The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Aggressive Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors.
СтатьяКлиническое исследование II фазыНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Andrew L, Rudneva Vasilisa, Newton Adam, Majd Nazanin K, Magge Rajiv, Sengupta Soma, Goichot Bernard, Piotrowski Anna, Gavrilovic Igor, Cooper Odelia, Rosenblum Marc, Kaley Thomas, Mellinghoff Ingo, Young Robert J, Donoghue Mark T A, Tabar Viviane, Geer Eliza B
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) that progress following surgery and radiotherapy are in need of additional treatment options. Responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been described; however, the feasibility of ICI therapy and biomarkers of response have not been formally assessed.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the activity of ICI as a treatment for PitNETs.
METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, phase 2 trial investigating the activity of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with PitNETs. The primary endpoint was objective response using the iRANO response criteria. We then explored genetic biomarkers of response to ICIs in 13 patients with PitNETs who were treated with ICIs, on or outside of the trial.
RESULTS: Ten patients with a PitNET were enrolled, including 5 corticotroph, 4 lactotroph, and 1 somatotroph tumor, of which 9/10 (4 metastatic and 5 nonmetastatic) patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint. While no objective responses were observed, tumor shrinkage was seen in 2/9 patients. In a biomarker discovery cohort, comprising 7 tumors treated on trial and 6 tumors treated off trial, temozolomide hypermutation, and mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) were associated with immunological response. In 3 tumors sequenced pre- and post-ICI treatment, we identified evidence of immunoediting, characterized by loss of MMRd and/or a decrease in tumor mutational burden.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of ICI treatment in aggressive PitNETs. We also identified MMRd and temozolomide hypermutation as potential biomarkers of response to ICI. Overall, our data suggest that ICIs might provide an additional treatment option for PitNET; this should be evaluated more broadly in future studies.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the activity of ICI as a treatment for PitNETs.
METHODS: We performed a single-center, prospective, phase 2 trial investigating the activity of ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with PitNETs. The primary endpoint was objective response using the iRANO response criteria. We then explored genetic biomarkers of response to ICIs in 13 patients with PitNETs who were treated with ICIs, on or outside of the trial.
RESULTS: Ten patients with a PitNET were enrolled, including 5 corticotroph, 4 lactotroph, and 1 somatotroph tumor, of which 9/10 (4 metastatic and 5 nonmetastatic) patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint. While no objective responses were observed, tumor shrinkage was seen in 2/9 patients. In a biomarker discovery cohort, comprising 7 tumors treated on trial and 6 tumors treated off trial, temozolomide hypermutation, and mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) were associated with immunological response. In 3 tumors sequenced pre- and post-ICI treatment, we identified evidence of immunoediting, characterized by loss of MMRd and/or a decrease in tumor mutational burden.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of ICI treatment in aggressive PitNETs. We also identified MMRd and temozolomide hypermutation as potential biomarkers of response to ICI. Overall, our data suggest that ICIs might provide an additional treatment option for PitNET; this should be evaluated more broadly in future studies.