ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Real-world response assessment of immune checkpoint inhibition: comparing iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The benefit and risk of adding immunotherapy to chemoradiotherapy as the first-line treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Deep learning-based spatiotemporal estimation of lesion changes for patient-level assessment of breast cancer lung metastases on longitudinal CT.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Multifunctional nanoplatforms deciphering immune resistance in bone tumors: cooperative delivery, immune reprogramming and microenvironment remodeling.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Medical imaging in immunotherapy response evaluation: from RECIST to AI-driven longitudinal models, and the distinction between risk prediction and kinetic diagnosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- [iRECIST: assessment of immunotherapy response].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Continuing immune checkpoint inhibitors after pseudoprogression improves survival in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Monitoring Immunotherapy Response in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Current Evidence and Challenges: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Spatial transcriptomic profiling of metastatic renal cell carcinoma identifies chemokine-driven macrophage and CD8+ T-cell interactions predictive of immunotherapy response.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare immune response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (iRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1 for response assessment of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in a real-world setting in patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsTwo-hundred fifty-two patients with melanoma and NSCLC who received CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab or PD-1 inhibitors nivolumab or pembrolizumab and who underwent staging CT of the chest and abdomen were retrospectively included. Treatment response evaluation according to the RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST guidelines was performed for all patients. Response patterns, as well as overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and time to progression (TTP), were compared between RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST.
resultsOut of 143 patients with progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1, 48 (33.6%) did not attain confirmation of progression (iCPD) as per iRECIST and six patients who were treated beyond RECIST 1.1 progression reached PD at a later point in time in iRECIST, resulting in a significant difference in TTP between iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 (618.3 ± 626.9 days vs. 538.1 ± 617.9 days, respectively (p < 0.05)). The number of non-responders as per RECIST 1.1 was 79, whereas it was 60 when using iRECIST. ORR was 28.5% for RECIST 1.1 and 34.1% for iRECIST, and corresponding DCR of 67.4% for RECIST 1.1 and 74.6% for iRECIST.
conclusioniRECIST was more suitable than RECIST 1.1 for capturing atypical response patterns to ICI therapy in patients with melanoma and NSCLC, resulting in differences in the assessment of treatment response. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Compared to RECIST 1.1, iRECIST may improve patient care and treatment decisions for patients with NSCLC or melanoma who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical routine. KEY POINTS: RECIST 1.1 may incorrectly assess atypical treatment patterns to immune checkpoint inhibitors. iRECIST better captured atypical response patterns compared to RECIST 1.1. iRECIST was more suitable for assessing response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung carcinoma and melanoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.