Next generation sequencing of PD-L1 for predicting response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Atezolizumab
Avelumab
Biomarker
Durvalumab
Nivolumab
PD-L1
Pembrolizumab
cancer immunotherapy
Journal
Journal for immunotherapy of cancer
ISSN: 2051-1426
Titre abrégé: J Immunother Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101620585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 01 2019
24 01 2019
Historique:
received:
06
09
2018
accepted:
19
12
2018
entrez:
26
1
2019
pubmed:
27
1
2019
medline:
2
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been traditionally used for predicting clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, there are at least 4 different assays and antibodies used for PD-L1 IHC, each developed with a different ICI. We set to test if next generation RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is a robust method to determine PD-L1 mRNA expression levels and furthermore, efficacy of predicting response to ICIs as compared to routinely used, standardized IHC procedures. A total of 209 cancer patients treated on-label by FDA-approved ICIs, with evaluable responses were assessed for PD-L1 expression by RNA-seq and IHC, based on tumor proportion score (TPS) and immune cell staining (ICS). A subset of serially diluted cases was evaluated for RNA-seq assay performance across a broad range of PD-L1 expression levels. Assessment of PD-L1 mRNA levels by RNA-seq demonstrated robust linearity across high and low expression ranges. PD-L1 mRNA levels assessed by RNA-seq and IHC (TPS and ICS) were highly correlated (p < 2e-16). Sub-analyses showed sustained correlation when IHC results were classified as high or low by clinically accepted cut-offs (p < 0.01), and results did not differ by tumor type or anti-PD-L1 antibody used. Overall, a combined positive PD-L1 result (≥1% IHC TPS and high PD-L1 expression by RNA-Seq) was associated with a 2-to-5-fold higher overall response rate (ORR) compared to a double negative result. Standard assessments of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) showed that a PD-L1 positive assessment for melanoma samples by RNA-seq had the lowest sensitivity (25%) but the highest PPV (72.7%). Among the three tumor types analyzed in this study, the only non-overlapping confidence interval for predicting response was for "RNA-seq low vs high" in melanoma. Measurement of PD-L1 mRNA expression by RNA-seq is comparable to PD-L1 expression by IHC both analytically and clinically in predicting ICI response. RNA-seq has the added advantages of being amenable to standardization and avoidance of interpretation bias. PD-L1 by RNA-seq needs to be validated in future prospective ICI clinical studies across multiple histologies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been traditionally used for predicting clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, there are at least 4 different assays and antibodies used for PD-L1 IHC, each developed with a different ICI. We set to test if next generation RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is a robust method to determine PD-L1 mRNA expression levels and furthermore, efficacy of predicting response to ICIs as compared to routinely used, standardized IHC procedures.
METHODS
A total of 209 cancer patients treated on-label by FDA-approved ICIs, with evaluable responses were assessed for PD-L1 expression by RNA-seq and IHC, based on tumor proportion score (TPS) and immune cell staining (ICS). A subset of serially diluted cases was evaluated for RNA-seq assay performance across a broad range of PD-L1 expression levels.
RESULTS
Assessment of PD-L1 mRNA levels by RNA-seq demonstrated robust linearity across high and low expression ranges. PD-L1 mRNA levels assessed by RNA-seq and IHC (TPS and ICS) were highly correlated (p < 2e-16). Sub-analyses showed sustained correlation when IHC results were classified as high or low by clinically accepted cut-offs (p < 0.01), and results did not differ by tumor type or anti-PD-L1 antibody used. Overall, a combined positive PD-L1 result (≥1% IHC TPS and high PD-L1 expression by RNA-Seq) was associated with a 2-to-5-fold higher overall response rate (ORR) compared to a double negative result. Standard assessments of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) showed that a PD-L1 positive assessment for melanoma samples by RNA-seq had the lowest sensitivity (25%) but the highest PPV (72.7%). Among the three tumor types analyzed in this study, the only non-overlapping confidence interval for predicting response was for "RNA-seq low vs high" in melanoma.
CONCLUSIONS
Measurement of PD-L1 mRNA expression by RNA-seq is comparable to PD-L1 expression by IHC both analytically and clinically in predicting ICI response. RNA-seq has the added advantages of being amenable to standardization and avoidance of interpretation bias. PD-L1 by RNA-seq needs to be validated in future prospective ICI clinical studies across multiple histologies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30678715
doi: 10.1186/s40425-018-0489-5
pii: 10.1186/s40425-018-0489-5
pmc: PMC6346512
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
CD274 protein, human
0
RNA, Messenger
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA014236
Pays : United States
Références
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 13;8(11):e79120
pubmed: 24236095
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Dec;34(34):4102-4109
pubmed: 27863197
Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):563-7
pubmed: 25428504
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 21;372(21):2018-28
pubmed: 25891174
Ecancermedicalscience. 2016 Sep 26;10:675
pubmed: 27729940
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016 May;13(5):273-90
pubmed: 26977780
Immunity. 2013 Jul 25;39(1):1-10
pubmed: 23890059
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 22;12(4):252-64
pubmed: 22437870
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jan;2(1):54-5
pubmed: 26561922
Nature. 2018 Jun;558(7710):454-459
pubmed: 29899446
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;143(10):1977-1984
pubmed: 28616701
Nat Rev Cancer. 2016 May;16(5):275-87
pubmed: 27079802
J Clin Invest. 2017 Aug 1;127(8):2930-2940
pubmed: 28650338
BMC Genomics. 2014 Dec 11;15:1087
pubmed: 25495041
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):e542-e551
pubmed: 27924752
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jan;2(1):15-6
pubmed: 26562503
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Feb;12(2):208-222
pubmed: 27913228
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):1202-1210
pubmed: 28729151
Biomark Insights. 2016 Dec 11;11:139-146
pubmed: 27980389
Onco Targets Ther. 2016 Aug 12;9:5023-39
pubmed: 27574444
Oncotarget. 2017 Jan 10;8(2):3197-3205
pubmed: 27911273
Immunity. 2015 Feb 17;42(2):265-278
pubmed: 25680272
Diagn Pathol. 2018 Feb 9;13(1):12
pubmed: 29426340
BMC Med Genomics. 2015 Aug 22;8:54
pubmed: 26297356
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Dec;97(12):E2297-306
pubmed: 23087323
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Nov;17(11):1497-1508
pubmed: 27745820
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Sep;13(9):1302-1311
pubmed: 29800747
Lab Invest. 2007 Apr;87(4):383-91
pubmed: 17297435
Diagn Pathol. 2018 Feb 13;13(1):13
pubmed: 29433548
J Immunother Cancer. 2018 May 9;6(1):32
pubmed: 29743104
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Sep;5(18):375
pubmed: 29057235
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Apr 11;10:1758835918763493
pubmed: 29662547
J Mol Diagn. 2018 Jan;20(1):95-109
pubmed: 29061374
Cancer Res. 2017 Jul 1;77(13):3540-3550
pubmed: 28487385
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar 10;34(8):833-42
pubmed: 26755520