A Novel Framework for Evaluating Biomarker Response Relationships in Immuno-Oncology (IO)
J. L. Evelhoch,R. Mogg,R. Cristescu,D. Aurora-Garg,L. Q. Chow,S. Loi,D. V. T. Catenacci,U. A. Matulonis,P. A. Ott,E. S. Antonarakis,C. H. Poehlein,A. Joe,S. M. Keefe,P. Kang,V. Karantza,J. Cheng,E. H. Rubin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy269.097
IF: 51.769
2018-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Background: Unlike biomarkers of dichotomous genetic mutations/fusions required for response, biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitors are continuous biologic variables with context specific cutpoints. Selecting the cutpoint of a continuous biomarker for higher response rate in a given therapy decreases the number of biomarker positive patients (prevalence). To facilitate interpretation of biomarkers in IO, we introduce a framework for understanding how cutpoints, response rate and prevalence are interrelated. Methods: Objective response rate (ORR) in biomarker positive patients is the product of ORR in all patients and the fraction of responding patients who are biomarker positive (FR+), divided by the prevalence. FR+ depends on the difference in biomarker distributions between responding and nonresponding patients. Biomarker [PD-L1 IHC, tumor mutation burden (TMB), T-cell activated gene expression profile (GEP)] and response data were pooled from 595 patients in 7 clinical trials of pembrolizumab monotherapy across 16 tumor types. A Bayesian model was used to estimate biomarker distributions in responders and nonresponders for each biomarker assuming normality. Results: ORR prevalence data generated by varying the cutpoint were fit well by the biomarker distribution model for all 3 biomarkers. Individual biomarker ORR prevalence curves and 95% credible intervals overlapped substantially with each other, consistent with indistinguishable areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) for PD-L1, TMB and GEP in this pan tumor population. Thus, although PD-L1 or GEP identify populations only partially overlapping with that of TMB, the predictive ability is similar for all 3 biomarkers.Table: 99PValue (95% CI)BiomarkerORR @ 60% PrevalenceORR @ 30% PrevalenceORR @ 10% PrevalenceAUROCPD-L115.5 (12.0, 19.0)21.5 (15.8, 27.4)33.6 (22.3, 45.7)0.69 (0.63, 0.76)GEP17.5 (14.1, 21.2)24.8 (19.2, 30.1)33.5 (24.2, 44.1)0.76 (0.70, 0.82)TMB15.0 (11.7, 18.6)21.5 (15.7, 27.7)35.9 (24.0, 49.0)0.67 (0.59, 0.74)CI = Credible interval for ORR and confidence interval for AUROC Open table in a new tab CI = Credible interval for ORR and confidence interval for AUROC Conclusions: A model using biomarker distributions in responding and nonresponding patients accounts for the relationships among cutpoints, response rate and prevalence, and may provide a framework for interpretation of biomarker response data in IO. Editorial acknowledgement: Joanne Tomassini, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Disclosure: J.L. Evelhoch: Employee and stock owner: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. R. Mogg, R. Cristescu, D. Aurora-Garg, C.H. Poehlein, A. Joe, S.M. Keefe, P. Kang, V. Karantza, J. Cheng, E.H. Rubin: Employee and stock owner/stock options: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. L.Q. Chow: Advisory board honoraria: Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi-Genzyme; Institutional grant funding: Merck & Co., Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Lily/Imclone; Consulting honoraria: Amgen, Incyte, VentiRx; Institutional research grant and advisory board honoraria: Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics. S. Loi: Grants: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Puma Biotechnology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer; Grants and non-financial support: Roche-Genentech. D.V.T. Catenacci: Consultant: Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Taiho, Five Prime Therapeutics; Speaker bureau: Eli Lilly; Institutional research funding: Amgen, Genentech. U.A. Matulonis: Funding: Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis; Consulting/advisor fees: Merck & Co., Inc., Lilly, Geneos, 2X Oncology, Myriad Genetics, Clovis Oncology, Fujifilm. P.A. Ott: Consulting or advisory role: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Alexion, CytomX Therapeutics, Celldex, Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Neon Therapeutics; Speaking fees: Merck & Co., Inc.; Research funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck & Co., Inc., Astra Zeneca/MedImmune, Celldex, Neon Therapeutics, Pfizer, CytomX, ARMO BioSciences (to institution). E.S. Antonarakis: Consulting or advisory role: Sanofi, Dendreon, Medivation, Janssen Biotech, ESSA, Astellas Pharma, Merck & Co., Inc., AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology; Travel fees: Sanofi, Dendreon, Medivation; Co-inventor of a biomarker technology that has been licensed to Qiagen; Honoraria: Sanofi, Dendreon, Medivation, Janssen Biotech, ESSA, Asstellas Pharma, Merck & Co., Inc., AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology; Research funding: Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Dendreon, Aragon Pharma, Exelixis, Millennium, Genentech, Novartis, Astellas Pharma, Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Inc., AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Constellation Pharmaceuticals (received by institution).