Patterns of failure after immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors predict durable progression-free survival after local therapy for metastatic melanoma.
Aged
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
/ administration & dosage
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ administration & dosage
B7-H1 Antigen
/ antagonists & inhibitors
CTLA-4 Antigen
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Central Nervous System Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Female
Humans
Immunotherapy
Male
Melanoma
/ drug therapy
Middle Aged
Patient Selection
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Progression-Free Survival
Treatment Failure
Checkpoint blockade
Checkpoint inhibitors
Immunotherapy
Local therapy
Melanoma
Metastasectomy
Pattern-of-failure
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 07 2019
24 07 2019
Historique:
received:
03
04
2019
accepted:
09
07
2019
entrez:
26
7
2019
pubmed:
26
7
2019
medline:
25
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, but most patients treated with CPI eventually develop progressive disease. Local therapy including surgery, ablation or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may be useful to manage limited progression, but criteria for patient selection have not been established. Previous work has suggested progression-free survival (PFS) after local therapy is associated with patterns of immunotherapy failure, but this has not been studied in patients treated with CPI. We analyzed clinical data from patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated with antibodies against CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1, either as single-agent or combination therapy, and identified those who had disease progression in 1 to 3 sites managed with local therapy. Patterns of CPI failure were designated by independent radiological review as growth of established metastases or appearance of new metastases. Local therapy for diagnosis, palliation or CNS metastases was excluded. Four hundred twenty-eight patients with metastatic melanoma received treatment with CPI from 2007 to 2018. Seventy-seven have ongoing complete responses while 69 died within 6 months of starting CPI; of the remaining 282 patients, 52 (18%) were treated with local therapy meeting our inclusion criteria. Local therapy to achieve no evidence of disease (NED) was associated with three-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 31% and five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) of 60%. Stratified by patterns of failure, patients with progression in established tumors had three-year PFS of 70%, while those with new metastases had three-year PFS of 6% (P = 0.001). Five-year DSS after local therapy was 93% versus 31%, respectively (P = 0.046). Local therapy for oligoprogression after CPI can result in durable PFS in selected patients. We observed that patterns of failure seen during or after CPI treatment are strongly associated with PFS after local therapy, and may represent a useful criterion for patient selection. This experience suggests there may be an increased role for local therapy in patients being treated with immunotherapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, but most patients treated with CPI eventually develop progressive disease. Local therapy including surgery, ablation or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may be useful to manage limited progression, but criteria for patient selection have not been established. Previous work has suggested progression-free survival (PFS) after local therapy is associated with patterns of immunotherapy failure, but this has not been studied in patients treated with CPI.
METHODS
We analyzed clinical data from patients with metastatic melanoma who were treated with antibodies against CTLA-4, PD-1 or PD-L1, either as single-agent or combination therapy, and identified those who had disease progression in 1 to 3 sites managed with local therapy. Patterns of CPI failure were designated by independent radiological review as growth of established metastases or appearance of new metastases. Local therapy for diagnosis, palliation or CNS metastases was excluded.
RESULTS
Four hundred twenty-eight patients with metastatic melanoma received treatment with CPI from 2007 to 2018. Seventy-seven have ongoing complete responses while 69 died within 6 months of starting CPI; of the remaining 282 patients, 52 (18%) were treated with local therapy meeting our inclusion criteria. Local therapy to achieve no evidence of disease (NED) was associated with three-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 31% and five-year disease-specific survival (DSS) of 60%. Stratified by patterns of failure, patients with progression in established tumors had three-year PFS of 70%, while those with new metastases had three-year PFS of 6% (P = 0.001). Five-year DSS after local therapy was 93% versus 31%, respectively (P = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS
Local therapy for oligoprogression after CPI can result in durable PFS in selected patients. We observed that patterns of failure seen during or after CPI treatment are strongly associated with PFS after local therapy, and may represent a useful criterion for patient selection. This experience suggests there may be an increased role for local therapy in patients being treated with immunotherapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31340861
doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0672-3
pii: 10.1186/s40425-019-0672-3
pmc: PMC6657062
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
CD274 protein, human
0
CTLA-4 Antigen
0
CTLA4 protein, human
0
PDCD1 protein, human
0
Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
196Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K12 CA215110
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Références
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Jul;17(7):2105-16
pubmed: 10561265
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2006 Apr;16(2):131-5
pubmed: 16564448
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Dec 1;15(23):7412-20
pubmed: 19934295
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Jul 1;17(13):4550-7
pubmed: 21498393
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 2;364(22):2119-27
pubmed: 21631324
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 30;364(26):2517-26
pubmed: 21639810
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Apr 1;18(7):2039-47
pubmed: 22271879
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Aug;19(8):2547-55
pubmed: 22648554
J Neurosurg. 2012 Aug;117(2):227-33
pubmed: 22702482
Nat Genet. 2012 Sep;44(9):1006-14
pubmed: 22842228
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Sep;20(9):3106-11
pubmed: 23681603
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 11;369(2):122-33
pubmed: 23724867
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Oct;20(11):3618-25
pubmed: 23838913
N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 22;322(8):494-500
pubmed: 2405271
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):23-34
pubmed: 26027431
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34(20):2389-97
pubmed: 27217459
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jan;24(1):135-141
pubmed: 27638681
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1672-1682
pubmed: 27789196
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan 10;35(2):226-235
pubmed: 28056206
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377(14):1345-1356
pubmed: 28889792
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jan 11;4(1):e173501
pubmed: 28973074
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;24(13):3991-4000
pubmed: 29019177
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Nov;67(6):472-492
pubmed: 29028110
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;37(1):52-60
pubmed: 30407895
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Jan;119(2):249-261
pubmed: 30561079
N Engl J Med. 1988 Dec 22;319(25):1676-80
pubmed: 3264384
Surgery. 1993 Apr;113(4):389-94
pubmed: 8456394
Cancer J Sci Am. 1998 Mar-Apr;4(2):86-93
pubmed: 9532410