Advertisement

Predictive factors for hyperprogressive disease during nivolumab as anti-PD1 treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer

  • Akinori Sasaki
  • Yoshiaki Nakamura
  • Saori Mishima
  • Akihito Kawazoe
  • Yasutoshi Kuboki
  • Hideaki Bando
  • Takashi Kojima
  • Toshihiko Doi
  • Atsushi Ohtsu
  • Takayuki Yoshino
  • Takeshi Kuwata
  • Tetsuo Akimoto
  • Kohei ShitaraEmail author
Original Article
  • 280 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) during treatment with anti-programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 monoclonal antibodies has anecdotally been reported in some types of cancers, but is not well-characterized in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Methods

Total 62 AGC patients treated with nivolumab in a single institution from September 2017 to April 2018 were enrolled in this study. Tumor responses were assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and HPD was defined as ≥ two fold increase in tumor growth rate. Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics associated with HPD were also investigated.

Results

Thirteen of 62 patients (21%) developed HPD after nivolumab treatment. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were significantly shorter in patients with HPD than in patients without HPD (median OS: 2.3 months vs. not reached, P < 0.001; median PFS: 0.7 months vs. 2.4 months, P < 0.001). Liver metastases (77% vs. 41%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 1 or 2 (77% vs. 29%), and a large sum of target lesion diameters at baseline (median 104.2 mm vs. 44.9 mm) were significantly associated with HPD. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level significantly increased in the first 4 weeks in only patients with HPD.

Conclusions

HPD was observed in AGC patients treated with nivolumab and correlated with some clinicopathological characteristics. Elevations in ANC and CRP levels upon treatment might indicate HPD.

Keywords

Nivolumab PD-1 inhibitor Gastric cancer Hyperprogressive disease 

Abbreviations

PD-1

Anti-programmed death-1

PD-L1

Programmed death-ligand 1

mAbs

Monoclonal antibodies

HPD

Hyperprogressive disease

AGC

Advanced gastric cancer

OS

Overall survival

PFS

Progression-free survival

ECOG PS

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status

ANC

Absolute neutrophil count

CRP

C-reactive protein

HER2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

MMR

Mismatch repair

EBV

Epstein–Barr virus

IHC

Immunohistochemistry

FISH

Fluorescence in situ hybridization

TC

Tumor cell

IC

Immune cell

CPS

Combined positive score

MLH1

Anti-mutL homolog 1

MSH2

Anti-mutS homolog 2

PMS2

Anti-postmeiotic segregation increased 2

MSH6

Anti-mutS homolog 6

EBER

EBV-encoded RNA

TMB

Tumor mutation burden

mt/MB

Mutations/megabase

NLR

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

LDH

Lactate dehydrogenase

TGK

Tumor growth kinetics

TGKR

TGK ratio

HR

Hazard ratio

CI

Confidence interval

PR

Partial response

SD

Stable disease

PD

Progressive disease

MAPK

Mitogen-activated protein kinase

MDSC

Myeloid-derived suppressor cell

Notes

Author contributions

AS, YN, SM, AK, and KS designed the study, collected data, performed data analysis, and wrote manuscript. YK, HB, TD, TY, TK, and TA were involved in data interpretation and critically reviewing the manuscript. TK was involved in testing tumor tissue as well as critically reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a research funding from National Cancer Center Hospital East (none apply).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures followed in this study were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964 and later versions and the Japanese Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects. Informed consent for it was obtained from all patients for their being included in the study.

Consent for publication

This is not applicable for this study.

Conflict of interest

AS has nothing to disclose. YN reports personal fees from Chugai. SM has nothing to disclose. AK reports research funding from Ono, Sumitomo Dainippon, and Taiho. YK reports consulting or advisory role for Takeda; personal fees from Bayer, Lilly, and Taiho; and research funding from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte, Taiho, and Takeda. HB reports research funding from Astra Zeneca and Sysmex. TK reports personal fees from MSD; and research funding from Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Oncolys BioPharma, Ono, Shionogi. TD reports consulting or advisory role for Amgen, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly, MSD, Sumitomo Dainippon, and Taiho; and research funding from Abbvie, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Quintiles, Sumitomo Group, Takeda, and Taiho. AO reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Ono, and Taiho. TY consulting or advisory role for Chugai, Lilly, Merck Serono, and Sanofi; and research funding from Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Sumitomo Dainippon. TK consulting or advisory role for ThermoFisher Inc; personal fees from Chugai and Roche Diagnostics; and research funding from Daiichi Sankyo. TA has nothing to disclose. KS reports consulting or advisory role for Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Ono, Pfizer, and Takeda; personal fees from AbbVie, Novartis, and Yakult; and research funding from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Ono, Sumitomo Dainippon, and Taiho.

Supplementary material

10120_2018_922_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 KB)
10120_2018_922_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 18 KB)
10120_2018_922_MOESM3_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 14 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koizumi W, Narahara H, Hara T, Takagane A, Akiya T, Takagi M, et al. S-1 plus cisplatin versus S-1 alone for first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (SPIRITS trial): a phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(3):215–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cunningham D, Starling N, Rao S, Iveson T, Nicolson M, Coxon F, et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(1):36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilke H, Muro K, Van Cutsem E, Oh SC, Bodoky G, Shimada Y, et al. Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(11):1224–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janowitz T, Thuss-Patience P, Marshall A, Kang JH, Connell C, Cook N, et al. Chemotherapy vs supportive care alone for relapsed gastric, gastroesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis of patient-level data. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(4):381–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuchs CS, Tomasek J, Yong CJ, Dumitru F, Passalacqua R, Goswami C, et al. Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9911):31–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, Dutriaux C, Maio M, Mortier L, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):320–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1627–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, George S, Hammers HJ, Srinivas S, et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(19):1803–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Younes A, Santoro A, Shipp M, Zinzani PL, Timmerman JM, Ansell S, et al. Nivolumab for classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin: a multicentre, multicohort, single-arm phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(9):1283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J, Guigay J, Colevas AD, Licitra L, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang YK, Boku N, Satoh T, Ryu MH, Chao Y, Kato K, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10111):2461–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fuchs CS, Doi T, Jang RW, Muro K, Satoh T, Machado M, et al. Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: phase 2 clinical KEYNOTE-059 trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(5):e180013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shitara K, Ozguroglu M, Bang YJ, Bartolomeo MD, Mandala M, Ryu MH, et al. Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated, advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (KEYNOTE-061): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10142):123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Champiat S, Dercle L, Ammari S, Massard C, Hollebecque A, Postel-Vinay S, et al. Hyperprogressive disease is a new pattern of progression in cancer patients treated by Anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(8):1920–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saada-Bouzid E, Defaucheux C, Karabajakian A, Coloma VP, Servois V, Paoletti X, et al. Hyperprogression during anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(7):1605–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kato S, Goodman A, Walavalkar V, Barkauskas DA, Sharabi A, Kurzrock R. Hyperprogressors after immunotherapy: analysis of genomic alterations associated with accelerated growth rate. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):4242–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurman JS, Murgu SD. Hyperprogressive disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer on immunotherapy. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(2):1124–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kawazoe A, Shitara K, Kuboki Y, Bando H, Kojima T, Yoshino T, et al. Clinicopathological features of 22C3 PD-L1 expression with mismatch repair, Epstein-Barr virus status, and cancer genome alterations in metastatic gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/S10120-018-0843-9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feng YN, Zwirtes P, Reshef R, Plautz D, Boku G, Chen N, et al Roy A, Sheng J Evaluating the occurrence of early tumor progression (ETP) in patients with gastric cancer treated with nivolumab versus placebo. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the society for immunotherapy of cancer (SITC) 33rd annual meeting, 2018. pp. 833–4.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Satoh TC, Kang L, Chao Y, Kato Y, Chung K, Chen H, et al. A phase III study of nivolumab (nivo) in previously treated advanced gastric or gastric esophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer (ATTRACTION-2): two-years update data. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(suppl_8):viii205–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koyama S, Akbay EA, Li YY, Herter-Sprie GS, Buczkowski KA, Richards WG, et al. Adaptive resistance to therapeutic PD-1 blockade is associated with upregulation of alternative immune checkpoints. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Du S, McCall N, Park K, Guan Q, Fontina P, Ertel A, et al. Blockade of tumor-expressed PD-1 promotes lung cancer growth. