Relationship between MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 gene-specific alterations and tumor mutational burden in 1057 microsatellite instability-high solid tumors

Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are predictive biomarkers for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Still, the relationship between the underlying cause(s) of MSI and TMB in tumors remains poorly defined. We investigated associations of TMB to mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression patterns by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MMR mutations in a diverse sample of tumors. Hypothesized differences were identified by the protein/gene affected/mutated and the tumor histology/primary site. Overall, 1057 MSI-H tumors were identified from the 32 932 tested. MSI was examined by NGS using 7000+ target microsatellite loci. TMB was calculated using only nonsynonymous missense mutations sequenced with a 592-gene panel; a subset of MSI-H tumors also had MMR IHC performed. Analyses examined TMB by MMR protein heterodimer impacted (loss of MLH1/PMS2 vs. MSH2/MSH6 expression) and gene-specific mutations. The sample was 54.6% female; mean age was 63.5 years. Among IHC tested tumors, loss of co-expression of MLH1/PMS2 was more common (n = 544/705, 77.2%) than loss of MSH2/MSH6 (n = 81/705, 11.5%; P < .0001), and was associated with lower mean TMB (MLH1/PMS2: 25.03 mut/Mb vs MSH2/MSH6 46.83 mut/Mb; P < .0001). TMB also varied by tumor histology: colorectal cancers demonstrating MLH1/PMS2 loss had higher TMBs (33.14 mut/Mb) than endometrial cancers (20.60 mut/Mb) and other tumors (25.59 mut/Mb; P < .0001). MMR gene mutations were detected in 42.0% of tumors; among these, MSH6 mutations were most common (25.7%). MSH6 mutation patterns showed variability by tumor histology and TMB. TMB varies by underlying cause(s) of MSI and tumor histology; this heterogeneity may contribute to differences in response to ICI.     

Searching for prognostic biomarkers for small renal masses in the urinary proteome

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is frequently diagnosed incidentally as an early-stage small renal mass (SRM; pT1a, ≤4 cm). Overtreatment of patients with benign or clinically indolent SRMs is increasingly common and has resulted in a recent shift in treatment recommendations. There are currently no available biomarkers that can accurately predict clinical behavior. Therefore, we set out to identify early biomarkers of RCC progression. We employed a quantitative label-free liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) proteomics approach and targeted parallel-reaction monitoring to identify and validate early, noninvasive urinary biomarkers for RCC-SRMs. In total, we evaluated 115 urine samples, including 33 renal oncocytoma (≤4 cm) cases, 30 progressive and 26 nonprogressive clear cell RCC (ccRCC)-SRM cases, in addition to 26 healthy controls. We identified six proteins, which displayed significantly elevated expression in clear cell RCC-SRMs (ccRCC-SRMs) relative to healthy controls. Proteins C12ORF49 and EHD4 showed significantly elevated expression in ccRCC-SRMs compared to renal oncocytoma (≤4 cm). Additionally, proteins EPS8L2, CHMP2A, PDCD6IP, CNDP2 and CEACAM1 displayed significantly elevated expression in progressive relative to nonprogressive ccRCC-SRMs. A two-protein signature (EPS8L2 and CCT6A) showed significant discriminatory ability (areas under the curve: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70–0.93) in distinguishing progressive from nonprogressive ccRCC-SRMs. Patients (Stage I–IV) with EPS8L2 and CCT6A mRNA alterations showed significantly shorter overall survival (p = 1.407 × 10⁻⁶) compared to patients with no alterations. Our in-depth proteomic analysis identified novel biomarkers for early-stage RCC-SRMs. Pretreatment characterization of urinary proteins may provide insight into early RCC progression and could potentially help assign patients to appropriate management strategies.     

Population pharmacokinetics of tanezumab in phase 3 clinical trials for osteoarthritis pain

AimsThe aims were to 1) develop the pharmacokinetics model to describe and predict observed tanezumab concentrations over time, 2) test possible covariate parameter relationships that could influence clearance and distribution and 3) assess the impact of fixed dosing vs. a dosing regimen adjusted by body weight.MethodsIndividual concentration–time data were determined from 1608 patients in four phase 3 studies conducted to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous tanezumab. Patients received two or three intravenous doses (2.5, 5 or 10 mg) every 8 weeks. Blood samples for assessment of tanezumab PK were collected at baseline, 1 h post‐dose and at weeks 4, 8, 16 and 24 (or early termination) in all studies. Blood samples were collected at week 32 in two studies. Plasma samples were analyzed using a sensitive, specific, validated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsA two compartment model with parallel linear and non‐linear elimination processes adequately described the data. Population estimates for clearance (CL), central volume (V ₁), peripheral volume (V ₂), inter‐compartmental clearance, maximum elimination capacity (VM) and concentration at half‐maximum elimination capacity were 0.135 l day^–1, 2.71 l, 1.98 l, 0.371 l day^–1, 8.03 μg day^–1 and 27.7 ng ml^–1, respectively. Inter‐individual variability (IIV) was included on CL, V ₁, V ₂ and VM. A mixture model accounted for the distribution of residual error. While gender, dose and creatinine clearance were significant covariates, only body weight as a covariate of CL, V ₁ and V ₂ significantly reduced IIV.ConclusionsThe small increase in variability associated with fixed dosing is consistent with other monoclonal antibodies and does not change risk : benefit.