Impact of PROphet Test in Changing Physicians' Therapeutic Decision-Making for Checkpoint Immunotherapy in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
{"title":"Impact of PROphet Test in Changing Physicians' Therapeutic Decision-Making for Checkpoint Immunotherapy in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cllc.2024.06.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) regimens are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic nononcogene-driven NSCLC. Guidelines do not differentiate which patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% should receive ICI monotherapy. The clinically validated PROphet NSCLC plasma proteomic-based test is designed to inform this therapeutic decision.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred oncologists were presented with 3 “virtual” metastatic NSCLC cases with PD-L1 scores and asked to recommend an approved first-line regimen. They then watched an online educational webinar on the PROphetNSCLC test. Postwebinar, the same cases were represented with the addition of a PROphet result, and oncologists again recommended a first-line regimen. Responses were compared to assess the impact on first-line treatment selection.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Treatment recommendation changed in 39.6% of PROphet-tested cases, with 93% of physicians changing at least 1 case. In the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, 89% of physicians changed their recommendation, followed by 77%, in PD-L1 &lt; 1%, and 36% in PD-L1 1% to 49%. ​In the PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PROphet POSITIVE group, the recommendation for ICI monotherapy increased from 60% to 89%. ​For the PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PROphet NEGATIVE group, the recommendation for monotherapy dropped from 60% to 9%. In the PD-L1 &lt; 1%, PROphet NEGATIVE group, 35% of patients were spared toxicity from ICI compared to 11% in PROphet untested cases.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Adding PROphet to PD-L1 expression impacted therapeutic decision making in first-line NSCLC. PROphet identifies those predicted to have an overall survival benefit from ICI monotherapy versus combination versus chemotherapy, improving the probability of efficacy and reducing toxicity for some patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10490,"journal":{"name":"Clinical lung cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525730424001384/pdfft?md5=68fe4e60e1c9153f5469964a5f1d6d04&pid=1-s2.0-S1525730424001384-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical lung cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525730424001384","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) regimens are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic nononcogene-driven NSCLC. Guidelines do not differentiate which patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50% should receive ICI monotherapy. The clinically validated PROphet NSCLC plasma proteomic-based test is designed to inform this therapeutic decision.

Methods

One hundred oncologists were presented with 3 “virtual” metastatic NSCLC cases with PD-L1 scores and asked to recommend an approved first-line regimen. They then watched an online educational webinar on the PROphetNSCLC test. Postwebinar, the same cases were represented with the addition of a PROphet result, and oncologists again recommended a first-line regimen. Responses were compared to assess the impact on first-line treatment selection.

Results

Treatment recommendation changed in 39.6% of PROphet-tested cases, with 93% of physicians changing at least 1 case. In the PD-L1 ≥ 50% group, 89% of physicians changed their recommendation, followed by 77%, in PD-L1 < 1%, and 36% in PD-L1 1% to 49%. ​In the PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PROphet POSITIVE group, the recommendation for ICI monotherapy increased from 60% to 89%. ​For the PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PROphet NEGATIVE group, the recommendation for monotherapy dropped from 60% to 9%. In the PD-L1 < 1%, PROphet NEGATIVE group, 35% of patients were spared toxicity from ICI compared to 11% in PROphet untested cases.

Conclusion

Adding PROphet to PD-L1 expression impacted therapeutic decision making in first-line NSCLC. PROphet identifies those predicted to have an overall survival benefit from ICI monotherapy versus combination versus chemotherapy, improving the probability of efficacy and reducing toxicity for some patients.

PROphet测试在改变医生对非小细胞肺癌检查点免疫疗法治疗决策方面的影响
目的免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)方案被批准用于转移性非癌基因驱动的 NSCLC 的一线治疗。指南并未区分哪些PD-L1≥50%的患者应接受ICI单药治疗。方法 100 名肿瘤学家接受了 3 个 PD-L1 评分为 "虚拟 "的转移性 NSCLC 病例,并被要求推荐一种已获批准的一线治疗方案。然后,他们观看了关于 PROphetNSCLC 检测的在线教育网络研讨会。网络研讨会结束后,同样的病例再加上PROphet结果,肿瘤学家再次推荐一线治疗方案。结果39.6%的PROphet检测病例的治疗建议发生了改变,93%的医生至少改变了1个病例的治疗建议。在PD-L1≥50%组中,89%的医生改变了治疗建议,其次是PD-L1 <1%组的77%和PD-L1 1%至49%组的36%。在PD-L1≥50%、PRO POSITIVE组中,推荐ICI单药治疗的比例从60%增至89%。在PD-L1≥50%、PROphet阴性组中,单药治疗的推荐比例从60%降至9%。在PD-L1 <1%、PROphet阴性组中,35%的患者免于ICI的毒性,而在PROphet未检测的病例中,这一比例为11%。PROphet可识别出那些预测可从ICI单药治疗或联合化疗中获得总生存获益的患者,从而提高了疗效的概率,并减少了部分患者的毒性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical lung cancer
Clinical lung cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.80%
发文量
159
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Lung Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of lung cancer. Clinical Lung Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of lung cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to lung cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信