8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      PD-L1 Expression in Systemic Immune Cell Populations as a Potential Predictive Biomarker of Responses to PD-L1/PD-1 Blockade Therapy in Lung Cancer

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          PD-L1 tumor expression is a widely used biomarker for patient stratification in PD-L1/PD-1 blockade anticancer therapies, particularly for lung cancer. However, the reliability of this marker is still under debate. Moreover, PD-L1 is widely expressed by many immune cell types, and little is known on the relevance of systemic PD-L1 + cells for responses to immune checkpoint blockade. We present two clinical cases of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and PD-L1-negative tumors treated with atezolizumab that showed either objective responses or progression. These patients showed major differences in the distribution of PD-L1 expression within systemic immune cells. Based on these results, an exploratory study was carried out with 32 cases of NSCLC patients undergoing PD-L1/PD-1 blockade therapies, to compare PD-L1 expression profiles and their relationships with clinical outcomes. Significant differences in the percentage of PD-L1 + CD11b + myeloid cell populations were found between objective responders and non-responders. Patients with percentages of PD-L1 + CD11b + cells above 30% before the start of immunotherapy showed response rates of 50%, and 70% when combined with memory CD4 T cell profiling. These findings indicate that quantification of systemic PD-L1 + myeloid cell subsets could provide a simple biomarker for patient stratification, even if biopsies are scored as PD-L1 null.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade

            The genomes of cancers deficient in mismatch repair contain exceptionally high numbers of somatic mutations. In a proof-of-concept study, we previously showed that colorectal cancers with mismatch repair deficiency were sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade with antibodies to programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1). We have now expanded this study to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in patients with advanced mismatch repair-deficient cancers across 12 different tumor types. Objective radiographic responses were observed in 53% of patients, and complete responses were achieved in 21% of patients. Responses were durable, with median progression-free survival and overall survival still not reached. Functional analysis in a responding patient demonstrated rapid in vivo expansion of neoantigen-specific T cell clones that were reactive to mutant neopeptides found in the tumor. These data support the hypothesis that the large proportion of mutant neoantigens in mismatch repair-deficient cancers make them sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade, regardless of the cancers' tissue of origin.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial.

              Despite recent advances in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, there remains a need for effective treatments for progressive disease. We assessed the efficacy of pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Mol Sci
                Int J Mol Sci
                ijms
                International Journal of Molecular Sciences
                MDPI
                1422-0067
                02 April 2019
                April 2019
                : 20
                : 7
                : 1631
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Navarrabiomed-Fundacion Miguel Servet, IdISNA, Irunlarrea 3, 31008 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain; ai.bocanegra.gondan@ 123456navarra.es (A.B.); miren.zuazo.ibarra@ 123456navarra.es (M.Z.-I.); hugo.arasanz.esteban@ 123456navarra.es (H.A.); mjgarciagranda@ 123456gmail.com (M.J.G.-G.); carlos.hernandez.saez@ 123456navarra.es (C.H.); maria.ibanez.vea@ 123456navarra.es (M.I.)
                [2 ]Department of Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, IdISNA, Irunlarrea 3, 31008 Pamplona, Navarra, Spain; gonzalo.fernandez.hinojal@ 123456navarra.es (G.F.-H.); oncomedica.hgugm@ 123456salud.madrid.org (B.H.-M.); maite.martinez.aguillo@ 123456navarra.es (M.M.-A.); mj.lecumberri.biurrun@ 123456navarra.es (M.J.L.); a.fdz.de@ 123456navarra.es (A.F.d.L.); lucia.teijeira.sanchez@ 123456navarra.es (L.T.); idoia.morilla.ruiz@ 123456navarra.es (I.M.)
                [3 ]Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, 5 University Street, London WC1R 6JJ, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: ruth.vera.garcia@ 123456navarra.es (R.V.); descorsm@ 123456navarra.es (D.E.); grazyna.kochan@ 123456navarra.es (G.K.); Tel.: +34-848425100 (R.V.); +34-848425742 (D.E.); +34-848425742 (G.K.)
                [†]

                These authors contributed equally.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3508-0595
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6838-6702
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8536-429X
                Article
                ijms-20-01631
                10.3390/ijms20071631
                6479779
                30986912
                917177d8-9ce1-4379-9251-c551f7a0e0f5
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 06 March 2019
                : 28 March 2019
                Categories
                Article

                Molecular biology
                pd-l1,biomarker,lung cancer,immunotherapy,immune checkpoint blockade
                Molecular biology
                pd-l1, biomarker, lung cancer, immunotherapy, immune checkpoint blockade

                Comments

                Comment on this article