4.7 Article

Mutational spectrum of TP53 gene correlates with nivolumab treatment efficacy in advanced gastric cancer (TP53MUT study)

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 129, Issue 6, Pages 1032-1039

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02378-9

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the impact of TP53 gene mutation on the efficacy of Nivolumab treatment in gastric cancer patients and found that TP53 wild type patients had a higher objective response rate than mutant patients, and among mutant patients, the frameshift type had the highest response rate.
BackgroundAlthough nivolumab has a high efficacy, reliable biomarkers are needed to predict the efficacy. We evaluated the nivolumab efficacy according to the TP53 mutation in advanced gastric cancer patients enrolled in the GI-SCREEN project.MethodsSequence data of tumour specimens and clinicopathological information of 913 patients with advanced gastric cancer who were enrolled between April 2015 and March 2017 were obtained from the GI-SCREEN database. The follow-up information of 266 patients treated with nivolumab was also provided.ResultsAmong 266 patients treated with nivolumab, the objective response rate (ORR) of TP53 wild type (wt) patients (24.6%) was higher than that of TP53 mutant patients (14.8%). Among TP53 mutant patients, the ORR of the frameshift type tended to be higher than the transition and transversion type (23.1%, 13.6%, and 13.0%, respectively). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was statistically longer in TP53 wt patients than in mutant patients (3.3 vs 2.1 months, HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9). Among TP53 mutant patients, PFS was statistically longer in the frameshift type than in the transversion type.ConclusionNivolumab showed better efficacy in TP53 wt patients than in mutant patients. Among TP53 mutant patients, the frameshift type may have efficacy from nivolumab treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available