Hyperprogression and pseudoprogression are two atypical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy that affect therapeutic decisions and prognosis. Identification of predictive biomarkers for atypical responses either before or during treatment remains a huge unmet need in cancer immunotherapy. Many studies have looked at potential biomarkers, including clinical factors and laboratory findings (e.g., peripheral blood counts, circulating tumor DNA, cytokine levels). The results of these studies have been inconsistent, possibly due to small sample sizes, different tumor types and heterogeneity of the definition of these atypical responses.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(4), 320–330 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(17), 1627–1639 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(14), 1277–1290 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Balar AV, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE et al. Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, Phase 2 trial. Lancet 389(10064), 67–76 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Seiwert TY, Burtness B, Mehra R et al. Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-012): an open-label, multicentre, Phase 1B trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(7), 956–965 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a Phase 1 trial. Lancet 384(9948), 1109–1117 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Champiat S, Ferrara R, Massard C et al. Hyperprogressive disease: recognizing a novel pattern to improve patient management. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15(12), 748–762 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Ferrara R, Mezquita L, Texier M et al. Hyperprogressive disease in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors or with single-agent chemotherapy. JAMA Oncol 4(11), 1543–1552 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Borcoman E, Nandikolla A, Long G, Goel S, Le Tourneau C. Patterns of response and progression to immunotherapy. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 38, 169–178 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Escudier B, Motzer RJ, Sharma P et al. Treatment beyond progression in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab in CheckMate 025. Eur. Urol. 72(3), 368–376 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R et al. 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 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Hoos A, Wolchok JD, Humphrey RW, Hodi FS. CCR 20th anniversary commentary: immune-related response criteria–capturing clinical activity in immuno-oncology. Clin. Cancer Res. 21(22), 4989–4991 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Champiat S, Dercle L, Ammari S et al. Hyperprogressive disease is a new pattern of progression in cancer patients treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Clin. Cancer Res. 23(8), 1920–1928 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Kato S, Goodman A, Walavalkar V, Barkauskas DA, Sharabi A, Kurzrock R. Hyperprogressors after immunotherapy: analysis of genomic alterations associated with accelerated growth rate. Clin Cancer Res 23(15), 4242–4250 (2017). • Next generation sequencing of 155 tumors to detect mutations more common in hyperprogression. MDM2/MDM4 amplifications were found in six patients, with all sic having time-to-treatment failure <2 months and four with hyperprogression.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Saada-Bouzid E, Defaucheux C, Karabajakian A et al. Hyperprogression during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 28(7), 1605–1611 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Weiss GJ, Beck J, Braun DP et al. Tumor cell-free DNA copy number instability predicts therapeutic response to immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 23(17), 5074–5081 (2017). •• cfDNA chromosomal number instability score changes used to predict progression. In five of the six cases of hyperprogression, the CNI score predicted progression at an earlier time (∼6 to 9 weeks) compared with routine imaging.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Zuazo-Ibarra M, Arasanz H, Fernandez-Hinojal G et al. Highly differentiated CD4 T cells unequivocally identify primary resistance and risk of hyperprogression to PD-L1/PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade in lung cancer. bioRxiv (2018). • In NSCLC, a baseline low % THD cells was present in seven of seven patients with hyperprogression versus only six of 14 patients with standard progression. Post cycle 1 of immunotherapy, there was an increase in the % THD cells from baseline in all seven patients with hyperprogression versus only half of the patients with standard progression.
Google Scholar
18. Kanjanapan Y, Day D, Wang L et al. Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) in early-phase immunotherapy (IO) trials. Presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL, USA (2018).
Google Scholar
19. Kim Y, Kim CH, Kim HS et al. Hyperprogression after immunotherapy: clinical implication and genomic alterations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients (NSCLC). Presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL, USA 2018.
Google Scholar
20. Elias R, Giobbie-Hurder A, McCleary NJ, Ott P, Hodi FS, Rahma O. Efficacy of PD-1 & PD-L1 inhibitors in older adults: a meta-analysis. J. Immunother. Cancer 6(1), 26 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Conforti F, Pala L, Bagnardi V et al. Cancer immunotherapy efficacy and patients’ sex: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 19(6), 737–746 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Proctor MJ, McMillan DC, Morrison DS, Fletcher CD, Horgan PG, Clarke SJ. A derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in patients with cancer. Br. J. Cancer 107(4), 695–699 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Sacdalan DB, Lucero JA, Sacdalan DL. Prognostic utility of baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a review and meta-analysis. Onco. Targets Ther. 11, 955–965 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Occhipinti M, Falcone R, Onesti CE, Marchetti P. Hyperprogressive disease and early hypereosinophilia after anti-PD-1 treatment: a case report. Drug Saf. Case Rep. 5(1), 12 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Weide B, Martens A, Hassel JC et al. Baseline biomarkers for outcome of melanoma patients treated with pembrolizumab. Clin. Cancer Res. 22(22), 5487–5496 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Kato S, Ross JS, Gay L et al. Analysis of MDM2 Amplification: next-generation sequencing of patients with diverse malignancies. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2018, doi:10.1200/PO.17.00235 (2018).
