Summary Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Every year, 1·8 million people are diagnosed with lung cancer, and 1·6 million people die as a result of the ...disease. 5-year survival rates vary from 4–17% depending on stage and regional differences. In this Seminar, we discuss existing treatment for patients with lung cancer and the promise of precision medicine, with special emphasis on new targeted therapies. Some subgroups, eg—patients with poor performance status and elderly patients—are not specifically addressed, because these groups require special treatment considerations and no frameworks have been established in terms of new targeted therapies. We discuss prevention and early detection of lung cancer with an emphasis on lung cancer screening. Although we acknowledge the importance of smoking prevention and cessation, this is a large topic beyond the scope of this Seminar.
Summary Targeted therapies are substantially changing the management of lung cancers. These treatments include drugs that target driver mutations, those that target presumed important molecules in ...cancer cell proliferation and survival, and those that inhibit immune checkpoint molecules. This area of research progresses day by day, with novel target discoveries, novel drug development, and use of novel combination treatments. Researchers and clinicians have also extensively investigated the predictive biomarkers and the molecular mechanisms underlying inherent or acquired resistance to these targeted therapies. We review recent progress in the development of targeted treatments for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, especially focusing on data from published clinical trials.
Immunotherapy has recently become widely used in lung cancer. Many oncologists are focused on cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen‐4 (CTLA‐4), programmed cell death ligand‐1 (PD‐L1) and programmed cell ...death‐1 (PD‐1). Immunotherapy targeting the PD‐1/PD‐L1 checkpoints has shown promising efficacy in non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but questions remain to be answered. Among them is whether the simultaneous inhibition of other checkpoints could improve outcomes. Lymphocyte‐activation gene‐3 (LAG‐3) is another vital checkpoint that may have a synergistic interaction with PD‐1/PD‐L1. Here we review the LAG‐3 function in cancer, clinical trials with agents targeting LAG‐3 and the correlation of LAG‐3 with other checkpoints.
Immunotherapy in cancer is a hot topic and many oncologists want to learn about the relevant biomarkers with the current focus on CTLA 4 and PD 1/PD L1. However, also of interests are the varieties of alternative immune checkpoints including Lag 3/MHC II. In this paper, we review LAG 3 structure, function, the synergistic effects with CTLA 4 and PD 1/PD L1, as well as discussing LAG 3 clinical trials which are ongoing.
The approval of anti-programmed death receptor (PD)-1 therapies for non-small cell lung cancer has directed the spotlight on programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry as the latest ...predictive biomarker potentially required in this disease. Several other drugs in this class will likely be approved in the future and each has been developed with a unique anti-PD-L1 immunohistochemistry test. The prospect of 5 drugs competing in the same treatment area, each possibly requiring PD-L1 immunohistochemistry testing, presents a challenge for pathologists unlike any previously faced. The key issue is whether laboratories will attempt to deliver the trial-validated assays for one or more of these treatments, or introduce instead one or more laboratory developed tests, or attempt to provide a single PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay for all possible anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 treatments that may be used. This paper discusses some of the issues, challenges, hazards, and possible solutions that have recently emerged in this most complex interface between cancer therapeutics and laboratory biomarker testing.
The Blueprint Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Assay Comparison Project is an industrial-academic collaborative partnership to provide information on the analytical and ...clinical comparability of four PD-L1 IHC assays used in clinical trials.
A total of 39 NSCLC tumors were stained with four PD-L1 IHC assays (22C3, 28-8, SP142, and SP263), as used in the clinical trials. Three experts in interpreting their respective assays independently evaluated the percentages of tumor and immune cells staining positive at any intensity. Clinical diagnostic performance was assessed through comparisons of patient classification above and below a selected expression cutoff and by agreement using various combinations of assays and cutoffs.
Analytical comparison demonstrated that the percentage of PD-L1–stained tumor cells was comparable when the 22C3, 28-8, and SP263 assays were used, whereas the SP142 assay exhibited fewer stained tumor cells overall. The variability of immune cell staining across the four assays appears to be higher than for tumor cell staining. Of the 38 cases, 19 (50.0%) were classified above and five (13%) were classified below the selected cutoffs of all assays. For 14 of the 38 cases (37%), a different PD-L1 classification would be made depending on which assay/scoring system was used.
The Blueprint PD-L1 IHC Assay Comparison Project revealed that three of the four assays were closely aligned on tumor cell staining whereas the fourth showed consistently fewer tumor cells stained. All of the assays demonstrated immune cell staining, but with greater variability than with tumor cell staining. By comparing assays and cutoffs, the study indicated that despite similar analytical performance of PD-L1 expression for three assays, interchanging assays and cutoffs would lead to “misclassification” of PD-L1 status for some patients. More data are required to inform on the use of alternative staining assays upon which to read different specific therapy-related PD-L1 cutoffs.
