Immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced lung cancer and oncogenic driver alterations: results from the IMMUNOTARGET registry.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
/ pharmacology
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ pharmacology
B7-H1 Antigen
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ drug therapy
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Mutation
Oncogenes
/ genetics
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Progression-Free Survival
Registries
/ statistics & numerical data
Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors
Retrospective Studies
immunotherapy
lung cancer
oncogenic addiction
Journal
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology
ISSN: 1569-8041
Titre abrégé: Ann Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007735
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2019
01 08 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
28
5
2019
medline:
10
6
2020
entrez:
25
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Anti-PD1/PD-L1 directed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The activity of ICI across NSCLC harboring oncogenic alterations is poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to address the efficacy of ICI in the context of oncogenic addiction. We conducted a retrospective study for patients receiving ICI monotherapy for advanced NSCLC with at least one oncogenic driver alteration. Anonymized data were evaluated for clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes for ICI therapy: best response (RECIST 1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation. The primary end point was PFS under ICI. Secondary end points were best response (RECIST 1.1) and OS from ICI initiation. We studied 551 patients treated in 24 centers from 10 countries. The molecular alterations involved KRAS (n = 271), EGFR (n = 125), BRAF (n = 43), MET (n = 36), HER2 (n = 29), ALK (n = 23), RET (n = 16), ROS1 (n = 7), and multiple drivers (n = 1). Median age was 60 years, gender ratio was 1 : 1, never/former/current smokers were 28%/51%/21%, respectively, and the majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate by driver alteration was: KRAS = 26%, BRAF = 24%, ROS1 = 17%, MET = 16%, EGFR = 12%, HER2 = 7%, RET = 6%, and ALK = 0%. In the entire cohort, median PFS was 2.8 months, OS 13.3 months, and the best response rate 19%. In a subgroup analysis, median PFS (in months) was 2.1 for EGFR, 3.2 for KRAS, 2.5 for ALK, 3.1 for BRAF, 2.5 for HER2, 2.1 for RET, and 3.4 for MET. In certain subgroups, PFS was positively associated with PD-L1 expression (KRAS, EGFR) and with smoking status (BRAF, HER2). : ICI induced regression in some tumors with actionable driver alterations, but clinical activity was lower compared with the KRAS group and the lack of response in the ALK group was notable. Patients with actionable tumor alterations should receive targeted therapies and chemotherapy before considering immunotherapy as a single agent.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Anti-PD1/PD-L1 directed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The activity of ICI across NSCLC harboring oncogenic alterations is poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to address the efficacy of ICI in the context of oncogenic addiction.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We conducted a retrospective study for patients receiving ICI monotherapy for advanced NSCLC with at least one oncogenic driver alteration. Anonymized data were evaluated for clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes for ICI therapy: best response (RECIST 1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation. The primary end point was PFS under ICI. Secondary end points were best response (RECIST 1.1) and OS from ICI initiation.
RESULTS
We studied 551 patients treated in 24 centers from 10 countries. The molecular alterations involved KRAS (n = 271), EGFR (n = 125), BRAF (n = 43), MET (n = 36), HER2 (n = 29), ALK (n = 23), RET (n = 16), ROS1 (n = 7), and multiple drivers (n = 1). Median age was 60 years, gender ratio was 1 : 1, never/former/current smokers were 28%/51%/21%, respectively, and the majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate by driver alteration was: KRAS = 26%, BRAF = 24%, ROS1 = 17%, MET = 16%, EGFR = 12%, HER2 = 7%, RET = 6%, and ALK = 0%. In the entire cohort, median PFS was 2.8 months, OS 13.3 months, and the best response rate 19%. In a subgroup analysis, median PFS (in months) was 2.1 for EGFR, 3.2 for KRAS, 2.5 for ALK, 3.1 for BRAF, 2.5 for HER2, 2.1 for RET, and 3.4 for MET. In certain subgroups, PFS was positively associated with PD-L1 expression (KRAS, EGFR) and with smoking status (BRAF, HER2).
CONCLUSIONS
: ICI induced regression in some tumors with actionable driver alterations, but clinical activity was lower compared with the KRAS group and the lack of response in the ALK group was notable. Patients with actionable tumor alterations should receive targeted therapies and chemotherapy before considering immunotherapy as a single agent.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31125062
pii: S0923-7534(19)31284-0
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz167
pmc: PMC7389252
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
CD274 protein, human
0
PDCD1 protein, human
0
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1321-1328Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun 1;31(16):1997-2003
pubmed: 23610105
Cancer Discov. 2018 Jul;8(7):822-835
pubmed: 29773717
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 20;33(9):992-9
pubmed: 25667280
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(10):2085-2091
pubmed: 30165371
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Aug;13(8):1138-1145
pubmed: 29874546
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2017 Sep;66(9):1175-1187
pubmed: 28451792
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1627-39
pubmed: 26412456
Lung Cancer. 2018 Jan;115:12-20
pubmed: 29290252
Eur Respir Rev. 2014 Sep;23(133):356-66
pubmed: 25176972
Lancet. 2016 Apr 30;387(10030):1837-46
pubmed: 26970723
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 9;373(2):123-35
pubmed: 26028407
Ann Oncol. 2016 Feb;27(2):281-6
pubmed: 26598547
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 14;378(24):2288-2301
pubmed: 29863955
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;4(4):569-570
pubmed: 29494728
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Oct;10(10):1451-7
pubmed: 26200454
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Sep 15;22(18):4585-93
pubmed: 27225694
N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 4;374(5):493-4
pubmed: 26840144
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1540-1550
pubmed: 26712084
J Clin Oncol. 2017 May 1;35(13):1403-1410
pubmed: 28447912
Cancer Immunol Res. 2016 May;4(5):383-9
pubmed: 26928461
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Sep 15;22(18):4539-41
pubmed: 27470969
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19(4):521-536
pubmed: 29545095
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jul;62:76-85
pubmed: 27232329
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2078-2092
pubmed: 29658856
Oncoimmunology. 2017 Jul 26;6(11):e1356145
pubmed: 29147605
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Aug;13(8):1128-1137
pubmed: 29723688
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Feb;12(2):403-407
pubmed: 27765535