| Literature DB >> 35693880 |
Guodai Hong1, Xuemei Chen2, Xizhuo Sun1, Meiling Zhou1,3, Bing Liu1,3, Zhu Li1,3, Zhendong Yu4, Wenbin Gao1, Tao Liu1,3.
Abstract
This study investigated the efficiency of natural killer (NK) cell immunotherapy on non-small cell lung cancer with and without EGFR mutations in order to evaluate the response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Among the 48 patients recruited, 24 were clinically confirmed to be EGFR mutation positive. The study group was treated with autologous NK cell immunotherapy. Comparisons of the lymphocyte number, serum tumour-related biomarkers, circulating tumour cells (CTC), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and survival curves were carried out before and after NK cell immunotherapy. The safety and short-term effects were evaluated, followed by median PFS and RR assessments. The serum CEA and CA125 values were found lower in the NK cell therapy group than that of the non-NK treatment group (p < 0.05). The χ2 test showed a 75% RR of the study group A, significantly higher than that of the control group B (16.7%; p < 0.01). The RR of groups C (58.3%) and D (41.7%) were not statistically significant. The p values of the 4 groups were 0.012, 0.012, 0.166 and 1 from group A to group D, respectively. The median PFS was 9 months in EGFR mutation positive group undergoing NK cell infusion interference. By evaluating the changes in immune function, tumour biomarkers, CTC, KPS and PFS, we demonstrated that NK cell therapy had better clinical therapeutic effects on EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: EGFR mutation; Natural killer cells; clinical efficacy; clinical trial; immunotherapy; lung cancer
Year: 2019 PMID: 35693880 PMCID: PMC8985770 DOI: 10.1093/pcmedi/pbz023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Precis Clin Med ISSN: 2516-1571
Figure 1
Consort diagram. Patient enrollment design of the prospective study on the effects of autologous NK cell immunotherapy against EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma. A. Forty-eight patients were recruited and divided into 4 groups according to the EGFR mutation and NK cell treatment status. B. NK cell infusion protocol and treatment cycle design.
Patient characteristics.
| Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ||
| Gender |
| ||||
| Male | 7 | 6 | 5 | 6 | |
| Female | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | |
| Age (year) | |||||
| Median age (range) | 52 (43-75) | 65 (48-72) | 51 (42-78) | 58 (46-74) |
|
| <50 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 2 | |
| >50 | 5 | 11 | 7 | 10 | |
| Drive gene | |||||
| EGFR+ | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tumor histology | |||||
| Adenocarcinoma | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | |
| Squamous carcinoma | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Previous therapy |
| ||||
| Surgery | 6 | 0 | 6 | 3 | |
| Chemotherapy | 8 | 3 | 8 | 10 | |
| Radiotherapy | 4 | 2 | 7 | 3 | |
| Sites of metastasis |
| ||||
| Lymph node | 9 | 9 | 12 | 11 | |
| Brain | 2 | 5 | 2 | 6 | |
| Bone | 5 | 8 | 6 | 5 | |
| liver | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| Clinical stage (AJCC) |
| ||||
| III | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| IV | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| KPS |
| ||||
| 50 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 60 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 70 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |
| 80 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
| 90 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 100 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
Group A: EGFR mutation positive with NK therapy; Group B: EGFR mutation positive without NK therapy. Patients in group A and B used first-generation TKI drug gefitinib before and had been identified to be drug resistant. In this study, all these enrolled patients accepted second-generation TKI drug afatinib with NK therapy in group A or without in group B; Group C: EGFR mutation negative with NK therapy; Group D: EGFR mutation negative without NK therapy; KPS: Karnofsky Performance Status; +: positive; ①These p values were calculated with χ2 test.
Figure 2
Autologous NK cell expansion and quality evaluation. A. Examination of the NK cell quality. Flow cytometry results indicate a proportion of CD3−CD56+ NK cells ≥80%. B. The level of EGFR mRNA in H1299 is much higher than that of NCI-H520 (*p < 0.05). C. Cytotoxicity of NK cells against H1299 is higher than that of NCI-H520 (*p < 0.05).
Figure 3
Evaluation of the immunological parameters predicts the prognosis of patients. A. Comparison of the NK cell number at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after in different groups (##p < 0.01). B. Comparison of the total T cell number at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after in different groups (##p < 0.01). C. Comparison of the CD4/CD8 ration at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after in different groups (#p < 0.05).
Figure 4
Analysis of tumour biomarkers (CEA and CA125) levels and the number of CTCs in serum at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after. A. Comparison of the concentration of CEA at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after in each group (# p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ). B. Comparison of the concentration of CA125 at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after within each group (# p < 0.05). C. Comparison of CA125 change between each group (). The left picture displays the difference of two groups (A&B vs C&D) according to the factor of “EGFR mutation”. The right picture displays the difference of two groups (A&C vs B&D) according to the factor of “NK cell infusion” positive or negative. D, E. Comparison of the CTC number at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after in each group (# p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ).
Clinical response at 3 months after NK treatment.
| Group | N | CR | PR | SD | PD | RR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 12 | 0 | 9 (75.0%) | 2 (16.7%) | 1 (8.3%) | 75.0% |
| B | 12 | 0 | 2 (16.7%) | 6 (50.0%) | 4 (33.3%) | 16.7% |
| C | 12 | 0 | 7 (58.3%) | 4 (33.3%) | 1 (8.3%) | 58.3% |
| D | 12 | 0 | 5 (41.7%) | 5 (41.7%) | 2 (16.7%) | 41.7% |
Group A: EGFR mutation positive with NK therapy; Group B: EGFR mutation positive without NK therapy; Group C: EGFR mutation negative with NK therapy; Group D: EGFR mutation negative without NK therapy. N: numbers; CR: Complete response; PR: Partial response; SD: Stable disease; PD: Progressive disease; RR: Response rate. The RR was significant difference between group A and B by χ2 test. **p<0.01.
Figure 5
Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of NK cell therapy. A, B. Comparison of the KPS at the time point of patient enrollment and 3 months after in each group (# p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ). C. Live curve shows the splitting in different groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months in group A, 6 months in group B, 9 months in group C and 7 months in group D. The PFS of group A was longer than that of group B and group D (p = 0.004 and 0.02 for group A vs. group B and D, respectively. **p < 0.01, # p < 0.05).