BackgroundLow-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1b (encoded by LRP1B) is a putative tumor suppressor, and preliminary evidence suggests LRP1B-mutated cancers may have improved outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective pan-cancer analysis of patients with LRP1B alterations treated with ICI at Duke University, Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and University of Michigan (UM). The primary objective was to assess the association between overall response rate (ORR) to ICI and pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) LRP1B alterations compared with LRP1B variants of unknown significance (VUS). Secondary outcomes were the associations with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by LRP1B status.ResultsWe identified 101 patients (44 Duke, 35 JHU, 22 UM) with LRP1B alterations who were treated with ICI. The most common tumor types by alteration (P/LP vs VUS%) were lung (36% vs 49%), prostate (9% vs 7%), sarcoma (5% vs 7%), melanoma (9% vs 0%) and breast cancer (3% vs 7%). The ORR for patients with LRP1B P/LP versus VUS alterations was 54% and 13%, respectively (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.9 to 22.3, p=0.0009). P/LP LRP1B alterations were associated with longer PFS (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0003) and OS (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01, p=0.053). These results remained consistent when excluding patients harboring microsatellite instability (MSI) and controlling for tumor mutational burden (TMB).ConclusionsThis multicenter study shows significantly better outcomes with ICI therapy in patients harboring P/LP versus VUS LRP1B alterations, independently of TMB/MSI status. Further mechanistic and prospective validation studies are warranted.

