4.5 Article

Characterization of the tumor immune-microenvironment of adenocarcinoma of lung with a metastatic lesion in the pancreas treated successfully with first-line, single-agent pembrolizumab

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/17588359211010156

关键词

immune checkpoint inhibitor; lung cancer; pancreas; programmed death ligand 1; tumor immune-microenvironment

类别

资金

  1. Oncocyte

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A case of simultaneous lung and pancreatic tumors responded significantly to single-agent immunotherapy and radiation therapy. Molecular analysis revealed shared key mutations in both tumors, indicating a common clonal origin. Strong immuno-oncology scores in both tumors may explain the favorable response to treatment.
Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer can significantly prolong progression-free and overall survival when compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, we report a case of newly diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the lung with a solitary brain metastasis and a biopsy confirmed adenocarcinoma in the tail of the pancreas. Cytomorphology and immunohistochemistry suggested the lung and pancreas tumors were distinct primaries. However, molecular analysis of the lung primary and tumor in the pancreas revealed the same mutations of functional significance in PIK3CA, NF1 and TP53, suggesting the tumors were clonal. A total of three cycles of single-agent pembrolizumab, and radiation to the lung and brain administered between cycles 1 and 2, resulted in marked responses in lung, brain and pancreatic tumors. Despite the discontinuation of the pembrolizumab after three cycles due to severe immune-mediated toxicities, the patient has had no progression 11 months after stopping all active treatment. Results of a novel 27-gene immuno-oncology (IO) expression assay revealed strong IO scores for the lung and pancreatic tumors, indicating a favorable tumor immune-microenvironment and possibly explaining the significant response.

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

4.5
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