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

Baseline IPI (Immune Prognostic Index) predicts survival in patients with advanced cervical cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 2

Presenters

Felix Blanc-Durand

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v403-v434. 10.1093/annonc/mdz250

Authors

F. Blanc-Durand1, M. Richardson2, P. Vuagnat3, P. Pautier1, A. Hollebecque4, A. Varga4, C. Massard5, A. Leary6

Author affiliations

  • 1 Gynecologic Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, and Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), 94800 - Villejuif/FR
  • 2 School Of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, 94305 - Stanford/US
  • 3 Ditep - Département D'innovation Thérapeutique Et D’essais Précoces, Institut Gustave Roussy, 94805 - Villejuif/FR
  • 4 Ditep, Gustave Roussy, 94805 - Villejuif/FR
  • 5 Ditep, Gustave Roussy - Cancer Campus, 94805 - Villejuif/FR
  • 6 Gynecologic Unit, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, INSERM U981, and Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux pour l'Etude des Cancers Ovariens (GINECO), Villejuif/FR
More

Resources

Background

The response to ICI in cervical cancer remains modest and predictive biomarkers to select patients (pts) are needed. An IPI score combining lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level and the derived neutrophils/ (leucocytes minus neutrophils) ratio (dNLR) has been shown to correlate with ICI outcome in melanoma and lung cancer. We aimed to assess the predictive value of baseline IPI for advanced cervical cancer treated with ICI.

Methods

Pre-ICI treatment dNLR and LDH were retrospectively collected for all pts with advanced cervical cancer treated at our institution with PD1/PDL1 inhibitors (n = 48). Patients were divided into three groups: IPI-0 (normal LDH, dNLR<3), IPI-1 (LDH>upper limit or dNLR>3), and IPI-2 (LDH>upper limit and dNLR>3). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and the secondary objective was progression free survival analyzed by Kaplan Meyer and log-rank (PFS).

Results

In our cohort of 48 pts, 37 (77%) had squamous histology, median age was 47 (range 21 to 76), and 46 (95%) had performance status of 0 or 1. Among the 14 pts with papilloma virus (HPV) testing, 100% were HPV+. PDL1 expression >1% was detected in 9 of 13 patients tested (69%). Most patients were previously treated with at least one line of previous systemic therapy (92%). The majority were treated in phase 1 trials (n = 37) and 25 received ICI in combination with antiangiogenic therapy or another ICI. 22 patients were IPI-0, 22 IPI-1, and 4 IPI-2. Median OS and PFS for our cohort were 14.7 and 3.4 months, respectively. Median PFS in the three groups was 4.9 months, 2.6 months and 0.6 months, respectively (p = 0.004). Median OS was 19.3, 10.4, and 0.9 for IPI 0, 1, and 2, respectively (p = 0.003). OS was 8.9 months for patients who received ICI as monotherapy, whereas OS for the combination group had not yet been reached.

Conclusions

Baseline IPI was highly correlated with ICI-treated cervical cancer pt outcomes. Pts with higher IPI had poorer survival and are likely worse candidates for ICI, particularly as monotherapy. IPI score should be considered in addition to PDL1 status before introducing ICI in patients with advanced cervical cancer.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

F. Blanc-Durand: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen Cylag; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer. P. Pautier: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Officer / Board of Directors: AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Officer / Board of Directors: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Officer / Board of Directors: Tesaro; Officer / Board of Directors: MSD; Officer / Board of Directors: Clovis. C. Massard: Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Beigene; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Celgene; Advisory / Consultancy: Debiopharm; Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Medimmune; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Orion; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck. A. Leary: Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, PI: Tesaro; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, PI: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, PI: Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy, PI: Gammamabs; Advisory / Consultancy, Pi: Grindstone; Advisory / Consultancy, Pi: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy, PI: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, PI: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, PI: BMS. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

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