Targeted literature review on use of tumor mutational burden status and programmed cell death ligand 1 expression to predict outcomes of checkpoint inhibitor treatment.
Apoptosis
/ genetics
B7-H1 Antigen
/ genetics
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ genetics
Carcinoma, Renal Cell
/ genetics
Gene Expression Profiling
Humans
Kidney Neoplasms
/ genetics
Lung Neoplasms
/ genetics
Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating
Melanoma
/ genetics
Mutation
Precision Medicine
Biomarkers
Gene expression profiling
Precision medicine
Programmed cell death 1 receptor
Tumor mutational burden
Journal
Diagnostic pathology
ISSN: 1746-1596
Titre abrégé: Diagn Pathol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101251558
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jan 2020
30 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
09
09
2019
accepted:
22
01
2020
entrez:
1
2
2020
pubmed:
1
2
2020
medline:
17
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To achieve optimal outcomes, an individual approach is needed in the treatment and care of patients. The potential value of tumor mutational burden (TMB) status and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as biomarkers to predict which patients are most likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors has been explored in many studies. The goal of this targeted literature review is to identify data available for TMB status and/or PD-L1 expression that predict response to checkpoint inhibitors and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibodies. Targeted literature searches were performed using electronic medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS) and internet searches of specified sites. Bibliographies of key systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses also were reviewed for studies of interest. The review identified 27 studies of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 40 studies of melanoma, 10 studies of urothelial cancer, and 5 studies of renal cell cancer indications. Studies also were identified in other cancer types, e.g., colorectal, breast, gastric, and Merkel cell cancer and squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Twelve trials, including six in NSCLC and four in melanoma, evaluated TMB as a predictor of outcomes. A TMB of ≥10 mutations per megabase was shown to be an effective biomarker in the CheckMate 227 study. PD-L1 expression was included in the majority of identified studies and was found to predict response in in melanoma and in all types of NSCLC. Prediction of response was not a prespecified analysis in some studies; others had small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. A clear predictive trend for PD-L1 expression was not identified in renal, breast, gastric, or Merkel cell cancer. Based on data contained in this review, assessment of TMB status and PD-L1 expression may help enhance the prediction of response to checkpoint inhibition in some tumors, such as NSCLC and melanoma. In this rapidly growing area of research, further exploratory biomarkers are being investigated including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, immune profiling (e.g., effector T cells or regulatory T cells), epigenetic signatures, T-cell receptor repertoire, proteomics, microbiome, and metabolomics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To achieve optimal outcomes, an individual approach is needed in the treatment and care of patients. The potential value of tumor mutational burden (TMB) status and/or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as biomarkers to predict which patients are most likely to respond to checkpoint inhibitors has been explored in many studies. The goal of this targeted literature review is to identify data available for TMB status and/or PD-L1 expression that predict response to checkpoint inhibitors and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibodies.
METHODS
METHODS
Targeted literature searches were performed using electronic medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS) and internet searches of specified sites. Bibliographies of key systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses also were reviewed for studies of interest.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The review identified 27 studies of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 40 studies of melanoma, 10 studies of urothelial cancer, and 5 studies of renal cell cancer indications. Studies also were identified in other cancer types, e.g., colorectal, breast, gastric, and Merkel cell cancer and squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Twelve trials, including six in NSCLC and four in melanoma, evaluated TMB as a predictor of outcomes. A TMB of ≥10 mutations per megabase was shown to be an effective biomarker in the CheckMate 227 study. PD-L1 expression was included in the majority of identified studies and was found to predict response in in melanoma and in all types of NSCLC. Prediction of response was not a prespecified analysis in some studies; others had small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. A clear predictive trend for PD-L1 expression was not identified in renal, breast, gastric, or Merkel cell cancer.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Based on data contained in this review, assessment of TMB status and PD-L1 expression may help enhance the prediction of response to checkpoint inhibition in some tumors, such as NSCLC and melanoma. In this rapidly growing area of research, further exploratory biomarkers are being investigated including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, immune profiling (e.g., effector T cells or regulatory T cells), epigenetic signatures, T-cell receptor repertoire, proteomics, microbiome, and metabolomics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32000815
doi: 10.1186/s13000-020-0927-9
pii: 10.1186/s13000-020-0927-9
pmc: PMC6990470
doi:
Substances chimiques
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
CD274 protein, human
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6Références
Semin Cancer Biol. 2018 Oct;52(Pt 2):269-277
pubmed: 29782924
Science. 2015 Oct 9;350(6257):207-211
pubmed: 26359337
Lancet. 2016 May 7;387(10031):1909-20
pubmed: 26952546
Gene. 2018 Jan 5;638:20-25
pubmed: 28951311
Cancer Immunol Res. 2016 Oct;4(10):820-822
pubmed: 27538576
Cell. 2016 Mar 24;165(1):35-44
pubmed: 26997480
Nature. 2014 Nov 27;515(7528):563-7
pubmed: 25428504
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 21;372(21):2018-28
pubmed: 25891174
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1627-39
pubmed: 26412456
Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 Jul;19(4):e405-e415
pubmed: 29525239
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Aug;40(8):1133-42
pubmed: 27158757
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Jan;11(Suppl 1):S89-S101
pubmed: 30775032
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;41(4):450-6
pubmed: 25682184
N Engl J Med. 2014 Dec 4;371(23):2189-2199
pubmed: 25409260
Front Oncol. 2017 Apr 06;7:67
pubmed: 28428947
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 1;34(25):2969-79
pubmed: 27354481
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Dec;34(34):4102-4109
pubmed: 27863197
Cancer Immunol Res. 2016 Nov;4(11):959-967
pubmed: 27671167
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Sep;14(9):1608-1618
pubmed: 31195179
Lancet. 2017 Jan 21;389(10066):255-265
pubmed: 27979383
Br J Cancer. 2018 Jan;118(1):9-16
pubmed: 29319049
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2093-2104
pubmed: 29658845
N Engl J Med. 2017 Dec 21;377(25):2500-2501
pubmed: 29262275
Front Immunol. 2017 Nov 28;8:1679
pubmed: 29234329
J Hematol Oncol. 2013 Sep 30;6(1):74
pubmed: 24283718
Lancet. 2016 Apr 30;387(10030):1837-46
pubmed: 26970723
BMC Med. 2016 Oct 25;14(1):168
pubmed: 27776519
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):23-34
pubmed: 26027431
Anticancer Res. 2016 Aug;36(8):4033-8
pubmed: 27466509
Immunity. 2016 May 17;44(5):989-1004
pubmed: 27192565
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):67-76
pubmed: 27939400
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 May;37(5):710-716
pubmed: 29733704
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 9;373(2):123-35
pubmed: 26028407
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2521-32
pubmed: 25891173
Oncotarget. 2017 Nov 25;8(66):110693-110707
pubmed: 29299180
J Hematol Oncol. 2017 May 17;10(1):110
pubmed: 28514966
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 22;376(25):2415-2426
pubmed: 28636851