Comparing and contrasting predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy and targeted therapy of NSCLC

The era of personalized medicine for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) began when biomarker-based evidence of molecular pathway and/or oncogene addiction of the tumour became mandatory for the allocation of specific targeted therapies. More recently, the immunotherapy revolution, specifically, the development of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has dramatically altered the NSCLC treatment landscape. Herein, we compare and contrast the clinical development of immunotherapy and oncogene-directed therapy for NSCLC, focusing on the role of predictive biomarkers. Immunotherapy biomarkers are fundamentally different from oncogene biomarkers in that they are continuous rather than categorical (binary), spatially and temporally variable and reliant on multiple complex interactions rather than a single, dominant determinant. The performance of predictive biomarkers for ICIs might be improved by combining different markers to reduce the assumptive risks associated with each one. Novel combinations with chemotherapy and ICIs complicate biomarker discovery but do not decrease the value of the markers identified. Perfectly predictive biomarkers of benefit from immunotherapy are unlikely to be identified, although exclusionary biomarkers of minimal benefit or an unacceptable risk of toxicity might be feasible. The clinical adoption and applicability of such biomarkers might vary depending on line of treatment, the available therapeutic alternatives and health economic considerations.

Multicenter ALK testing in non-small-cell lung cancer: results of a round robin test

BACKGROUND

The anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor crizotinib has recently received approval for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As the therapeutic prescription postulates the detection of ALK rearrangements, reliable diagnostic approaches are of utmost importance. With this study, we present the data of the first German ALK-round robin test based on genomic DNA in situ hybridization (ISH). The application of immunohistochemistry (IHC) for ALK protein detection was optional and not required for certification.

METHODS

Two tissue microarrays, each consisting of the same 10 NSCLC but in different arrangement of the cases, were generated (five unequivocally ALK-positive and five unequivocally ALK-negative cases). ISH-based results and optional IHC data had to be submitted within 10 working days. A successful participation (certification) was reached if at least 19 of the 20 possible points were scored (2 points for a correct case classification).

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 59 participants (89.8%) provided their data for ISH-ALK detection within the submission period. Thirty-two of 53 participants (60.3%) received at least 19 points required for certification. Remarkably, the range of cells with aberrant ALK signal configuration was broad in ALK-negative (0-13%) and in ALK-positive cases (15-95%). Thirty-five participants supported the round robin test with optional ALK IHC results, which displayed a great heterogeneity in the ALK ISH-positive cases.

CONCLUSION

In essence, our ALK ISH round robin test clearly demonstrates that there is accumulating need for improvement of ALK testing. Although ISH may be regarded as a well-established procedure, its broad application in a diagnostic setting is challenging and requires standardized methods and harmonized interpretation to achieve sound results for therapeutic decisions. The same is true for ALK IHC which, however if standardized, might improve the diagnostic approach.

Problems involved in the clinical trials for non-small cell lung carcinoma

Along with changes in smoking habits, non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) has come to account for about 90% of all cases of lung cancer. For the treatment of NSCLC, cytocidal antineoplastic drugs such as pemetrexed and molecular-targeted drugs such as gefitinib, erlotinib, and bevacizumab have been approved globally and used as a part of the standard treatment. The importance of better patient selection based on the optimum indication of these drugs is attracting much attention. Additionally, timing for the use of these drugs also seems to be an important issue. The present review presents a critical discussion about the following issues based on the results of clinical studies: (1) whether or not the assessment of the EGFR mutation status in NSCLC patients is indispensable; (2) whether gefitinib and erlotinib have different effects; (3) the need to sub-classify NSCLC by histologic type; (4) significance of maintenance therapy for NSCLC; and (5) whether platinum-doublet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard treatment for non-squamous cell carcinoma.