Romain Cohen1,2, Elisabeth Hain1, Olivier Buhard1, Agathe Guilloux1, Armelle Bardier3, Rachid Kaci4, Philippe Bertheau5, Florence Renaud6,7,8, Frédéric Bibeau9, Jean-François Fléjou1,10, Thierry André1,2, Magali Svrcek1,10, Alex Duval1. 1. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité Mixte de Recherche Scientifique 938 and Site de Recherche Intégré contre le Cancer, Cancer United Research Associating Medicine University and Society, Centre de Recherche Saint-Antoine, Equipe Instabilité des Microsatellites et Cancer, Equipe labellisée par la Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 3. Department of Pathology, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Pitié-Salpétrière, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 4. Department of Pathology, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France. 5. Department of Pathology, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France. 6. Université Lille, Unité Mixte de Recherche Scientifique 1172 e Jean-Pierre Aubert Research Centre e Jean-Pierre Aubert Research Center, Lille, France. 7. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité Mixte de Recherche Scientifique 1172, Team "Mucins, Epithelial Differentiation and Carcinogenesis," Lille, France. 8. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Institut de Pathologie, Lille, France. 9. Department of Pathology, Institut du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 10. Department of Pathology, Sorbonne Université, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors is observed in 10% to 40% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) displaying microsatellite instability (MSI) or defective mismatch repair (dMMR). OBJECTIVE: To investigate possible mechanisms underlying primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors of mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of a single-center, prospective cohort included 38 patients with mCRC diagnosed as MSI or dMMR by local laboratories and entered into trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. The accuracy of MSI or dMMR status was also assessed in a retrospective cohort comprising 93 cases of mCRC that were diagnosed as MSI or dMMR between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2016, in 6 French hospitals. Primary resistance of mCRC was defined as progressive disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, 6 to 8 weeks after initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitors, without pseudo-progression. All tumor samples were reassessed for dMMR status using immunohistochemistry with antibodies directed against MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, and for MSI using polymerase chain reaction with pentaplex markers and with the HSP110 T17 (HT17) repeat. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was positive predictive value. RESULTS: Among the 38 patients (15 women and 23 men; mean [SD] age, 55.6 [13.7] years) in the study with mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR, primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors was observed in 5 individuals (13%). Reassessment of the status of MSI or dMMR revealed that 3 (60%) of these 5 resistant tumors were microsatellite stable or displayed proficient mismatch repair. The positive predictive value of MSI or dMMR status assessed by local laboratories was therefore 92.1% (95% CI, 78.5%-98.0%). In the retrospective cohort of 93 patients (44 women and 49 men; mean [SD] age, 56.8 [18.3] years) without immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, misdiagnosis of the MSI or dMMR status by local assessment was 10% (n = 9), with a positive predictive value of 90.3% (95% CI, 82.4%-95.0%). Testing for MSI with the HT17 assay confirmed the MSI or dMMR status in 2 of 4 cases showing discrepant results between immunohistochemistry and pentaplex polymerase chain reaction (ie, dMMR but microsatellite stable). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Primary resistance of mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR to immune checkpoint inhibitors is due mainly to misdiagnosis of their MSI or dMMR status. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings. Microsatellite instability or dMMR status should be tested routinely using both immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction methods prior to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
