Elsevier

The Lancet Oncology

Volume 18, Issue 3, March 2017, Pages e143-e152
The Lancet Oncology

Review
iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30074-8Get rights and content

Summary

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden—a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline—iRECIST—was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.

Introduction

Changes in tumour burden (termed response) are often used as surrogates of survival or quality of life;1 consequently, validated and consistent criteria for defining response to treatment are crucial. In 2000, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) working group simplified the 1981 WHO response criteria2 after validation in a large data warehouse.3 In 2009, RECIST was refined to RECIST version 1.1.4 The RECIST working group ensures that RECIST undergoes continuous testing, validation, and updates.5, 6, 7

Immune modulators are one of the most important classes of new anticancer therapeutics.8, 9, 10 Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed death-1 (PD-1), and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) pathways are the most intensively studied,11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and drugs that are active in these pathways have, since 2011, received marketing authorisation (for some drugs the authorisation is conditional, pending the completion of other studies) for melanoma, lung, bladder, renal, and head and neck cancer.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 The novel mechanism of action of these drugs, with immune and T-cell activation, is postulated to lead to unusual patterns of response that resemble tumour flare but are more pronounced and more frequent than previously described responses. In early trials of immune-based therapeutics in melanoma, investigators described unique response patterns, termed pseudoprogression. Some patients whose disease met the criteria for disease progression based on traditional response criteria such as RECIST (an increase in the sum of measures of target lesions, unequivocal increase in non-target disease, or the appearance of new lesions) were noted to have late but deep and durable responses.24, 25, 26, 27, 28 In 2009, modified response criteria based on WHO criteria (which include the collection of bidimensional measurements of target lesions) were proposed—the immune-related response criteria (irRC).29 The major modification involved the inclusion of the measurements of new target lesions (each must be at least 5 × 5 mm in size; with a maximum of ten visceral lesions in total, up to five new lesions per organ, and five new cutaneous lesions) into disease assessments. In 2013, researchers published revised irRC using unidimensional measurements based on the original RECIST.30 Subsequent recommendations, some published in abstract form, seem to incorporate RECIST 1.1 recommendations.31, 32, 33 These recommendations are often referred to as irRECIST, but have not always been consistently applied, leading to concerns about the comparability of data and results across trials, difficulty with pooling databases, and poor clarity regarding whether new lesions were measured, and if so, how many were captured, and whether measures were incorporated into tumour burden. Recent trials (since 2010) have generally used RECIST-based immune criteria to assess responses to immunotherapies.

Because of the need to standardise and validate response criteria, the RECIST working group prospectively planned to create a warehouse of data from trials of immunotherapeutics to test and validate RECIST 1.1 and suggest modifications if required. During the planning and initial collection of the immunotherapeutic warehouse, it was apparent that most trials testing these drugs have typically used RECIST 1.1 to define the primary and secondary efficacy-based endpoints, and reserved irRC or their modified definition of RECIST for exploratory endpoints.31, 32 Additionally, substantial variability in which criteria were used was seen across clinical trials within pharmaceutical companies and cooperative groups, leading to serious concerns about interpretation of pooled datasets. Finally, most trials that used immune-modified criteria used independent imaging review by a commercial entity for those criteria, rather than investigator assessments. We think that response criteria should be applicable across all cancer clinical trials, including those done in the academic sector, where costly independent review is not feasible.

On the basis of these observations, the RECIST working group decided to develop a guideline for the use of a modified RECIST to ensure consistent design and data collection that would facilitate the ongoing collection of clinical trial data and ultimate validation, if indicated, of a modified RECIST 1.1 for immune-based therapeutics (termed iRECIST). These guidelines are not intended to define or guide clinical practice or treatment decisions, but rather to provide a consistent framework for the management of data collected in clinical trials of immune-based therapies. Treatment decisions rest with the patient and their health-care team.

Section snippets

Terminology

iRECIST is based on RECIST 1.1. Responses assigned using iRECIST have a prefix of “i” (ie, immune)—eg, “immune” complete response (iCR) or partial response (iPR), and unconfirmed progressive disease (iUPD) or confirmed progressive disease (iCPD) to differentiate them from responses assigned using RECIST 1.1. Similar nomenclature is used for stable disease (iSD). New lesions are assessed and subcategorised into those that qualify as target lesions (new lesion, target) or non-target lesions (new

Development of the guideline

The RECIST working group formed a subcommittee and held a series of conference calls and face-to-face meetings in 2015 and 2016 to discuss plans for the development and validation of iRECIST (figure 1) and to review existing approaches to assess response in immune modulator trials, and also to identify points of consensus and items that needed further discussion. Members of the subcommittee included clinical, statistical, and imaging experts in methodology and immunotherapy, representatives

iRECIST

The continued use of RECIST 1.1 is recommended to define whether tumour lesions, including lymph nodes, are measurable or non-measurable, as well as for the management of bone lesions, cystic lesions, and lesions with previous local treatment (eg, radiotherapy; table 1). Similarly, no changes have been made to the recommendations regarding the method of measurement, although clinical examination and chest radiograph are rarely used, with the availability of more modern imaging techniques (eg,

Discussion: next steps and validation

Immunotherapeutics are a major advance in the treatment of an escalating number of cancers. The increasing testing and use of these drugs in multiple clinical settings, including adjuvant, first, second, and subsequent lines of therapy will require the use of progression-based endpoints. RECIST 1.1 might not always adequately capture the unique patterns of response that have been well described in clinical trials of these drugs in a low proportion of patients, typically reported as 10% or less,

Search strategy and selection criteria

This paper describes a consensus guideline, rather than a formal literature review. However, a database search was done using PubMed in August, 2016, with the following search terms: “immune response criteria” (limited to cancer, clinical trials, and publications in English language; 234 citations), “irRC” (23 citations), and “pseudoprogression” (limited to cancer, clinical trials, and pubications in English language; 39 citations).

For more on the RECIST working group see //www.eortc.org/recist/

References (35)

  • J Brahmer et al.

    Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer

    N Engl J Med

    (2015)
  • Drew M Pardoll

    The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy

    Nat Rev Cancer

    (2012)
  • P Sidaway

    Bladder cancer: atezolizumab effective against advanced-stage disease

    Nat Rev Urol

    (2016)
  • GE Holt et al.

    Immunotherapy as a strategy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

    Therapy

    (2011)
  • P Sharma et al.

    Novel cancer immunotherapy agents with survival benefit: recent successes and next steps

    Nat Rev Cancer

    (2011)
  • MA Postow et al.

    Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma

    N Engl J Med

    (2015)
  • TJ Lynch et al.

    Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multi-center phase II study

    J Clin Oncol

    (2012)
  • Cited by (1541)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text