The search for therapeutic targets in lung cancer: Preclinical and human studies of carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 5 expression and its associated molecular landscape.

OBJECTIVES: CEACAM5 is a cell-surface glycoprotein expressed on epithelial cells of some solid tumors. Tusamitamab ravtansine (SAR408701), a humanized antibody-drug conjugate targeting CEACAM5, is in clinical development for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSQ-NSCLC) with CEACAM5 high expression (HE), defined as membranous CEACAM5 immunohistochemistry staining at ≥ 2+ intensity in ≥ 50% of tumor cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated correlations between CEACAM5 expression by immunohistochemistry, CEACAM5 protein expression by ELISA, and CEACAM5 RNA expression by RNA-seq in NSQ-NSCLC patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models, and tumor responses to tusamitamab ravtansine in these models. We assessed prevalence of CEACAM5 HE, clinicopathologic characteristics and molecular markers in patients with NSQ-NSCLC in clinical cohorts. RESULTS: In a lung PDX set of 10 NSQ-NSCLC specimens, correlations between CEACAM5 by IHC, ELISA and RNA-seq ranged from 0.72 to 0.88. In a larger lung PDX set, higher H-scores were present in NSQ- (n = 93) vs SQ-NSCLC (n = 128) models, and in 12 of these NSQ-NSCLC models, more tumor responses to tusamitamab ravtansine occurred in CEACAM5 HE (5/8; 62.5%) versus moderate or negative expression (1/4; 25%), including 3 with KRAS mutations among the 6 responders. In clinical NSQ-NSCLC samples, CEACAM5 HE prevalence was (52/214; 24.3%) in primary tumors and (6/17; 35.3%) in metastases. In NSQ-NSCLC primary tumors, CEACAM5 HE prevalence was significantly higher in KRAS-altered versus wild-type (35.0% vs 19.5%; P = 0.028) and in programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative (tumor cells 0%)/low (1-49%) versus high (≥50%) (33.3%, 26.1%, 5.0%; P = 0.031), but not significantly different in EGFR-mutated versus wild-type (20.0% vs 25.7%, P = 0.626). CONCLUSIONS: In NSQ-NSCLC tumors, CEACAM5 HE prevalence was 24.3% overall and was higher with KRAS altered and with PD-L1 negative/low tumors but similar regardless of EGFR mutation status. These findings support targeting CEACAM5 and the clinical development of tusamitamab ravtansine for patients with NSQ-NSCLC with CEACAM5 HE.

MET genetic abnormalities unreliable for patient selection for therapeutic intervention in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Identification of MET genetic alteration, mutation, or amplification in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) could lead to development of MET selective kinase inhibitors. The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and prognostic value of MET gene mutation, amplification, and protein expression in primary OPSCC. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients treated for single primary OPSCC between January 2007 and December 2009. Pre-treatment OPSCC tissue samples were analyzed for MET mutations, gene amplification, and overexpression using Sanger sequencing, FISH analysis, and immunohistochemistry respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to analyze correlations between molecular abnormalities and patient survival. RESULTS: 143 patients were included in this study. Six cases (4%) were identified that had a genetic variation, but previously described mutations such as p.Tyr1235Asp (Y1235D) or p.Tyr1230Cys (Y1230C) were not detected. There were 15 high polysomy cases, and only 3 cases met the criteria for true MET amplification, with ≥10% amplified cells per case. Immunohistochemistry evaluation showed 43% of cases were c-MET negative and in 57% c-MET was observed at the tumor cell level. Multivariate analysis showed no significant association between MET mutation, amplification, or expression and survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a low frequency of MET mutations and amplification in this cohort of OPSCC. There was no significant correlation between MET mutations, amplification, or expression and patient survival. These results suggest that patient selection based on these MET genetic abnormalities may not be a reliable strategy for therapeutic intervention in OPSCC.