Cargando…

Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations

BACKGROUND: In patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring driver alterations, the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains uncertain. Our study aimed to examine the first‐line ICI efficacy in patients with NSCLC harboring KRAS, MET, FGFR, RET, BRAF, and HER2 alteration...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Uehara, Yuji, Watanabe, Kageaki, Hakozaki, Taiki, Yomota, Makiko, Hosomi, Yukio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161348/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35491960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14448
_version_ 1784719465457385472
author Uehara, Yuji
Watanabe, Kageaki
Hakozaki, Taiki
Yomota, Makiko
Hosomi, Yukio
author_facet Uehara, Yuji
Watanabe, Kageaki
Hakozaki, Taiki
Yomota, Makiko
Hosomi, Yukio
author_sort Uehara, Yuji
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring driver alterations, the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains uncertain. Our study aimed to examine the first‐line ICI efficacy in patients with NSCLC harboring KRAS, MET, FGFR, RET, BRAF, and HER2 alterations in a real‐world setting. METHODS: This single‐center, retrospective cohort study included patients with advanced NSCLC harboring KRAS, MET, FGFR, RET, BRAF, HER2 alterations or driver‐negative, and were treated with first‐line ICI therapy. Best overall response, progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy‐eight patients with NSCLC were included (median age, 72 years): 67% were men, 15% were never‐smokers, and 83% had adenocarcinoma. The driver alterations involved KRAS (n = 21), MET (n = 6), FGFR (n = 3), RET (n = 2), BRAF (n = 2), HER2 (n = 1), and driver‐negative (n = 43). The partial responses for KRAS, MET, FGFR, RET, BRAF, HER2, and driver‐negative were 57%, 50%, 100%, 50%, 100%, 0%, and 47%, respectively. The median PFS (months) was 16.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.3– not reached [NR]) for KRAS, 2.8 (95% CI: 2.7–NR) for MET, 11.7 (95% CI: 5.9–NR) for other alterations (FGFR, RET, BRAF, and HER2), and 10.0 (95% CI: 3.7–14.3) for driver‐negative, respectively. The median OS (months) was 31.3 (95% CI: 9.0–NR) for KRAS, not reached for MET, 23.5 (95% CI: 18.3–NR) for other alterations, and 21.1 (95% CI: 15.2–NR) for driver‐negative, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of the first‐line ICI was similar in advanced NSCLC regardless of the driver alterations, except for MET alterations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9161348
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91613482022-06-04 Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations Uehara, Yuji Watanabe, Kageaki Hakozaki, Taiki Yomota, Makiko Hosomi, Yukio Thorac Cancer Original Articles BACKGROUND: In patients with non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring driver alterations, the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains uncertain. Our study aimed to examine the first‐line ICI efficacy in patients with NSCLC harboring KRAS, MET, FGFR, RET, BRAF, and HER2 alterations in a real‐world setting. METHODS: This single‐center, retrospective cohort study included patients with advanced NSCLC harboring KRAS, MET, FGFR, RET, BRAF, HER2 alterations or driver‐negative, and were treated with first‐line ICI therapy. Best overall response, progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy‐eight patients with NSCLC were included (median age, 72 years): 67% were men, 15% were never‐smokers, and 83% had adenocarcinoma. The driver alterations involved KRAS (n = 21), MET (n = 6), FGFR (n = 3), RET (n = 2), BRAF (n = 2), HER2 (n = 1), and driver‐negative (n = 43). The partial responses for KRAS, MET, FGFR, RET, BRAF, HER2, and driver‐negative were 57%, 50%, 100%, 50%, 100%, 0%, and 47%, respectively. The median PFS (months) was 16.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.3– not reached [NR]) for KRAS, 2.8 (95% CI: 2.7–NR) for MET, 11.7 (95% CI: 5.9–NR) for other alterations (FGFR, RET, BRAF, and HER2), and 10.0 (95% CI: 3.7–14.3) for driver‐negative, respectively. The median OS (months) was 31.3 (95% CI: 9.0–NR) for KRAS, not reached for MET, 23.5 (95% CI: 18.3–NR) for other alterations, and 21.1 (95% CI: 15.2–NR) for driver‐negative, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of the first‐line ICI was similar in advanced NSCLC regardless of the driver alterations, except for MET alterations. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2022-05-02 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9161348/ /pubmed/35491960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14448 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Uehara, Yuji
Watanabe, Kageaki
Hakozaki, Taiki
Yomota, Makiko
Hosomi, Yukio
Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations
title Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations
title_full Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations
title_fullStr Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations
title_short Efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC with KRAS , MET , FGFR , RET , BRAF , and HER2 alterations
title_sort efficacy of first‐line immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced nsclc with kras , met , fgfr , ret , braf , and her2 alterations
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161348/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35491960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14448
work_keys_str_mv AT ueharayuji efficacyoffirstlineimmunecheckpointinhibitorsinpatientswithadvancednsclcwithkrasmetfgfrretbrafandher2alterations
AT watanabekageaki efficacyoffirstlineimmunecheckpointinhibitorsinpatientswithadvancednsclcwithkrasmetfgfrretbrafandher2alterations
AT hakozakitaiki efficacyoffirstlineimmunecheckpointinhibitorsinpatientswithadvancednsclcwithkrasmetfgfrretbrafandher2alterations
AT yomotamakiko efficacyoffirstlineimmunecheckpointinhibitorsinpatientswithadvancednsclcwithkrasmetfgfrretbrafandher2alterations
AT hosomiyukio efficacyoffirstlineimmunecheckpointinhibitorsinpatientswithadvancednsclcwithkrasmetfgfrretbrafandher2alterations