Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2022 Jun 13;28(12):2567-2578.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-4064.

Circulating Immune Cell and Outcome Analysis from the Phase II Study of PD-L1 Blockade with Durvalumab for Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Circulating Immune Cell and Outcome Analysis from the Phase II Study of PD-L1 Blockade with Durvalumab for Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma

Lakshmi Nayak et al. Clin Cancer Res. .

Abstract

Purpose: PD-L1 is upregulated in glioblastoma and supports immunosuppression. We evaluated PD-L1 blockade with durvalumab among glioblastoma cohorts and investigated potential biomarkers.

Patients and methods: MGMT unmethylated newly diagnosed patients received radiotherapy plus durvalumab (cohort A; n = 40). Bevacizumab-naïve, recurrent patients received durvalumab alone (cohort B; n = 31) or in combination with standard bevacizumab (cohort B2; n = 33) or low-dose bevacizumab (cohort B3; n = 33). Bevacizumab-refractory patients received durvalumab plus bevacizumab (cohort C; n = 22). Primary endpoints were: OS-12 (A), PFS-6 (B, B2, B3), and OS-6 (C). Exploratory biomarkers included: a systematic, quantitative, and phenotypic evaluation of circulating immune cells; tumor mutational burden (TMB); and tumor immune activation signature (IAS).

Results: No cohort achieved the primary efficacy endpoint. Outcome was comparable among recurrent, bevacizumab-naïve cohorts. No unexpected toxicities were observed. A widespread reduction of effector immune cell subsets was noted among recurrent patients compared with newly diagnosed patients that was partially due to dexamethasone use. A trend of increased CD8+Ki67+ T cells at day 15 was noted among patients who achieved the primary endpoint and were not on dexamethasone. Neither TMB nor IAS predicted outcome.

Conclusions: Patients with recurrent glioblastoma have markedly lower baseline levels of multiple circulating immune cell subsets compared with newly diagnosed patients. An early increase in systemic Ki67+CD8+ cells may warrant further evaluation as a potential biomarker of therapeutic benefit among patients with glioblastoma undergoing checkpoint therapy. Dexamethasone decreased immune cell subsets. PD-L1 blockade and combination with standard or reduced dose bevacizumab was ineffective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Progression-Free and Overall Survival in All Patients
Efficacy for all patients including Kaplan-Meier plots and tabular PFS and OS data by cohort. Outcome for newly diagnosed, MGMT unmethylated patients (cohort A), bevacizumab naïve, recurrent patients (cohorts B, B2 and B3) and bevacizumab refractory, recurrent patients (cohort C) are summarized in panels A, B and C, respectively including Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS (upper) and OS (lower).
Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Progression-Free and Overall Survival in All Patients
Efficacy for all patients including Kaplan-Meier plots and tabular PFS and OS data by cohort. Outcome for newly diagnosed, MGMT unmethylated patients (cohort A), bevacizumab naïve, recurrent patients (cohorts B, B2 and B3) and bevacizumab refractory, recurrent patients (cohort C) are summarized in panels A, B and C, respectively including Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS (upper) and OS (lower).
Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Progression-Free and Overall Survival in All Patients
Efficacy for all patients including Kaplan-Meier plots and tabular PFS and OS data by cohort. Outcome for newly diagnosed, MGMT unmethylated patients (cohort A), bevacizumab naïve, recurrent patients (cohorts B, B2 and B3) and bevacizumab refractory, recurrent patients (cohort C) are summarized in panels A, B and C, respectively including Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS (upper) and OS (lower).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Circulating Immune Cell Subsets Comparing Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Patients
Measurement of baseline immune cell subsets detected by flow cytometry among newly diagnosed patients (cohort A; open bars and symbols) compared to bevacizumab-naïve, recurrent patients (cohorts B, B2 and B3; gray bars and symbols) including major immune cell subsets (panel A), and CD4+ and CD8+ T cells distinguished by memory or naïve (panel B), activation (panel C) or proliferation (panel D) markers. Asterisks indicate p<0.01 by Mann-Whitney U test comparing cohort A to cohorts B, B2 and B3. Panel E: Change in baseline CD8+Ki67+ T cells at day 15 for newly diagnosed (cohort A, open symbols) and bevacizumab-naïve, recurrent patients (cohorts B, B2 and B3, gray symbols) on baseline dexamethasone use (right side triangles) compared to those not on dexamethasone (left side circles). Bars indicate median value and error bars denote 25th and 75th percentiles. Asterisk indicates p ≤ 0.01. P value was determined by Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.

References

    1. Nduom EK et al. PD-L1 expression and prognostic impact in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 18, 195–205, doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov172 (2016). - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reardon DA et al. Effect of Nivolumab vs Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: The CheckMate 143 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 6, 1003–1010, doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024 (2020). - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lukas RV et al. Clinical activity and safety of atezolizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 140, 317–328, doi:10.1007/s11060-018-2955-9 (2018). - DOI - PubMed
    1. Awada G et al. Axitinib plus avelumab in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: a stratified, open-label, single-center phase 2 clinical trial (GliAvAx). J Immunother Cancer 8, doi:10.1136/jitc-2020-001146 (2020). - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nayak L et al. The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale: a tool to assess neurologic function for integration into the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria. Neuro Oncol 19, 625–635, doi:10.1093/neuonc/nox029 (2017). - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms