Pushing the limits of immune-related response: a case of “extreme pseudoprogression”

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 67 - Trang 1105-1111 - 2018
Alvin S. Wong1, Yee-Liang Thian2, Jeevesh Kapur2, Cheng-Nang Leong3, Patrick Kee4, Chun-Tsu Lee1, Martin B. Lee5
1Department of Hematology-Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
2Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
3Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
4Hospice Care Association, Singapore, Singapore
5Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore

Tóm tắt

The advent of immune checkpoint targeted immunotherapy has seen a spectrum of immune-related phenomena in both tumor responses and toxicities. We describe a case of pseudoprogression that pushes the limits of immune-related response criteria and challenges the boundaries and definitions set by trial protocols. A middle-aged man with conventional clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had received multiple prior systemic treatments including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as multiple surgeries and radiotherapy treatments. He was eventually started on nivolumab—the anti-programmed death receptor-1 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of advanced RCC. Clinical deterioration was observed soon after a 100 mg dose of nivolumab, with onset of acute renal failure and declining performance status. Radiologic progression was documented in multiple sites including worsening tumor infiltration of his residual kidney. The patient was on palliative treatment and visited by the home hospice team in an end-of-life situation. The patient unexpectedly improved and went on to achieve a durable tumor response. The case is illustrative of an extreme manifestation of pseudoprogression, and impels us to probe the assumptions and controversies surrounding this phenomenon.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Ascierto PA, Vanella V, Grimaldi AM, Lucia F, Palla M, Simeone E, Mozillo N (2016) Complete response to nivolumab monotherapy in a treatment-naïve, BRAF wild-type patient with advanced mucosal melanoma and elevated lactate dehydrogenase: a case report from a phase III trial. Cancer Immunol Immunother 65(11):1395–1400 Grimaldi AM, Simeone E, Giannarelli D, Muto P, Falivene S, Borzillo V, Giugliano FM, Sandomenico F, Petrillo A, Curvietto M et al (2014) Abscopal effects of radiotherapy on advanced melanoma patients who progressed after ipilimumab immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology 3:e28780 Owonikoko TK, Kumar M, Yang S, Kamphorst AO, Pillai RN, Akondy R, Nautiyal V, Chatwal MS, Book WM, Sahu A et al (2017) Cardiac allograft rejection as a complication of PD‑1 checkpoint blockade for cancer immunotherapy: a case report. Cancer Immunol Immunother 66(1):45–50 Martin-Liberal J, Furness AJ, Joshi K, Peggs KS, Quezada SA, Larkin J (2015) Anti-programmed cell death-1 therapy and insulin-dependent diabetes: a case report. Cancer Immunol Immunother 64(6):765–767 Chiou VL, Burotto M (2015) Pseudoprogression and immune-related response in solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 33(31):3541–3543 Kato S, Goodman A, Walavalkar V, Barkauskas DA, Sharabi A, Kurzrock R (2017) Hyperprogressors after immunotherapy: analysis of genomic alterations associated with accelerated growth rate. Clin Cancer Res 23(15):4242–4250 Nishino M (2016) Immune-related response evaluations during immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapy: establishing a “common language” for the new arena of cancer treatment. J Immunother Cancer 4:30 Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, Ford R, Schwartz LH, Mandrekar S, Lin NU, Litière S, Dancey J, Chen A et al (2017) iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 18(3):e143-e152 Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Weber JS, Daud A, Hamid O, Patnaik A, Ribas A, Robert C, Gangadhar TC et al (2016) Evaluation of immune-related response criteria and RECIST v1.1 in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. J Clin Oncol 34(13):1510–1517 Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O’Day S, Weber JS, Hamid O, Lebbé C, Maio M, Binder M, Bohnsack O, Nichol G et al (2009) Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin Cancer Res 15(23):7412–7420 Ebos JM, Lee CR, Cruz-Munoz W, Bjarnason GA, Christensen JG, Kerbel RS (2009) Accelerated metastasis after short-term treatment with a potent inhibitor of tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Cell 15(3):232–239 Iacovelli R, Massari F, Albiges L, Loriot Y, Massard C, Fizazi K, Escudier B (2015) Evidence and clinical relevance of tumor flare in patients who discontinue tyrosine kinase inhibitors for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 68(1):154–160 George S, Motzer RJ, Hammers HJ, Redman BG, Kuzel TM, Tykodi SS, Plimack ER, Jiang J, Waxman IM, Rini BI (2016) Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated beyond progression: a subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2(9):1179–1186 Escudier B, Motzer RJ, Sharma P, Wagstaff J, Plimack ER, Hammers HJ, Donskov F, Gurney H, Sosman JA, Zalewski PG et al (2017) Treatment beyond progression in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab in CheckMate 025. Eur Urol 72(3):368–376 Long GV, Weber JS, Larkin J, Atkinson V, Grob JJ, Schadendorf D, Dummer R, Robert C, Márquez-Rodas I, McNeil C et al (2017) Nivolumab for patients with advanced melanoma treated beyond progression: analysis of 2 phase 3 clinical trials. JAMA Oncol 3(11):1511–1519