Objective: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has shown activity against melanoma brain metastases. Recently, promising results have also been reported for ICI combination therapy and ICI combined with radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate radiologic response and adverse event rates of these therapeutic options by a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed up to October 12, 2019 and included studies evaluating the intracranial objective response rates (ORRs) and/or disease control rates (DCRs) of ICI with or without radiotherapy for treating melanoma brain metastases. We also evaluated safety-associated outcomes. Results: Eleven studies with 14 cohorts (3 with ICI combination therapy; 5 with ICI combined with radiotherapy; 6 with ICI monotherapy) were included. ICI combination therapy {pooled ORR, 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44–61%); DCR, 57% (95% CI, 49–66%)} and ICI combined with radiotherapy (pooled ORR, 42% [95% CI, 31–54%]; DCR, 85% [95% CI, 63–95%]) showed higher local efficacy compared to ICI monotherapy (pooled ORR, 15% [95% CI, 11–20%]; DCR, 26% [95% CI, 21– 32%]). The grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate was significantly higher with ICI combination therapy (60%; 95% CI, 52–67%) compared to ICI monotherapy (11%; 95% CI, 8–17%) and ICI combined with radiotherapy (4%; 95% CI, 1–19%). Grade 3 or 4 central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse event rates were not different (9% in ICI combination therapy; 8% in ICI combined with radiotherapy; 5% in ICI monotherapy). Conclusion ICI combination therapy or ICI combined with radiotherapy showed better local efficacy than ICI monotherapy for treating melanoma brain metastasis. The grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate was highest with ICI combination therapy, and the CNS-related grade 3 or 4 event rate was similar. Prospective trials will be necessary to compare the efficacy of ICI combination therapy and ICI combined with radiotherapy.

Objective: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has shown activity against melanoma brain metastases. Recently, promising results have also been reported for ICI combination therapy and ICI combined with radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate radiologic response and adverse event rates of these therapeutic options by a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed up to October 12, 2019 and included studies evaluating the intracranial objective response rates (ORRs) and/or disease control rates (DCRs) of ICI with or without radiotherapy for treating melanoma brain metastases. We also evaluated safety-associated outcomes. Results: Eleven studies with 14 cohorts (3 with ICI combination therapy; 5 with ICI combined with radiotherapy; 6 with ICI monotherapy) were included. ICI combination therapy {pooled ORR, 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44–61%); DCR, 57% (95% CI, 49–66%)} and ICI combined with radiotherapy (pooled ORR, 42% [95% CI, 31–54%]; DCR, 85% [95% CI, 63–95%]) showed higher local efficacy compared to ICI monotherapy (pooled ORR, 15% [95% CI, 11–20%]; DCR, 26% [95% CI, 21– 32%]). The grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate was significantly higher with ICI combination therapy (60%; 95% CI, 52–67%) compared to ICI monotherapy (11%; 95% CI, 8–17%) and ICI combined with radiotherapy (4%; 95% CI, 1–19%). Grade 3 or 4 central nervous system (CNS)-related adverse event rates were not different (9% in ICI combination therapy; 8% in ICI combined with radiotherapy; 5% in ICI monotherapy). Conclusion ICI combination therapy or ICI combined with radiotherapy showed better local efficacy than ICI monotherapy for treating melanoma brain metastasis. The grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate was highest with ICI combination therapy, and the CNS-related grade 3 or 4 event rate was similar. Prospective trials will be necessary to compare the efficacy of ICI combination therapy and ICI combined with radiotherapy.

Clinical trials for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are in the early stages but are expected to progress alongside new treatment approaches. This suggests that imaging will play an important role in monitoring disease progression, treatment response, and treatment-related side effects. There are, however, challenges that remain unresolved, regarding imaging in CAR T-cell therapy. We herein discuss the role of imaging, focusing on how tumor response evaluation varies according to cancer type and target antigens in CAR T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy often produces rapid and significant responses, and imaging is vital for identifying side effects such as cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. Radiologists should be aware of drug mechanisms, response assessments, and associated toxicities to effectively support these therapies. Additionally, this article highlights the importance of the Lugano criteria, which is essential for standardized assessment of treatment response, particularly in lymphoma therapies, and also explores other factors influencing imaging-based evaluation, including emerging methodologies and their potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of response assessments.

Clinical trials for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are in the early stages but are expected to progress alongside new treatment approaches. This suggests that imaging will play an important role in monitoring disease progression, treatment response, and treatment-related side effects. There are, however, challenges that remain unresolved, regarding imaging in CAR T-cell therapy. We herein discuss the role of imaging, focusing on how tumor response evaluation varies according to cancer type and target antigens in CAR T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy often produces rapid and significant responses, and imaging is vital for identifying side effects such as cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. Radiologists should be aware of drug mechanisms, response assessments, and associated toxicities to effectively support these therapies. Additionally, this article highlights the importance of the Lugano criteria, which is essential for standardized assessment of treatment response, particularly in lymphoma therapies, and also explores other factors influencing imaging-based evaluation, including emerging methodologies and their potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of response assessments.

Clinical trials for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are in the early stages but are expected to progress alongside new treatment approaches. This suggests that imaging will play an important role in monitoring disease progression, treatment response, and treatment-related side effects. There are, however, challenges that remain unresolved, regarding imaging in CAR T-cell therapy. We herein discuss the role of imaging, focusing on how tumor response evaluation varies according to cancer type and target antigens in CAR T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy often produces rapid and significant responses, and imaging is vital for identifying side effects such as cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. Radiologists should be aware of drug mechanisms, response assessments, and associated toxicities to effectively support these therapies. Additionally, this article highlights the importance of the Lugano criteria, which is essential for standardized assessment of treatment response, particularly in lymphoma therapies, and also explores other factors influencing imaging-based evaluation, including emerging methodologies and their potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of response assessments.

Clinical trials for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are in the early stages but are expected to progress alongside new treatment approaches. This suggests that imaging will play an important role in monitoring disease progression, treatment response, and treatment-related side effects. There are, however, challenges that remain unresolved, regarding imaging in CAR T-cell therapy. We herein discuss the role of imaging, focusing on how tumor response evaluation varies according to cancer type and target antigens in CAR T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy often produces rapid and significant responses, and imaging is vital for identifying side effects such as cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. Radiologists should be aware of drug mechanisms, response assessments, and associated toxicities to effectively support these therapies. Additionally, this article highlights the importance of the Lugano criteria, which is essential for standardized assessment of treatment response, particularly in lymphoma therapies, and also explores other factors influencing imaging-based evaluation, including emerging methodologies and their potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of response assessments.

Clinical trials for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy are in the early stages but are expected to progress alongside new treatment approaches. This suggests that imaging will play an important role in monitoring disease progression, treatment response, and treatment-related side effects. There are, however, challenges that remain unresolved, regarding imaging in CAR T-cell therapy. We herein discuss the role of imaging, focusing on how tumor response evaluation varies according to cancer type and target antigens in CAR T-cell therapy. CAR T-cell therapy often produces rapid and significant responses, and imaging is vital for identifying side effects such as cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity. Radiologists should be aware of drug mechanisms, response assessments, and associated toxicities to effectively support these therapies. Additionally, this article highlights the importance of the Lugano criteria, which is essential for standardized assessment of treatment response, particularly in lymphoma therapies, and also explores other factors influencing imaging-based evaluation, including emerging methodologies and their potential to improve the accuracy and consistency of response assessments.