Dataset Information

Molecular profiling of advanced malignancies guides first-line N-of-1 treatments in the I-PREDICT treatment-naive study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Malignancies are molecularly complex and become more resistant with each line of therapy. We hypothesized that offering matched, individualized combination therapies to patients with treatment-naïve, advanced cancers would be feasible and efficacious. Patients with newly diagnosed unresectable/metastatic, poor-prognosis cancers were enrolled in a cross-institutional prospective study.

Methods

A total of 145 patients were included in the study. Genomic profiling (tissue and/or circulating tumor DNA) was performed in all patients, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, tumor mutational burden, and microsatellite status assessment were performed in a subset of patients. We evaluated safety and outcomes: disease-control rate (stable disease for ≥ 6 months or partial or complete response), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

Seventy-six of 145 patients (52%) were treated, most commonly for non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancers, carcinomas of unknown primary, and hepatobiliary malignancies (53% women; median age, 63 years). The median number of deleterious genomic alterations per patient was 5 (range, 0-15). Fifty-four treated patients (71%) received ≥ 1 molecularly matched therapy, demonstrating the feasibility of administering molecularly matched therapy. The Matching Score, which reflects the percentage of targeted alterations, correlated linearly with progression-free survival (R² = 0.92; P = 0.01), and high (≥ 60%) Matching Score was an independent predictor of improved disease control rate [OR 3.31 (95% CI 1.01-10.83), P = 0.048], PFS [HR 0.55 (0.28-1.07), P = 0.08], and OS [HR 0.42 (0.21-0.85), P = 0.02]. Serious adverse event rates were similar in the unmatched and matched groups.

Conclusions

Personalized combination therapies targeting a majority of a patient's molecular alterations have antitumor activity as first-line treatment. These findings underscore the feasibility and importance of using tailored N-of-1 combination therapies early in the course of lethal malignancies.

Trial registration

I-PREDICT ( NCT02534675 ) was registered on August 25, 2015.

SUBMITTER: Sicklick JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491393 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Many genomic alterations have been identified that are critical to the malignant phenotype. Some of these, termed "driver mutations," are critical for tumor proliferation and progression. The landscape of targeted therapy has expanded as well. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumors reveals cancer-related genomic alterations and provides therapeutic recommendations for specific targeted therapy. We analyzed our experience with FoundationOne, a validated NGS genomic profiling test, in a community oncology network. Methods: NGS results from May 2014 to September 2016 from a community oncology network in Western Pennsylvania were analyzed. Medical records were reviewed for primary site, stage, biopsy site, time of testing, prior treatment, FDA-approved therapy in patient's and other tumor types and potential clinical trials based upon mutations detected. Two co-primary endpoints for this study were to determine the percentage of patients having mutations with a FDA-approved targeted agent and the percentage of patients in whom a treatment decision was made based on these NGS results. Results: One Fifty-Seven NGS results were available for analysis. 82% patients had a mutation with a FDA-approved targeted agent available while 18% patients had no FDA-approved targeted agent for the mutation detected. Clinical trials were available for 93% cases. The NGS results were utilized in treatment decisions in 18% patients (n = 28) with, 7% (n = 11) initiating a targeted agent, 6% (n = 9) were on an appropriate targeted agent prior to testing and 5% (n = 8) being unable to start a targeted agent because of insurance denial, clinical deterioration or patient preference. 38% cases were tested early in the disease course (at diagnosis, during or shortly after first-line treatment) and 62% at progression. Conclusions: NGS is a valuable tool to identify molecular targets for personalizing cancer care. From our experience, the actual number of patients starting a targeted agent based on NGS results is low but it provides substantial information in terms of providing additional treatment options, identifying resistance conferring mutations and facilitating clinical trial enrollment. Optimal time of testing, early or late in disease course, financial implications of testing and using targeted therapy and survival benefit of targeted therapy need further studies.

Project description:BackgroundDespite its efficacy, rational guidance for starting/stopping first-line biologic treatment in individual paediatric Crohn's disease [CD] patients is needed. We assessed how serum immune profiles before and after first-line infliximab [FL-IFX] or conventional [CONV] induction therapy associate with disease remission at week 52.MethodsPre- [n = 86], and 10-14-week post-treatment [n = 84] sera were collected from patients with moderate-to-severe paediatric CD in the TISKids trial, randomized to FL-IFX [n = 48; five 5-mg/kg infusions over 22 weeks] or CONV [n = 43; exclusive enteral nutrition or oral prednisolone]; both groups received azathioprine maintenance. The relative concentrations of 92 inflammatory proteins were determined with Olink Proteomics; fold changes [FC] with |log2FC| > 0.5 after false discovery rate adjustment were considered significant.ResultsFL-IFX modulated a larger number of inflammatory proteins and induced stronger suppression than CONV; 18/30 proteins modulated by FL-IFX were not regulated by CONV. Hierarchical clustering based on IFX-modulated proteins at baseline revealed two clusters of patients: CD-hi patients had significantly higher concentrations of 23/30 IFX-modulated proteins [including oncostatin-M, TNFSF14, HGF and TGF-α], and higher clinical disease activity, C-reactive protein and blood neutrophils at baseline than CD-lo patients. Only 24% of CD-hi FL-IFX-treated patients maintained remission without escalation at week 52 vs 58% of CD-lo FL-IFX-treated patients. Similarly, 6% of CD-hi CONV-treated patients achieved remission vs 20% of CONV-treated CD-lo patients. Clustering based on immune profiles post-induction therapy did not relate to remission at week 52.ConclusionFL-IFX leads to stronger reductions and modulates more immune proteins than CONV. Stratification on pre-treatment profiles of IFX-modulated proteins directly relates to maintenance of remission without treatment escalation.Trial registration numberNCT02517684.

Project description:BackgroundPembrolizumab and sintilimab have both been approved by the China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) for the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These two drugs have several differences in biological characteristics and population in clinical trials. The current retrospective study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of sintilimab and pembrolizumab as first-line treatments in patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsConsecutive patients with advanced NSCLC who received sintilimab or pembrolizumab as first-line therapy, with or without chemotherapy, from November 2018 to October 2021 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University and Dushu Lake Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical data and treatment response were collected and survival was followed up. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival curves. The patients were divided into the sintilimab group and the pembrolizumab group according to the PD-1 inhibitors they received during treatment. The primary objective was to compare objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups. The secondary objectives were to compare disease control rate (DCR) and analyze adverse events (AEs) of the two groups.ResultsA total of 124 patients were enrolled, including 68 patients (54.8%) in the sintilimab group and 56 patients (45.2%) in the pembrolizumab group. The baseline characteristics of the patients were comparable between the two groups. The ORR was 50% in the sintilimab group and 46.4% in the pembrolizumab group (P=0.69). The DCR was 89.7% and 89.3% in the sintilimab group and the pembrolizumab group, respectively (P=0.94). The median PFS time was 9.9 months in patients treated with sintilimab compared to 10.8 months in patients on pembrolizumab treatment [hazard ratio (HR) =0.960; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.574-1.606; P=0.875]. The median OS time was not reached in either group of patients. The incidence of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 25% (17/68) in the sintilimab group and 21.4% (12/56) in the pembrolizumab group.ConclusionsSintilimab has similar efficacy to pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC in clinical practice, with manageable AEs.