| Literature DB >> 34593617 |
Leonie K de Klerk1,2, Anuj K Patel1, Peter C Enzinger3, Adam J Bass3,4,5, Sarah Derks2, Eirini Pectasides1, Jeremy Augustin1, Mohamed Uduman6, Nihal Raman6, Fahire G Akarca1, Nadine J McCleary1, James M Cleary1, Douglas A Rubinson1, Jeffrey W Clark7, Bridget Fitzpatrick1, Lauren K Brais1, Megan E Cavanaugh8, Amanda J Rode8, Melissa G Jean8, Patrick H Lizotte8, Matthew J Nazzaro6, Mariano Severgnini6, Hui Zheng9, Charles S Fuchs10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer treatment, but the benefits in refractory patients with esophageal cancer have been modest. Predictors of response as well as new targets for novel therapeutic combinations are needed. In this phase 2 clinical trial, we tested single-agent pembrolizumab in patients with advanced esophageal cancer, who received at least one prior line of therapy.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; cytokines; gastrointestinal neoplasms; immunotherapy; tumor; tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34593617 PMCID: PMC8487210 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-002472
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 13.751
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | N | % |
| Median age, years (range) | 64 (34–80) | |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 39 | 79.6 |
| Female | 10 | 20.4 |
| Race | ||
| White | 44 | 89.8 |
| Black or African American | 2 | 4.1 |
| Asian | 1 | 2.0 |
| Other | 1 | 2.0 |
| More than one race | 1 | 2.0 |
| ECOG performance status | ||
| 0 | 13 | 26.5 |
| 1 | 36 | 73.5 |
| Histology at baseline | ||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 10 | 20.4 |
| Adenocarcinoma (including one adenosquamous) | 39 | 79.6 |
| Metastatic disease | ||
| Yes | 45 | 91.8 |
| No | 4 | 8.2 |
| Prior radiation therapy | ||
| Received | 33 | 67.3 |
| Not received (or unknown) | 16 | 32.7 |
| Prior lines of therapy | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0.0 |
| 1 | 10 | 20.4 |
| 2 | 13 | 26.5 |
| 3 | 9 | 18.4 |
| 4 | 8 | 16.3 |
| ≥5 | 7 | 14.3 |
| Missing | 2 | 4.1 |
| HER2 (EAC only) | ||
| Negative | 29 | 74.4 |
| Positive | 9 | 23.1 |
| Unknown | 1 | 2. |
| MMR status | ||
| MMR proficient | 9 | 18.4 |
| MLH1 proficient, not tested otherwise | 1 | 2.0 |
| MMR deficient | 1 | 2.0 |
| Unknown | 38 | 77.6 |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; MMR, mismatch repair.
Figure 1Response to treatment by histology. (A, B) Show the radiological response by irRECIST of all 43 patients with advanced esophageal cancer treated with pembrolizumab that had at least one restaging scan, color coded by histology. The remaining six patients had progressed clinically before the first restaging scan at 9 weeks. (A) A spider plot showing the percentage change from baseline by time in weeks. (B) A waterfall plot showing the best overall percentage change from baseline per study subject. (C) Kaplan-Meier plots showing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) per histology. EAC, esophageal adenocarcinoma; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; irRECIST, Immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.
Figure 2Response to treatment by PD-L1 Combined Positive Score (CPS). (A) A waterfall plot showing the best overall percentage change from baseline according to irRECIST per study subject, color coded by PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS). (B) Kaplan-Meier plots comparing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of PD-L1-negative (CPS<1) and PD-L1-positive (CPS≥1) patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). This includes PD-L1 CPS from archival tissue. irRECIST, Immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Figure 3Flow cytometric analysis of tumor biopsies at baseline. (A) Overview of major cell populations as a percentage of CD45+ cells, ordered by best overall radiological response (%). (B) Comparison of major cell populations as a percentage of CD45+ cells by biopsy site. (C) Comparison of CD4 T cell exhaustion and activation markers by best overall radiological response. (D) Comparison of major cell populations relative to CD45+ cells by best overall radiological response. (E) Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) Cox proportional hazards survival analysis results; corrected for histology and biopsy location. BOR, best overall response; CPS, Combined Positive Score; MMR, mismatch repair; EAC, esophageal adenocarcinoma; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; gMDSC, granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell.
Figure 4Analyses of a panel of circulating chemokines (Luminex). (A) Boxplot showing a trend toward a higher circulating CXCL10 concentration at baseline in patients with a best overall radiological response of stable disease (SD) or a partial response (PR). (B) Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) Cox proportional hazards analysis of circulating chemokine concentrations at baseline; corrected for histology. Chemokine concentrations were log-transformed to obtain a normal distribution. Only associations with a p<0.1 are shown. (C) Kaplan-Meier plots comparing circulating chemokine concentrations at baseline of several chemokines shown in B. (D) Heatmap of log2 fold changes in circulating chemokine concentrations at treatment cycle 2 (cycle 3 if cycle 2 was missing) relative to baseline. (E) Boxplots showing larger increases in several circulating chemokines at cycle 2 (or 3) relative to baseline in patients with progressive disease than in patients with a partial response or stable disease as best overall radiological response. (F) PFS and OS Cox proportional hazards analysis of log2 fold changes in circulating chemokine concentrations at cycle 2 (or 3) relative to baseline, corrected for histology. Only associations with a p<0.1 are shown. (G) Kaplan-Meier plots comparing circulating chemokine concentrations at cycle 2 (or 3) relative to baseline of the chemokines shown in F. BOR, best overall response; CPS, Combined Positive Score; EAC, esophageal adenocarcinoma; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; IL2RA, IL2 receptor α; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Figure 5NanoString gene expression analysis of tumor biopsies at baseline. Volcano plot of the differential gene expression analysis comparing PD-L1-negative (CPS<1, n=12) and PD-L1-positive (CPS≥1, n=8) patients, showing enrichment of genes associated withT cell suppression (LAG3, IDO1) in PD-L1-positive patients. CPS, Combined Positive Score; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.