Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0240736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240736

Early serum tumor marker levels after fourteen days of tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeted therapy predicts outcomes in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma

Hung-Jen Chen 1,2,3,*, Chih-Yen Tu 1,2,3, Kuo-Yang Huang 4, Chun-Ru Chien 2,3,5, Te-Chun Hsia 1,2
Editor: Christina L Addison6
PMCID: PMC7732093  PMID: 33306683

Abstract

Objective

Image evaluation strategy for lung cancer patients has difficulty obtaining the appropriate quantity of diffuse lung nodules and bone metastases. The study was to demonstrate whether early variations in the levels of serum 4-tumor markers (4-TMs)(carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], cancer antigen [CA]125, CA19-9, and CA15-3) after TKI targeted therapy were associated with treatment response in patients with lung adenocarcinoma.

Methods

Patients with stage IIIB-IV lung adenocarcinoma taking epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) TKIs or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors were enrolled prospectively from June 2012 to February 2015. According to the variations of the percentage of change in 4-TM levels (4-TMpc), we divided patients into ascending (increases in 4-TMpc over the 7th- 14th day) and descending (decreases in 4-TMpc over the 7th- 14th day) groups.

Results

184 patients were enrolled, and 89% had at least one of the pre-treatment evaluable TMs and were further analyzed. An excellent response to the TKI targeted therapy was accurately predicted in the descending group, as determined using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (an area under the curve, 0.83). Multivariate Cox hazards model analyses demonstrated that the type of 4-TMpc and mutation status were the strongest predictors of progression-free survival (PFS)(descending versus ascending, hazard ratios [HR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19–0.47; sensitive mutation versus wide type, HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.19–0.48).

Conclusions

Type of 4-TMpc 14 days after TKI targeted therapy is associated with an image response and PFS, without regarding mutation status, in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Introduction

The prognosis of advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients with genotype-driven mutations has improved due to targeted therapy [15]. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement are two major oncogenic alterations that are targeted with available tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). EGFR TKIs, gefitinib [1], erlotinib [2], and afatinib [3], and ALK inhibitors, crizotinib [4] and ceritinib [5], have prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) rates in advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients with sensitive EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangement, respectively.

However, although sensitive EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangement are strong predictors of good response to TKIs targeted therapy, not all patients (about 60–70%) respond to the therapy [15], although a portion of patients with EGFR wild type mutations and ALK-negative have shown a response [6,7].

Morphologic imaging studies using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) remain the standard tool for evaluating treatment response [8]. However, this image evaluation strategy has several limitations, such as difficulty in obtaining the appropriate quantity of diffuse lung nodules, pleural effusions, and bone metastases [9].

Serum tumor marker (TM) concentration is a reflection of the synthesis potential of the tumor [10]. Assessment of TMs for evaluating treatment responses is clinically objective. Elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels have been observed in 40–80% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [11,12]. Nevertheless, a single assessment of CEA levels to evaluate lung cancer treatment response is not sensitive [9].

Thus far, not much is known about TM levels' changes and their genuine relationship to predict prognosis in adenocarcinoma patients receiving TKI targeted therapy [9,13,14]. We assessed 4-TMs, CEA, carbohydrate antigen (CA) 125 (CA125), CA19-9, and CA15-3. The selection of these tumor markers was based on reports [914] and our previous pilot study results (data not shown). There 4-TMs were also easy to assess in clinical practice and provided the most cost-effective coverage in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. The study aimed to demonstrate whether early variations in serum 4-TMs after TKI targeted therapy were associated with treatment response and PFS in advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients.

