Atypical Response Patterns in Patients Treated With Nivolumab.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Mar 27:1-5. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20938. [Epub ahead of print]
Thomas R1,2,3, Somarouthu B1,3, Alessandrino F1,2,3, Kurra V1,3, Shinagare AB1,2,3.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency of atypical response patterns in oncology patients treated with the programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitor nivolumab.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 254 patients treated with nivolumab alone or in combination, from January 2013 through August 2017. A blinded reader prospectively assessed treatment response. Among 166 patients (65%) who experienced a clinical benefit (defined as stable disease, partial response, or complete response as the best response), four response patterns were identified: pattern 1 is a decrease or less than 20% increase in the sum of the longest dimension (SLD) without a return to below the nadir, pattern 2 is a 10-19% increase in SLD with a return to below the nadir, pattern 3 is a 20% or greater increase in SLD with a return to below the nadir (classic pseudoprogression), and pattern 4 is the development of new lesions with a decrease in SLD lasting through at least two consecutive scans. Patterns 2, 3, and 4 were defined as atypical response patterns.
RESULTS: Of 166 patients who experienced a clinical benefit, pattern 1 was seen in 133 (80%), pattern 2 was seen in 15 (9%), pattern 3 was seen in two (1%), and pattern 4 was seen in 16 (10%) patients. Thus, atypical response patterns were seen in 33 (20%) patients who experienced a clinical benefit, including 25 of 91 (27%) taking nivolumab and ipilimumab combined, six of 46 (13%) taking nivolumab alone, and two of 29 (7%) taking a combination of nivolumab and another chemotherapeutic agent (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Although classic pseudoprogression was rare, an atypical response was seen in 20% of patients who experienced a clinical benefit, and a delayed response up to 24 months of therapy may be seen. Radiologists should be aware of these atypical patterns to avoid errors in response assessment.
Read Full Article Here: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20938