Prediction of the VeriStrat test in first-line therapy of pemetrexed-based regimens for advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients
-
Published:2020-12
Issue:1
Volume:20
Page:
-
ISSN:1475-2867
-
Container-title:Cancer Cell International
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Cancer Cell Int
Author:
Jia Bo, Dong Zhi, Wu Di, Zhao Jun, Wu Meina, An Tongtong, Wang Yuyan, Zhuo Minglei, Li Jianjie, Wang Yang, Zhang Jie, Zhao Xinghui, Li Sheng, Li Junfeng, Ma Menglei, Chen Chen, Yang Xue, Zhong Jia, Chen Hanxiao, Wang Jingjing, Chi Yujia, Zhai Xiaoyu, Cui Song, Zhang Rong, Ma Qingwei, Fang Jian, Wang ZipingORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Although advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have significantly better survival outcomes after pemetrexed based treatment, a subset of patients still show intrinsic resistance and progress rapidly. Therefore we aimed to use a blood-based protein signature (VeriStrat, VS) to analyze whether VS could identify the subset of patients who had poor efficacy on pemetrexed therapy.
Methods
This study retrospectively analysed 72 advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients who received first-line pemetrexed/platinum or combined with bevacizumab treatment.
Results
Plasma samples from these patients were analysed using VS and classified into the Good (VS-G) or Poor (VS-P) group. The relationship between efficacy and VS status was further investigated. Of the 72 patients included in this study, 35 (48.6%) were treated with pemetrexed plus platinum and 37 (51.4%) were treated with pemetrexed/platinum combined with bevacizumab. Among all patients, 60 (83.3%) and 12 (16.7%) patients were classified as VS-G and VS-P, respectively. VS-G patients had significantly better median progression-free survival (PFS) (Unreached vs. 4.2 months; P < 0.001) than VS-P patients. In addition, the partial response (PR) rate was higher in the VS-G group than that in the VS-P group (46.7% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.212). Subgroup analysis showed that PFS was also significantly longer in the VS-G group than that in the VS-P group regardless of whether patients received chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab.
Conclusions
Our study indicated that VS might be considered as a novel and valid method to predict the efficacy of pemetrexed-based therapy and identify a subset of advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients who had intrinsic resistance to pemetrexed based regimens. However, larger sample studies are still needed to further confirm this result.
Funder
Science Foundation of Peking University Cancer Hospital Capital Clinical Characteristics and Application Research Beijing Excellent Talent Cultivation Subsidy Young Backbone Individual Project
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cancer Research,Genetics,Oncology
Reference28 articles.
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30. 2. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:115–32. 3. Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3543–51. 4. Xu H, Xu F, Zhu W, et al. Comparing first-line treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with pan-negative advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. 2018;9:1005–11. 5. Ciuleanu T, Brodowicz T, Zielinski C, et al. Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2009;374:1432–40.
|
|