BackgroundPD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been traditionally used for predicting clinical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, there are at least 4 different assays and antibodies used for PD-L1 IHC, each developed with a different ICI. We set to test if next generation RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is a robust method to determine PD-L1 mRNA expression levels and furthermore, efficacy of predicting response to ICIs as compared to routinely used, standardized IHC procedures.MethodsA total of 209 cancer patients treated on-label by FDA-approved ICIs, with evaluable responses were assessed for PD-L1 expression by RNA-seq and IHC, based on tumor proportion score (TPS) and immune cell staining (ICS). A subset of serially diluted cases was evaluated for RNA-seq assay performance across a broad range of PD-L1 expression levels.ResultsAssessment of PD-L1 mRNA levels by RNA-seq demonstrated robust linearity across high and low expression ranges. PD-L1 mRNA levels assessed by RNA-seq and IHC (TPS and ICS) were highly correlated (p < 2e-16). Sub-analyses showed sustained correlation when IHC results were classified as high or low by clinically accepted cut-offs (p < 0.01), and results did not differ by tumor type or anti-PD-L1 antibody used. Overall, a combined positive PD-L1 result (≥1% IHC TPS and high PD-L1 expression by RNA-Seq) was associated with a 2-to-5-fold higher overall response rate (ORR) compared to a double negative result. Standard assessments of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) showed that a PD-L1 positive assessment for melanoma samples by RNA-seq had the lowest sensitivity (25%) but the highest PPV (72.7%). Among the three tumor types analyzed in this study, the only non-overlapping confidence interval for predicting response was for “RNA-seq low vs high” in melanoma.ConclusionsMeasurement of PD-L1 mRNA expression by RNA-seq is comparable to PD-L1 expression by IHC both analytically and clinically in predicting ICI response. RNA-seq has the added advantages of being amenable to standardization and avoidance of interpretation bias. PD-L1 by RNA-seq needs to be validated in future prospective ICI clinical studies across multiple histologies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0489-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundResistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been linked to local immunosuppression independent of major ICI targets (e.g., PD-1). Clinical experience with response prediction based on PD-L1 expression suggests that other factors influence sensitivity to ICIs in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.MethodsTumor specimens from 120 NSCLC patients from 10 institutions were evaluated for PD-L1 expression by immunohistochemistry, and global proliferative profile by targeted RNA-seq.ResultsCell proliferation, derived from the mean expression of 10 proliferation-associated genes (namely BUB1, CCNB2, CDK1, CDKN3, FOXM1, KIAA0101, MAD2L1, MELK, MKI67, and TOP2A), was identified as a marker of response to ICIs in NSCLC. Poorly, moderately, and highly proliferative tumors were somewhat equally represented in NSCLC, with tumors with the highest PD-L1 expression being more frequently moderately proliferative as compared to lesser levels of PD-L1 expression. Proliferation status had an impact on survival in patients with both PD-L1 positive and negative tumors. There was a significant survival advantage for moderately proliferative tumors compared to their combined highly/poorly counterparts (p = 0.021). Moderately proliferative PD-L1 positive tumors had a median survival of 14.6 months that was almost twice that of PD-L1 negative highly/poorly proliferative at 7.6 months (p = 0.028). Median survival in moderately proliferative PD-L1 negative tumors at 12.6 months was comparable to that of highly/poorly proliferative PD-L1 positive tumors at 11.5 months, but in both instances less than that of moderately proliferative PD-L1 positive tumors. Similar to survival, proliferation status has impact on disease control (DC) in patients with both PD-L1 positive and negative tumors. Patients with moderately versus those with poorly or highly proliferative tumors have a superior DC rate when combined with any classification schema used to score PD-L1 as a positive result (i.e., TPS ≥ 50% or ≥ 1%), and best displayed by a DC rate for moderately proliferative tumors of no less than 40% for any classification of PD-L1 as a negative result. While there is an over representation of moderately proliferative tumors as PD-L1 expression increases this does not account for the improved survival or higher disease control rates seen in PD-L1 negative tumors.ConclusionsCell proliferation is potentially a new biomarker of response to ICIs in NSCLC and is applicable to PD-L1 negative tumors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0506-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have expanded treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, there are limited predictive biomarkers for response to ICIs in this indication, with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status demonstrating little predictive utility in mRCC. While predictive of ICI response in other tumor types, the utility of tumor mutation burden (TMB) in mRCC is unclear. Here, we assess TMB, loss of antigen presentation genes and PD-L1 status correlated with outcomes to ICI treatment in mRCC.MethodsTumor samples from 34 patients with mRCC treated with ICI therapy at Duke Cancer Institute were retrospectively evaluated using Personal Genome Diagnostics elio tissue complete (RUO version), a tumor genomic profiling assay for somatic variants, TMB, microsatellite status and genomic status of antigen presentation genes. Tumor samples were also analyzed with the Dako 28-8 PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay. Deidentified clinical information was extracted from the medical record, and tumor response was evaluated based on the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1 criteria.ResultsPatients were stratified by overall response following ICI therapy and designated as progressive disease (PD; n=18) or disease control groups (DC; n=16). TMB scores ranged from 0.36 to 12.24 mutations/Mb (mean 2.83 mutations/Mb) with no significant difference between the PD and DC groups (3.01 vs 2.63 mutations/Mb, respectively; p=0.7682). Interestingly, 33% of PD patients displayed loss of heterozygosity of major histocompatibility complex class I genes (LOH-MHC) vs 6% of DC patients. Nine of 34 samples were PD-L1-positive (4 in the PD group; 5 in the DC group), suggesting no correlation between PD-L1 expression and response to ICI therapy. Notably, the DC group displayed an enrichment of mutations in DNA repair genes (p=0.04), with 68.8% exhibiting at least one mutated homologous recombination repair (HRR)-related gene compared with only 38.9% of the PD group (p=0.03).ConclusionsOverall, neither TMB nor PD-L1 correlated with ICI response and TMB was not significantly associated with PD-L1 expression. The higher incidence of LOH-MHC in PD group suggests that loss of antigen presentation may restrict response to ICIs. Separately, enrichment of HRR gene mutations in the DC group suggests potential utility in predicting ICI response and a potential therapeutic target, warranting future studies.