Materials and methods

Patient selection and treatment

Patients with stage IIIB-IV lung adenosquamous cancer or adenocarcinoma taking EGFR TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib, or afatinib) or ALK inhibitors (crizotinib or ceritinib) in different lines of therapy were enrolled in a prospective, single-center at the China Medical University Hospital from June 2012 to February 2015. We calculated the sample size needed for the kappa analysis by PASS software (version 20.0.1, NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA) via assuming that the proportion of good response to being around 50% in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma treated with targeted therapy. A sample of 161 patients achieves 90% power to detect a true Kappa value of 0.60 in a test of H0: Kappa = 0.40 vs. H1: Kappa>0.40, at a significance level of 0.05. Furthermore, considering that 10–15% of patients cannot be adapted to TM due to biochemical non-accessibility, we increased the sample size to around 190 patients. The study was approved by the China Medical University Hospital Institutional Review Board, Taichung, Taiwan (CMUH DMR 101-IRB1-087 and CMUH 104-REC1-108). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

EGFR mutation and ALK immunohistochemistry analysis

The tumor DNA sequences of exons 18 to 21 of EGFR were determined using direct forward and reverse sequencing via the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) product from nested PCR reactions [15]. Sensitizing mutations are defined as G719X in exon 18, in-frame deletions or insertion of exon 19, A763_Y764 insFQEA mutation, and S768I in exon 20 and L858R or L861Q in exon 21 [1618].

ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using the Ventana anti-ALK (D5F3) CDx assay. The staining results were evaluated using a binary scoring system: positive or negative following the manufacturer’s instructions [19].

Serum CEA, CA125, CA19-9, and CA15-3 level detection and analysis

TM levels obtained from peripheral blood samples were measured before TKI targeted therapy and after 7 and 14 days of treatment. To reduce TM levels' influence with inherent intra-individual biological variation and within-laboratory coefficients of variation (TMv) [2022], we defined a cutoff level for each individual using pre-treatment TM levels of 2-fold over the standard upper limit. Therefore, enrollment criteria included CEA, CA125, CA19-9, and CA15-3 levels at 10.0 ng/mL, 70 units/mL, 70 units/mL, and 76 units/mL, respectively. Patients who did not show an elevation in TMs above this level were regarded as biochemically non-assessable and were excluded from further follow-up.

To evaluate changes in TM levels after TKIs targeted therapy and to account for patients having more than one evaluable TM, we created a formula “percentage of change of 4 TMs (4-TMpc)”. Assuming a distinct sub-clone released each TM within the tumor bulk (1-marker(later)/marker(previous)), a reasonable estimate of the proportion of tumor treatment for this sub-clone was made. Our Eq 1 represents the weighted average of the proportion of tumor treatment across different sub-clones.

4TMpc=TotalnumbersofevaluableTMs(CEAl*CEAp+CA125l*CA125p+CA199l*CA199p+CA153l*CA153p)TotalnumbersofevaluableTMs=×100 Eq-1

[note: subscript “p” = previous; subscript “l” = later; *2-fold over the standard upper limit was regarded as evaluable.]

For example, if on Day 0, a patient had the following serum TM values (CEA 2 ng/mL, CA125 225 units/mL, CA19-9 5 units/mL, and CA15-3 197 units/mL), then this patient had only 2 evaluable TMs (CA125 and CA15-3). If on Day 7, the TM levels were CA125 175 units/mL and CA15-3 132 units/mL, then the 4-TMpc over the 0th-7th day was 27.6%, as shown in Eq 2.

27.6%=2(CA125(175)CA125(225)+CA153(132)CA153(197))2×100% Eq-2

According to variations in 4-TMpc on days 0, 7, and 14, we divided patients into four groups. Type 1. Ascending: patients who sustained an increase in 4-TMpc. Type 2. Descending-ascending: patients who showed a decreasing trend on the 7th day, and then showed an increasing trend on the 14th day. Type 3. Ascending-descending: patients who showed an increasing trend on the 7th day and then showed a decreasing trend at subsequent time points. Type 4. Descending: patients who showed a persistently decreased 4-TMpc. For minimizing TMv interference, the following definitions were created [2022]: when 4-TMpc was <5% over the 7th-14th day, and it was defined as “type uncertain.” Confirmed decreases in 4-TMpc over the 7th- 14th day (types 3/4) were consistent with tumor response. Similarly, increases in 4-TMpc over the 7th-14th day (types 1/2) were regarded as tumor progression.

Imaging-based response

Tumor response was assessed on chest radiographs (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) scans, using the RECIST version 1.1 in an independent radiologic review by assessors who did not know the results of 4-TMpc studies and confirmed at least two scans obtained 28 days apart. Long-term follow-up was performed until July 31, 2015.

