4.8 Article

ctDNA response after pembrolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer: phase 2 adaptive trial results

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02598-9

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is useful for capturing primary resistance to immunotherapy in lung cancer. The BR.36 trial demonstrates the correlation between ctDNA response and radiologic response, and identifies molecular response as a predictor of longer progression-free and overall survival.
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has shown promise in capturing primary resistance to immunotherapy. BR.36 is a multi-center, randomized, ctDNA-directed, phase 2 trial of molecular response-adaptive immuno-chemotherapy for patients with lung cancer. In the first of two independent stages, 50 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer received pembrolizumab as standard of care. The primary objectives of stage 1 were to ascertain ctDNA response and determine optimal timing and concordance with radiologic Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) response. Secondary endpoints included the evaluation of time to ctDNA response and correlation with progression-free and overall survival. Maximal mutant allele fraction clearance at the third cycle of pembrolizumab signified molecular response (mR). The trial met its primary endpoint, with a sensitivity of ctDNA response for RECIST response of 82% (90% confidence interval (CI): 52-97%) and a specificity of 75% (90% CI: 56.588.5%). Median time to ctDNA response was 2.1 months (90% CI: 1.5-2.6), and patients with mR attained longer progression-free survival (5.03 months versus 2.6 months) and overall survival (not reached versus 7.23 months). These findings are incorporated into the ctDNA-driven interventional molecular response-adaptive second stage of the BR.36 trial in which patients at risk of progression are randomized to treatment intensification or continuation of therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04093167.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据