Proteomic test for anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade treatment of metastatic melanoma with and without BRAF mutations
Open accessAbstract
The therapeutic landscape in metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically in the last decade, with the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors resulting in durable responses for a large number of patients. For patients with BRAF mutations, combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors demonstrated response rates and benefit comparable to those from immune checkpoint inhibitors, providing the rationale for sequential treatment with targeted and immunotherapies and raising the question of optimal treatment sequencing.Biomarkers for the selection of anti-PD-1 therapy in BRAF wild type (BRAF WT) and in BRAF mutated (BRAF MUT) patients help development of alternative treatments for patients unlikely to benefit, and might lead to better understanding of the interaction of checkpoint inhibition and targeted therapy. In this paper we evaluate the performance of a previously developed serum proteomic test, BDX008, in metastatic melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 agents and investigate the role of BRAF mutation status. BDX008, a pre-treatment proteomic test associated with acute phase reactants, wound healing and complement activation, stratifies patients into two groups, BDX008+ and BDX008-, with better and worse outcomes on immunotherapy.Serum samples were available from 71 patients treated with anti-PD1 inhibitors; 25 patients had BRAF mutations, 39 were wild type. Overall, BDX008+ patients had significantly better overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.50, P = 0.016) and a trend for better progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.61, P = 0.060) than BDX008- patients. BDX008 classification was statistically significant in the analyses adjusted for mutation status, LDH, and line of treatment (P = 0.009 for OS and 0.031 for PFS). BRAF WT BDX008+ patients had markedly long median OS of 32.5 months and 53% landmark 2 years survival, with statistically significantly superior OS as compared to BDX008- patients (HR = 0.41, P = 0.032). The difference between BDX008+ and BDX008- in PFS in BRAF WT patients and in OS and PFS in BRAF MUT patients did not reach statistical significance, though numerically was consistent with overall results. The test demonstrated significant interaction with neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (PFS P = 0.041, OS P = 0.004). BDX008 as a biomarker selecting for benefit from immune checkpoint blockade, especially in patients with wild type BRAF and in subgroups with low NLR, warrants further evaluation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Melanoma patients on PD-1 therapy with high NLR had worse overall and progression-free survival than those with low NLR.
“Consistent with published studies in multiple settings21–24, PD-1-treated patients with melanoma with a high NLR had poorer survival (OS/PFS) than those with a low NLR.”
From Intestinal microbiota signatures of clinical response and immune-related adverse events in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Ascierto, P. A., Capone, M., Grimaldi, A. M., Mallardo, D., Simeone, E., Madonna, G., Roder, H., Meyer, K., Asmellash, S., Oliveira, C., Roder, J., & Grigorieva, J.
- Affiliations
- Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Grigorieva, Julia
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2019-03-29
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91-91
- ISSN
- 2051-1426 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6440152
- OpenAlex
- W2944497258
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 1.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Ministero della Salute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Keywords
- metastatic melanoma, anti-PD-1 therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, BRAF mutation, predictive biomarkers, treatment response prediction, overall survival, progression-free survival, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, acute phase proteins, complement activation, prognostic factors
- MeSH terms
- Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological, Nivolumab, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Mutation, Neoplasm Metastasis, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Biomarkers, Tumor, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Proteomics, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf, B7-H1 Antigen, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review