| Literature DB >> 31017739 |
Xi Wang1, Bo Zhang1, Xuelian Chen1, Hongnan Mo1, Dawei Wu2, Bo Lan1, Qun Li1, Binghe Xu1, Jing Huang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A small proportion of patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) could benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors; however, reliable peripheral blood biomarkers for outcomes of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in ESCC have not been identified.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; immune checkpoint inhibitor; lactate dehydrogenase; markers; programmed cell death-1
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31017739 PMCID: PMC6558460 DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Thorac Cancer ISSN: 1759-7706 Impact factor: 3.500
Patient characteristics
| Characteristic | Total ( | LDH normal ( | LDH elevated ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| Median (range) | 62 (45–75) | 63 (45–75) | 60 (52–72) |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 41 (95.3%) | 30 (96.8%) | 11 (91.7%) |
| Female | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (3.2%) | 1 (8.3%) |
| ECOG PS | |||
| 0 | 36 (83.7%) | 26 (83.9%) | 10 (83.3%) |
| 1 | 7 (16.3%) | 5 (16.1%) | 2 (16.7%) |
| Histologic grade | |||
| Well or moderately differentiated | 22 (51.2%) | 14 (45.2%) | 8 (66.7%) |
| Poorly differentiated | 19 (44.2%) | 15 (48.4%) | 4 (33.3%) |
| Unknown | 2 (4.7%) | 2 (6.5%) | 0 (0) |
| Previous line of chemotherapy | |||
| 1 | 19 (44.2%) | 15 (48.4%) | 4 (33.3%) |
| 2 | 14 (32.6%) | 9 (29.0%) | 5 (41.7%) |
| ≥ 3 | 10 (23.3%) | 7 (22.2%) | 3 (25.0%) |
| Previous surgery | 19 (44.2%) | 14 (45.1%) | 5 (41.7%) |
| Previous radiation | 27 (62.8%) | 21 (48.8%) | 6 (50.0%) |
| Disease stage | |||
| Locally advanced | 3 (7.0%) | 2 (6.5%) | 1 (8.3%) |
| Metastatic | 40 (93.0%) | 29 (93.5%) | 11 (91.7%) |
| Number of organs involved | |||
| 1 | 10 (23.3%) | 8 (25.8%) | 2 (16.7%) |
| 2 | 17 (39.5%) | 13 (41.9%) | 4 (33.3%) |
| ≥3 | 16 (37.2%) | 10 (32.3%) | 6 (50.0%) |
| Baseline LDH | |||
| Median (IQR) | 185 (156–233) | 165 (151–195) | 262 (237–408) |
LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; IQR, interquartile range.
The correlation between baseline LDH level and best overall response
| Objective response | LDH normal ( | LDH elevated ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| CR + PR | 10 (32.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | 0.02 |
| SD | 10 (32.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | |
| PD | 9 (29.0%) | 9 (75.0%) | |
| Unassessable | 2 (6.5%) | 1 (8.3%) |
Tested by Fisher's exact test.
CR, complete remission; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial remission; SD, stable disease.
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier curves of (a) progression‐free survival (PFS) and (b) overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort according to baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. () Normal LDH (n = 31), () LDH > ULN (n = 12).
Figure 2Correlation between changes in lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level before the first computed tomography (CT) scan and tumor response. PD, progressive disease.
Multivariate analysis of the associations between baseline patient characteristics and survival of patients in the entire cohort (n = 43)
| Parameter | HR | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (< 65 vs. ≥ 65 years) | 0.73 | 0.31–1.75 | 0.483 |
| LDH (≤ ULN vs. > ULN) | 0.18 | 0.07–0.49 | 0.001 |
| CRP (≤ ULN vs. > ULN) | 0.27 | 0.12–0.62 | 0.002 |
| AMC (< 650/μL vs. ≥ 650/μL) | 0.33 | 0.13–0.84 | 0.021 |
| ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) | 0.36 | 0.14–0.94 | 0.038 |
| Number of organs involved (1 vs. ≥ 2) | 0.31 | 0.10–0.98 | 0.045 |
| Liver metastases | 0.70 | 0.28–1‐75 | 0.449 |
| Prior line of chemotherapy (1 vs. ≥ 2) | 0.71 | 0.31–1.60 | 0.405 |
AMC, absolute monocyte count; CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR, hazard ratio; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; ULN, upper limit of normal.