Checkpoint Blockade in Lung Cancer With Driver Mutation: Choose the Road Wisely

Author(s):  
Antonio Calles ◽  
Jonathan W. Riess ◽  
Julie R. Brahmer

Immune checkpoint blockade with PD-(L)1 antibodies has revolutionized the treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Similarly, the identification and targeting of oncogene drivers in metastatic NSCLC has dramatically improved patient outcomes with an expanding list of potentially actionable alterations and targeted therapies. Many of these molecular aberrations are more common in patients with little or no smoking history and adenocarcinoma histology. Certain molecular subsets of NSCLC, though gaining greatly from targeted therapy approaches, may derive less benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. The optimal identification, targeting, and sequencing of targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy are essential to continue to improve patient outcomes in advanced NSCLC. Herein, we review the role of immunotherapy in locally advanced and metastatic disease for patients with actionable driver alterations. Never-smoking patients have a high probability of having lung cancer that harbors one of these molecular aberrations that can be matched to a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with greatly improved clinical outcomes. Some of these patients with driver mutations may derive less benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor approaches (either alone or combined with chemotherapy), especially compared with smoking-associated NSCLC. Given that PD-1 blockade alone or with platinum-based chemotherapy is the de facto first-line therapy (depending on level of PD-L1 expression) for nontargetable metastatic NSCLC, we also review treatment in never-smoking patients for whom molecular testing results are pending and the likelihood of identifying a driver mutation is high.

2021 ◽  
pp. jim-2021-001806
Author(s):  
Hannah Elizabeth Green ◽  
Jorge Nieva

The advent of checkpoint blockade-based immunotherapy is rapidly changing the management of lung cancer. Whereas past anticancer drugs’ primary toxicity was hematologic, the newer agents have primarily autoimmune toxicity. Thus, it is no longer enough for oncology practitioners to be skilled only in hematology. They must also understand management of autoimmune conditions, leveraging the skills of the rheumatologist, endocrinologist and gastroenterologist in the process. Herein we describe the mechanism of action and toxicities associated with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with lung cancer and provide a framework for management of adverse events.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 1764-1767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuko Horio ◽  
Koutaro Takamatsu ◽  
Daisuke Tamanoi ◽  
Ryo Sato ◽  
Koichi Saruwatari ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A5.1-A5
Author(s):  
A Martinez-Usatorre ◽  
E Kadioglu ◽  
C Cianciaruso ◽  
B Torchia ◽  
J Faget ◽  
...  

BackgroundImmune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with antibodies against PD-1 or PD-L1 may provide therapeutic benefits in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, most tumours are resistant and cases of disease hyper-progression have also been reported.Materials and MethodsGenetically engineered mouse models of KrasG12Dp53null NSCLC were treated with cisplatin along with antibodies against angiopoietin-2/VEGFA, PD-1 and CSF1R. Tumour growth was monitored by micro-computed tomography and the tumour vasculature and immune cell infiltrates were assessed by immunofluorescence staining and flow cytometry.ResultsCombined angiopoietin-2/VEGFA blockade by a bispecific antibody (A2V) modulated the vasculature and abated immunosuppressive macrophages while increasing CD8+effector T cells in the tumours, achieving disease stabilization comparable or superior to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. However, these immunological responses were unexpectedly limited by the addition of a PD-1 antibody, which paradoxically enhanced progression of a fraction of the tumours through a mechanism involving regulatory T cells and macrophages. Elimination of tumour-associated macrophages with a CSF1R-blocking antibody induced NSCLC regression in combination with PD-1 blockade and cisplatin.ConclusionsThe immune cell composition of the tumour determines the outcome of PD-1 blockade. In NSCLC, high infiltration of regulatory T cells and immunosuppressive macrophages may account for tumour hyper-progression upon ICB.Disclosure InformationA. Martinez-Usatorre: None. E. Kadioglu: None. C. Cianciaruso: None. B. Torchia: None. J. Faget: None. E. Meylan: None. M. Schmittnaegel: None. I. Keklikoglou: None. M. De Palma: None.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20512-e20512
Author(s):  
Paul R. Walker ◽  
Nitika Sharma ◽  
Chipman Robert Geoffrey Stroud ◽  
Mahvish Muzaffar ◽  
Cynthia R. Cherry ◽  
...  

e20512 Background: Veristrat (Biodesix, Boulder, CO) is a blood based proteomic assay that is dominated by inflammatory proteins and is prognostic and predictive in metastatic NSCLC after treatment with platinum based chemotherapy (Gregorc et al, Lancet 2014). Smoldering inflammation in the tumor microenvironment regulates and escalates cancer invasion, angiogenesis and immune surveillance escape (Balkwill and Mantovani, Lancet 2001). There is preclinical evidence to suggest that the tumor microenvironment can be altered with immunomodulatory interventions (Martino et al, 2016). While immune checkpoint blockade has shown durable benefit in metastatic NSCLC, the response rates still hover around 20%. As a result, identification of predictive biomarkers are of critical importance. The predictive value of the Veristrat assay with respect to ICB is poorly defined. Methods: At our institution, 83 pts with metastatic lung cancer pts were treated with nivolumab between 6/2015 to 12/2016. The following clinicopathologic characteristics were abstracted from medical records: tumor histology, Veristrat status, no. of doses of nivolumab, irAEs and overall survival. Results: Of the 83 pts, 65 pts were found to have NSCLC. Veristrat status was available for 17/65 of these pts. Nine pts were identified to have “Veristrat good” and seven pts were “Veristrat poor”. Median number of nivolumab doses was 4. Median survival for all patients was 30 weeks. Median survival was 20 weeks for “Veristrat poor” and 26 weeks for “Veristrat good”(p = 0.68). Grade 3-4 irAEs were noted in 5/9 patients with “Veristrat good” and 5/7 patients with “Veristrat poor”. Conclusions: “Veristrat poor” pts treated with ICB have a lower median survival as compared to “Veristrat good” pts. Our study did not meet statistically significant end point due to limited sample size. Further studies are needed to identify poorly immunogenic tumors and develop novel treatment approaches to optimize outcomes. [Table: see text]


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9052-9052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo Vailati Negrao ◽  
Alexandre Reuben ◽  
Jacqulyne Ponville Robichaux ◽  
Xiuning Le ◽  
Monique B. Nilsson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document