Retrospective Assessment of a Serum Proteomic Test in a Phase III Study Comparing Erlotinib plus Placebo with Erlotinib plus Tivantinib (MARQUEE) in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ pharmacology
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ blood
Disease Progression
Drug Resistance, Neoplasm
ErbB Receptors
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Erlotinib Hydrochloride
/ pharmacology
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Predictive Value of Tests
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
/ pharmacology
Proteomics
/ instrumentation
Pyrrolidinones
/ pharmacology
Quinolines
/ pharmacology
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Biomarkers
Erlotinib
Non‐small cell lung cancer
Proteomics
Tivantinib
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
15
02
2018
accepted:
05
07
2018
pubmed:
25
8
2018
medline:
21
7
2020
entrez:
25
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The VeriStrat test provides accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the predictive and prognostic role of VeriStrat in patients enrolled on the MARQUEE phase III trial of tivantinib plus erlotinib (T+E) versus placebo plus erlotinib (P+E) in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. Pretreatment plasma samples were available for 996 patients and were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to generate VeriStrat labels (good, VS-G, or poor, VS-P). Overall, no significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were observed for the addition of tivantinib to erlotinib. Regardless of treatment arm, patients who were classified as VS-G had significantly longer PFS (3.8 mo for T+E arm, 2.0 mo for P+E arm) and OS (11.6 mo for T+E, 10.2 mo for P+E arm) than patients classified as VS-P (PFS: 1.9 mo for both arms, hazard ratio [HR], 0.584; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.468-0.733; In these analyses, VeriStrat showed a prognostic role within EGOC PS categories and regardless of treatment arm and EGFR status, suggesting that VeriStrat could be used to identify EGFR mutation-positive patients who will have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. This study suggests that VeriStrat testing could enhance the prognostic role of performance status and smoking status and replicates findings from other trials that showed that the VeriStrat test identifies EGFR mutation-positive patients likely to have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although these findings should be confirmed in other populations, VeriStrat use could be considered in EGFR mutation-positive patients as an additional prognostic tool, and these results suggest that EGFR mutation-positive patients with VeriStrat "poor" classification could benefit from other therapeutic agents given in conjunction with TKI monotherapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The VeriStrat test provides accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the predictive and prognostic role of VeriStrat in patients enrolled on the MARQUEE phase III trial of tivantinib plus erlotinib (T+E) versus placebo plus erlotinib (P+E) in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC.
METHODS
Pretreatment plasma samples were available for 996 patients and were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to generate VeriStrat labels (good, VS-G, or poor, VS-P).
RESULTS
Overall, no significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were observed for the addition of tivantinib to erlotinib. Regardless of treatment arm, patients who were classified as VS-G had significantly longer PFS (3.8 mo for T+E arm, 2.0 mo for P+E arm) and OS (11.6 mo for T+E, 10.2 mo for P+E arm) than patients classified as VS-P (PFS: 1.9 mo for both arms, hazard ratio [HR], 0.584; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.468-0.733;
CONCLUSION
In these analyses, VeriStrat showed a prognostic role within EGOC PS categories and regardless of treatment arm and EGFR status, suggesting that VeriStrat could be used to identify EGFR mutation-positive patients who will have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
This study suggests that VeriStrat testing could enhance the prognostic role of performance status and smoking status and replicates findings from other trials that showed that the VeriStrat test identifies EGFR mutation-positive patients likely to have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although these findings should be confirmed in other populations, VeriStrat use could be considered in EGFR mutation-positive patients as an additional prognostic tool, and these results suggest that EGFR mutation-positive patients with VeriStrat "poor" classification could benefit from other therapeutic agents given in conjunction with TKI monotherapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30139835
pii: theoncologist.2018-0089
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0089
pmc: PMC6656491
doi:
Substances chimiques
ARQ 197
0
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
0
Pyrrolidinones
0
Quinolines
0
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Erlotinib Hydrochloride
DA87705X9K
EGFR protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e251-e259Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2018.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 14;353(2):123-32
pubmed: 16014882
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015 Aug;4(4):465-74
pubmed: 26380188
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Feb;5(2):169-78
pubmed: 20035238
Mol Oncol. 2015 Jan;9(1):260-9
pubmed: 25226813
Invest New Drugs. 2014 Apr;32(2):355-61
pubmed: 24337769
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 20;26(9):1472-8
pubmed: 18349398
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 20;26(15):2442-9
pubmed: 18458038
J Thorac Oncol. 2012 Nov;7(11):1653-60
pubmed: 23059783
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jan;14(1):55-63
pubmed: 23182627
Mol Cancer Ther. 2014 Dec;13(12):2978-90
pubmed: 25313010
Lung Cancer. 2013 Mar;79(3):307-11
pubmed: 23273522
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug 20;29(24):3307-15
pubmed: 21768463
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Mar;13(3):300-8
pubmed: 22277837
Ann Oncol. 2015 Oct;26(10):2079-84
pubmed: 26209642
Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55
pubmed: 7165009
Clin Lung Cancer. 2012 Sep;13(5):391-5
pubmed: 22440336
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Sep;14(10):981-8
pubmed: 23883922
Ann Oncol. 2015 Oct;26(10):2007-9
pubmed: 26265168
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Apr;12(4):752-762
pubmed: 28017787
BMC Cancer. 2014 Jan 04;14:5
pubmed: 24386952
Br J Cancer. 2017 Jan 3;116(1):36-43
pubmed: 27898657
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Jun 6;99(11):838-46
pubmed: 17551144
BMC Cancer. 2018 Mar 20;18(1):310
pubmed: 29558888
J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Apr;8(4):443-51
pubmed: 23370367
Lung Cancer. 2018 Mar;117:64-69
pubmed: 29395121
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Oct;11(10):1736-44
pubmed: 27448761
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Jun;13(6):849-854
pubmed: 29288764
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jun 20;32(18):1902-8
pubmed: 24841974
Invest New Drugs. 2015 Oct;33(5):1108-14
pubmed: 26123926
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jun;15(7):713-21
pubmed: 24831979
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Aug 20;33(24):2667-74
pubmed: 26169611