[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Box Plots of 4 Chemokines of Interest in Responders vs Nonresponders
Box Plots of 4 Chemokines of Interest in Responders vs Nonresponders

CCL4, CXCL9, and CXCL10 are genes associated with a T-cell–inflamed phenotype in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients 1 and 2 (complete response [CR]) and 8 and 9 (progressive disease [PD]) had adequate pretreatment tissue and were included in this analysis. All comparisons were done using an unpaired t test with the Welch correction except CXCL9, which was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test because of the distribution of the samples. Horizontal lines in the middle of the boxes indicate median values; outer horizontal lines, upper and lower bounds of the IQRs; error bars, upper and lower bounds of the range; and circles, sample replicates.

aP < .001.

bP = .10.

cP = .03.

dP = .003.

Table.  Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes for 12 Patients With PDAC or Biliary Cancer Treated With Ipilimumab/Nivolumaba
Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes for 12 Patients With PDAC or Biliary Cancer Treated With Ipilimumab/Nivolumaba
1.
Pishvaian  MJ, Bender  RJ, Halverson  D,  et al.  Molecular profiling of patients with pancreatic cancer: initial results from the Know Your Tumor initiative.   Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(20):5018-5027. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0531 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Golan  T, Hammel  P, Reni  M,  et al.  Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):317-327. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903387 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Sokol  ES, Pavlick  D, Khiabanian  H,  et al.  Pan-cancer analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genomic alterations and their association with genomic instability as measured by genome-wide loss of heterozygosity.   JCO Precis Oncol. 2020;4:442-465. doi:10.1200/PO.19.00345 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Strickland  KC, Howitt  BE, Shukla  SA,  et al.  Association and prognostic significance of BRCA1/2-mutation status with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in high grade serous ovarian cancer.   Oncotarget. 2016;7(12):13587-13598. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.7277 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
O’Reilly  EM, Oh  DY, Dhani  N,  et al.  Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(10):1431-1438. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1588 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Romero  JM, Grünwald  B, Jang  GH,  et al.  A four-chemokine signature is associated with a T-cell–inflamed phenotype in primary and metastatic pancreatic cancer.   Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(8):1997-2010. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2803 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
1 Comment for this article
EXPAND ALL
Hyperprogression in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: Not to be ignored
xiaolei xu, MD/PHD | Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Qinghai University Affiliated Hospital
Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) has received a lot of attention in cancer biology in recent years, as this defect in DNA repair observed in different cancer types may have implications for therapeutic efficacy. Many anticancer drugs (such as platinum) or radiation therapy for tumors achieve their therapeutic goals by inducing DNA damage in tumor cells. Multiple studies have shown that PARP inhibitors have shown significant efficacy in a series of clinical trials involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

I read with graet interest the result about the “Ipilimumab/Nivolumab Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic or Biliary Cancer With Homologous Recombination
Deficiency Pathogenic Germline Variants” published by Terrero G and colleagues. However, I have some concerns. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have gradually become the new standard treatment for a variety of advanced solid tumors, but there is less experience in patients with bile duct malignancies and pancreatic cancer. Pijnappel EN et al.showed that patients with metastatic PDAC tended to use FOLFIRINOX as first-line and gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel as second-line. Because first-line FOLFIRINOX treatment has better OS than with or without nab-paclitaxel. The author's article did not explain why the immunotherapy regimen was used for the included 12 patients, whether it was the patient's request to choose an immunotherapy regimen or the immunotherapy was performed due to FOLFOX regimen poor efficacy. These data are essential because it cannot be excluded that patients who are sicker and more reluctant to receive chemotherapy may receive immunotherapy, which may affect the selection of patients to receive chemotherapy and the final outcome of overall survival. The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors has revolutionized the field of cancer treatment, but it has also brought to the forefront the question of how best to assess clinical benefit during treatment with these drugs. The use of these immune-activating drugs is often associated with atypical treatment response patterns, including hyperprogression and pseudoprogression. Most oncologists now believe that hyperprogression is a real phenomenon rather than a natural progression of the disease. The authors' findings showed that four patients progressed after immunotherapy. It has been reported that patients of progression disease with BRCA2 mutations. While these markers have certain limitations, that doesn't mean we can ignore them. Because patients with mutations are more prone to hyperprogression during immunotherapy.

