This study explores whether blood tumor mutational burden estimated by a next-generation sequencing gene panel is associated with clinical outcomes of patients with non–small cell lung cancer treated with anti–programmed cell death 1 and anti–programmed cell death ligand 1 agents.
Biomarkers such as programmed death receptor 1 ligand (PD-L1) expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and high microsatellite instability are potentially applicable to predict the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). However, several challenges such as defining the cut-off value, test platform uniformity, and low frequencies limit their broad clinical application. Here we identify comutations in the DNA damage response (DDR) pathways of homologous recombination repair and mismatch repair (HRR-MMR) or HRR and base excision repair (HRR-BER; defined as co-mut) that are associated with increased TMB and neoantigen load and increased levels of immune gene expression signatures. In four public clinical cohorts, co-mut patients presented a higher objective response rate and a longer progression-free survival or overall survival than co-mut patients. Overall, identification of DDR comutations in HRR-MMR or HRR-BER as predictors of response to ICB provides a potentially convenient approach for future clinical practice. Identification of comutations in specific DDR pathways as predictors of superior survival outcomes in response to immune checkpoint blockade provide a clinically convenient approach for estimation of tumor mutational burden and delivery of ICB therapy. .
Immune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have led to a paradigm shift in cancer treatment. Understanding the clinical efficacy and safety profile of these drugs is necessary for treatment strategy in clinical practice.OBJECTIVE To assess the differences between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 regarding efficacy and safety shown in randomized clinical trials across various tumor types.
BackgroundDeciphering the correlation between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) categorized by organ system class and clinical benefit of immunotherapy is critical for clinical practice. The aim of this study is to investigate the incidence rates of irAEs and their correlations with objective response rate (ORR) in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with nivolumab (NIVO) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI).MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were searched for eligible studies from January 1st, 2000 to May 1st 2019. Published clinical trials on NIVO or NIVO+IPI with reported irAEs were included. Logit transformation of the irAE incidences was applied for the generation of pooled estimate and Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the correlation between irAE and ORR.Results48 clinical trials involving 7936 patients treated with NIVO or NIVO+IPI were included. Compared to NIVO, NIVO+IPI led to more all-grade and grade 3 or higher irAEs categorized by system organ class (P < 0.05). The ORR of NIVO was positively correlated with the incidence rate of skin (r = 0.79, P < 0.001), gastrointestinal (r = 0.56, P = 0.006) and endocrine irAEs (r = 0.44, P = 0.05), but not hepatic, pulmonary and renal irAEs. The ORR of NIVO+IPI was positively correlated with the incidence rate of skin (r = 0.54, P = 0.04), and gastrointestinal irAEs (r = 0.60, P = 0.02), but not endocrine, hepatic, pulmonary and renal irAEs.ConclusionThis meta-analysis summarizes the incidence rates of irAEs in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with NIVO or NIVO+IPI, and uncovers their correlations with ORR across multiple neoplasms. These findings highlight the potential of irAE to reflect response to NIVO or NIVO+IPI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.