Jenny H Lee1,2,3, Georgina V Long2,4,5, Alexander M Menzies2,4,5, Serigne Lo2, Alexander Guminski2,4,5, Kataraina Whitbourne2,3, Michelle Peranec2,4, Richard Scolyer2,4,6, Richard F Kefford1,2,4,7, Helen Rizos1,2,3, Matteo S Carlino2,3,4,7,8. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Sydney West Translational Cancer Research Centre, University of Sydney at The Westmead Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, Blacktown Cancer and Haematology Centre, Blacktown Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
Importance: Longitudinal circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been shown to predict response and survival in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibodies. Pseudoprogression, defined as radiologic finding of disease progression prior to response, has been a challenge to clinicians. Objective: To establish whether ctDNA at baseline and up to week 12 of treatment can differentiate between the radiologic findings of pseudoprogression and true progression in patients with metastatic melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This explorative biomarker study examined circulating BRAF and NRAS mutations in a cohort of 125 patients with melanoma receiving PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with ipilimumab between July 3, 2014, and May 24, 2016. Pseudoprogression was defined retrospectively as radiologic progression not confirmed as progressive disease at the next radiologic assessment. Plasma samples of ctDNA at baseline and while receiving treatment were taken for analysis prospectively over the first 12 weeks of treatment. Favorable ctDNA profile (undetectable ctDNA at baseline or detectable ctDNA at baseline followed by >10-fold decrease) and unfavorable ctDNA profile (detectable ctDNA at baseline that remained stable or increased) were correlated with response and prognosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Early differentiation of pseudoprogression from true progression using longitudinal ctDNA profile. Results: According to guidelines by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), progressive disease occurred in 29 of the 125 patients (23.2%). Of the 29 patients, 17 (59%) were 65 years or younger, 18 (62%) were men, 9 (31%) had pseudoprogression, and 20 (69%) had true progression. Of the 9 patients (7%) with confirmed pseudoprogression, all patients had a favorable ctDNA profile. At a median follow-up of 110 weeks, 7 of 9 patients (78%) were alive. All but 2 patients with true progression had an unfavorable ctDNA profile. Sensitivity of ctDNA for predicting pseudoprogression was 90% (95% CI, 68%-99%) and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 60%-100%). The 1-year survival for patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease and favorable ctDNA was 82% vs 39% for unfavorable ctDNA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.8; 95% CI, 1.6-14.3; P = .02). Overall survival was longer in patients with a partial response (54 of 125 patients [43%]) compared with patients with progressive disease and a favorable ctDNA profile (11 of 125 patients [9%]; HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.80; P < .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The results demonstrate that ctDNA profiles can accurately differentiate pseudoprogression from true progression of disease in patients with melanoma treated with PD-1 antibodies. Results of this blood test performed at regular intervals during systemic treatment reflect tumor biology and have potential as a powerful biomarker to predict long-term response and survival.
Importance: Longitudinal circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been shown to predict response and survival in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibodies. Pseudoprogression, defined as radiologic finding of disease progression prior to response, has been a challenge to clinicians. Objective: To establish whether ctDNA at baseline and up to week 12 of treatment can differentiate between the radiologic findings of pseudoprogression and true progression in patients with metastatic melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This explorative biomarker study examined circulating BRAF and NRAS mutations in a cohort of 125 patients with melanoma receiving PD-1 antibodies alone or in combination with ipilimumab between July 3, 2014, and May 24, 2016. Pseudoprogression was defined retrospectively as radiologic progression not confirmed as progressive disease at the next radiologic assessment. Plasma samples of ctDNA at baseline and while receiving treatment were taken for analysis prospectively over the first 12 weeks of treatment. Favorable ctDNA profile (undetectable ctDNA at baseline or detectable ctDNA at baseline followed by >10-fold decrease) and unfavorable ctDNA profile (detectable ctDNA at baseline that remained stable or increased) were correlated with response and prognosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Early differentiation of pseudoprogression from true progression using longitudinal ctDNA profile. Results: According to guidelines by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), progressive disease occurred in 29 of the 125 patients (23.2%). Of the 29 patients, 17 (59%) were 65 years or younger, 18 (62%) were men, 9 (31%) had pseudoprogression, and 20 (69%) had true progression. Of the 9 patients (7%) with confirmed pseudoprogression, all patients had a favorable ctDNA profile. At a median follow-up of 110 weeks, 7 of 9 patients (78%) were alive. All but 2 patients with true progression had an unfavorable ctDNA profile. Sensitivity of ctDNA for predicting pseudoprogression was 90% (95% CI, 68%-99%) and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 60%-100%). The 1-year survival for patients with RECIST-defined progressive disease and favorable ctDNA was 82% vs 39% for unfavorable ctDNA (hazard ratio [HR], 4.8; 95% CI, 1.6-14.3; P = .02). Overall survival was longer in patients with a partial response (54 of 125 patients [43%]) compared with patients with progressive disease and a favorable ctDNA profile (11 of 125 patients [9%]; HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.80; P < .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The results demonstrate that ctDNA profiles can accurately differentiate pseudoprogression from true progression of disease in patients with melanoma treated with PD-1 antibodies. Results of this blood test performed at regular intervals during systemic treatment reflect tumor biology and have potential as a powerful biomarker to predict long-term response and survival.