Google Scholar
27. Singavi AK, Menon S, Kilari D et al. 1140PDPredictive biomarkers for hyper-progression (HP) in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) – analysis of somatic alterations (SAs). Ann. Oncol. 28(Suppl. 5), v403–v427 (2017).
Google Scholar
28. Li L, Zhang J, Jiang X, Li Q. Promising clinical application of ctDNA in evaluating immunotherapy efficacy. Am. J. Cancer Res. 8(10), 1947–1956 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Mcclelland SE. Role of chromosomal instability in cancer progression. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 24(9), T23–T31 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Di Giacomo AM, Danielli R, Guidoboni M et al. Therapeutic efficacy of ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody, in patients with metastatic melanoma unresponsive to prior systemic treatments: clinical and immunological evidence from three patient cases. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 58(8), 1297–1306 (2009).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Chiou VL, Burotto M. Pseudoprogression and immune-related response in solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(31), 3541–3543 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Wang Q, Gao J, Wu X. Pseudoprogression and hyperprogression after checkpoint blockade. Int. Immunopharmacol. 58, 125–135 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Queirolo P, Spagnolo F. Atypical responses in patients with advanced melanoma, lung cancer, renal-cell carcinoma and other solid tumors treated with anti-PD-1 drugs: a systematic review. Cancer Treat. Rev. 59, 71–78 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Fujimoto D, Yoshioka H, Kataoka Y et al. Pseudoprogression in previously treated patients with non-small cell lung cancer who received nivolumab monotherapy. J. Thorac. Oncol. 14(3), 468–474 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Wolchok JD, Hoos A, O'Day S et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of immune therapy activity in solid tumors: immune-related response criteria. Clin. Cancer Res. 15(23), 7412–7420 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A et al. iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol. 18(3), e143–e152 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Lee JH, Long GV, Menzies AM et al. Association between circulating tumor DNA and pseudoprogression in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-programmed cell death 1 antibodies. JAMA Oncol 4(5), 717–721 (2018). •• Monitoring ctDNA levels in BRAF or NRAS mutated melanoma was useful in differentiating pseudoprogression from true progression. All nine of the patients with pseudoprogression had a favorable ctDNA profile versus only two of the 20 patients with true progression.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. George S, Motzer RJ, Hammers HJ et al. 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 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Long GV, Weber JS, Larkin J et al. Nivolumab for patients with advanced melanoma treated beyond progression: analysis of 2 Phase 3 clinical trials. JAMA Oncol 3(11), 1511–1519 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Guibert N, Mazieres J, Delaunay M et al. Monitoring of KRAS-mutated ctDNA to discriminate pseudo-progression from true progression during anti-PD-1 treatment of lung adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget 8(23), 38056–38060 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Matsuo N, Azuma K, Hattori S et al. Association between soluble immune mediators and tumor responses in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer treated with anti-PD-1 inhibitor. Int J Cancer 144(5), 1170–1179 (2019). • Decreasing plasma levels of CXCL2 and increasing levels of MMP2 were both associated with improved progression-free survival in NSCLC. All three patients with pseudoprogression had continuous decrease in CXCL2 levels and two had continuous increase in MMP2 levels, suggesting these tests may be helpful in determining pseudoprogression versus true progression.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Zhang H, Ye YL, Li MX et al. CXCL2/MIF-CXCR2 signaling promotes the recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and is correlated with prognosis in bladder cancer. Oncogene 36(15), 2095–2104 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Waugh DJ, Wilson C. The interleukin-8 pathway in cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 14(21), 6735–6741 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Sanmamed MF, Perez-Gracia JL, Schalper KA et al. Changes in serum interleukin-8 (IL-8) levels reflect and predict response to anti-PD-1 treatment in melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 28(8), 1988–1995 (2017). • In melanoma and NSCLC, serum IL-8 levels correlated well with progression (increase) or stable disease/objective response (decrease). All three patients with pseudoprogression had decreased IL-8 levels during treatment.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Dronca RS, Liu X, Harrington SM et al. T cell Bim levels reflect responses to anti-PD-1 cancer therapy. JCI Insight 1(6), pii:e86014 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 15, No. 22

Metrics

Downloaded 771 times

History

Received 29 March 2019

Accepted 7 June 2019

Published online 12 July 2019

Published in print August 2019

Information

Keywords

Authors' contributions

All the authors contributed significantly to the search, review and interpretation of the relevant literature for this review article, as well as in the drafting and revising of the manuscript.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Biomarkers of hyperprogression and pseudoprogression with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

Abstract

References