Combinations of immuno-checkpoint inhibitors predictive biomarkers only marginally improve their individual accuracy.
Exome sequencing
Generalized linear models
Genomics
Immuno-checkpoint inhibitors biomarkers
ImmunoPhenoScore
Immunotherapy
Majority voting
RNA-seq
TIDE
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 04 2019
23 04 2019
Historique:
received:
28
02
2019
accepted:
28
03
2019
entrez:
25
4
2019
pubmed:
25
4
2019
medline:
11
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There are no accepted universal biomarkers capable to accurately predict response to immuno-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Although recent literature has been flooded with studies on ICI predictive biomarkers, available data show that currently approved companion diagnostics either leave out many possible responders, as in the case of PD-L1 testing for first-line metastatic lung cancer, or apply to a small subset of patients, such as the recently approved treatment for microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficiency tumors. In this study, we conducted a survey of the available data on ICI trials with matched genomic or transcriptomic datasets in order to cross-validate the proposed biomarkers, to assess whether their prediction power was confirmed and, mainly, to investigate if their combination was able to generate a better predictive tool. We extracted clinical information and sequencing data details from publicly available datasets, along with a list of possible biomarkers obtained from the recent literature. After an operation of data harmonization, we validated the performance of all the biomarkers taken individually. Furthermore, we tested two strategies to combine the best performing biomarkers in order to improve their predictive value. When considered individually, some of the biomarkers, such as the ImmunoPhenoScore, and the IFN-γ signature, did not confirm their originally proposed predictive power. The best absolute scoring biomarkers are TIDE, one of the ICB resistance signatures and CTLA4 with a mean AUC > 0.66. Among the combinations tested, generalized linear models showed the best performance with an AUC of 0.78. We confirmed that the available biomarkers, taken individually, fail to provide a satisfactory predictive value. Unfortunately, also combination of some of them only provides marginal improvements. Hence, in order to generate a more robust way to predict ICI efficacy it is necessary to analyze and combine additional biomarkers and interrogate a wider set of clinical data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There are no accepted universal biomarkers capable to accurately predict response to immuno-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Although recent literature has been flooded with studies on ICI predictive biomarkers, available data show that currently approved companion diagnostics either leave out many possible responders, as in the case of PD-L1 testing for first-line metastatic lung cancer, or apply to a small subset of patients, such as the recently approved treatment for microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficiency tumors. In this study, we conducted a survey of the available data on ICI trials with matched genomic or transcriptomic datasets in order to cross-validate the proposed biomarkers, to assess whether their prediction power was confirmed and, mainly, to investigate if their combination was able to generate a better predictive tool.
METHODS
We extracted clinical information and sequencing data details from publicly available datasets, along with a list of possible biomarkers obtained from the recent literature. After an operation of data harmonization, we validated the performance of all the biomarkers taken individually. Furthermore, we tested two strategies to combine the best performing biomarkers in order to improve their predictive value.
RESULTS
When considered individually, some of the biomarkers, such as the ImmunoPhenoScore, and the IFN-γ signature, did not confirm their originally proposed predictive power. The best absolute scoring biomarkers are TIDE, one of the ICB resistance signatures and CTLA4 with a mean AUC > 0.66. Among the combinations tested, generalized linear models showed the best performance with an AUC of 0.78.
CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed that the available biomarkers, taken individually, fail to provide a satisfactory predictive value. Unfortunately, also combination of some of them only provides marginal improvements. Hence, in order to generate a more robust way to predict ICI efficacy it is necessary to analyze and combine additional biomarkers and interrogate a wider set of clinical data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31014354
doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-1865-8
pii: 10.1186/s12967-019-1865-8
pmc: PMC6480695
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
131Références
N Engl J Med. 2014 Dec 4;371(23):2189-2199
pubmed: 25409260
J Clin Invest. 2017 Aug 1;127(8):2930-2940
pubmed: 28650338
Nature. 2017 Dec 7;552(7683):116-120
pubmed: 29186113
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jun 15;23(12):3168-3180
pubmed: 28193624
Cell. 2016 Mar 24;165(1):35-44
pubmed: 26997480
Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):568-71
pubmed: 25428505
Int Immunol. 2015 Jan;27(1):39-46
pubmed: 25323844
Science. 2018 Oct 12;362(6411):
pubmed: 30309915
Hum Pathol. 2016 Jan;47(1):78-84
pubmed: 26541326
Emerg Top Life Sci. 2017 Dec 12;1(5):471-486
pubmed: 33525801
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 11;7(1):807
pubmed: 28400597
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jun 15;23(12):2928-2933
pubmed: 28289089
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Feb 15;21(4):687-92
pubmed: 25501578
Oncotarget. 2016 Nov 8;7(45):73068-73079
pubmed: 27683031
Science. 2015 Oct 9;350(6257):207-211
pubmed: 26359337
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
Nat Med. 2018 Oct;24(10):1550-1558
pubmed: 30127393
Cell Rep. 2017 Jan 3;18(1):248-262
pubmed: 28052254
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jul;17(7):956-965
pubmed: 27247226
Immunotherapy. 2016;8(4):479-88
pubmed: 26973128
Cancer Res. 2017 Jul 1;77(13):3540-3550
pubmed: 28487385
Cell. 2016 Oct 6;167(2):397-404.e9
pubmed: 27667683
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Oct 1;19(19):5300-9
pubmed: 24089443