Background: Pseudoprogression is difficult to diagnose in patients undergoing immunotherapy. Subjective response assessment is still common in clinical practice.
Purpose: To evaluate the differences between response evaluation criteria in solid tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), immune-related response criteria (irRC), and modified RECIST 1.1 for immunotherapy (iRECIST) through semi-automatic software, and to compare iRECIST-based response evaluation with subjective assessment.
Material and methods: The best overall response of each patient based on RECIST 1.1, irRC, and iRECIST was determined on CT scans through semi-automatic software and the differences between the criteria were evaluated. Criteria-based response evaluation through semi-automatic software was compared with subjective assessment on radiology report by correlating the best overall response to overall survival.
Results: A total of 21 patients were included (five patients with melanoma, 12 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, and four patients with hepatocellular carcinoma). Two patients with progressive disease by RECIST 1.1 but non-progressive disease by irRC and iRECIST eventually experienced tumor response and had favorable outcomes, indicating pseudoprogression. The survival difference between patients with non-progressive disease and progressive disease was better stratified through iRECIST-based response evaluation (P = 0.078) than that through subjective assessment (P = 0.501).
Conclusion: Pseudoprogression in immunotherapy may be captured through semi-automatic software utilizing irRC or iRECIST criteria. iRECIST-based response evaluation may provide a better survival stratification compared with subjective assessment.
Keywords: Immunotherapy; immune-related response criteria (irRC); pseudoprogression; response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST); semi-automatic software.