No abstract

Purpose Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with variable clinical outcomes. Despite numerous recent approvals of novel therapies, castration-resistant prostate cancer remains lethal. A “real-world” clinical-genomic database is urgently needed to enhance our characterization of advanced prostate cancer and further enable precision oncology. Methods The Prostate Cancer Precision Medicine Multi-Institutional Collaborative Effort (PROMISE) is a consortium whose aims are to establish a repository of de-identified clinical and genomic patient data that are linked to patient outcomes. The consortium structure includes a (1) bio-informatics committee to standardize genomic data and provide quality control, (2) biostatistics committee to independently perform statistical analyses, (3) executive committee to review and select proposals of relevant questions for the consortium to address, (4) diversity/inclusion committee to address important clinical questions pertaining to racial disparities, and (5) patient advocacy committee to understand patient perspectives to improve patients’ quality of care. Results The PROMISE consortium was formed by 16 academic institutions in early 2020 and a secure RedCap database was created. The first patient record was entered into the database in April 2020 and over 1000 records have been entered as of early 2021. Data entry is proceeding as planned with the goal to have over 2500 patient records by the end of 2021. Conclusions The PROMISE consortium provides a powerful clinical-genomic platform to interrogate and address data gaps that have arisen with increased genomic testing in the clinical management of prostate cancer. The dataset incorporates data from patient populations that are often underrepresented in clinical trials, generates new hypotheses to direct further research, and addresses important clinical questions that are otherwise difficult to investigate in prospective studies.

The incidence of renal-cell carcinoma has been increasing each year, with nearly one third of new cases diagnosed at advanced or metastatic stage. The advent of targeted therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) has underscored the need to subtype tumors according to tumorimmune expression profiles that may more reliably predict treatment outcomes. Over the past 2 decades, several vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been the mainstay for first-and second-line treatment of mRCC. Very recently, immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors have significantly changed the treatment landscape for patients with mRCC, particularly for first-line treatment of intermediate to poor risk mRCC patients. Now, combination immunotherapy as well as combinations of immunotherapy with targeted agents can significantly alter disease outcomes. The field of immuno-oncology for mRCC has unveiled a deeper understanding of the immunoreactivity inherent to these tumors, and as a result combination therapy is evolving as a first-line modality. This review provides a timeline of advances and controversies in first-line treatment of mRCC, describes recent advances in understanding the immunoreactivity of these tumors, and addresses the future of combination anti-VEGF and immunotherapeutic platforms.

Background: Biomarkers predicting immunotherapy response in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) are lacking. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry is a complementary diagnostic for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in mRCC, but has shown minimal clinical utility and is not used in routine clinical practice. Methods: Tumor specimens from 56 patients with mRCC who received nivolumab were evaluated for PD-L1, cell proliferation (targeted RNA-seq), and outcome. Results: For 56 patients treated with nivolumab as a standard of care, there were 2 complete responses and 8 partial responses for a response rate of 17.9%. Dividing cell proliferation into tertiles, derived from the mean expression of 10 proliferation-associated genes in a reference set of tumors, poorly proliferative tumors (62.5%) were more common than moderately (30.4%) or highly proliferative (8.9%) counterparts. Moderately proliferative tumors were enriched for PD-L1 positive (41.2%), compared to poorly proliferative counterparts (11.4%). Objective response for moderately proliferative (29.4%) tumors was higher than that of poorly (11.4%) proliferative counterparts, but not statistically significant (p = .11). When cell proliferation and negative PD-L1 tumor proportion scores were combined statistically significant results were achieved (p = .048), showing that patients with poorly proliferative and PD-L1 negative tumors have a very low response rate (6.5%) compared to moderately proliferative PD-L1 negative tumors (30%). Conclusions: Cell proliferation has value in predicting response to nivolumab in clear cell mRCC patients, especially when combined with PD-L1 expression. Further studies which include the addition of progressionfree survival (PFS) along with sufficiently powered subgroups are required to further support these findings.