There is no doubt that the role of immunotherapy in clinical practice is magnified. It seems that in the advanced stage or the stage of metastasis, doctors are used to recommending immunotherapy, and even many patients have the illusion that immunotherapy is a better treatment method, or even the other side of immunotherapy is deliberately covered up. However, one of the current limitations is that we do not have a way to discern which patients are more likely to benefit from immunotherapy or which patients are most likely to be harmed. It is crucial to further study cancer types, different treatments and tumor biopsies to identify possible biological explanations and biomarkers to guide us in better patient selection to limit adverse events and maximize benefits.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Research Letter
April 21, 2022

Ipilimumab/Nivolumab Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic or Biliary Cancer With Homologous Recombination Deficiency Pathogenic Germline Variants

Author Affiliations
  • 1Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(6):938-940. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0611

Approximately 3% to 10% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) leading to homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and approximately 15% to 17% have similar somatic alterations.1 These patients have increased sensitivity to platinum-containing chemotherapy and PARP inhibitors.1,2 There is increased genomic instability in this subgroup of patients; in a pan-cancer analysis, PDACs with biallelic loss of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) had a higher median tumor mutation burden (4.3 vs 1.7 mutations/Mb) and higher genomic loss of heterozygosity than wild-type tumors.3 Similar genomic instability leading to tumor-inflamed phenotype has been described in BRCA1/2-variant breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers.4 Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been ineffective in unselected patients with PDAC.5 Given the molecular rationale for increased susceptibility to ICIs in patients with PDAC associated with HRD PGVs, we investigated whether this subgroup may be sensitive to immunotherapy strategies.

Methods

This retrospective single-institution case series included patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic PDAC or biliary cancer who were treated between April 2018 and February 2021 with combination ipilimumab/nivolumab and had PGVs in HRD genes (detected by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–approved assay). This study was approved by the University of Miami institutional review board, and a waiver of informed consent was given to collect deidentified data retrospectively. This study followed the reporting guideline for case series.

Patients received ipilimumab, 1 mg/kg, with nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 21 days for 4 doses, followed by nivolumab, 480 mg, every 28 days. Available pretreatment tumor specimens were analyzed by immunohistochemistry and RNA sequencing using the PanCancer IO 360 Panel. Data were analyzed using Prism, version 7, and 2-sided P < .05 was the level of significance.

Results

A total of 12 patients were included (7 [58%] men; median age, 66 [range, 47-73] years) (Table). Four patients achieved a complete response (CR) to therapy, 1 had a partial response, and 2 had stable disease. The objective response rate was 42%, with a disease control rate of 58%. The 4 patients who achieved CR remained without evidence of disease 11 to 41 months after starting therapy. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with the known toxic effects of combination ipilimumab/nivolumab.

Adequate archival biopsy results were available for 4 patients (2 with CRs and 2 with progressive disease). Responders had higher density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes than nonresponders. Expression of chemokines known to enable trafficking of adaptive effector immune populations was significantly higher in responders than in nonresponders: CCL4 (mean [SE], 6.17 [0.12] vs 4.20 [0.11]; P < .001), CXCL9 (median, 7.44 [IQR, 7.09-7.79] vs 4.70 [IQR, 1.86-7.54]; P = .03), and CXCL10 (mean [SE], 6.81 [0.13] vs 4.51 [0.39]; P = .003) (Figure). The expression of these chemokines was previously shown to correlate with a T-cell–inflamed phenotype in PDAC.6

