients received TBP. A total of 36% achieved a clinical benefit. A total of 27% patients had a progression-free interval over 6 months after receiving TBP. Conclusion: A subset of patients who were treated beyond progression with ICI achieved a clinically meaningful response with durable disease control.