Prediction of response to anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer by electronic nose analysis of exhaled breath.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved survival outcome of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, most patients do not benefit. Therefore, biomarkers are needed that accurately predict response. We hypothesized that molecular profiling of exhaled air may capture the inflammatory milieu related to the individual responsiveness to anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1) therapy. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of exhaled breath analysis at baseline for assessing nonresponders versus responders to anti-PD-1 therapy in NSCLC patients. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitor therapy using both a training and validation set of NSCLC patients. At baseline, breath profiles were collected in duplicate by a metal oxide semiconductor electronic nose (eNose) positioned at the rear end of a pneumotachograph. Patients received nivolumab or pembrolizumab of which the efficacy was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 at 3-month follow-up. Data analysis involved advanced signal-processing and statistics based on independent t-tests followed by linear discriminant and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Exhaled breath data of 143 NSCLC patients (training: 92, validation: 51) were available at baseline. ENose sensors contributed significantly (P < 0.05) at baseline in differentiating between patients with different responses at 3 months of anti-PD-1 treatment. The eNose sensors were combined into a single biomarker with an ROC-area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 [confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.96]. This AUC was confirmed in the validation set: 0.85 (CI 0.75-0.96). CONCLUSION: ENose assessment was effective in the noninvasive prediction of individual patient responses to immunotherapy. The predictive accuracy and efficacy of the eNose for discrimination of immunotherapy responder types were replicated in an independent validation set op patients. This finding can potentially avoid application of ineffective treatment in identified probable nonresponders.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with advanced lung cancer and oncogenic driver alterations: results from the IMMUNOTARGET registry.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 directed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are widely used to treat patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The activity of ICI across NSCLC harboring oncogenic alterations is poorly characterized. The aim of our study was to address the efficacy of ICI in the context of oncogenic addiction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study for patients receiving ICI monotherapy for advanced NSCLC with at least one oncogenic driver alteration. Anonymized data were evaluated for clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes for ICI therapy: best response (RECIST 1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) from ICI initiation. The primary end point was PFS under ICI. Secondary end points were best response (RECIST 1.1) and OS from ICI initiation. RESULTS: We studied 551 patients treated in 24 centers from 10 countries. The molecular alterations involved KRAS (n = 271), EGFR (n = 125), BRAF (n = 43), MET (n = 36), HER2 (n = 29), ALK (n = 23), RET (n = 16), ROS1 (n = 7), and multiple drivers (n = 1). Median age was 60 years, gender ratio was 1 : 1, never/former/current smokers were 28%/51%/21%, respectively, and the majority of tumors were adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate by driver alteration was: KRAS = 26%, BRAF = 24%, ROS1 = 17%, MET = 16%, EGFR = 12%, HER2 = 7%, RET = 6%, and ALK = 0%. In the entire cohort, median PFS was 2.8 months, OS 13.3 months, and the best response rate 19%. In a subgroup analysis, median PFS (in months) was 2.1 for EGFR, 3.2 for KRAS, 2.5 for ALK, 3.1 for BRAF, 2.5 for HER2, 2.1 for RET, and 3.4 for MET. In certain subgroups, PFS was positively associated with PD-L1 expression (KRAS, EGFR) and with smoking status (BRAF, HER2). CONCLUSIONS: : ICI induced regression in some tumors with actionable driver alterations, but clinical activity was lower compared with the KRAS group and the lack of response in the ALK group was notable. Patients with actionable tumor alterations should receive targeted therapies and chemotherapy before considering immunotherapy as a single agent.

Optimising primary molecular profiling in non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Molecular profiling of NSCLC is essential for optimising treatment decisions, but often incomplete. We assessed the efficacy of protocolised molecular profiling in the current standard-of-care (SoC) in a prospective observational study in the Netherlands and measured the effect of providing standardised diagnostic procedures. We also explored the potential of plasma-based molecular profiling in the primary diagnostic setting. METHODS: This multi-centre prospective study was designed to explore the performance of current clinical practice during the run-in phase using local SoC tissue profiling procedures. The subsequent phase was designed to investigate the extent to which comprehensive molecular profiling (CMP) can be maximized by protocolising tumour profiling. Successful molecular profiling was defined as completion of at least EGFR and ALK testing. Additionally, PD-L1 tumour proportions scores were explored. Lastly, the additional value of centralised plasma-based testing for EGFR and KRAS mutations using droplet digital PCR was evaluated. RESULTS: Total accrual was 878 patients, 22.0% had squamous cell carcinoma and 78.0% had non-squamous NSCLC. Stage I-III was seen in 54.0%, stage IV in 46.0%. Profiling of EGFR and ALK was performed in 69.9% of 136 patients included in the run-in phase, significantly more than real-world data estimates of 55% (p<0.001). Protocolised molecular profiling increased the rate to 77.0% (p = 0.049). EGFR and ALK profiling rates increased from 77.9% to 82.1% in non-squamous NSCLC and from 43.8% to 57.5% in squamous NSCLC. Plasma-based testing was feasible in 98.4% and identified oncogenic driver mutations in 7.1% of patients for whom tissue profiling was unfeasible. CONCLUSION: This study shows a high success rate of tissue-based molecular profiling that was significantly improved by a protocolised approach. Tissue-based profiling remains unfeasible for a substantial proportion of patients. Combined analysis of tumour tissue and circulating tumour DNA is a promising approach to allow adequate molecular profiling of more patients.