Immune checkpoint inhibitors for POLE or POLD1 proofreading-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer
M Ambrosini,B Rousseau,P Manca,O Artz,A Marabelle,T André,G Maddalena,G Mazzoli,R Intini,R Cohen,A Cercek,N H Segal,L Saltz,A M Varghese,R Yaeger,M Nusrat,Z Goldberg,G Y Ku,I El Dika,O Margalit,A Grinshpun,P Murtaza Kasi,R Schilsky,A Lutfi,E Shacham-Shmueli,M Khan Afghan,L Weiss,C B Westphalen,V Conca,B Decker,G Randon,E Elez,M Fakih,A B Schrock,C Cremolini,P Jayachandran,M J Overman,S Lonardi,F Pietrantonio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2024.03.009
Abstract:Background: POLE and POLD1 proofreading deficiency (POLE/D1pd) define a rare subtype of ultramutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; over 100 mut/Mb). Disease-specific data about the activity and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in POLE/D1pd mCRC are lacking and it is unknown whether outcomes may be different from mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) mCRCs treated with ICIs. Patients and methods: In this global study, we collected 27 patients with mCRC harboring POLE/D1 mutations leading to proofreading deficiency and treated with anti-programmed cell death-ligand 1 alone +/- anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 agents. We collected clinicopathological and genomic characteristics, response, and survival outcomes after ICIs of POLE/D1pd mCRC and compared them with a cohort of 610 dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients treated with ICIs. Further genomic analyses were carried out in an independent cohort of 7241 CRCs to define POLE and POLD1pd molecular profiles and mutational signatures. Results: POLE/D1pd was associated with younger age, male sex, fewer RAS/BRAF driver mutations, and predominance of right-sided colon cancers. Patients with POLE/D1pd mCRC showed a significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) compared to dMMR/MSI-H mCRC (89% versus 54%; P = 0.01). After a median follow-up of 24.9 months (interquartile range: 11.3-43.0 months), patients with POLE/D1pd showed a significantly superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared to dMMR/MSI-H mCRC [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.74, P = 0.01] and superior overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.18, P = 0.09). In multivariable analyses including the type of DNA repair defect, POLE/D1pd was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.69, P = 0.013) and OS (HR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.06-0.98, P = 0.047). Molecular profiling showed that POLE/D1pd tumors have higher tumor mutational burden (TMB). Responses were observed in both subtypes and were associated with the intensity of POLE/D1pd signature. Conclusions: Patients with POLE/D1pd mCRC showed more favorable outcomes compared to dMMR/MSI-H mCRC to treatment with ICIs in terms of tumor response and survival.