Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

2468 - Impact of different programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression algorithms on patient selection and durvalumab efficacy in urothelial carcinoma (UC)

Date

22 Oct 2018

Session

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

Topics

Tumour Site

Urothelial Cancers

Presenters

Jill Walker

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii303-viii331. 10.1093/annonc/mdy283

Authors

J. Walker1, M. Zajac2, J. Ye3, M. Scott4, M. Ratcliffe2, P. Scorer4, C. Barker4, H. Al-Masri5, M.C. Rebelatto6, A. Gupta3, P. Mukhopadhay3, S. Ferro3, T. Powles7, J.A. Williams2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Oncology Companion Diagnostics Unit, AstraZeneca, CB2 1PG - Cambridge/GB
  • 2 Oncology Companion Diagnostics Unit, AstraZeneca, Cambridge/GB
  • 3 Biometrics And Information Sciences, Gmd Unit, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg/US
  • 4 Precision Medicine And Genomics, Imed Biotech Unit, AstraZeneca, Cambridge/GB
  • 5 Anatomic Pathology & Clinical Pathology, Hematogenix, Tinley Park/US
  • 6 Experimental Pathology, Translational Sciences-research, MedImmune, Gaithersburg/US
  • 7 Barts & The London School Of Medicine & Dentistry, Barts Cancer Center, London/GB
More

Resources

Abstract 2468

Background

Antibodies targeting programmed cell death-1/PD-L1 (PD-1/PD-L1) have shown clinical activity in advanced UC. The ability of PD-L1 to predict response has been investigated using different antibody clones and scoring algorithms. It is important to understand if these assays/algorithms identify the same patients and how they compare in predicting response.

Methods

Archival UC tumour samples from 335 patients from a commercial source were stained with VENTANA SP263, VENTANA SP142, PD-L1 IHC pharmDx 28-8 and PD-L1 IHC pharmDx 22C3 Assays; classified according to their respective algorithms: tumour cell (TC) or immune cell (IC) staining ≥25% (TC/IC≥25%), PD-L1 staining IC area ≥5% of tumour (IC ≥ 5% ), TC staining ≥1% or combined positive score (CPS ≥10). Overlap between populations was assessed by overall percent agreement (OPA), negative percent agreement (NPA) and positive percent agreement (PPA). UC samples from study 1108 (NCT01693562) were stained using VENTANA SP263 and TC/IC≥25%, IC ≥ 5% and CPS≥10 algorithms were applied. Objective response rates (ORR; data cutoff Oct 2017) in patients classified as PD-L1 high or low by these algorithms were investigated.

Results

There was moderate overlap between populations identified by VENTANA SP263 (TC/IC≥25%) and PD-L1 IHC pharmDx 28-8 (TC ≥ 1%) or PD-L1 IHC pharmDx 22C3 (CPS≥10) and minimal overlap between VENTANA SP263 (TC/IC≥25%) and VENTANA SP142 (IC ≥ 5%) (Table). Applying different algorithms to data from study 1108 also gave differences in patient classification. ORR in patients determined as PD-L1 high vs low/negative were as follows: TC/IC≥25%: 28% vs 6%, IC ≥ 5%: 48% vs 14%, CPS≥10 25% vs 13%.

Conclusions

The TC/IC≥25% algorithm identifies a different population to IC ≥ 5% or CPS10. In CD-ON MEDI4736-1108, highest response rates were seen in PD-L1 high patients determined by IC ≥ 5%, whereas TC/IC≥25% was optimal in predicting non-responders to durvalumab.Table: 904P

Overall (OPA), negative (NPA) and positive percent agreement (PPA) between PD-L1 assays

Clinical Algorithm (assay)VENTANA SP263 (TC/IC 25%) Assay used as reference, % agreement (95% CIa)
OPAPPANPA
CPS ≥1 (PD-L1 IHC pharmDx22C377.0% (72.9%)90.7% (85.0%)69.6% (64.0%)
CPS ≥10 (PD-L1 IHC pharmDx 22C3)81.5% (77.6%)62.7% (54.8%)91.7% (87.9%)
TC ≥ 1% (PD-L1 IHC pharmDx 28-8)75.5% (71.3%)66.9% (59.1%)80.2% (75.2%)
ICTumorArea ≥5% (VENTANA SP142)69.9% (65.5%)15.3% (10.1%)99.5% (97.8%)
a

For each metric, lower boundary of 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated with no upper bound using the Clopper-Pearson method

Clinical trial identification

CD-ON MEDI4736-1108 NCT01693562.

Legal entity responsible for the study

AstraZeneca.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Editorial support, which was in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines, was provided by Anne-Marie Manwaring of Parexel, and was funded by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure

J. Walker, M. Zajac, J. Ye, M. Scott, P. Scorer, C. Barker, A. Gupta, P. Mukhopadhay, S. Ferro, J.A. Williams: Employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. M. Ratcliffe: Consultant for AstraZeneca. H. Al-Masri: Employee of Hematogenix. M.C. Rebelatto: Employee of Medimmune. T. Powles: Honoraria for advisory boards: Novartis, Roche and Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant: AstraZeneca.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.