Predicting response to pembrolizumab in metastatic melanoma by a new personalization algorithm.
Advanced melanoma
Effector CD8+ T Lymphocytes
Immune checkpoint blocker
Immunotherapy
Mathematical model
PD-1
Pembrolizumab
Personalized treatment
Prediction algorithm
T cell exhaustion
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 10 2019
07 10 2019
Historique:
received:
06
03
2019
accepted:
23
09
2019
entrez:
9
10
2019
pubmed:
9
10
2019
medline:
14
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
At present, immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, are widely used in the therapy of advanced non-resectable melanoma, as they induce more durable responses than other available treatments. However, the overall response rate does not exceed 50% and, considering the high costs and low life expectancy of nonresponding patients, there is a need to select potential responders before therapy. Our aim was to develop a new personalization algorithm which could be beneficial in the clinical setting for predicting time to disease progression under pembrolizumab treatment. We developed a simple mathematical model for the interactions of an advanced melanoma tumor with both the immune system and the immunotherapy drug, pembrolizumab. We implemented the model in an algorithm which, in conjunction with clinical pretreatment data, enables prediction of the personal patient response to the drug. To develop the algorithm, we retrospectively collected clinical data of 54 patients with advanced melanoma, who had been treated by pembrolizumab, and correlated personal pretreatment measurements to the mathematical model parameters. Using the algorithm together with the longitudinal tumor burden of each patient, we identified the personal mathematical models, and simulated them to predict the patient's time to progression. We validated the prediction capacity of the algorithm by the Leave-One-Out cross-validation methodology. Among the analyzed clinical parameters, the baseline tumor load, the Breslow tumor thickness, and the status of nodular melanoma were significantly correlated with the activation rate of CD8+ T cells and the net tumor growth rate. Using the measurements of these correlates to personalize the mathematical model, we predicted the time to progression of individual patients (Cohen's κ = 0.489). Comparison of the predicted and the clinical time to progression in patients progressing during the follow-up period showed moderate accuracy (R Our results show for the first time that a relatively simple mathematical mechanistic model, implemented in a personalization algorithm, can be personalized by clinical data, evaluated before immunotherapy onset. The algorithm, currently yielding moderately accurate predictions of individual patients' response to pembrolizumab, can be improved by training on a larger number of patients. Algorithm validation by an independent clinical dataset will enable its use as a tool for treatment personalization.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
At present, immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, are widely used in the therapy of advanced non-resectable melanoma, as they induce more durable responses than other available treatments. However, the overall response rate does not exceed 50% and, considering the high costs and low life expectancy of nonresponding patients, there is a need to select potential responders before therapy. Our aim was to develop a new personalization algorithm which could be beneficial in the clinical setting for predicting time to disease progression under pembrolizumab treatment.
METHODS
We developed a simple mathematical model for the interactions of an advanced melanoma tumor with both the immune system and the immunotherapy drug, pembrolizumab. We implemented the model in an algorithm which, in conjunction with clinical pretreatment data, enables prediction of the personal patient response to the drug. To develop the algorithm, we retrospectively collected clinical data of 54 patients with advanced melanoma, who had been treated by pembrolizumab, and correlated personal pretreatment measurements to the mathematical model parameters. Using the algorithm together with the longitudinal tumor burden of each patient, we identified the personal mathematical models, and simulated them to predict the patient's time to progression. We validated the prediction capacity of the algorithm by the Leave-One-Out cross-validation methodology.
