Dataset Information

The relationship between blood-based tumor mutation burden level and efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

The predictive role of blood-based tumor mutation burden (bTMB) for selecting advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who might benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is still under debate. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) /programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus that of standard-of-care therapy in patients with NSCLC who were bTMB high and bTMB low.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, the Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically from inception to February 2021 for studies of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (durvalumab OR atezolizumab OR avelumab OR pembrolizumab OR Nivolumab) that provided hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS), or odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) in both bTMB high and bTMB low groups.

Results

A total of 2338 patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC from six randomized controlled trials, which all used chemotherapy (CT) as a control, were included in this study. Compared with CT, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy improved OS (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52–0.75, P < 0.01), PFS (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.48–0.67, P < 0.01), and ORR (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.84–3.93, P < 0.01) in bTMB-high NSCLC patients but not in bTMB-low patients (OS HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69–1.07, P = 0.17; PFS HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78–1.27, P = 0.98; ORR OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49–0.80, P = 0.03). Subgroup analyses showed that these results were consistent across all subgroups (line of therapy, therapy regimen, type of NGS panel, PD-L1 expression, and cutoff value). Meta-regression analysis showed that the proportion of patients with squamous cell histology had no statistical effect on clinical outcomes. Sensitivity analyses illustrated that all results were stable.

Conclusions

The efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy in advanced NSCLC patients may be dependent on bTMB level. Patients with high bTMB tend to obtain significantly better OS, PFS, and ORR from PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy than from CT. However, because of multiple limitations, including those related to reproducibility, the results are exploratory and should be interpreted with caution.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08924-z.

SUBMITTER: Ba H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8590772 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recommended as first-line treatment for late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. However, efficacy and safety comparisons between ICIs as monotherapy and ICIs with chemotherapy are lacking. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published before February 29th, 2020, with the search terms "immunotherapy" and "chemotherapy". 10 eligible trials were identified with a total of 5,956 patients. Of these patients, 3,204 received immune therapy and 2,752 received chemotherapy. PD-1 inhibitors with chemotherapy improved OS (HR 0.84, 0.77-0.92), PFS (HR 0.80, 0.75-0.85), and objective response rate (ORR) (odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 1.20-5.28) compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In contrast, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant differences in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitors as monotherapy. When patients were stratified according to PD-L1 expression level, patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%) receiving PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy had improved PFS, but not other outcomes, compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In these patients, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant difference in survival compared with PD-L1 inhibitors. In the low PD-L1 expression group (1%-49%), PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy improved OS and PFS, but no advantage was observed in PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy. When comparing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy, no significant differences were observed in the rate of immune-related adverse events (AEs). In summary, for treating patients with late-stage NSCLC, PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have improved efficacy compared with PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy, but PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have similar efficacy as PD-L1 monotherapy. Survival benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy were particularly significant in patients with low PD-L1 expression levels.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42020166678 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=166678).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have expanded treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, there are limited predictive biomarkers for response to ICIs in this indication, with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status demonstrating little predictive utility in mRCC. While predictive of ICI response in other tumor types, the utility of tumor mutation burden (TMB) in mRCC is unclear. Here, we assess TMB, loss of antigen presentation genes and PD-L1 status correlated with outcomes to ICI treatment in mRCC. METHODS:Tumor samples from 34 patients with mRCC treated with ICI therapy at Duke Cancer Institute were retrospectively evaluated using Personal Genome Diagnostics elio tissue complete (RUO version), a tumor genomic profiling assay for somatic variants, TMB, microsatellite status and genomic status of antigen presentation genes. Tumor samples were also analyzed with the Dako 28-8 PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay. Deidentified clinical information was extracted from the medical record, and tumor response was evaluated based on the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1 criteria. RESULTS:Patients were stratified by overall response following ICI therapy and designated as progressive disease (PD; n=18) or disease control groups (DC; n=16). TMB scores ranged from 0.36 to 12.24 mutations/Mb (mean 2.83 mutations/Mb) with no significant difference between the PD and DC groups (3.01 vs 2.63 mutations/Mb, respectively; p=0.7682). Interestingly, 33% of PD patients displayed loss of heterozygosity of major histocompatibility complex class I genes (LOH-MHC) vs 6% of DC patients. Nine of 34 samples were PD-L1-positive (4 in the PD group; 5 in the DC group), suggesting no correlation between PD-L1 expression and response to ICI therapy. Notably, the DC group displayed an enrichment of mutations in DNA repair genes (p=0.04), with 68.8% exhibiting at least one mutated homologous recombination repair (HRR)-related gene compared with only 38.9% of the PD group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Overall, neither TMB nor PD-L1 correlated with ICI response and TMB was not significantly associated with PD-L1 expression. The higher incidence of LOH-MHC in PD group suggests that loss of antigen presentation may restrict response to ICIs. Separately, enrichment of HRR gene mutations in the DC group suggests potential utility in predicting ICI response and a potential therapeutic target, warranting future studies.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the relative efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus conventional drugs in patients with cancer that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. DESIGN:Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, and conference abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology up to March 2018. REVIEW METHODS:Studies of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) that had available hazard ratios for death based on PD-L1 positivity or negativity were included. The threshold for PD-L1 positivity or negativity was that PD-L1 stained cell accounted for 1% of tumour cells, or tumour and immune cells, assayed by immunohistochemistry staining methods. RESULTS:4174 patients with advanced or metastatic cancers from eight randomised controlled trials were included in this study. Compared with conventional agents, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with significantly prolonged overall survival in both patients that were PD-L1 positive (n=2254, hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.74) and PD-L1 negative (1920, 0.80, 0.71 to 0.90). However, the efficacies of PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade treatment in patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative were significantly different (P=0.02 for interaction). Additionally, in both patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative, the long term clinical benefits from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade were observed consistently across interventional agent, cancer histotype, method of randomisation stratification, type of immunohistochemical scoring system, drug target, type of control group, and median follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS:PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy is a preferable treatment option over conventional therapy for both patients that are PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. This finding suggests that PD-L1 expression status alone is insufficient in determining which patients should be offered PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy.