PURPOSE Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) provide physicians with a treatment recommendation for complex tumor-specific genomic alterations. National and international consensus to reach a recommendation is lacking. In this article, we analyze the effectiveness of an MTB decision-making methodology for patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with rare or complex mutational profiles as implemented in the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG). METHODS The UMCG-MTB comprises (pulmonary) oncologists, pathologists, clinical scientists in molecular pathology, and structural biologists. Recommendations are based on reported actionability of variants and molecular interpretation of pathways affected by the variant and supported by molecular modeling. A retrospective analysis of 110 NSCLC cases (representing 106 patients) with suggested treatment of complex genomic alterations and corresponding treatment outcomes for targeted therapy was performed. RESULTS The MTB recommended targeted therapy for 59 of 110 NSCLC cases with complex molecular profiles: 24 within a clinical trial, 15 in accordance with guidelines (on label) and 20 off label. All but 16 recommendations involved patients with an EGFR or ALK mutation. Treatment outcome was analyzed for patients with available follow-up (10 on label and 16 off label). Adherence to the MTB recommendation (21 of 26; 81%) resulted in an objective response rate of 67% (14 of 21), with a median progression-free survival of 6.3 months (interquartile range, 3.2-10.6 months) and an overall survival of 10.4 months (interquartile range, 6.3-14.6 months). CONCLUSION Targeted therapy recommendations resulting from the UMCG-MTB workflow for complex molecular profiles were highly adhered to and resulted in a positive clinical response in the majority of patients with metastatic NSCLC.
Background: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody treatment is standard of care for melanoma and nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accurately predicting which patients will benefit is currently not possible. Tumor uptake and biodistribution of the PD-1 antibody might play a role. Therefore, we carried out a positron emission tomography (PET) imaging study with zirconium-89 ( 89 Zr)-labeled pembrolizumab before PD-1 antibody treatment. Patients and methods: Patients with advanced or metastatic melanoma or NSCLC received 37 MBq (1 mCi) 89 Zrpembrolizumab (w2.5 mg antibody) intravenously plus 2.5 or 7.5 mg unlabeled pembrolizumab. After that, up to three PET scans were carried out on days 2, 4, and 7. Next, PD-1 antibody treatment was initiated. 89 Zrpembrolizumab tumor uptake was calculated as maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max ) and expressed as geometric mean. Normal organ uptake was calculated as SUV mean and expressed as a mean. Tumor response was assessed according to (i)RECIST v1.1. Results: Eighteen patients, 11 with melanoma and 7 with NSCLC, were included. The optimal dose was 5 mg pembrolizumab, and the optimal time point for PET scanning was day 7. The tumor SUV max did not differ between melanoma and NSCLC (4.9 and 6.5, P ¼ 0.49). Tumor 89 Zr-pembrolizumab uptake correlated with tumor response (P trend ¼ 0.014) and progression-free (P ¼ 0.0025) and overall survival (P ¼ 0.026). 89 Zr-pembrolizumab uptake at 5 mg was highest in the spleen with a mean SUV mean of 5.8 (standard deviation AE1.8). There was also 89 Zr-pembrolizumab uptake in Waldeyer's ring, in normal lymph nodes, and at sites of inflammation. Conclusion: 89 Zr-pembrolizumab uptake in tumor lesions correlated with treatment response and patient survival. 89 Zrpembrolizumab also showed uptake in lymphoid tissues and at sites of inflammation.
Introduction Extended interval (EI) dosing for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) mono- or consolidation therapy initiated due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in ICI-related site visits for patients with stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we report the safety and efficacy compared to standard dose (SD) schedules. Method In this retrospective analysis patients who received ICI mono- or consolidation therapy, or adjuvant ICI therapy were assessed. Safety and efficacy of EI dosing with data of SD schedules were compared. Results One hundred seventeen patients received EI dosing for ICI and 88 patients SD. Patient characteristics were comparable. We observed 237 adverse events in the EI dosing cohort versus 118 in the SD group ( p = 0.02). Overall, there was no difference in the occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events (EI dosing: 21/237 [8.9%]; SD group: 20/118 [17.0%], p = 0.42), except for the pembrolizumab EI dosing cohort. Of all patients who received an EI dosing schedule, however, only 8 (6.8%) were reduced to SD because of toxicity. In 5 (4.3%) patients ICI was permanently stopped because of severe toxicity compared to 11 (12.5%) discontinuations in the SD group. Short-term treatment interruption occurred with similar frequencies in both groups. PFS and OS were comparable in patients receiving pembrolizumab and in those receiving adjuvant durvalumab. Progression-free survival and OS were better in the EI dosing cohort of nivolumab. Conclusion EI dosing for ICI did not lead to an increase of clinically relevant toxicities resulting in dose reduction and/or treatment discontinuation. Efficacy of EI dosing of pembrolizumab and durvalumab were comparable to SD. Based on our safety and efficacy data EI dosing for ICI seems a safe and effective strategy. Micro abstract Aim Retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of extended interval dosing (EI) ICI compared to standard dose (SD) schedules. Results 117 patients received EI dosing and 88 SD. In the EI dosing cohort was no increase in toxicity leading to dose reduction and/or discontinuation of treatment. Furthermore, efficacy of EI dosing of pembrolizumab and durvalumab were comparable to SD. Based on our safety and efficacy data EI dosing for ICI seem a safe and effective strategy and should be continued also beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.