RESULTS
Among the analyzed clinical parameters, the baseline tumor load, the Breslow tumor thickness, and the status of nodular melanoma were significantly correlated with the activation rate of CD8+ T cells and the net tumor growth rate. Using the measurements of these correlates to personalize the mathematical model, we predicted the time to progression of individual patients (Cohen's κ = 0.489). Comparison of the predicted and the clinical time to progression in patients progressing during the follow-up period showed moderate accuracy (R
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show for the first time that a relatively simple mathematical mechanistic model, implemented in a personalization algorithm, can be personalized by clinical data, evaluated before immunotherapy onset. The algorithm, currently yielding moderately accurate predictions of individual patients' response to pembrolizumab, can be improved by training on a larger number of patients. Algorithm validation by an independent clinical dataset will enable its use as a tool for treatment personalization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31590677
doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-2081-2
pii: 10.1186/s12967-019-2081-2
pmc: PMC6781362
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
pembrolizumab
DPT0O3T46P
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02581228']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
338Références
Nat Commun. 2017 Sep 19;8(1):592
pubmed: 28928380
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Front Oncol. 2013 Mar 19;3:56
pubmed: 23516248
Mol Ther. 2012 Jan;20(1):1-2
pubmed: 22215048
Prostate. 2016 Jan;76(1):48-57
pubmed: 26419619
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
J Surg Oncol. 1971;3(2):143-9
pubmed: 5285839
Cancer Res. 2012 May 1;72(9):2218-27
pubmed: 22422938
Oncoimmunology. 2012 Oct 1;1(7):1169-1171
pubmed: 23170268
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Nov 15;22(22):5487-5496
pubmed: 27185375
Lancet. 2017 Oct 21;390(10105):1853-1862
pubmed: 28822576
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2009 Jun;23(3):481-500, viii
pubmed: 19464598
Lancet. 2014 Sep 20;384(9948):1109-17
pubmed: 25034862
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jan;68(1):7-30
pubmed: 29313949
Bull Math Biol. 1994 Mar;56(2):295-321
pubmed: 8186756
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Oct 15;24(20):4960-4967
pubmed: 29685882
Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392(10151):971-984
pubmed: 30238891
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2018 Oct;130:108-120
pubmed: 30196907
J Transl Med. 2007 Apr 20;5:19
pubmed: 17448240
Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2016 Nov;16(11):1373-1385
pubmed: 27564141
Am J Dermatopathol. 2003 Aug;25(4):291-9
pubmed: 12876486
Cancer Discov. 2016 Aug;6(8):827-37
pubmed: 27301722
CA Cancer J Clin. 1985 May-Jun;35(3):130-51
pubmed: 3921200
Int Immunopharmacol. 2018 May;58:125-135
pubmed: 29579717
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 1993;41(1):21-31
pubmed: 8239905
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 10;35(11):1194-1202
pubmed: 28221865
Biotechnol Lett. 2007 Mar;29(3):351-7
pubmed: 17180546
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017 Apr;6(4):277
pubmed: 28425210
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Aug;16(8):908-18
pubmed: 26115796
Eur J Immunol. 2004 Sep;34(9):2407-18
pubmed: 15307173
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov;14(11):655-668
pubmed: 28653677
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 1;34(13):1510-7
pubmed: 26951310
PLoS One. 2010 Dec 08;5(12):e15482
pubmed: 21151630
JCI Insight. 2016 May 5;1(6):null
pubmed: 27182556
J Virol. 1999 Dec;73(12):10289-95
pubmed: 10559346
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Aug 15;23(16):4671-4679
pubmed: 28592629
Oncoimmunology. 2013 Nov 1;2(11):e26840
pubmed: 24482751
Cancer. 1993 Jun 1;71(11):3737-43
pubmed: 8490924
Biomed Sci. 1991;2(5):465-76
pubmed: 1840834
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Dec 1;15(23):7412-20
pubmed: 19934295
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Feb;11(2):155-64
pubmed: 20004617
JAMA. 2016 Apr 19;315(15):1600-9
pubmed: 27092830
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377(14):1345-1356
pubmed: 28889792
Ann Surg. 1970 Nov;172(5):902-8
pubmed: 5477666
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):23-34
pubmed: 26027431
Nature. 2017 May 4;545(7652):60-65
pubmed: 28397821
Front Oncol. 2018 Jul 18;8:270
pubmed: 30073150
PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40311
pubmed: 22768350
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 22;12(4):252-64
pubmed: 22437870
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1285-7
pubmed: 26433815
J Theor Biol. 2019 Sep 30;485:110033
pubmed: 31580835
Br J Cancer. 2016 Feb 2;114(3):256-61
pubmed: 26794281
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2521-32
pubmed: 25891173
Br J Cancer. 2017 Apr 25;116(9):1141-1147
pubmed: 28324889
Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2015 Aug;23:32-8
pubmed: 26047524
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Oct 1;19(19):5300-9
pubmed: 24089443
Science. 2015 Apr 3;348(6230):56-61
pubmed: 25838373
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun 10;36(17):1668-1674
pubmed: 29283791