I've had this report in my file for a little while now, but since has gotten some new press, and it is a perennial question with anti-PD-1 patients....here you go....
Patients with melanoma treated with an anti-PD-1 antibody beyond RECIST progression: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis. Beaver, Hazarika, Mulkey, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jan 17.
Patients
who receive immunotherapeutic drugs might develop an atypical
response pattern, wherein they initially meet conventional response
criteria for progressive disease but later have decreases in tumour
burden. Such responses warrant further investigation into the
potential benefits and risks for patients who continue immunotherapy
beyond disease progression defined by the Response Evaluation
Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.
For this pooled analysis, we
included all submissions of trial reports and data to the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in support of marketing applications for
anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies (alone or in
combination) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or
metastatic melanoma that allowed for continuation of the antibody
beyond RECIST-defined progression in the anti-PD-1 group and were
approved by FDA before Jan 1, 2017. To investigate the effect of
treatment beyond progression in patients with metastatic melanoma and
to better characterise which of these patients would benefit from
extended treatment, we pooled individual patient data from patients
who received at least one dose of an anti-PD-1 antibody in the
included trials. We included any patient receiving the anti-PD-1
antibody after their RECIST-defined progression date in the treatment
beyond progression cohort and analysed them descriptively at baseline
and at time of progression versus the cohort not receiving treatment
beyond progression. We analysed the target lesion response after
progression in patients in the treatment beyond progression cohort
relative to progressive disease and baseline target lesion burden. We
defined a treatment beyond progression response as a decrease in
target lesion tumour burden (sum of the reference diameters) of at
least 30% from the burden at the time of RECIST-defined progression
that did not require confirmation at a subsequent assessment. We also
compared individual timepoint responses, overall survival, and
adverse events in the treatment beyond progression versus no
treatment beyond progression cohorts.
Among the eight multicentre
clinical trials meeting this study's inclusion criteria, we pooled
the data from 2624 patients receiving immunotherapy. 1361 (52%) had
progressive disease, of whom 692 (51%) received continued anti-PD-1
antibody treatment beyond RECIST-defined progression and 669 (49%)
did not. 95 (19%) of 500 patients in the treatment beyond
progresssion cohort with evaluable assessments had a 30% or more
decrease in tumour burden, when considering burden at RECIST-defined
progression as the reference point, representing 14% of the 692
patients treated beyond progression and 4% of all 2624 patients
treated with immunotherapy. Median overall survival in patients with
RECIST-defined progressive disease given anti-PD-1 antibody was
longer in the treatment beyond progression cohort (24·4 months) than in the cohort of patients who did not receive
treatment beyond progression (11·2 months). 362 (54%)
of 669 patients in the no treatment beyond progression cohort had a
serious adverse event up to 90 days after treatment discontinuation
compared with 295 (43%) of 692 patients in the treatment beyond
progression cohort. Immune-related adverse events that occurred up to
90 days from discontinuation were similar between the treatment
beyond progression cohort (78 [11%] of 692 patients) and the no
treatment beyond progression cohort (106 [16%] of 669).
Here is the new press, shared with me by the Edster, which gives some more explanation and perspective: OncLive: Analysis Explores Continuing Anti-PD-1 Therapy Past Progression in Melanoma Jason Harris Published: Friday, Feb 16, 2018
Sounds like Weber and Agarwala had it right all along: "Be patient with the patient!" - c
Thanks for putting this together.
ReplyDelete