Comparison of SP142 and 22C3 Immunohistochemistry PD-L1 Assays for Clinical Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the Randomized OAK Trial.
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
/ therapeutic use
Antineoplastic Agents
/ therapeutic use
B7-H1 Antigen
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ drug therapy
Docetaxel
/ therapeutic use
Humans
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
/ therapeutic use
Immunohistochemistry
Lung Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Biomarker-evaluable population
Inter-assay concordance
Overall survival
Programmed death ligand 1
Progression-free survival
Journal
Clinical lung cancer
ISSN: 1938-0690
Titre abrégé: Clin Lung Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100893225
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
03
03
2021
revised:
21
05
2021
accepted:
21
05
2021
pubmed:
7
7
2021
medline:
9
3
2022
entrez:
6
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This phase III OAK trial (NCT02008227) subgroup analysis (data cutoff, January 9, 2019) evaluated the predictive value of 2 PD-L1 IHC tests (VENTANA SP142 and Dako 22C3) for benefit from atezolizumab versus docetaxel by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. PD-L1 expression was assessed prospectively with SP142 on tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) and retrospectively with 22C3 using a tumor proportion score (TPS) based on TC membrane staining. Efficacy was assessed in the 22C3 biomarker-evaluable population (22C3-BEP) (n = 577; 47.1% of SP142-intention-to-treat population) and non-22C3-BEP (n = 648) in PD-L1 subgroups (high, low, and negative) and according to selection by 1 or both assays. In the 22C3-BEP, overall survival benefits with atezolizumab versus docetaxel were observed across PD-L1 subgroups; benefits were greatest in SP142-defined PD-L1-high (TC3 or IC3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.63]) and 22C3-defined PD-L1-high (TPS ≥ 50%: HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.82]) and low (TPS, 1% to < 50%: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82]) groups. Progression-free survival improved with increasing PD-L1 expression for both assays. SP142 and 22C3 assays identified overlapping and unique patient populations in PD-L1-high, positive, and negative subgroups. Overall survival and progression-free survival benefits favored atezolizumab over docetaxel in double PD-L1-positive and negative groups; patients with both SP142- and 22C3-positive tumors derived the greatest benefit. Despite different scoring algorithms and differing sensitivity levels, the SP142 and 22C3 assays similarly predicted atezolizumab benefit at validated PD-L1 thresholds in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This phase III OAK trial (NCT02008227) subgroup analysis (data cutoff, January 9, 2019) evaluated the predictive value of 2 PD-L1 IHC tests (VENTANA SP142 and Dako 22C3) for benefit from atezolizumab versus docetaxel by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
METHODS
PD-L1 expression was assessed prospectively with SP142 on tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) and retrospectively with 22C3 using a tumor proportion score (TPS) based on TC membrane staining. Efficacy was assessed in the 22C3 biomarker-evaluable population (22C3-BEP) (n = 577; 47.1% of SP142-intention-to-treat population) and non-22C3-BEP (n = 648) in PD-L1 subgroups (high, low, and negative) and according to selection by 1 or both assays.
RESULTS
In the 22C3-BEP, overall survival benefits with atezolizumab versus docetaxel were observed across PD-L1 subgroups; benefits were greatest in SP142-defined PD-L1-high (TC3 or IC3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.63]) and 22C3-defined PD-L1-high (TPS ≥ 50%: HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.82]) and low (TPS, 1% to < 50%: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82]) groups. Progression-free survival improved with increasing PD-L1 expression for both assays. SP142 and 22C3 assays identified overlapping and unique patient populations in PD-L1-high, positive, and negative subgroups. Overall survival and progression-free survival benefits favored atezolizumab over docetaxel in double PD-L1-positive and negative groups; patients with both SP142- and 22C3-positive tumors derived the greatest benefit.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite different scoring algorithms and differing sensitivity levels, the SP142 and 22C3 assays similarly predicted atezolizumab benefit at validated PD-L1 thresholds in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34226144
pii: S1525-7304(21)00101-7
doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2021.05.007
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
Antineoplastic Agents
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Docetaxel
15H5577CQD
atezolizumab
52CMI0WC3Y
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02008227']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Pragmatic Clinical Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21-33Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure Dr. Gadgeel reports personal fees from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Daichii-Sanyko, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Xcovery, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hirsch reports scientific advisory board for Genentech/Roche, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Daiichi, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerr reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Archer Diagnostics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana, outside the submitted work. Dr. Barlesi reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. Dr. Park has nothing to disclose. Dr. Rittmeyer reports grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr. Zou reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bhatia reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koeppen reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Paul reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. David Shames reports employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Yi reports employment and spousal employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Matheny reports employment from Genentech, during the conduct of the study, and employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ballinger reports employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. McCleland reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gandara reports personal fees and institutional grants from Genentech, outside the submitted work.