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7(4):e1408747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lo Russo G, Moro M, Sommariva M, Cancila V, Boeri M, Centonze G, et al. Antibody-Fc/FcR interaction on macrophages as a mechanism for hyperprogressive disease in non-small cell lung cancer subsequent to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Clin Cancer Res. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1390.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Togashi Y, Sasaki KTA, et al. Clinicopathological, genomic and immunological features of hyperprogressive disease during PD-1 blockade in gastric cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.4106.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L, Creelan B, Horn L, Steins M, et al. First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(25):2415–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kanai O, Fujita K, Okamura M, Nakatani K, Mio T. Severe exacerbation or manifestation of primary disease related to nivolumab in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with poor performance status or brain metastases. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(7):1354–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Turner D, Kondic AG, Anderson KM, Robinson A, Garon EB, Riess JW, et al. Pembrolizumab exposure-response assessments challenged by association of cancer cachexia and catabolic clearance. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:5841–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bearz A, Perin T, Cancian L, Berto E, Sartor I, Tirelli U. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and response analysis: a tough challenge. A case report. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Massard C, Gordon MS, Sharma S, Rafii S, Wainberg ZA, Luke J, et al. Safety and efficacy of durvalumab (MEDI4736), an anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with advanced urothelial bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(26):3119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tumeh PC, Hellmann MD, Hamid O, Tsai KK, Loo KL, Gubens MA, et al. Liver metastasis and treatment outcome with Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody in patients with melanoma and NSCLC. Cancer Immunol Res. 2017;5(5):417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Funazo T, Nomizo T, Kim YH. Liver metastasis is associated with poor progression-free survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(9):e140–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang AC, Postow MA, Orlowski RJ, Mick R, Bengsch B, Manne S, et al. T-cell invigoration to tumour burden ratio associated with anti-PD-1 response. Nature. 2017;545(7652):60–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Joseph RW, Elassaiss-Schaap J, Kefford R, Hwu WJ, Wolchok JD, Joshua AM, et al. Baseline tumor size is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with melanoma treated with pembrolizumab. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:4960–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim ST, Cristescu R, Bass AJ, Kim KM, Odegaard JI, Kim K, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clinical responses to PD-1 inhibition in metastatic gastric cancer. Nat Med. 2018;24:1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Janjigian YY, Sanchez-Vega F, Jonsson P, Chatila WK, Hechtman JF, Ku GY, et al. Genetic predictors of response to systemic therapy in esophagogastric cancer. Cancer Discov. 2018;8(1):49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Engblom C, Pfirschke C, Pittet MJ. The role of myeloid cells in cancer therapies. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(7):447–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gonda K, Shibata M, Ohtake T, Matsumoto Y, Tachibana K, Abe N, et al. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells are increased and correlated with type 2 immune responses, malnutrition, inflammation, and poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2017;14(2):1766–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Le Tourneau C, Paoletti X, Coquan E, Sablin MP, Zoubir M, Tannock IF. Critical evaluation of disease stabilization as a measure of activity of systemic therapy: lessons from trials with arms in which patients do not receive active treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(3):260–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akinori Sasaki
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yoshiaki Nakamura
    • 1
  • Saori Mishima
    • 1
  • Akihito Kawazoe
    • 1
  • Yasutoshi Kuboki
    • 1
  • Hideaki Bando
    • 1
  • Takashi Kojima
    • 1
  • Toshihiko Doi
    • 1
  • Atsushi Ohtsu
    • 1
  • Takayuki Yoshino
    • 1
  • Takeshi Kuwata
    • 3
  • Tetsuo Akimoto
    • 2
    • 4
  • Kohei Shitara
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal OncologyNational Cancer Center Hospital EastKashiwaJapan
  2. 2.Courses of Advanced Clinical Research of CancerJuntendo University Graduate School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Clinical LaboratoriesNational Cancer Center Hospital EastKashiwaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Radiation OncologyNational Cancer Center Hospital EastKashiwaJapan

Personalised recommendations