Clinical outcomes of patients with or without DNA repair pathway alterations by treatment type: The MD Anderson Cancer Center IMPACT 2 study.

2660 Background: DNA repair deficiency is common among tumors, and emerging data suggest that genomic instability is associated with response to immuno-oncology (IO) therapies (PMID 28630051). We evaluated patients with advanced metastatic cancer across tumor types, who were treated on the IMPACT2 study (NCT02152254) and analyzed their clinical outcomes by treatment type (anti-DNA damage repair [DDR] agents, IO, or other [non-IO, non-anti-DDR]). Methods: Patients had tumor biopsies followed by molecular profiling in a CLIA-certified lab. All cases were discussed at Molecular Tumor Board meetings. Patients were treated on early-phase clinical trials. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) were compared by therapy type in patients with or without DDR/MMR mutations (DDR+). Results: Of 829 enrolled patients, 510 had molecular profiling and received anticancer therapy: 85 were DDR+ (PS 1, 75%; med. age, 59 yrs; males 56.5%; med prior therapies 4; PDL1+ 44.9%; TMB-H 18%,) and 425 DDR- (PS 1, 88%; med. age, 60 yrs; men 47%, med. No. prior therapies 3; PDL1+ 46%; TMB-H 6.5%). Results are shown in the Table. In patients with DDR mutations, IO was associated with a higher ORR compared with “other” treatments (p=0.044); and with longer PFS compared with anti-DDR therapies (p = 0.044); no difference was noted in OS by treatment type. In the DDR-neg group, IO was associated with longer PFS (p = 0.017), and longer OS (p = 0.0004) compared with anti-DDR therapy; OS was longer in the IO group compared with “other” treatments (p = 0.029) and in the “other” treatments group compared with anti-DDR agents (p=0.006). Conclusions: Our data indicate the complexity of assessing outcomes in patients with various tumor types and without DDR mutations. Further work is needed to develop predictive biomarkers for IO and anti-DDR agents. Clinical trial information: NCT02152254 . Rx type DDR-pos N Outcome Anti-DDR vs IO IO vs Other Anti-DDR vs Other DDR-neg N Outcome Anti-DDR vs IO IO vs Other Anti-DDR vs Other Overall response (%) IO 34 6 (25%) OR* 0.78; p=0.81 OR* 20.73; p=0.044 OR* 16.09;p=0.1 116 9 (11%) OR* 0.34;p=0.46 OR* 2;p=0.13 OR* 0.67;p=0.79 Anti-DDR 18 1 (16.7%) 52 0 (0%) Other 33 0 (0%) 257 12 (5.9%) PFS, med. (95% CI) IO 34 4.26 (2.3, 7.4) HR 2.01 (1.02,3.96) (p=0.044) HR 0.91 (0.56,1.47)p=0.69 HR 1.82 (0.95,3.49)p=0.07 116 5.42(3.02,6.61) HR 2.02 (1.14,3.61) p= 0.017 HR 0.85 (0.68,1.06)p= 0.15 HR 1.71 (0.98,2.99)p=0.058 Anti-DDR 18 2.58 (1.68, NA) 52 1.64 (1.45, NA) <jats:td colspan="1" content-t

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.2660
Primary Topic
Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical outcomes of patients with or without DNA repair pathway alterations by treatment type: The MD Anderson Cancer Center IMPACT 2 study.

Aung Naing, Mehmet A. Baysal, Jacopo Venturini, Michael Kahle et al.
1 links
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
article

Clinical outcomes of patients with or without DNA repair pathway alterations by treatment type: The MD Anderson Cancer Center IMPACT 2 study.

Aung Naing, Mehmet A. Baysal, Jacopo Venturini, Michael Kahle, Jennifer Beck, David S. Hong, Sarina A. Piha‐Paul, Abhijit Chakraborty, Jordi Rodón, Apostolia Maria Tsimberidou, Siqing Fu, David Vining, Timothy Anthony Yap, Funda Meric‐Bernstam, Clark R. Andersen, Ecaterina E Ileana Dumbrava
article en

Abstract

2660 Background: DNA repair deficiency is common among tumors, and emerging data suggest that genomic instability is associated with response to immuno-oncology (IO) therapies (PMID 28630051). We evaluated patients with advanced metastatic cancer across tumor types, who were treated on the IMPACT2 study (NCT02152254) and analyzed their clinical outcomes by treatment type (anti-DNA damage repair [DDR] agents, IO, or other [non-IO, non-anti-DDR]). Methods: Patients had tumor biopsies followed by molecular profiling in a CLIA-certified lab. All cases were discussed at Molecular Tumor Board meetings. Patients were treated on early-phase clinical trials. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) were compared by therapy type in patients with or without DDR/MMR mutations (DDR+). Results: Of 829 enrolled patients, 510 had molecular profiling and received anticancer therapy: 85 were DDR+ (PS 1, 75%; med. age, 59 yrs; males 56.5%; med prior therapies 4; PDL1+ 44.9%; TMB-H 18%,) and 425 DDR- (PS 1, 88%; med. age, 60 yrs; men 47%, med. No. prior therapies 3; PDL1+ 46%; TMB-H 6.5%). Results are shown in the Table. In patients with DDR mutations, IO was associated with a higher ORR compared with “other” treatments (p=0.044); and with longer PFS compared with anti-DDR therapies (p = 0.044); no difference was noted in OS by treatment type. In the DDR-neg group, IO was associated with longer PFS (p = 0.017), and longer OS (p = 0.0004) compared with anti-DDR therapy; OS was longer in the IO group compared with “other” treatments (p = 0.029) and in the “other” treatments group compared with anti-DDR agents (p=0.006). Conclusions: Our data indicate the complexity of assessing outcomes in patients with various tumor types and without DDR mutations. Further work is needed to develop predictive biomarkers for IO and anti-DDR agents. Clinical trial information: NCT02152254 . Rx type DDR-pos N Outcome Anti-DDR vs IO IO vs Other Anti-DDR vs Other DDR-neg N Outcome Anti-DDR vs IO IO vs Other Anti-DDR vs Other Overall response (%) IO 34 6 (25%) OR* 0.78; p=0.81 OR* 20.73; p=0.044 OR* 16.09;p=0.1 116 9 (11%) OR* 0.34;p=0.46 OR* 2;p=0.13 OR* 0.67;p=0.79 Anti-DDR 18 1 (16.7%) 52 0 (0%) Other 33 0 (0%) 257 12 (5.9%) PFS, med. (95% CI) IO 34 4.26 (2.3, 7.4) HR 2.01 (1.02,3.96) (p=0.044) HR 0.91 (0.56,1.47)p=0.69 HR 1.82 (0.95,3.49)p=0.07 116 5.42(3.02,6.61) HR 2.02 (1.14,3.61) p= 0.017 HR 0.85 (0.68,1.06)p= 0.15 HR 1.71 (0.98,2.99)p=0.058 Anti-DDR 18 2.58 (1.68, NA) 52 1.64 (1.45, NA) <jats:td colspan="1" content-t

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(16_suppl)
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.