The Blueprint (BP) Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) Immunohistochemistry Comparability Project is a pivotal academic/professional society and industrial collaboration to assess the feasibility of ...harmonizing the clinical use of five independently developed commercial PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays. The goal of BP phase 2 (BP2) was to validate the results obtained in BP phase 1 by using real-world clinical lung cancer samples.
BP2 were conducted using 81 lung cancer specimens of various histological and sample types, stained with all five trial-validated PD-L1 assays (22C3, 28-8, SP142, SP263, and 73-10); the slides were evaluated by an international panel of pathologists. BP2 also assessed the reliability of PD-L1 scoring by using digital images, and samples prepared for cytological examination. PD-L1 expression was assessed for percentage (tumor proportional score) of tumor cell (TC) and immune cell areas showing PD-L1 staining, with TCs scored continuously or categorically with the cutoffs used in checkpoint inhibitor trials.
The BP2 results showed highly comparable staining by the 22C3, 28-8 and SP263 assays; less sensitivity with the SP142 assay; and higher sensitivity with the 73-10 assay to detect PD-L1 expression on TCs. Glass slide and digital image scorings were highly concordant (Pearson correlation >0.96). There was very strong reliability among pathologists in TC PD-L1 scoring with all assays (overall intraclass correlation coefficient ICC = 0.86–0.93), poor reliability in IC PD-L1 scoring (overall ICC = 0.18–0.19), and good agreement in assessing PD-L1 status on cytological cell block materials (ICC = 0.78–0.85).
BP2 consolidates the analytical evidence for interchangeability of the 22C3, 28-8, and SP263 assays and lower sensitivity of the SP142 assay for determining tumor proportion score on TCs and demonstrates greater sensitivity of the 73-10 assay compared with that of the other assays.
Immune-checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 have already substantially improved the outcomes of patients with many types of cancer, although only 20-40% of patients derive benefit from these ...new therapies. PD-L1, quantified using immunohistochemistry assays, is currently the most widely validated, used and accepted biomarker to guide the selection of patients to receive anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies. However, many challenges remain in the clinical use of these assays, including the necessity of using different companion diagnostic assays for specific agents, high levels of inter-assay variability in terms of both performance and cut-off points, and a lack of prospective comparisons of how PD-L1
disease diagnosed using each assay relates to clinical outcomes. In this Review, we describe the current role of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays used to inform the selection of patients to receive anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies, we discuss the various technical and clinical challenges associated with these assays, including regulatory issues, and we provide some perspective on how to optimize PD-L1 as a selection biomarker for the future treatment of patients with solid tumours.
PD-L1 Expression in Lung Cancer Yu, Hui; Boyle, Theresa A.; Zhou, Caicun ...
Journal of thoracic oncology,
2016-July, Letnik:
11, Številka:
7
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Immunotherapies targeted against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and its receptor (PD-1) have improved survival in a subset of patients with advanced lung cancer. PD-L1 protein expression has ...emerged as a biomarker that predicts which patients are more likely to respond to immunotherapy. The understanding of PD-L1 as a biomarker is complicated by the history of use of different immunohistochemistry platforms with different PD-L1 antibodies, scoring systems, and positivity cut-offs for immunotherapy clinical trials with different anti-PD-L1 and anti-PD-1 drugs. Herein, we summarize the brief history of PD-L1 as a biomarker and describe the challenges remaining to harmonize PD-L1 detection and interpretation for best patient care.
Patients with malignant tumor treated with immunotherapy have received significant clinical benefits over the years. Immune checkpoint blocking agents, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated ...protein-4 (anti-CTLA-4) and anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) monoclonal antibodies, have produced impressive clinical results in different types of cancer. T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-3 (TIM-3), another immune checkpoint, could inhibit cancer immunity. Recent studies have highlighted that TIM-3 has an important role to play in T-cell exhaustion and correlates with the outcome of anti-PD-1 therapy. Targeting TIM-3 might be a promising approach for cancer immunotherapy. Here, we review the role of TIM-3 in cancer and clinical trials with TIM-3 inhibitors.
Squamous cell lung cancer (SCC) represents an area of unmet need in lung cancer research. For the past several years, therapeutic progress in SCC has lagged behind the now more common non-small cell ...lung cancer histologic subtype of adenocarcinoma. However, recent efforts to define the complex biology underlying SCC have begun to bear fruit in a multitude of ways, including characterization of previously unknown genomic and signaling pathways, delineation of new, potentially actionable molecular targets, and subsequent development of a large number of agents directed against unique SCC-associated molecular abnormalities. For the first time, SCC-specific prognostic gene signatures and predictive biomarkers of new therapeutic agents are emerging. In addition, recent and ongoing clinical trials, including the Lung-MAP master protocol, have been designed to facilitate approval of targeted therapy-biomarker combinations. In this comprehensive review, we describe the current status of SCC therapeutics, recent advances in the understanding of SCC biology and prognostic gene signatures, and the development of innovative new clinical trials, all of which offer new hope for patients with advanced SCC.
PDF
