Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36750267›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society2023

Mismatch repair deficiency, next-generation sequencing-based microsatellite instability, and tumor mutational burden as predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness in frontline treatment of advanced stage endometrial cancer.

Breana L Hill, Ryon P Graf, Kunal Shah, Natalie Danziger, Douglas I Lin, Julia Quintanilha, Gerald Li, James Haberberger, Jeffrey S Ross, Alessandro D Santin and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Breana L Hill *Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, California, USA blhill@health.ucsd.edu.
Ryon P Graf *Department of Clinical Development, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, San Diego, California, USA.
Kunal ShahDepartment of Data & Insights Delivery, Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Natalie DanzigerDepartment of Pathology and Diagnostic Medicine, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Douglas I LinDepartment of Pathology and Diagnostic Medicine, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Julia QuintanilhaDepartment of Clinical Development, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Gerald LiDepartment of Clinical Development, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
James HaberbergerDepartment of Pathology and Diagnostic Medicine, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, Morrisville, North Carolina, USA.
Jeffrey S RossDepartment of Pathology and Diagnostic Medicine, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Alessandro D SantinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Brian SlomovitzDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida, USA.
Julia A ElvinDepartment of Pathology and Diagnostic Medicine, Medical Team, Foundation Medicine Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Ramez N EskanderDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, California, USA.
Foundation Medicine (United States)The Medical Foundation · USUniversity of California, San Diego · USMount Sinai Medical Center · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMolecular profiling is developing to inform treatment in endometrial cancer. Using real world evidence, we sought to evaluate frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor vs chemotherapy effectiveness in advanced endometrial cancer, stratified by Tumor Mutational Burden (TMB) ≥10 mut/MB and microsatellite instability (MSI).

methodsPatients with advanced endometrial cancer in the US-based de-identified Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine Clinico-Genomic Database were included. Data originated from patients treated between January 2011- March 2022 at 280 US clinics. Next-generation sequencing assays were performed via FoundationOne or FoundationOneCDx. Longitudinal clinical data were derived from electronic health records. Immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment included pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and nivolumab monotherapies. Time to next treatment, time to treatment discontinuation, and overall survival were assessed with the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models with adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for known prognostic factors. We used the Likelihood ratio test to compare biomarker performance.

resultsA total of 343 patients received chemotherapy and 28 received immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy as frontline treatment. Patients who received monotherapy were more likely to be stage III at diagnosis (immune checkpoint inhibitor: 54.6% vs chemotherapy: 15.0%; p<0.001) and more likely to test MSI-high via next-generation sequencing (immune checkpoint inhibitor: 53.6% vs chemotherapy: 19.2%; p<0.001). In MSI-high cancers, single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitor had a more favorable time to next treatment (aHR: 0.18, p=0.001) and overall survival (aHR 0.29, p=0.045). Additional analyses on 70 unique tumor specimens revealed mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) via immunohistochemistry and MSI-high via next-generation sequencing concordance (91%), with nominal improvement of MSI over dMMR to predict time to treatment discontinuation (p=0.030), time to next treatment (p=0.032), and overall survival (p=0.22). MSI status was concordant with tumor mutational burden ≥10 in 94.3% of cases.

conclusionImmune checkpoint inhibitors may have improved efficacy over chemotherapy in frontline treatment for advanced endometrial cancer defined by MSI-high using next-generation sequencing as a nominally better predictor of outcomes than dMMR with immunohistochemistry. This provides the biologic rationale of active phase III trials.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEndometrial NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsDNA Mismatch RepairFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsMicrosatellite InstabilityNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryBiomarkers, TumorImmune Checkpoint Inhibitorsendometriumuterine cancer

Identifiers

PMID36750267
PMCPMC10086481
OpenAlexW4319346305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.