Imaging of tumour response to immunotherapy.

A wide range of cancer immunotherapy approaches has been developed including non-specific immune-stimulants such as cytokines, cancer vaccines, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and adoptive T cell therapy. Among them, ICIs are the most commonly used and intensively studied. Since 2011, these drugs have received marketing authorisation for melanoma, lung, bladder, renal, and head and neck cancers, with remarkable and long-lasting treatment response in some patients. The novel mechanism of action of ICIs, with immune and T cell activation, leads to unusual patterns of response on imaging, with the advent of so-called pseudoprogression being more pronounced and frequently observed when compared to other anticancer therapies. Pseudoprogression, described in about 2-10% of patients treated with ICIs, corresponds to an increase of tumour burden and/or the appearance of new lesions due to infiltration by activated T cells before the disease responds to therapy. To overcome the limitation of response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) to assess these specific changes, new imaging criteria-so-called immune-related response criteria and then immune-related RECIST (irRECIST)-were proposed. The major modification involved the inclusion of the measurements of new target lesions into disease assessments and the need for a 4-week re-assessment to confirm or not confirm progression. The RECIST working group introduced the new concept of "unconfirmed progression", into the irRECIST. This paper reviews current immunotherapeutic approaches and summarises radiologic criteria to evaluate new patterns of response to immunotherapy. Furthermore, imaging features of immunotherapy-related adverse events and available predictive biomarkers of response are presented

Tumor response assessment on imaging following immunotherapy.

In recent years, various systemic immunotherapies have been developed for cancer treatment, such as monoclonal antibodies (mABs) directed against immune checkpoints (immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICIs), oncolytic viruses, cytokines, cancer vaccines, and adoptive cell transfer. While being estimated to be eligible in 38.5% of patients with metastatic solid or hematological tumors, ICIs, in particular, demonstrate durable disease control across many oncologic diseases (e.g., in melanoma, lung, bladder, renal, head, and neck cancers) and overall survival benefits. Due to their unique mechanisms of action based on T-cell activation, response to immunotherapies is characterized by different patterns, such as progression prior to treatment response (pseudoprogression), hyperprogression, and dissociated responses following treatment. Because these features are not encountered in the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), which is the standard for response assessment in oncology, new criteria were defined for immunotherapies. The most important changes in these new morphologic criteria are, firstly, the requirement for confirmatory imaging examinations in case of progression, and secondly, the appearance of new lesions is not necessarily considered a progressive disease. Until today, five morphologic (immune-related response criteria (irRC), immune-related RECIST (irRECIST), immune RECIST (iRECIST), immune-modified RECIST (imRECIST), and intra-tumoral RECIST (itRECIST)) criteria have been developed to accurately assess changes in target lesion sizes, taking into account the specific response patterns after immunotherapy. In addition to morphologic response criteria, 2-deoxy-2-[ <sup>18</sup> F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ( <sup>18</sup> F-FDG-PET/CT) is a promising option for metabolic response assessment and four metabolic criteria are used (PET/CT Criteria for Early Prediction of Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy (PECRIT), PET Response Evaluation Criteria for Immunotherapy (PERCIMT), immunotherapy-modified PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (imPERCIST5), and immune PERCIST (iPERCIST)). Besides, there is evidence that parameters on <sup>18</sup> F-FDG-PET/CT, such as the standardized uptake value (SUV)max and several radiotracers, e.g., directed against PD-L1, may be potential imaging biomarkers of response. Moreover, the emerge of human intratumoral immunotherapy (HIT-IT), characterized by the direct injection of immunostimulatory agents into a tumor lesion, has given new importance to imaging assessment. This article reviews the specific imaging patterns of tumor response and progression and available imaging response criteria following immunotherapy

Preoperative hiatal hernia in esophageal adenocarcinoma; does it have an impact on patient outcomes?

