An Updated Analysis of ICOGEN to Demonstrate Utility of a Blood-Based Proteomic Test to Predict Outcomes in EGFR TKI Treated Patients.

Yuankai Shi,Xiaohong Han,Li Zhang,Lieming Ding,Nicholas Dupuis,Alex Nickel,Lana Feng,Yishan Chuang,Gary Anthony Pestano,Xiaoqing Liu,Caicun Zhou,Shucai Zhang,Dong Wang,Qiang Li,Shukui Qin,Chunhong Hu,Jianhua Chen,Fenlai Tan,Yan Sun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.e20655
IF: 45.3
2017-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e20655 Background: ICOGEN was a randomized Phase III clinical trial comparing two EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), icotinib (I) and gefitinib (G), in EGFR gene mutation status unknown non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients previously treated with platinum doublet chemotherapy. Plasma samples from study patients were retrospectively analyzed with a commercially-available blood-based proteomic test which has been shown to have prognostic and predictive properties in NSCLC. This study represents an updated analysis of ICOGEN to evaluate the ability of the test to predict outcome based on therapeutic regimen. Methods: Available pre-treatment plasma samples from ICOGEN were retrospectively analyzed with the proteomic test which classifies subjects as Good or Poor. Progression free survival (PFS ) and over-all survival (OS) were analyzed within treatment (TX) arms and test classification. Results: 352 subjects were evaluated, with 277(78.7%) classified as Good and 75(21.3%) classified as Poor. Among all patients evaluated with the proteomic test, the median PFS was 4.9 mo. and 2.3 mo. (HR [95% CI] 0.61 [0.46 – 0.81]; p = 0.0004) and median OS was 16.6 mo. and 5.5 mo. (HR [95% CI] 0.39 [0.29 – 0.50]; p < 0.0001) for the Good and Poor sub-groups, respectively. Association between test result and PFS was significant in patients treated with I (6.0 mo vs. 1.9 mo, HR = 0.43, p < 0.0001), but not significant in patients treated with G (3.7 mo vs. 2.5 mo, HR = 0.85, p = 0.429). Further evaluation demonstrated that the proteomic test predicted differential therapeutic benefit between icotinib and gefitinib for PFS (pint = 0.036). In OS, a significant association between test result and outcome was shown in both the I (16.3 mo vs. 4.0 mo, HR [95% CI] 0.27[0.19-0.39]; p < 0.0001) and G (16.6 mo vs. 7.0 mo, HR [95% CI] 0.51[0.35-0.76; p = 0.0008) arms, which trended towards prediction of differential therapeutic benefit between icotinib and gefitinib for OS (pint = 0.086). Conclusions: For ICOGEN’s primary study endpoint, the proteomic test was predictive of differential therapeutic benefit between icotinib and gefitinib in EGFR mutations status unknown NSCLC patients.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?