RESUMO
PURPOSE: Treatment efficacy of nivolumab was evaluated in patients with advanced, treatment-refractory solid dMMR/MSI tumors and in-depth biomarker analyses were performed to inform precision immunotherapy approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with dMMR/MSI tumors who exhausted standard-of-care treatment options were enrolled in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), a pan-cancer clinical trial that treats patients with cancer based on their tumor molecular profile with off-label anticancer drugs (NCT02925234). Patients received nivolumab (four cycles of 240 mg every 2 weeks, thereafter 480 mg every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB: objective response (OR) or stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). Whole-genome sequencing and RNA-sequencing were performed on pre-treatment tumor biopsies. RESULTS: 130 evaluable patients were enrolled with 16 different cancer types. CB was observed in 62% (95% CI: 53 - 70) with an OR in 45% (95% CI: 36 - 54). After a median follow-up of 14.5 months (95% CI: 13 - 19), median progression-free survival was 18 months (95% CI 9 - not reached) and median overall survival was not reached. While CB was not or only weakly associated with markers of adaptive immune cell infiltration, CB was strongly associated with expression of a broad set of innate immune receptors/ligands. This clearly contrasted findings in melanoma, where markers of adaptive immunity dominated the biomarker landscape. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab proved highly effective in advanced dMMR/MSI tumors. Expression of key innate immune receptors/ligands was the main predictor of good treatment outcome, contrasting findings in melanoma and strengthening the rationale for tumor-type specific biomarkers for guiding immunotherapy.
RESUMO
Advances in therapeutic approaches for melanoma urge the need for biomarkers that can identify patients at risk for recurrence and to guide treatment. The potential use of liquid biopsies in identifying biomarkers is increasingly being recognized. Here, we present a head-to-head comparison of several techniques to analyze circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in 20 patients with metastatic melanoma. In this study, we investigated whether diagnostic leukapheresis (DLA) combined with multimarker flow cytometry (FCM) increased the detection of CTCs in blood compared to the CellSearch platform. Additionally, we characterized cfDNA at the level of somatic mutations, extent of aneuploidy and genome-wide DNA methylation. Both CTCs and cfDNA measures were compared to tumor markers and extracranial tumor burden on radiological imaging. Compared to the CellSearch method applied on peripheral blood, DLA combined with FCM increased the proportion of patients with detectable CTCs from 35% to 70% (P = 0.06). However, the median percentage of cells that could be recovered by the DLA procedure was 29%. Alternatively, cfDNA mutation and methylation analysis detected tumor load in the majority of patients (90% and 93% of samples successfully analyzed, respectively). The aneuploidy score was positive in 35% of all patients. From all tumor measurements in blood, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels were significantly correlated to variant allele frequency (P = 0.004). Furthermore, the presence of CTCs in DLA was associated with tumor burden (P < 0.001), whereas the presence of CTCs in peripheral blood was associated with number of lesions on radiological imaging (P < 0.001). In conclusion, DLA tended to increase the proportion of patients with detectable CTCs but was also associated with low recovery. Both cfDNA and CTCs were correlated with clinical parameters such as LDH levels and extracranial tumor burden.
RESUMO
A diagnosis of brain metastasis (BM) significantly affects quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Although systemic treatments have shown efficacy in mRCC, active surveillance (AS) is still commonly used in clinical practice. In this single-center cohort study, we assessed the impact of different initial treatment strategies for metastatic RCC (mRCC) on the development of BM. All consecutive patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2011 and 2022 were included at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, the Netherlands, and a subgroup of patients with BM was selected. In total, 381 patients with mRCC (ECM, BM, or both) were identified. Forty-six patients had BM of whom 39 had metachronous BM (diagnosed ≥1 month after ECM). Twenty-five (64.1%) of these 39 patients with metachronous BM had received prior systemic treatment for ECM and 14 (35.9%) patients were treatment naive at BM diagnosis. The median BM-free survival since ECM diagnosis was significantly longer (p = .02) in previously treated patients (29.0 [IQR 12.6-57.0] months) compared to treatment naive patients (6.8 [IQR 1.0-7.0] months). In conclusion, patients with mRCC who received systemic treatment for ECM prior to BM diagnosis had a longer BM-free survival as compared to treatment naïve patients. These results emphasize the need for careful evaluation of treatment strategies, and especially AS, for patients with mRCC.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Encefálicas , Carcinoma de Células Renais , Neoplasias Renais , Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Renais/secundário , Carcinoma de Células Renais/patologia , Carcinoma de Células Renais/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renais/terapia , Neoplasias Encefálicas/secundário , Neoplasias Encefálicas/terapia , Masculino , Feminino , Neoplasias Renais/patologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Qualidade de Vida , Estudos Retrospectivos , Países Baixos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy of pembrolizumab across multiple cancer types harboring different levels of Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS)-based tumor mutational load (TML; total of non-synonymous mutations across the genome) in patients included in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (NCT02925234). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with solid, treatment-refractory, microsatellite-stable tumors were enrolled in cohort A: breast cancer TML 140-290, cohort B: tumor-agnostic cohort TML 140-290, and cohort C: tumor-agnostic cohort TML >290. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every three weeks. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB: objective response or stable disease (SD) ≥16 weeks). Pre-treatment tumor biopsies were obtained for WGS and RNA-sequencing. RESULTS: Seventy-two evaluable patients with 26 different histotypes were enrolled. CB rate was 13% in cohort A (3/24 with partial response (PR)), 21% in cohort B (3/24 with SD, 2/24 with PR), and 42% in cohort C (4/24 with SD, 6/24 with PR). In cohort C, neoantigen burden estimates and expression of inflammation and innate immune biomarkers were significantly associated with CB. Similar associations were not identified in cohort A and B. In cohort A, CB was significantly associated with mutations in the chromatin remodeling gene PBRM1, while in cohort B, CB was significantly associated with expression of MICA/MICB and butyrophilins. CB and clonal TML were not significantly associated. CONCLUSION: While in cohort A pembrolizumab lacked activity, cohort B and cohort C met the study's primary endpoint. Further research is warranted to refine selection of patients with tumors harboring lower TMLs and may benefit from a focus on innate immunity.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients' decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. METHODS: This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients' initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one's fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients' values, but generally only gave 'contrasting' examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing. CONCLUSIONS: While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.