Joris van de Haar
Please Note
5 records found
1
PURPOSE: The clinical value of STK11, KEAP1, and EGFR alterations for guiding immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial, as some patients with these proposed resistance biomarkers show durable ICB responses. More specific combinatorial biomarker approaches are urgently needed for this disease. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: To develop a combinatorial biomarker strategy with increased specificity for ICB unresponsiveness in NSCLC, we performed a comprehensive analysis of 254 patients with NSCLC treated with ligand programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade monotherapy, including a discovery cohort of 75 patients subjected to whole-genome sequencing (WGS), and an independent validation cohort of 169 patients subjected to tumor-normal large panel sequencing. The specificity of STK11/KEAP1/EGFR alterations for ICB unresponsiveness was assessed in the contexts of a low (<10 muts/Mb) or high (≥10 muts/Mb) tumor mutational burden (TMB). RESULTS: In low TMB cases, STK11/KEAP1/EGFR alterations were highly specific biomarkers for ICB resistance, with 0/15 (0.0%) and 1/34 (2.9%) biomarker-positive patients showing treatment benefit in the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively. This contrasted with high TMB cases, where 11/13 (85%) and 15/34 (44%) patients with at least one STK11/KEAP1/EGFR alteration showed durable treatment benefit in the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively. These findings were supported by analyses of progression-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The unexpected ICB responses in patients carrying resistance biomarkers in STK11, KEAP1, and EGFR were almost exclusively observed in patients with a high TMB. Considering these alterations in context, the TMB offered a highly specific combinatorial biomarker strategy for limiting overtreatment in NSCLC.
DNA mismatch repair-deficient (MMR-d) cancers present an abundance of neoantigens that is thought to explain their exceptional responsiveness to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)1,2. Here, in contrast to other cancer types3–5, we observed that 20 out of 21 (95%) MMR-d cancers with genomic inactivation of β2-microglobulin (encoded by B2M) retained responsiveness to ICB, suggesting the involvement of immune effector cells other than CD8+ T cells in this context. We next identified a strong association between B2M inactivation and increased infiltration by γδ T cells in MMR-d cancers. These γδ T cells mainly comprised the Vδ1 and Vδ3 subsets, and expressed high levels of PD-1, other activation markers, including cytotoxic molecules, and a broad repertoire of killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors. In vitro, PD-1+ γδ T cells that were isolated from MMR-d colon cancers exhibited enhanced reactivity to human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-class-I-negative MMR-d colon cancer cell lines and B2M-knockout patient-derived tumour organoids compared with antigen-presentation-proficient cells. By comparing paired tumour samples from patients with MMR-d colon cancer that were obtained before and after dual PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade, we found that immune checkpoint blockade substantially increased the frequency of γδ T cells in B2M-deficient cancers. Taken together, these data indicate that γδ T cells contribute to the response to immune checkpoint blockade in patients with HLA-class-I-negative MMR-d colon cancers, and underline the potential of γδ T cells in cancer immunotherapy.
Genomics has greatly improved how patients with cancer are being treated; however, clinical-grade genomic biomarkers for chemotherapies are currently lacking. Using whole-genome analysis of 37 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with the chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI), we identified KRAS codon G12 (KRASG12) mutations as a potential biomarker of resistance. Next, we collected real-world data of 960 patients with mCRC receiving FTD/TPI and validated that KRASG12 mutations were significantly associated with poor survival, also in analyses restricted to the RAS/RAF mutant subgroup. We next analyzed the data of the global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 RECOURSE trial (n = 800 patients) and found that KRASG12 mutations (n = 279) were predictive biomarkers for reduced overall survival (OS) benefit of FTD/TPI versus placebo (unadjusted interaction P = 0.0031, adjusted interaction P = 0.015). For patients with KRASG12 mutations in the RECOURSE trial, OS was not prolonged with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 279; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.73–1.20; P = 0.85). In contrast, patients with KRASG13 mutant tumors showed significantly improved OS with FTD/TPI versus placebo (n = 60; HR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.15–0.55; P < 0.001). In isogenic cell lines and patient-derived organoids, KRASG12 mutations were associated with increased resistance to FTD-based genotoxicity. In conclusion, these data show that KRASG12 mutations are biomarkers for reduced OS benefit of FTD/TPI treatment, with potential implications for approximately 28% of patients with mCRC under consideration for treatment with FTD/TPI. Furthermore, our data suggest that genomics-based precision medicine may be possible for a subset of chemotherapies.
Genomic profiling is critical for the identification of treatment options for patients with metastatic cancer, but it remains unclear how frequently this procedure should be repeated during the course of the disease. To address this, we analyzed whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data of 250 biopsy pairs, longitudinally collected over the treatment course of 231 adult patients with a representative variety of metastatic solid malignancies. Within the biopsy interval (median, 6.4 months), patients received one or multiple lines of (mostly) standard-of-care (SOC) treatments, with all major treatment modalities being broadly represented. SOC biomarkers and biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment could be identified in 23% and 72% of biopsies, respectively. For SOC genomic biomarkers, we observed full concordance between the first and the second biopsy in 99% of pairs. Of the 219 biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment that were identified in the first biopsies, we recovered 94% in the follow-up biopsies. Furthermore, a second WGS analysis did not identify additional biomarkers for clinical trial enrollment in 91% of patients. More-frequent genomic evolution was observed when considering specific genes targeted by small-molecule inhibitors or hormonal therapies (21% and 22% of cases, respectively). Together, our data demonstrate that there is limited evolution of the actionable genome of treated metastases. A single WGS analysis of a metastatic biopsy is generally sufficient to identify SOC genomic biomarkers and to identify investigational treatment opportunities.
Identifying Epistasis in Cancer Genomes
A Delicate Affair
Recent studies of the tumor genome seek to identify cancer pathways as groups of genes in which mutations are epistatic with one another or, specifically, “mutually exclusive.” Here, we show that most mutations are mutually exclusive not due to pathway structure but to interactions with disease subtype and tumor mutation load. In particular, many cancer driver genes are mutated preferentially in tumors with few mutations overall, causing mutations in these cancer genes to appear mutually exclusive with numerous others. Researchers should view current epistasis maps with caution until we better understand the multiple cause-and-effect relationships among factors such as tumor subtype, positive selection for mutations, and gross tumor characteristics including mutational signatures and load. An analysis of cancer genomes provides a rethink of how to interpret mutations epistatic to one another as well as the effects on phenotypes and therapeutic vulnerabilities.