Splenic volume as a predictor of treatment response in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving immunotherapy.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
21
01
2022
accepted:
22
06
2022
entrez:
7
7
2022
pubmed:
8
7
2022
medline:
12
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The spleen is a lymphoid organ and we hypothesize that clinical benefit to immunotherapy may present with an increase in splenic volume during treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether changes in splenic volume could be observed in those showing clinical benefit versus those not showing clinical benefit to pembrolizumab treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. In this study, 70 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with pembrolizumab; and who underwent baseline CT scan within 2 weeks before treatment and follow-up CT within 3 months after commencing immunotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. The splenic volume on each CT was segmented manually by outlining the splenic contour on every image and the total volume summated. We compared the splenic volume in those achieving a clinical benefit and those not achieving clinical benefit, using non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Clinical benefit was defined as stable disease or partial response lasting for greater than 24 weeks. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were 23 responders and 47 non-responders based on iRECIST criteria and 35 patients with clinical benefit and 35 without clinical benefit. There was no significant difference in the median pre-treatment volume (175 vs 187 cm3, p = 0.34), post-treatment volume (168 vs 167 cm3, p = 0.39) or change in splenic volume (-0.002 vs 0.0002 cm3, p = 0.97) between the two groups. No significant differences were also found between the splenic volume of patients with partial response, stable disease or progressive disease (p>0.017). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between progression-free survival and time to disease progression when the splenic volume was categorized as smaller or larger than the median pre-treatment or post-treatment volume (p>0.05). No significant differences were observed in the splenic volume of those showing clinical benefit versus those without clinical benefit to pembrolizumab treatment in NSCLC patients. CT splenic volume cannot be used as a potentially simple biomarker of response to immunotherapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35797413
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270950
pii: PONE-D-22-01786
pmc: PMC9262211
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0270950Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
I have read the journal’s policy and one of the authors of this manuscript (Anna Minchom) have the following competing interests: has served on advisory boards for Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals, has received honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Novartis Oncology, Faron Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, has received expenses from Amgen Pharmaceuticals and LOXO Oncology. The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist. that this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Anticancer Res. 2012 Aug;32(8):3357-62
pubmed: 22843915
Ann Oncol. 2004 Mar;15(3):460-6
pubmed: 14998849
World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep 05;14(1):238
pubmed: 27595749
Cancer Imaging. 2020 May 14;20(1):36
pubmed: 32408884
BMC Cancer. 2020 Dec 3;20(1):1185
pubmed: 33272262
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018 Nov 28;17(12):854-855
pubmed: 30482962
Clin Nucl Med. 2018 Feb;43(2):114-116
pubmed: 29261621
Science. 2018 Mar 23;359(6382):1350-1355
pubmed: 29567705
Sci Rep. 2022 Jan 12;12(1):626
pubmed: 35022510
Oncotarget. 2017 Dec 14;8(69):114268-114280
pubmed: 29371985
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 May;40(5):559-566
pubmed: 24388740
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1540-1550
pubmed: 26712084
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Jul;8(2):
pubmed: 32709713
Cancer Cell. 2013 Feb 11;23(2):249-62
pubmed: 23410977
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Aug 1;25(15):4735-4748
pubmed: 31085720
Bioorg Med Chem. 2017 Oct 15;25(20):5407-5414
pubmed: 28803798
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 21;372(21):2018-28
pubmed: 25891174
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;37(7):537-546
pubmed: 30620668
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 24;10(11):e0142608
pubmed: 26599227
J Nucl Med. 2017 Jan;58(1):162-168
pubmed: 27493273
J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Mar 21;7(1):82
pubmed: 30898149
Cell Rep. 2012 Sep 27;2(3):628-39
pubmed: 22959433
J Clin Oncol. 2010 May 20;28(15):2549-55
pubmed: 20406923
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):e143-e152
pubmed: 28271869
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Nov;17(11):1497-1508
pubmed: 27745820
Immunity. 2013 Nov 14;39(5):806-18
pubmed: 24238338
Sarcoma. 2018 Dec 12;2018:8694397
pubmed: 30651716
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2078-2092
pubmed: 29658856
J Clin Invest. 2007 May;117(5):1137-46
pubmed: 17476343
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jun;45(6):1072-1075
pubmed: 29532102
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018 Jan;45(1):56-66
pubmed: 28828507
Nat Rev Immunol. 2006 Oct;6(10):715-27
pubmed: 16977338
Immunotherapy. 2021 Aug;13(11):885-891
pubmed: 34229447