Cargando…

Comparison of the Predictive Power of a Combination versus Individual Biomarker Testing in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

PURPOSE: Since tumor mutational burden (TMB) and gene expression profiling (GEP) have complementary effects, they may have improved predictive power when used in combination. Here, we investigated the ability of TMB and GEP to predict the immunotherapy response in patients with non–small cell lung c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Hyojin, Kwon, Hyun Jung, Kim, Eun Sun, Kwon, Soohyeon, Suh, Kyoung Jin, Kim, Se Hyun, Kim, Yu Jung, Lee, Jong Seok, Chung, Jin-Haeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Cancer Association 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9016300/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34237208
http://dx.doi.org/10.4143/crt.2021.583
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Since tumor mutational burden (TMB) and gene expression profiling (GEP) have complementary effects, they may have improved predictive power when used in combination. Here, we investigated the ability of TMB and GEP to predict the immunotherapy response in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and assessed if this combination can improve predictive power compared to that when used individually. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 30 patients with NSCLC who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) therapy at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. programmed cell death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) protein expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry, and TMB was measured by targeted deep sequencing. Gene expression was determined using NanoString nCounter analysis for the PanCancer IO360 panel, and enrichment analysis were performed. RESULTS: Eleven patients (36.7%) showed a durable clinical benefit (DCB), whereas 19 (63.3%) showed no durable benefit (NDB). TMB and enrichment scores (ES) showed significant differences between the DCB and NDB groups (p=0.044 and p=0.017, respectively); however, no significant correlations were observed among TMB, ES, and PD-L1. ES was the best single biomarker for predicting DCB (area under the curve [AUC], 0.794), followed by TMB (AUC, 0.679) and PD-L1 (AUC, 0.622). TMB and ES showed the highest AUC (0.837) among other combinations (AUC [TMB and PD-L1], 0.777; AUC [PD-L1 and ES], 0.763) and was similar to that of all biomarkers used together (0.832). CONCLUSION: The combination of TMB and ES may be an effective predictive tool to identify patients with NSCLC patients who would possibly benefit from ICI therapies.