Julia L Boland1, Qin Zhou2, Alexia E Iasonos2, Roisin E O'Cearbhaill3, Jason Konner3, Margaret Callahan3, Claire Friedman3, Carol Aghajanian3, Paul Sabbatini3, Dmitriy Zamarin3, Karen A Cadoo4. 1. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Weil Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Medicine, Weil Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: cadook@mskcc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility of serum cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) levels to monitor patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. METHOD: This was a single-center retrospective review of all patients with EOC who were treated with ICI therapy from January 2013 to May 2017. This study compared the percentage change in baseline CA-125 in patients who had clinical benefit, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease by RECIST 1.1, with duration ≥24 weeks, versus those who did not. The groups were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (66%) of 89 patients who underwent ICI therapy had CA-125 data at baseline and during treatment. Of those who derived clinical benefit, 11/15 (73%) experienced an increase in CA-125 from baseline to end of treatment. Of those who did not derive clinical benefit, 36/44 (82%) experienced a CA-125 increase (p = 0.48). The average % increase from baseline to within 12 weeks of treatment initiation for patients with and without clinical benefit was 34% and 195%, respectively (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates a statistically significant difference in the magnitude of increase in CA-125 levels within the first 12 weeks of treatment between patients who achieved clinical benefit and those who did not. However, both groups of patients were equally likely to experience an increase in CA-125 within 12 weeks. These findings suggest that physicians should apply caution when using early CA-125 data to guide treatment decisions for patients with EOC undergoing ICI therapy.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility of serum cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) levels to monitor patients with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. METHOD: This was a single-center retrospective review of all patients with EOC who were treated with ICI therapy from January 2013 to May 2017. This study compared the percentage change in baseline CA-125 in patients who had clinical benefit, defined as complete response, partial response, or stable disease by RECIST 1.1, with duration ≥24 weeks, versus those who did not. The groups were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (66%) of 89 patients who underwent ICI therapy had CA-125 data at baseline and during treatment. Of those who derived clinical benefit, 11/15 (73%) experienced an increase in CA-125 from baseline to end of treatment. Of those who did not derive clinical benefit, 36/44 (82%) experienced a CA-125 increase (p = 0.48). The average % increase from baseline to within 12 weeks of treatment initiation for patients with and without clinical benefit was 34% and 195%, respectively (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates a statistically significant difference in the magnitude of increase in CA-125 levels within the first 12 weeks of treatment between patients who achieved clinical benefit and those who did not. However, both groups of patients were equally likely to experience an increase in CA-125 within 12 weeks. These findings suggest that physicians should apply caution when using early CA-125 data to guide treatment decisions for patients with EOC undergoing ICI therapy.
Authors: K Lindemann; G Kristensen; M R Mirza; L Davies; F Hilpert; I Romero; A Ayhan; A Burges; M J Rubio; F Raspagliesi; M Huizing; G-J Creemers; M Lykka; C K Lee; V Gebski; E Pujade-Lauraine Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: P Sabbatini; D Mooney; A Iasonos; H Thaler; C Aghajanian; M Hensley; J Konner; D Spriggs; N R Abu-Rustum; J Dupont Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2007-02-09 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: F Stephen Hodi; Marcus Butler; Darryl A Oble; Michael V Seiden; Frank G Haluska; Andrea Kruse; Suzanne Macrae; Marybeth Nelson; Christine Canning; Israel Lowy; Alan Korman; David Lautz; Sara Russell; Michael T Jaklitsch; Nikhil Ramaiya; Teresa C Chen; Donna Neuberg; James P Allison; Martin C Mihm; Glenn Dranoff Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 11.205
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: J Alexandre; C Brown; D Coeffic; N Raban; J Pfisterer; J Mäenpää; H Chalchal; B Fitzharris; B Volgger; I Vergote; C Pisano; A Ferrero; E Pujade-Lauraine Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Julia L Boland; Qin Zhou; Madhuri Martin; Margaret K Callahan; Jason Konner; Roisin E O'Cearbhaill; Claire F Friedman; William Tew; Vicky Makker; Rachel N Grisham; Martee L Hensley; Nicholas Zecca; Alexia E Iasonos; Alexandra Snyder; David M Hyman; Paul Sabbatini; Carol Aghajanian; Karen A Cadoo; Dmitriy Zamarin Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 5.482