Imaging-guided prognostic score-based approach to assess the benefits of combotherapy versus monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic MSI-H colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study determined survival responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), comparing mono- (mono) and combo-immunotherapy (combo) in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) by analyzing quantitative imaging data and clinical factors. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients were included from two centers and divided into training (n = 105) and validation (n = 45) cohorts. Radiologists manually annotated chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography and calculated tumor burden. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed, and variables were selected through Recursive Feature Elimination. Cutoff values were determined using maximally selected rank statistics to binarize features, forming a risk score with hazard ratio-derived weights. RESULTS: In total, 2258 lesions were annotated with excellent reproducibility. Key variables in the training cohort included: total tumor volume (cutoff: 73 cm3), lesion count (cutoff: 20), age (cutoff: 60) and the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Their respective weights were 1.13, 0.96, 0.91, and 0.38, resulting in a risk score cutoff of 1.36. Low-score patients showed similar overall survival and PFS regardless of treatment, while those with a high-score had significantly worse survivals with mono vs combo (P = 0.004 and P = 0.0001). In the validation set, low-score patients exhibited no significant difference in overall survival and PFS with mono or combo. However, patients with a high-score had worse PFS with mono (P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: A score based on total tumor volume, lesion count, the presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis, and age can guide MSI-H mCRC treatment decisions, allowing oncologists to identify suitable candidates for mono and combo ICI therapies.

Better than RECIST and Faster than iRECIST: Defining the Immunotherapy Progression Decision Score to Better Manage Progressive Tumors on Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study is to propose the immunotherapy progression decision (iPD) score, a practical tool based on patient features that are available at the first evaluation of immunotherapy treatment, to help oncologists decide whether to continue the treatment or switch rapidly to another therapeutic line when facing a progressive disease patient at the first evaluation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This retrospective study included 107 patients with progressive disease at first evaluation according to RECIST 1.1. Clinical, radiological, and biological data at baseline and first evaluation were analyzed. An external validation set consisting of 31 patients with similar baseline characteristics was used for the validation of the score. RESULTS: Variables were analyzed in a univariate study. The iPD score was constructed using only independent variables, each considered as a worsening factor for the survival of patients. The patients were stratified in three groups: good prognosis (GP), poor prognosis (PP), and critical prognosis (CP). Each group showed significantly different survivals (GP: 11.4, PP: 4.4, CP: 2.3 months median overall survival, P < 0.001, log-rank test). Moreover, the iPD score was able to detect the pseudoprogressors better than other scores. On the validation set, CP patients had significantly worse survival than PP and GP patients (P < 0.05, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: The iPD score provides oncologists with a new evaluation, computable at first progression, to decide whether treatment should be continued (for the GP group), or immediately changed for the PP and CP groups. Further validation on larger cohorts is needed to prove its efficacy in clinical practice.