Cargando…
Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit
Immunotherapy response score (IRS) integrates tumor mutation burden (TMB) and quantitative expression biomarkers to predict anti-PD-1/PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] monotherapy benefit. Here, we evaluated IRS in additional cohorts. Patients from an observational trial (NCT03061305) treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monoth...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Association for Cancer Research
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10367935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37497337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0036 |
_version_ | 1785077417267691520 |
---|---|
author | Bulen, Benjamin J. Khazanov, Nickolay A. Hovelson, Daniel H. Lamb, Laura E. Matrana, Marc Burkard, Mark E. Yang, Eddy Shih-Hsin Edenfield, William J. Claire Dees, Elizabeth Onitilo, Adedayo A. Buchschacher, Gary L. Miller, Alan M. Parsons, Benjamin M. Wassenaar, Timothy R. Suga, Jennifer M. Siegel, Robert D. Irvin, William Nair, Suresh Slim, Jennifer N. Misleh, Jamal Khatri, Jamil Masters, Gregory A. Thomas, Sachdev Safa, Malek M. Anderson, Daniel M. Mowers, Jonathan Dusenbery, Anna C. Drewery, Stephanie Plouffe, Komal Reeder, Travis Vakil, Hana Patrias, Lynnae Falzetta, Amanda Hamilton, Ryan Kwiatkowski, Kat Johnson, D. Bryan Rhodes, Daniel R. Tomlins, Scott A. |
author_facet | Bulen, Benjamin J. Khazanov, Nickolay A. Hovelson, Daniel H. Lamb, Laura E. Matrana, Marc Burkard, Mark E. Yang, Eddy Shih-Hsin Edenfield, William J. Claire Dees, Elizabeth Onitilo, Adedayo A. Buchschacher, Gary L. Miller, Alan M. Parsons, Benjamin M. Wassenaar, Timothy R. Suga, Jennifer M. Siegel, Robert D. Irvin, William Nair, Suresh Slim, Jennifer N. Misleh, Jamal Khatri, Jamil Masters, Gregory A. Thomas, Sachdev Safa, Malek M. Anderson, Daniel M. Mowers, Jonathan Dusenbery, Anna C. Drewery, Stephanie Plouffe, Komal Reeder, Travis Vakil, Hana Patrias, Lynnae Falzetta, Amanda Hamilton, Ryan Kwiatkowski, Kat Johnson, D. Bryan Rhodes, Daniel R. Tomlins, Scott A. |
author_sort | Bulen, Benjamin J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Immunotherapy response score (IRS) integrates tumor mutation burden (TMB) and quantitative expression biomarkers to predict anti-PD-1/PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] monotherapy benefit. Here, we evaluated IRS in additional cohorts. Patients from an observational trial (NCT03061305) treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy were included and assigned to IRS-High (-H) versus -Low (-L) groups. Associations with real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Cox proportional hazards (CPH) modeling. Those with available PD-L1 IHC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 with or without chemotherapy were separately assessed. Patients treated with PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy (five relevant tumor types) were assigned to three IRS groups [IRS-L divided into IRS-Ultra-Low (-UL) and Intermediate-Low (-IL), and similarly assessed]. In the 352 patient anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy validation cohort (31 tumor types), IRS-H versus IRS-L patients had significantly longer rwPFS and OS. IRS significantly improved CPH associations with rwPFS and OS beyond microsatellite instability (MSI)/TMB alone. In a 189 patient (10 tumor types) PD-L1 IHC comparison cohort, IRS, but not PD-L1 IHC nor TMB, was significantly associated with anti-PD-L1 rwPFS. In a 1,103-patient cohort (from five relevant tumor types), rwPFS did not significantly differ in IRS-UL patients treated with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus anti-PD-(L)1, nor in IRS-H patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 versus anti-PD-(L)1 + chemotherapy. IRS associations were consistent across subgroups, including both Europeans and non-Europeans. These results confirm the utility of IRS utility for predicting pan-solid tumor PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit beyond available biomarkers and demonstrate utility for informing on anti-PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy treatment. SIGNIFICANCE: This study confirms the utility of the integrative IRS biomarker for predicting anti-PD-L1/PD-1 benefit. IRS significantly improved upon currently available biomarkers, including PD-L1 IHC, TMB, and MSI status. Additional utility for informing on chemotherapy, anti-PD-L1/PD-1, and anti-PD-L1/PD-1 plus chemotherapy treatments decisions is shown. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10367935 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | American Association for Cancer Research |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103679352023-07-26 Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit Bulen, Benjamin J. Khazanov, Nickolay A. Hovelson, Daniel H. Lamb, Laura E. Matrana, Marc Burkard, Mark E. Yang, Eddy Shih-Hsin Edenfield, William J. Claire Dees, Elizabeth Onitilo, Adedayo A. Buchschacher, Gary L. Miller, Alan M. Parsons, Benjamin M. Wassenaar, Timothy R. Suga, Jennifer M. Siegel, Robert D. Irvin, William Nair, Suresh Slim, Jennifer N. Misleh, Jamal Khatri, Jamil Masters, Gregory A. Thomas, Sachdev Safa, Malek M. Anderson, Daniel M. Mowers, Jonathan Dusenbery, Anna C. Drewery, Stephanie Plouffe, Komal Reeder, Travis Vakil, Hana Patrias, Lynnae Falzetta, Amanda Hamilton, Ryan Kwiatkowski, Kat Johnson, D. Bryan Rhodes, Daniel R. Tomlins, Scott A. Cancer Res Commun Research Article Immunotherapy response score (IRS) integrates tumor mutation burden (TMB) and quantitative expression biomarkers to predict anti-PD-1/PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] monotherapy benefit. Here, we evaluated IRS in additional cohorts. Patients from an observational trial (NCT03061305) treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy were included and assigned to IRS-High (-H) versus -Low (-L) groups. Associations with real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Cox proportional hazards (CPH) modeling. Those with available PD-L1 IHC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 with or without chemotherapy were separately assessed. Patients treated with PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy (five relevant tumor types) were assigned to three IRS groups [IRS-L divided into IRS-Ultra-Low (-UL) and Intermediate-Low (-IL), and similarly assessed]. In the 352 patient anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy validation cohort (31 tumor types), IRS-H versus IRS-L patients had significantly longer rwPFS and OS. IRS significantly improved CPH associations with rwPFS and OS beyond microsatellite instability (MSI)/TMB alone. In a 189 patient (10 tumor types) PD-L1 IHC comparison cohort, IRS, but not PD-L1 IHC nor TMB, was significantly associated with anti-PD-L1 rwPFS. In a 1,103-patient cohort (from five relevant tumor types), rwPFS did not significantly differ in IRS-UL patients treated with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus anti-PD-(L)1, nor in IRS-H patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 versus anti-PD-(L)1 + chemotherapy. IRS associations were consistent across subgroups, including both Europeans and non-Europeans. These results confirm the utility of IRS utility for predicting pan-solid tumor PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit beyond available biomarkers and demonstrate utility for informing on anti-PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy treatment. SIGNIFICANCE: This study confirms the utility of the integrative IRS biomarker for predicting anti-PD-L1/PD-1 benefit. IRS significantly improved upon currently available biomarkers, including PD-L1 IHC, TMB, and MSI status. Additional utility for informing on chemotherapy, anti-PD-L1/PD-1, and anti-PD-L1/PD-1 plus chemotherapy treatments decisions is shown. American Association for Cancer Research 2023-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10367935/ /pubmed/37497337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0036 Text en © 2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This open access article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Bulen, Benjamin J. Khazanov, Nickolay A. Hovelson, Daniel H. Lamb, Laura E. Matrana, Marc Burkard, Mark E. Yang, Eddy Shih-Hsin Edenfield, William J. Claire Dees, Elizabeth Onitilo, Adedayo A. Buchschacher, Gary L. Miller, Alan M. Parsons, Benjamin M. Wassenaar, Timothy R. Suga, Jennifer M. Siegel, Robert D. Irvin, William Nair, Suresh Slim, Jennifer N. Misleh, Jamal Khatri, Jamil Masters, Gregory A. Thomas, Sachdev Safa, Malek M. Anderson, Daniel M. Mowers, Jonathan Dusenbery, Anna C. Drewery, Stephanie Plouffe, Komal Reeder, Travis Vakil, Hana Patrias, Lynnae Falzetta, Amanda Hamilton, Ryan Kwiatkowski, Kat Johnson, D. Bryan Rhodes, Daniel R. Tomlins, Scott A. Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit |
title | Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit |
title_full | Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit |
title_fullStr | Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit |
title_full_unstemmed | Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit |
title_short | Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit |
title_sort | validation of immunotherapy response score as predictive of pan-solid tumor anti-pd-1/pd-l1 benefit |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10367935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37497337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0036 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bulenbenjaminj validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT khazanovnickolaya validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT hovelsondanielh validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT lamblaurae validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT matranamarc validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT burkardmarke validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT yangeddyshihhsin validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT edenfieldwilliamj validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT clairedeeselizabeth validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT onitiloadedayoa validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT buchschachergaryl validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT milleralanm validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT parsonsbenjaminm validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT wassenaartimothyr validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT sugajenniferm validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT siegelrobertd validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT irvinwilliam validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT nairsuresh validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT slimjennifern validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT mislehjamal validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT khatrijamil validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT mastersgregorya validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT thomassachdev validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT safamalekm validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT andersondanielm validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT mowersjonathan validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT dusenberyannac validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT drewerystephanie validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT plouffekomal validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT reedertravis validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT vakilhana validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT patriaslynnae validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT falzettaamanda validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT hamiltonryan validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT kwiatkowskikat validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT johnsondbryan validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT rhodesdanielr validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit AT tomlinsscotta validationofimmunotherapyresponsescoreaspredictiveofpansolidtumorantipd1pdl1benefit |