Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A.J. Iafrate
Author of
-
+
MA 07 - ALK, ROS and HER2 (ID 673)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Robert C. Doebele, J.C. Ho
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, Room 316
-
+
MA 07.07 - Clinical Outcomes and ALK Resistance Mutations in ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer According to EML4-ALK Variant (ID 8255)
15:45 - 17:30 | Author(s): A.J. Iafrate
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) are effectively treated with ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, clinical outcomes among patients treated with ALK TKIs vary, and the clinical benefit of TKI therapy is limited due to acquired resistance. To date, emerging data suggest that the specific EML4-ALK variant may impact clinical outcome, but whether variant is associated with mechanisms of TKI resistance is unknown.
Method:
We identified 108 advanced ALK+ NSCLC cases with known ALK fusion variants. Progression-free survival (PFS) on ALK TKIs and resistance mechanisms were retrospectively evaluated according to ALK variant.
Result:
The 108 ALK+ cases consisted of: 42 (39%) EML4-ALK v1 (E13;A20), 8 (7.4%) v2 (E20;A20), 45 (41.7%) v3 (E6;A20), 3 (2.8%) v5 (E2;A20), 4 (3.7%) v5’ (E18;A20), 1 (0.9%) v7 (E14;A20), and 5 (4.6%) non-EML4-ALK variants. Given the small numbers of non-v1/v3 cases, v1 and v3 cases were selected for further analysis. Among the 21 v1 and 25 v3 cases treated with first-line crizotinib, there was no significant difference in PFS (HR = 0.81 [95% CI, 0.42-1.57], p = 0.526). Similarly, there was no difference in PFS on second-generation ALK TKIs among 35 v1 and 35 v3 patients who received ceritinib, alectinib, or brigatinib following first- or later-line crizotinib (HR = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.77-2.26], p = 0.308). Interestingly, among 12 v1 and 17 v3 patients who received the third-generation TKI lorlatinib after failure of a second-generation TKI, v3 was associated with significantly longer PFS than v1 (HR = 0.250 [95% CI, 0.09-0.72], p = 0.006). From our cohort, we identified 11 v3 and 14 v1 post-crizotinib biopsies. No difference was noted in the presence of ALK resistance mutations (27% and 21%, respectively; p = 1.000). In contrast, among 30 v3 and 18 v1 post-second generation TKI biopsies, ALK resistance mutations were more common among v3 vs v1 cases (66% vs 44%, respectively; p = 0.147). Furthermore, the ALK G1202R solvent front mutation occurred more frequently in v3 vs v1 (47% vs 0%, respectively; p = 0.001).
Conclusion:
Our findings suggest that EML4-ALK variants 1 and 3 may not be associated with significantly different PFS outcomes on crizotinib or second-generation ALK TKIs. However, ALK resistance mutations, particularly G1202R, occur more frequently in v3 vs v1 post–second generation TKI. Patients with this variant may therefore derive particular benefit from third-generation, pan-inhibitory ALK TKIs. Larger, prospective studies will be needed to confirm these findings.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P1.07 - Immunology and Immunotherapy (ID 693)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Immunology and Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P1.07-033 - Differential Expression of Immune Inhibitory Markers in Association with the Immune Microenvironment in Resected Lung Adenocarcinomas (ID 10196)
09:30 - 16:00 | Author(s): A.J. Iafrate
- Abstract
Background:
Similar to programed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is known to exert immunosuppressive effects and be variably expressed in human lung cancer. However, IDO1 expression has not been well-studied in lung adenocarcinoma (ADC).
Method:
PD-L1 and IDO1 expression were evaluated in 261 resected ADC using tissue microarrays and H-scores (cutoff 5). We compared IDO1 with PD-L1 expression in association with clinical features, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), HLA class I (β-2 microglobulin; B2M) expression, molecular alterations, and patient outcomes.
Result:
There was expression of PD-L1 in 89 (34.1%) and IDO1 in 74 (28.5%) cases, with co-expression in 49 (18.8%). Both PD-L1 and IDO1 were significantly associated with smoking, aggressive pathologic features, and abundant CD8+ and T-bet+ (Th1 marker) TILs. PD-L1 expression and abundant CD8+ were inversely associated with a loss of B2M membranous expression (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively). Compared to PD-L1+/IDO1+ and PD-L1+ only cases, significantly fewer IDO1+ only cases had abundant CD8+ and T-bet+ TILs (p<0.001, respectively). PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with EGFR wild-type (p<0.001) and KRAS mutants (p=0.021), whereas there was no difference in IDO1 expression between different molecular alterations. As for survival, PD-L1 was significantly associated with decreased progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while IDO1 was associated only with decreased OS. Interestingly, there was a significant difference in the 5-year PFS and OS (p=0.004 and 0.038, respectively), where cases without PD-L1 or IDO1 expression had the longest survival, and those with PD-L1 alone had the shortest survival.
Conclusion:
While PD-L1 +/- IDO1 expression is observed in association with B2M expression, CTL/Th1 microenvironments, EGFR wild-type, and KRAS mutations, isolated IDO1 expression does not demonstrate these associations. These results suggest that IDO1 may serve a distinct immunosuppressive role in ADC. Thus, blockade of IDO1 may represent an alternative and/or complementary therapeutic strategy to reactivate anti-tumor immunity. Additional study to examine a larger number of immunoregulatory markers is ongoing.
