Cargando…

Letter to the Editor from Colle et al

In their article, Fucà et al highlight that early tumor shrinkage and depth of response predict the prognosis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) microsatellite instability (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We are surprised that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Colle, Raphael, Andre, Thierry, Menu, Yves
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8231023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34162716
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2021-002997
_version_ 1783713337688719360
author Colle, Raphael
Andre, Thierry
Menu, Yves
author_facet Colle, Raphael
Andre, Thierry
Menu, Yves
author_sort Colle, Raphael
collection PubMed
description In their article, Fucà et al highlight that early tumor shrinkage and depth of response predict the prognosis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) microsatellite instability (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We are surprised that no cases of pseudoprogression (PSPD) were reported in their study. PSPDs were described under ICI in patients treated for MSI/dMMR mCRC. In a cohort of 123 patients treated with anti-PD1±antiCTL-4 for MSI/dMMR mCRC, we reported 12 patients with PSPD, representing 10% of the cohort. Of 12 patients with PSPD, 8 secondary achieved an objective response and were alive and free of progression at the data lock. Conversely, in Fucà’s article, no PSDP was observed and the patients with primary radiological progression (21.7%) had a poor overall survival. These differences between the two series could be probably explained by the following points. First, Fucà et al use RECIST 1.1 criteria for radiological evaluation. Second, the first imaging was done after 8–9 weeks of treatment in Fucà’s article, which may be late to detect PSPD. In conclusion, if the first evaluation is made during the first 3 months of treatment, using iRECIST criteria seems mandatory to avoid stopping treatment prematurely, especially in patients receiving anti-PD1 alone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8231023
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82310232021-07-09 Letter to the Editor from Colle et al Colle, Raphael Andre, Thierry Menu, Yves J Immunother Cancer Commentary In their article, Fucà et al highlight that early tumor shrinkage and depth of response predict the prognosis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) microsatellite instability (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) treated by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). We are surprised that no cases of pseudoprogression (PSPD) were reported in their study. PSPDs were described under ICI in patients treated for MSI/dMMR mCRC. In a cohort of 123 patients treated with anti-PD1±antiCTL-4 for MSI/dMMR mCRC, we reported 12 patients with PSPD, representing 10% of the cohort. Of 12 patients with PSPD, 8 secondary achieved an objective response and were alive and free of progression at the data lock. Conversely, in Fucà’s article, no PSDP was observed and the patients with primary radiological progression (21.7%) had a poor overall survival. These differences between the two series could be probably explained by the following points. First, Fucà et al use RECIST 1.1 criteria for radiological evaluation. Second, the first imaging was done after 8–9 weeks of treatment in Fucà’s article, which may be late to detect PSPD. In conclusion, if the first evaluation is made during the first 3 months of treatment, using iRECIST criteria seems mandatory to avoid stopping treatment prematurely, especially in patients receiving anti-PD1 alone. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8231023/ /pubmed/34162716 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2021-002997 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Commentary
Colle, Raphael
Andre, Thierry
Menu, Yves
Letter to the Editor from Colle et al
title Letter to the Editor from Colle et al
title_full Letter to the Editor from Colle et al
title_fullStr Letter to the Editor from Colle et al
title_full_unstemmed Letter to the Editor from Colle et al
title_short Letter to the Editor from Colle et al
title_sort letter to the editor from colle et al
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8231023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34162716
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2021-002997
work_keys_str_mv AT colleraphael lettertotheeditorfromcolleetal
AT andrethierry lettertotheeditorfromcolleetal
AT menuyves lettertotheeditorfromcolleetal