Effect of cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor use during checkpoint blockade immunotherapy in patients with metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer.
biomarkers
combination
combined modality therapy
drug therapy
immunotherapy
melanoma
tumor
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:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
accepted:
05
08
2020
entrez:
6
10
2020
pubmed:
7
10
2020
medline:
6
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical evidence suggests that overexpression of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX2) in tumors facilitates immune evasion through prostaglandin E2 production and that COX inhibition synergizes with ICIs to promote antitumor T-cell activation. This study investigates whether concurrent COX inhibitor (COXi) use during ICI treatment compared with ICI alone is associated with improved time-to-progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC. We retrospectively reviewed 90 metastatic melanoma and 37 metastatic NSCLC patients, treated with ICI between 2011 and 2019. Differences in TTP and OS by ICI+COXi versus ICI alone were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. Interaction between ICI+COXi versus ICI alone and pretreatment neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was examined. Independent radiology review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was performed. For patients with melanoma, median TTP was significantly prolonged in ICI+COXi versus ICI alone (245 vs 100.5 days, p=0.002). On multivariate analysis, ICI+COXi associated with increased TTP (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.66, p=0.001), adjusted for age, pretreatment NLR, and gender. For NSCLC patients, ICI+COXi also associated with increased TTP compared with ICI alone on multivariate analysis (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97; p=0.042) adjusted for age. ORR at 6 months was significantly higher in patients who received ICI+COXi compared with ICI alone in both melanoma (58.6% vs 19.2%, p=0.0005) and NSCLC (73.7% vs 33.3%, p=0.036) cohorts. In the melanoma cohort, high pretreatment NLR (>5) associated with decreased TTP (HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.64 to 6.3; p=0.0007); however, ICI+COXi significantly associated with increased TTP in high NLR (>5) patients (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25), but not in low NLR (≤5) patients (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.32). Similar outcomes were found in an adjusted melanoma cohort after RECIST review. Our study suggests that COXi use concurrently with ICI significantly associated with longer TTP and improved ORR at 6 months in patients with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC compared with ICI alone. Furthermore, COXi use appears to reverse the negative prognostic effect of a high NLR by prolonging TTP in patients with melanoma.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical evidence suggests that overexpression of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX2) in tumors facilitates immune evasion through prostaglandin E2 production and that COX inhibition synergizes with ICIs to promote antitumor T-cell activation. This study investigates whether concurrent COX inhibitor (COXi) use during ICI treatment compared with ICI alone is associated with improved time-to-progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 90 metastatic melanoma and 37 metastatic NSCLC patients, treated with ICI between 2011 and 2019. Differences in TTP and OS by ICI+COXi versus ICI alone were compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. Interaction between ICI+COXi versus ICI alone and pretreatment neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was examined. Independent radiology review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 was performed.
RESULTS
For patients with melanoma, median TTP was significantly prolonged in ICI+COXi versus ICI alone (245 vs 100.5 days, p=0.002). On multivariate analysis, ICI+COXi associated with increased TTP (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.66, p=0.001), adjusted for age, pretreatment NLR, and gender. For NSCLC patients, ICI+COXi also associated with increased TTP compared with ICI alone on multivariate analysis (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97; p=0.042) adjusted for age. ORR at 6 months was significantly higher in patients who received ICI+COXi compared with ICI alone in both melanoma (58.6% vs 19.2%, p=0.0005) and NSCLC (73.7% vs 33.3%, p=0.036) cohorts. In the melanoma cohort, high pretreatment NLR (>5) associated with decreased TTP (HR 3.21, 95% CI 1.64 to 6.3; p=0.0007); however, ICI+COXi significantly associated with increased TTP in high NLR (>5) patients (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25), but not in low NLR (≤5) patients (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.32). Similar outcomes were found in an adjusted melanoma cohort after RECIST review.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that COXi use concurrently with ICI significantly associated with longer TTP and improved ORR at 6 months in patients with metastatic melanoma and NSCLC compared with ICI alone. Furthermore, COXi use appears to reverse the negative prognostic effect of a high NLR by prolonging TTP in patients with melanoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33020239
pii: jitc-2020-000889
doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-000889
pmc: PMC7537331
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors
0
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 10;37(8):624-635
pubmed: 30702971
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 20;26(6):848-55
pubmed: 18281656
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Apr 1;32(10):1020-30
pubmed: 24590637
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;37(7):537-546
pubmed: 30620668
Lancet. 2012 Apr 28;379(9826):1591-601
pubmed: 22440947
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2078-2092
pubmed: 29658856
Lancet. 2019 May 4;393(10183):1819-1830
pubmed: 30955977
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 May 29;106(6):dju124
pubmed: 24875653
J Transl Med. 2017 Feb 23;15(1):46
pubmed: 28231855
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;4(3):351-357
pubmed: 29327044
Clin Lung Cancer. 2019 May;20(3):143-147
pubmed: 30683629
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;35(16):1836-1844
pubmed: 28406723
N Engl J Med. 2007 May 24;356(21):2131-42
pubmed: 17522398
Ann Oncol. 2016 Apr;27(4):732-8
pubmed: 26802161
Melanoma Manag. 2016 Sep;3(3):187-194
pubmed: 30190888
Curr Oncol Rep. 2020 Feb 11;22(3):25
pubmed: 32048065
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377(14):1345-1356
pubmed: 28889792
Lung Cancer. 2018 Jun;120:137-141
pubmed: 29748008
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):23-34
pubmed: 26027431
J Cutan Pathol. 2008 Nov;35(11):989-94
pubmed: 18537861
JAMA. 2009 Aug 12;302(6):649-58
pubmed: 19671906
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;35(19):2184-2192
pubmed: 28489511
Nat Rev Cancer. 2010 Mar;10(3):181-93
pubmed: 20168319
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct;16(10):601-620
pubmed: 31160735
Biomed Pharmacother. 2017 Nov;95:656-661
pubmed: 28881293
Immunol Rev. 2019 Jul;290(1):6-23
pubmed: 31355494
Cell. 2018 Feb 22;172(5):1022-1037.e14
pubmed: 29429633
Cell. 2015 Sep 10;162(6):1257-70
pubmed: 26343581