Discussion

This case series showed that ipilimumab/nivolumab therapy was associated with clinical benefit in a biomarker-selected group of patients with PDAC and PGVs in genes encoding for HRD, with pretreatment biopsy analysis supporting biological plausibility. Most patients had platinum and PARP inhibitor–refractory disease and would typically have an unfavorable prognosis but showed marked improvement with ipilimumab/nivolumab therapy. Of the 4 patients who achieved CR, 3 discontinued therapy after 2 years and all remained without evidence of disease. Limitations of the study were the small number of patients and few tumor specimens for analysis; however, differences were revealed in the pretreatment tumor characteristics between responders and nonresponders, including more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and a T-cell–inflamed signature on RNA expression analysis in responders.

Typically, PDAC is characterized by few or no infiltrating immune effector cells, low antigenicity, and multiple immunosuppressive factors in the tumor microenvironment. Treatment with ICIs has not shown meaningful benefit for PDAC except for microsatellite instability–high tumors. This study showed an association between germline HRD status and sensitivity to ICIs, advancing previous evidence of an association between BRCA1/2 variants in other tumors and immunotherapy response.

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: January 31, 2022.

Published Online: April 21, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0611

Corresponding Author: Peter J. Hosein, MD, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1121 NW 14th St, Ste 245A, Miami, FL 33136 (phosein@miami.edu).

Author Contributions: Drs Terrero and Hosein had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Terrero, Merchant, Hosein.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Terrero, Datta, Dennison, Hosein.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Terrero, Datta, Sussman, Lohse, Merchant, Hosein.

Statistical analysis: Datta, Dennison, Hosein.

Obtained funding: Datta, Hosein.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Terrero, Merchant, Hosein.

Supervision: Datta, Sussman, Merchant, Hosein.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by the KL2 Career Development Grant from the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute under grant UL1TR002736 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Stanley J. Glaser Foundation, the Franklin H. Martin, MD, FACS, Faculty Research Fellowship of the American College of Surgeons, and the Association for Academic Surgery Joel J. Roslyn Faculty Research Award (Dr Datta); Hyundai Hope on Wheels, the Sebastian Strong Foundation, the Wallace H. Coulter Center Foundation for Translational Research, and the Live Like Bella Childhood Cancer Foundation (Dr Lohse); grants R01 CA161976 and T32 CA211034 from the NIH, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network–American Association for Cancer Research Clinical and Translational Cancer Research Fellowship 15-65-25-MERC, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (Dr Merchant); the Helene & Bernard Herskowitz Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Esther Finkelstein Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research, and the Luis Rios Family Fund for Pancreatic Cancer Research (Dr Hosein); and Cancer Center Core Grant P30CA240139 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Pishvaian  MJ, Bender  RJ, Halverson  D,  et al.  Molecular profiling of patients with pancreatic cancer: initial results from the Know Your Tumor initiative.   Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(20):5018-5027. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0531 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Golan  T, Hammel  P, Reni  M,  et al.  Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.   N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):317-327. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903387 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Sokol  ES, Pavlick  D, Khiabanian  H,  et al.  Pan-cancer analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 genomic alterations and their association with genomic instability as measured by genome-wide loss of heterozygosity.   JCO Precis Oncol. 2020;4:442-465. doi:10.1200/PO.19.00345 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Strickland  KC, Howitt  BE, Shukla  SA,  et al.  Association and prognostic significance of BRCA1/2-mutation status with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in high grade serous ovarian cancer.   Oncotarget. 2016;7(12):13587-13598. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.7277 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
O’Reilly  EM, Oh  DY, Dhani  N,  et al.  Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(10):1431-1438. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1588 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Romero  JM, Grünwald  B, Jang  GH,  et al.  A four-chemokine signature is associated with a T-cell–inflamed phenotype in primary and metastatic pancreatic cancer.   Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(8):1997-2010. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2803 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×