Authors: Caroline Robert; Jacob Schachter; Georgina V Long; Ana Arance; Jean Jacques Grob; Laurent Mortier; Adil Daud; Matteo S Carlino; Catriona McNeil; Michal Lotem; James Larkin; Paul Lorigan; Bart Neyns; Christian U Blank; Omid Hamid; Christine Mateus; Ronnie Shapira-Frommer; Michele Kosh; Honghong Zhou; Nageatte Ibrahim; Scot Ebbinghaus; Antoni Ribas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James Larkin; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Rene Gonzalez; Jean Jacques Grob; C Lance Cowey; Christopher D Lao; Dirk Schadendorf; Reinhard Dummer; Michael Smylie; Piotr Rutkowski; Pier F Ferrucci; Andrew Hill; John Wagstaff; Matteo S Carlino; John B Haanen; Michele Maio; Ivan Marquez-Rodas; Grant A McArthur; Paolo A Ascierto; Georgina V Long; Margaret K Callahan; Michael A Postow; Kenneth Grossmann; Mario Sznol; Brigitte Dreno; Lars Bastholt; Arvin Yang; Linda M Rollin; Christine Horak; F Stephen Hodi; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey S Weber; Sandra P D'Angelo; David Minor; F Stephen Hodi; Ralf Gutzmer; Bart Neyns; Christoph Hoeller; Nikhil I Khushalani; Wilson H Miller; Christopher D Lao; Gerald P Linette; Luc Thomas; Paul Lorigan; Kenneth F Grossmann; Jessica C Hassel; Michele Maio; Mario Sznol; Paolo A Ascierto; Peter Mohr; Bartosz Chmielowski; Alan Bryce; Inge M Svane; Jean-Jacques Grob; Angela M Krackhardt; Christine Horak; Alexandre Lambert; Arvin S Yang; James Larkin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Chetan Bettegowda; Mark Sausen; Rebecca J Leary; Isaac Kinde; Yuxuan Wang; Nishant Agrawal; Bjarne R Bartlett; Hao Wang; Brandon Luber; Rhoda M Alani; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Nilofer S Azad; Alberto Bardelli; Henry Brem; John L Cameron; Clarence C Lee; Leslie A Fecher; Gary L Gallia; Peter Gibbs; Dung Le; Robert L Giuntoli; Michael Goggins; Michael D Hogarty; Matthias Holdhoff; Seung-Mo Hong; Yuchen Jiao; Hartmut H Juhl; Jenny J Kim; Giulia Siravegna; Daniel A Laheru; Calogero Lauricella; Michael Lim; Evan J Lipson; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; George J Netto; Kelly S Oliner; Alessandro Olivi; Louise Olsson; Gregory J Riggins; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Kerstin Schmidt; le-Ming Shih; Sueli Mieko Oba-Shinjo; Salvatore Siena; Dan Theodorescu; Jeanne Tie; Timothy T Harkins; Silvio Veronese; Tian-Li Wang; Jon D Weingart; Christopher L Wolfgang; Laura D Wood; Dongmei Xing; Ralph H Hruban; Jian Wu; Peter J Allen; C Max Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Luis A Diaz Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Wen-Jen Hwu; Richard Kefford; Jeffrey S Weber; Adil Daud; Omid Hamid; Amita Patnaik; Antoni Ribas; Caroline Robert; Tara C Gangadhar; Anthony M Joshua; Peter Hersey; Roxana Dronca; Richard Joseph; Darcy Hille; Dahai Xue; Xiaoyun Nicole Li; S Peter Kang; Scot Ebbinghaus; Andrea Perrone; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J H Lee; G V Long; S Boyd; S Lo; A M Menzies; V Tembe; A Guminski; V Jakrot; R A Scolyer; G J Mann; R F Kefford; M S Carlino; H Rizos Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Seyed Pairawan; Kenneth R Hess; Filip Janku; Nora S Sanchez; Kenna R Mills Shaw; Cathy Eng; Senthilkumar Damodaran; Milind Javle; Ahmed O Kaseb; David S Hong; Vivek Subbiah; Siqing Fu; David R Fogelman; Victoria M Raymond; Richard B Lanman; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Atish D Choudhury; Lillian Werner; Edoardo Francini; Xiao X Wei; Gavin Ha; Samuel S Freeman; Justin Rhoades; Sarah C Reed; Gregory Gydush; Denisse Rotem; Christopher Lo; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Lauren C Harshman; Zhenwei Zhang; Edward P O'Connor; Daniel G Stover; Heather A Parsons; Gad Getz; Matthew Meyerson; J Christopher Love; William C Hahn; Viktor A Adalsteinsson Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-11-02
Authors: Renáta Váraljai; Kilian Wistuba-Hamprecht; Teofila Seremet; Joey Mark S Diaz; Jérémie Nsengimana; Antje Sucker; Klaus Griewank; Jan-Malte Placke; Peter A Horn; Nils von Neuhoff; Batool Shannan; Heike Chauvistré; Felix C E Vogel; Susanne Horn; Jürgen C Becker; Julia Newton-Bishop; Andreas Stang; Bart Neyns; Benjamin Weide; Dirk Schadendorf; Alexander Roesch Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2019-02-15