Cited by 522Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management

Developing a common language for tumor response to immunotherapy: immune-related response criteria using unidimensional measurements

Open access
Nishino, Mizuki, Giobbie-Hurder, Anita, Gargano, Maria, Suda, Margaret, Ramaiya, Nikhil H., Hodi, F. Stephen·2013·Clinical Cancer Research

Abstract

PURPOSE: Immune-related response criteria (irRC) was developed to adequately assess tumor response to immunotherapy. The irRC are based on bidimensional measurements, as opposed to unidimensional measurements defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, which has been widely used in solid tumors. We aimed to compare response assessment by bidimensional versus unidimensional irRC in patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Fifty-seven patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab in a phase II, expanded access trial were studied. Bidimensional tumor measurement records prospectively conducted during the trial were reviewed to generate a second set of measurements using unidimensional, longest diameter measurements. The percent changes of measurements at follow-up, best overall response, and time-to-progression (TTP) were compared between bidimensional and unidimensional irRC. Interobserver variability for bidimensional and unidimensional measurements was assessed in 25 randomly selected patients. RESULTS: The percent changes at follow-up scans were highly concordant between the 2 criteria (Spearman r: 0.953-0.965, first to fourth follow-up). The best immune-related response was highly concordant between the 2 criteria (κw = 0.881). TTP was similar between the bidimensional and unidimensional assessments (progression-free at 6 months: 70% vs. 81%, respectively). The unidimensional measurements were more reproducible than bidimensional measurements, with the 95% limits of agreement of (-16.1%, 5.8%) versus (-31.3%, 19.7%), respectively. CONCLUSION: irRC using the unidimensional measurements provided highly concordant response assessment compared with the bidimensional irRC, with less measurement variability. The use of unidimensional irRC is proposed to assess response to immunotherapy in solid tumors, given its simplicity, higher reproducibility, and high concordance with the bidimensional irRC.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0895

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nishino, M., Giobbie-Hurder, A., Gargano, M., Suda, M., Ramaiya, N. H., & Hodi, F. S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Authors' Affiliations: Departments of 1Radiology and 2Medical Oncology and Department of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital; and 3Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
Corresponding author
Nishino, Mizuki
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2013-07-15
Volume
19
Issue
14
Pages
3936-3943
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
OpenAlex
W2153778867
Cited by
522
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 2
FWCI
13.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k23ca157631-02)
  • National Cancer Institute (K23-CA157631, 1K23CA157631)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Keywords
immune-related response criteria, tumor response assessment, immunotherapy, advanced melanoma, ipilimumab, interobserver variability, time to progression, best overall response, RECIST
MeSH terms
Ipilimumab, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Agents, Female, Humans, Immunotherapy, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Terminology as Topic, Models, Statistical, Treatment Outcome, Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic, Disease-Free Survival, Statistics, Nonparametric, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review