Objectives: A small subset of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors manifest atypical patterns of response, the so-called pseudoprogression (PP) and hyperprogression (HP). Their prevalence in urothelial (UC) and renal cancer (RCC) remains, to date, mostly uninvestigated. Therefore, we aimed to provide a summary of the current knowledge about PP and HP during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in UC and RCC patients.
Methods and materials: A systematic medline/pubmed© literature search was performed. The atypical patterns of response to systemic immunotherapy were reviewed. Endpoints were PP and HP in UC and RCC.
Results: Tumors respond differently to immunotherapy compared to systemic chemotherapy. To evaluate response to immunotherapy, new guidelines (iRECIST) have been developed. To date, no studies focused on PP in UC and RCC, and the only way to evaluate its role is to take patients who respond to treatment beyond progression as surrogate for pseudoprogressors. PP seems to occur in a non-negligible rate of UC and RCC (from 1.5 to 17% and from 5 to 15%, respectively). The concept of HP, defined as a rapid progression after treatment, just took the first steps, and therefore, data from ongoing trials are awaited to elucidate its impact in genitourinary cancers.
Conclusions: PP and HP are not uncommon entities in UC and RCC patients, treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Further investigation is warranted to define which patients are likely to experience PP and could benefit from treatment beyond progression and which ones will instead rapidly experience progression despite treatment and should, therefore, avoid systemic immunotherapy.
Keywords: Checkpoint inhibitor; Hyperprogression; Immunotherapy; Pseudoprogression; Treatment beyond progression.