Therapeutic efficacy was classified as partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) with tumor reduction <30% (SD-30), SD with the increase in tumor size <20% (SD+20), or progressive disease (PD). Patients who died due to cancer between these CT/CXR procedures were classified as having PD. While analyzing the correlation between 4-TMpc after 14 days TKI targeted therapy and RECIST assessed response, and we combined categories of PR and SD-30 into the “good response group.” In contrast, the “poor response group” included cases with PD and SD+20. This classification's rationales were that: (1) It was the straight forward approach to classify responders vs. non-responders. (2) It was also difficult for PR, SD, or PD to correlate with the ascending or descending of the 4-TMpc from a statistical point of view. The endpoint was PFS. PFS was assessed from the date of the beginning of TKI targeted therapy to the date of PD or death due to cancer. If a patient was lost to follow-up or had no event, time to progression was censored as the date of the last contact date.

Statistical analysis

To obtain a descriptive analysis, we resumed each continuous variable as median and 25–75, and categorical variables as proportion. We performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for 4-TMs to predict TKI targeted therapy's response. The agreement between the 4-TMs and the image-based morphologic response was evaluated using the kappa statistic. PFS was analyzed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and was compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate independent predictive factors associated with PFS. Data were analyzed using SPSS-17 (IBM SPSS Statistics. Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). For all analyses, two-sided P<0.05 was taken as statistically significant.

Results

In all, 195 patients with a diagnosis of stage IIIb-IV adenocarcinoma (one with adenosquamous carcinoma) were screened for 4-TM levels before the start of TKI targeted therapy, and 11 were excluded: 1 because the patient had severe interstitial lung disease after taking erlotinib and ten because the standard protocol was not followed. Seven patients were recruited more than once because patients accepted re-challenge TKI targeted therapy. Therefore, 184 patients and 191 patient-times were enrolled in this study, including 29 accepted the diagnostic procedure of computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy, 68 accepted transbronchial biopsy, 20 accepted ultrasound-guided biopsy, 27 accepted thoracentesis or pericardiocentesis, and 40 accepted operative procedures. Detailed baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Activating mutations were documented in 73% cases, and 3% had an unknown mutation status because no sufficient pathological material was available. Further, 98% of patient-times received EGFR TKIs, and 2% received ALK-inhibitors

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients.

Variables All patients CEA/CA125/CA153/CA199 Elevation CEA/CA125/CA153/CA199 No elevation
All patient times* 191 170 21
All patients 184 163 21
Age, yr 62.5 (55.0–73.0) 62.0 (55.0–72.0) 68.0 (54.5–78.5)
Sex
    Male 76 (41.3) 68 (41.7) 8 (38.1)
    Female 108 (58.7) 95 (58.3) 13 (61.9)
Smoking
    Never 131 (71.2) 118 (72.4) 13 (61.9)
    Former/current 53 (28.8) 45 (27.6) 8 (38.1)
Stage
    IIIb 5 (2.7) 5 (3.1) 0
    Iva 65 (35.3) 54 (33.1) 11 (52.4)
    IVb 114 (62.0) 104 (63.8) 10 (47.6)
Performance status*
    0–1 108 (56.6) 95 (55.8) 13 (61.9)
    2 26 (13.6) 21 (12.4) 5 (23.8)
    3–4 57 (29.8) 54 (31.8) 3 (14.3)
Mutation
    EGFR sensitizing mutation
        Exon 19 deletion 65 (35.3) 54 (33.1) 11 (52.4)
        L858R 55 (29.9) 47 (28.8) 8 (38.1)
        Others+ 10 (5.4) 10 (6.1) 0
    ALK rearrangement 5 (2.7) 5 (3.1) 0
    EGFR and ALK-negative 44 (23.9) 42 (25.8) 2 (9.5)
    Unknown 5 (2.7) 5 (3.1) 0
Targeted therapy*
    Gefitinib 80 (41.9) 70 (41.2) 10 (77.7)
    Erlotinib 88 (46.1) 78 (45.9) 10 (47.6)
    Afatinib 19 (9.9) 18 (10.6) 1 (4.8)
    Crizotinib 2 (1.0) 2 (1.2) 0
    Ceritinib 2 (1.0) 2 (1.2) 0
Treatment-line*
    First-line 167 (87.4) 150 (88.2) 17 (81.0)
    Second-line 23 (12.0) 19 (11.2) 4 (19.0)
    Third-line 1 (0.5) 1 (0.6) 0