IMPORTANCE: Primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors is observed in 10% to 40% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) displaying microsatellite instability (MSI) or defective mismatch repair (dMMR). OBJECTIVE: To investigate possible mechanisms underlying primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors of mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of a single-center, prospective cohort included 38 patients with mCRC diagnosed as MSI or dMMR by local laboratories and entered into trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. The accuracy of MSI or dMMR status was also assessed in a retrospective cohort comprising 93 cases of mCRC that were diagnosed as MSI or dMMR between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2016, in 6 French hospitals. Primary resistance of mCRC was defined as progressive disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, 6 to 8 weeks after initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitors, without pseudo-progression. All tumor samples were reassessed for dMMR status using immunohistochemistry with antibodies directed against MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, and for MSI using polymerase chain reaction with pentaplex markers and with the HSP110 T17 (HT17) repeat. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was positive predictive value. RESULTS: Among the 38 patients (15 women and 23 men; mean [SD] age, 55.6 [13.7] years) in the study with mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR, primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors was observed in 5 individuals (13%). Reassessment of the status of MSI or dMMR revealed that 3 (60%) of these 5 resistant tumors were microsatellite stable or displayed proficient mismatch repair. The positive predictive value of MSI or dMMR status assessed by local laboratories was therefore 92.1% (95% CI, 78.5%-98.0%). In the retrospective cohort of 93 patients (44 women and 49 men; mean [SD] age, 56.8 [18.3] years) without immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, misdiagnosis of the MSI or dMMR status by local assessment was 10% (n = 9), with a positive predictive value of 90.3% (95% CI, 82.4%-95.0%). Testing for MSI with the HT17 assay confirmed the MSI or dMMR status in 2 of 4 cases showing discrepant results between immunohistochemistry and pentaplex polymerase chain reaction (ie, dMMR but microsatellite stable). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Primary resistance of mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR to immune checkpoint inhibitors is due mainly to misdiagnosis of their MSI or dMMR status. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings. Microsatellite instability or dMMR status should be tested routinely using both immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction methods prior to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Authors: Michael J Overman; Ray McDermott; Joseph L Leach; Sara Lonardi; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Michael A Morse; Jayesh Desai; Andrew Hill; Michael Axelson; Rebecca A Moss; Monica V Goldberg; Z Alexander Cao; Jean-Marie Ledeine; Gregory A Maglinte; Scott Kopetz; Thierry André Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Dung T Le; Jennifer N Durham; Kellie N Smith; Hao Wang; Bjarne R Bartlett; Laveet K Aulakh; Steve Lu; Holly Kemberling; Cara Wilt; Brandon S Luber; Fay Wong; Nilofer S Azad; Agnieszka A Rucki; Dan Laheru; Ross Donehower; Atif Zaheer; George A Fisher; Todd S Crocenzi; James J Lee; Tim F Greten; Austin G Duffy; Kristen K Ciombor; Aleksandra D Eyring; Bao H Lam; Andrew Joe; S Peter Kang; Matthias Holdhoff; Ludmila Danilova; Leslie Cope; Christian Meyer; Shibin Zhou; Richard M Goldberg; Deborah K Armstrong; Katherine M Bever; Amanda N Fader; Janis Taube; Franck Housseau; David Spetzler; Nianqing Xiao; Drew M Pardoll; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; James R Eshleman; Bert Vogelstein; Robert A Anders; Luis A Diaz Journal: Science Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Dung T Le; Jennifer N Uram; Hao Wang; Bjarne R Bartlett; Holly Kemberling; Aleksandra D Eyring; Andrew D Skora; Brandon S Luber; Nilofer S Azad; Dan Laheru; Barbara Biedrzycki; Ross C Donehower; Atif Zaheer; George A Fisher; Todd S Crocenzi; James J Lee; Steven M Duffy; Richard M Goldberg; Albert de la Chapelle; Minori Koshiji; Feriyl Bhaijee; Thomas Huebner; Ralph H Hruban; Laura D Wood; Nathan Cuka; Drew M Pardoll; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; Shibin Zhou; Toby C Cornish; Janis M Taube; Robert A Anders; James R Eshleman; Bert Vogelstein; Luis A Diaz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael J Overman; Sara Lonardi; Ka Yeung Mark Wong; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Fabio Gelsomino; Massimo Aglietta; Michael A Morse; Eric Van Cutsem; Ray McDermott; Andrew Hill; Michael B Sawyer; Alain Hendlisz; Bart Neyns; Magali Svrcek; Rebecca A Moss; Jean-Marie Ledeine; Z Alexander Cao; Shital Kamble; Scott Kopetz; Thierry André Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Asad Umar; C Richard Boland; Jonathan P Terdiman; Sapna Syngal; Albert de la Chapelle; Josef Rüschoff; Richard Fishel; Noralane M Lindor; Lawrence J Burgart; Richard Hamelin; Stanley R Hamilton; Robert A Hiatt; Jeremy Jass; Annika Lindblom; Henry T Lynch; Païvi Peltomaki; Scott D Ramsey; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Hans F A Vasen; Ernest T Hawk; J Carl Barrett; Andrew N Freedman; Sudhir Srivastava Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-02-18 Impact factor: 13.506
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