The impact of hiatal hernia (HH) on oncologic outcomes of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (AC) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of pre-existing HH (≥3 cm) on histologic response after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). All consecutive patients with oncological esophagectomy for AC from 2012 to 2018 in our center were eligible for assessment. Categorical variables were compared with the X <sup>2</sup> or Fisher's test, continuous ones with the Mann-Whitney-U test, and survival with the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test. Overall, 101 patients were included; 33 (32.7%) had a pre-existing HH. There were no baseline differences between HH and non-HH patients. NAT was used in 81.8% HH and 80.9% non-HH patients (p = 0.910), most often chemoradiation (63.6% and 57.4% respectively, p = 0.423). Good response to NAT (TRG 1-2) was observed in 36.4% of HH versus 32.4% of non-HH patients (p = 0.297), whereas R0 resection was achieved in 90.9% versus 94.1% respectively (p = 0.551). Three-year OS was comparable for the two groups (52.4% in HH, 56.5% in non-HH patients, p = 0.765), as was 3-year DFS (32.7% for HH versus 45.6% for non-HH patients, p = 0.283). HH ≥ 3 cm are common in patients with esophageal AC, concerning 32.7% of all patients in this series. However, its presence was neither associated with more advanced disease upon diagnosis, worse response to NAT, nor overall and disease-free survival. Therefore, such HH should not be considered as risk factor that negatively affects oncological outcome after multimodal treatment of esophageal AC

First communication on the efficacy of combined ¹⁷⁷Lutetium-PSMA with immunotherapy outside prostate cancer.

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy is a validated treatment option for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Although PSMA expression is not limited to prostate tissue, little is known about its relevance to other types of cancer. Here, we present a case report of a patient with uterine leiomyosarcoma that is progressing while on immunotherapy and treated with <sup>177</sup> Lu-PSMA radionuclide therapy. We report for the first time that <sup>177</sup> Lu-PSMA radionuclide therapy combined with immunotherapy outside of prostate cancer. We did observe post-treatment reduction of tumor growth rate, although we did not notice disease response based on RECIST criteria. We suggest that <sup>177</sup> Lu-PSMA treatment especially combined with immunotherapy may be an option for patients with cancer without other therapeutic options. Insights: <sup>177</sup> Lu-PSMA radionuclide therapy should be considered for any tumor stained positive for PSMA

Tumor growth rate as a metric of progression, response, and prognosis in pancreatic and intestinal neuroendocrine tumors.

Lanreotide depot/autogel antitumor activity in intestinal/pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) was demonstrated in the phase-3 CLARINET study (NCT00353496), based on significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo. During CLARINET, patients with metastatic intestinal/pancreatic NETs received lanreotide depot/autogel 120 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 96 weeks. Imaging data (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors [RECIST] v1.0, centrally reviewed) were re-evaluated in this post hoc analysis of tumor growth rate (TGR) in NETs. TGR (%/month) was calculated from two imaging scans during relevant periods: pre-treatment (TGR <sub>0</sub> ); 12-24 weeks before randomization versus baseline; each treatment visit versus baseline (TGR <sub>Tx-0</sub> ); between consecutive treatment visits (TGR <sub>Tx-Tx</sub> ). To assess TGR as a measure of prognosis, PFS was compared for TGR <sub>0</sub> subgroups stratified by optimum TGR <sub>0</sub> cut-off; a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify prognostic factors for PFS. TGR <sub>0</sub> revealed tumors growing during pre-treatment (median [interquartile range] TGR <sub>0</sub> : lanreotide 2.1%/month [0.2; 6.1]; placebo 2.7%/month [0.15; 6.8]), contrary to RECIST status. TGR was significantly reduced by 12 weeks with lanreotide versus placebo (difference in least-square mean TGR <sub>0-12</sub> of - 2.9 [- 5.1, - 0.8], p = 0.008), a difference that was maintained at most subsequent visits. TGR <sub>0</sub>  > 4%/month had greater risk of progression/death than ≤4%/month (hazard ratio 4.1; [95% CI 2.5-6.5]; p < 0.001); multivariate analysis revealed lanreotide treatment, progression at baseline, TGR <sub>0</sub> , hepatic tumor load, and primary tumor type were independently associated with PFS. TGR provides valuable information on tumor activity and prognosis in patients with metastatic intestinal/pancreatic NETs, and identifies early lanreotide depot/autogel antitumor activity. Retrospective registration, 18 July 2006; EudraCT: 2005-004904-35; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00353496