*All patient times

+One patient had L858R + T790M. One patient had exon 19 deletion + T790M. One patient had exon 19 deletion + L858R. One patient had exon 19 deletion + S768I. One patient had S768I. Three patients had G719X. Two patients had L861Q.

EGFR epidermal growth factor receptor, ALK anaplastic lymphoma kinase

CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA125 carbohydrate antigen 125, CA19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19–9, CA15-3 carbohydrate antigen 15–3

Of the 184 enrolled patients, baseline serum CEA levels, CA125, CA19-9, and CA15-3 were 2-fold over the standard upper limit in 71%, 62%, 27%, and 23% patients, respectively. In all, 89% of patients with at least one of the pre-treatment evaluable TM were further analyzed. Of these, 7% had all 4 TM levels elevated, 26% had 3, 33% had 2, and 34% had 1 TM elevated. The summarized data is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. a. Characteristics of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA) 125, CA19-9, and CA15-3 in 184 patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. b. Items of 163 patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with evaluable tumor markers.

a
Variables N (%) Median (25–75)
CEA ng/mL 130 (70.7) 121.2 (32.1–345.6)
CA125 units/mL 114 (62.0) 167.1 (112.8–360.2)
CA19-9 units/mL 50 (27.2) 334.6 (159.5–1423.5)
CA15-3 units/mL 42 (22.8) 155.3 (90.6–253.2)
b
Variables N (%)
One tumor marker CEA 38 (23.3)
CA125 17 (10.4)
CA19-9 0
CA15-3 1 (0.6)
Two tumor markers CEA + CA125 32 (19.6)
CEA + CA15-3 5 (3.1)
CEA + CA19-9 3 (1.8)
CA125 + CA15-3 5 (3.1)
CA125 + CA19-9 7 (4.3)
CA15-3 + CA19-9 1 (0.6)
Three tumor markers CEA + CA125 + CA15-3 15 (9.2)
CEA + CA125 + CA19-9 24 (14.7)
CEA + CA15-3 + CA19-9 1 (0.6)
CA125 + CA15-3 + CA19-9 2 (1.2)
Four tumor markers CEA + CA125 + CA15-3 + CA19-9 12 (7.4)

CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA125 carbohydrate antigen 125, CA19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19–9, CA15-3 carbohydrate antigen 15–3

Of 170 patient-times after TKI targeted therapy with evaluable TMs, PR, SD-30, SD+20, and PD were 55%, 23%, 1% and 21%, respectively. We divided the patients into 4 groups by 14 days 4-TMpc: type 1, 22%; type 2, 4%; type 3, 25%; and type 4, 42%. Further, 8% of patients were classified as “type uncertain.” Types 1/2 were observed in 32 of 44 patients (73%) who showed a poor response. On the contrary, types 3/4 were observed in 111 of 113 patients (98%), who showed a good response (Fig 1). The presence of types 3/4 could accurately predict “good response” by using ROC curve analysis, with an area under the curve (AUC) 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73 to 0.93). The Kappa value between 157 cases with the type of 4-TMpc and measurable radiographic lesions was 0.762 (P<0.001) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Relevance between image-based response and the type of 4 tumor marker levels in 157 patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Fig 1

RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, PR partial response, SD-30 stable disease with tumor reduction <30%, SD+20 stable disease with tumor increasing <20%, PD progressive disease.

However, 24% of patients had baseline CEA< 10 ng/mL. This group of patients could not be biochemically assessed using CEA levels alone. The AUC was only 0.51 (95% CI, 038–0.63) for predicting TKI targeted therapy response with the type of CEA. The Kappa value in 117 cases was 0.449 (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Relevance between image-based response and type of CEA percentage of change over the 0th-14th day in 117 patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

Fig 2

CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, PR partial response, SD-30 stable disease with tumor reduction <30%, SD+20 stable disease with tumor increasing <20%, PD progressive disease.

