Dataset Information

Tumor Mutational Burden, Toxicity, and Response of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Targeting PD(L)1, CTLA-4, and Combination: A Meta-regression Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has emerged as a potential predictive biomarker for clinical response to ICI therapy, but whether TMB also predicts toxicity remains unknown. We investigated the relationship between TMB, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity for ICI therapy across multiple cancer types.

Experimental design

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and ASCO/ESMO/AACR meetings for clinical trials of anti-PD(L)1, CTLA-4, or combination in 29 cancer types. We assessed ICI administered, responses (complete or partial response), median OS, OS HR, and grade 3/4 toxicity. We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression using tumor level TMB data from Foundation Medicine.

Results

One hundred seventeen clinical trials, which included 12,450 patients treated with ICI therapy were analyzed. Meta-regression analysis revealed that TMB was significantly associated with ORR for anti-PD(L)1, anti-CTLA-4, and combination (P < 0.0001 for all), but not associated with toxicity in all treatment groups. OS data were unavailable for most studies included in our meta-analysis, and the relationship between TMB and OS in this subset was not significant (P = 0.26). In high TMB tumor types (?10 mut/megabase) the improvement of ORR and increase in grade 3/4 toxicity with combination ICI therapy as compared with PD(L)1 monotherapy were 21.13% and 25.41%, respectively, as compared with 3.73% and 18.78% in low TMB tumor types (<10 mut/megabase).

Conclusions

There is a positive association between TMB and clinical response with anti-PD(L)1, anti-CTLA-4, and combination ICIs, but no association between TMB and toxicity. These results imply a favorable risk/benefit ratio for ICIs in tumors with a higher TMB.

SUBMITTER: Osipov A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7501151 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metformin is one of the biguanides commonly used in patients with type II Diabetes Mellitus. Apart from its hypoglycemic properties, metformin also inhibits the cell cycle by restricting protein synthesis and cell proliferation via regulating the LKB1/AMPL pathway. Furthermore, it also enhances the PD-1 blockade through a reduction of tumor hypoxia. Metformin has shown a significant favorable impact on treatment-related outcomes in solid tumors, but these outcomes have not been replicated in the limited clinical studies done on malignant melanoma. Moreover, none of these studies have reported on the efficacy of the combined use of metformin and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study that includes patients diagnosed with metastatic malignant melanoma and treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab (Cohort A); or ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab plus metformin (Cohort B) between January 1st 2011 through December 15th 2017. In this study, patients are stratified based on anti-PD-1 only and anti-CTLA4/anti-PD-1 combination therapies in each cohort. Objective response rate (ORR) is the primary endpoint. Disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) are the secondary endpoints. RESULTS:Cohort A had 33 patients (60%), while cohort B had 22 (40%). Overall patient characteristics were similar between both cohorts. ORR was higher in cohort B (68.2% vs. 54.5%, P?=?0.31). The DCR was higher in cohort B as well (77.3% vs. 60.6%, P?=?0.19). Median OS (46.7 months vs. 28 months), and median PFS (19.8 months vs. 5 months) were longer in cohort B. However, on univariate and multivariate analyses, none of these differences were statistically significant. The mean number of new metastatic sites which appeared during therapy were significantly higher in cohort A (A:1.51 vs. B:0.59, P?=?0.009). CONCLUSION:We have observed favorable treatment-related outcomes (ORR, DCR, median PFS and median OS) in patients who have received metformin in combination with ICIs without reaching significance, probably, due to small sample size. Hence, large prospective clinical trials are required to study the synergistic effect of metformin in combination with ICIs before it can be recommended as routine additive therapy.

Project description:Background:Recently, a series of clinical trials showed that combination of anti-programmed cell death-1 (?-PD-1) and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (?-CTLA-4) could effectively eliminate tumor. However, in comparison with widely adopted mono-immune checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy, the advantage of combination therapy of ?-PD-1 and ?-CTLA-4 in response rate and prognosis is controversial especially considering probably increased treatment related adverse event. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of combination treatment of ?-PD-1 and ?-CTLA-4. Methods:This meta-analysis involved 8 clinical trials. In most trials, the primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Thus we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare ORR of patients undergoing different treatment strategies. Moreover, the co-primary endpoints in few trials included progression-free survival and overall survival. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI were employed to weigh the influence of different treatments on prognosis of patients. Subgroup analysis was conducted in patients with high and low expression of PD-L1. Lastly, the safety of combination therapy was evaluated by comparing treatment related adverse events among various treatment groups. Results:Our results showed that ORR was significantly higher in patients receiving ?-PD-1 plus ?-CTLA-4 compared with ?-PD-1 (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16-1.48) or ?-CTLA-4 monotherapy (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.84-2.43), chemotherapy and targeted therapy (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.26-1.58). ?-PD-1 plus ?-CTLA-4 treated patients had a great advantage on monotherapy, chemotherapy and targeted therapy treated patients in PFS. Notably, no significant alteration in total adverse event rate was observed in ?-PD-1 plus ?-CTLA-4 treated patients. Results of subgroup analysis showed that combination therapy could enhance anti-tumor response in comparison with other treatments, especially for low PD-L1 expression patients undergoing nivolumab treatment (ORR: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11-1.65). Conclusion:Combination treatment of ?-PD-1 and ?-CTLA-4 is a feasible strategy with enhanced efficacy and acceptable adverse event. Moreover, for some low PD-L1 expression patients, ?-CTLA-4 might decrease the risk of resistance to ?-PD-1 and demonstrate the synergistic anti-tumor effect.