One hundred and forty patients in whom first-time TKI targeted therapy with the type of 4-TMpc was used, were further analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves for PFS. As shown in Fig 3A, the median PFS had no significant difference between types 1 and 2 (30 and 28 days), nearly the same as types 3 and 4 (252 and 245 days). However, PFS was significantly longer in types 3/4 than in types 1/2 (P<0.001). Analysis for subgroups stratified according to mutation status found that PFS was still longer in patients with types 3/4 than in patients with types 1/2 (activated mutation group, P = 0.016 (Fig 3B); EGFR and ALK-negative/unknown group, P<0.001 (Fig 3C)).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival (A) in the entire cohort, (B) in activated mutation, (C) in EGFR and ALK-negative/unknown groups, respectively. EGFR epidermal growth factor receptor, ALK anaplastic lymphoma kinase, d-PFS progression-free days.

In the univariate analysis using the Cox hazards model, types 3/4 and sensitive mutation were the only two PFS predictive factors (P<0.001). Multivariate Cox hazard model analyses shows the same result (types 3/4 versus types 1/2, P<0.001, hazard ratio (HR) 0.30, 95% CI, 0.19–0.47; sensitive mutation versus EGFR and ALK-negative/unknown, P< 0.001, HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.19–0.48) (Table 3).

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate prediction of progression-free survival.

Univariate Multivariate
HR 95% CI p value HR 95% CI p value
Age (years)
    <65 vs. ≥65 1.25 0.87–1.80 0.24 1.56 1.05–2.34 .030
Gender
    Female vs. Male 0.85 0.59–1.23 0.39 1.17 0.73–1.88 .516
Smoking habit
    Never vs. Current/former 0.70 0.47–1.06 0.09 0.82 0.48–1.40 .469
Performance status
    0–1 vs. ≥2 0.89 0.61–1.30 0.55 1.03 0.70–1.52 .881
Stage
    IIIb/IVa vs. IVb 0.79 0.54–1.16 0.22 0.89 0.60–1.33 .572
Mutation
    MUT vs. WT/UNK 0.34 0.23–0.52 <0.001 0.30 0.19–0.48 <0.001
CEA/CA125/19-9/15-3
    Type 3/4 vs. Type 1/2 0.29 0.19–0.44 <0.001 0.30 0.19–0.47 <0.001

CI confidence interval, HR hazard ratio, MUT mutated patients, WT/UNK wild-type/unknown patients, CEA carcinoembryonic antigen, CA125 carbohydrate antigen 125, CA19-9 carbohydrate antigen 19–9, CA15-3 carbohydrate antigen 15–3

Discussion

This prospective study was the first to provide CEA, CA125, CA19-9, and CA15-3 permutation and combination in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. We compared the AUC of CEA and 4-TMs to predict clinical responses of TKI targeted therapy. Our study demonstrated that 14 days of 4-TMpc type could be an early predictor of TKI targeted therapy efficacy. The descending type of 4-TMpc over the 7th- 14th days had longer PFS in mutated or non-mutated adenocarcinoma patients.

Although squamous cell lung cancer and adenocarcinoma are a subset of NSCLC, they have different driver mutations and treatment [23]. CEA is more frequently reported in patients with adenocarcinoma than squamous lung cancer [11,12]. Therefore, we focused on lung adenocarcinoma. Furthermore, not all lung adenocarcinoma patients had elevated CEA levels [9,13,14]. Advanced lung adenocarcinoma has other potentially valuable TMs in addition to CEA. In our series, CA125, CA 19–9, and CA15-3 levels reached evaluable criteria in 62%, 27%, and 23% patients, respectively. While combined with 4-TMs, only 11% of patients had 4-TMs below the evaluable levels (Table 2).

There is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion concerning the standardized combination of TMs to evaluate tumor status. Different intra-tumor sub-clones may release different TMs. We presumed “one TM, one evaluable clone” and combined TMs as “4-TMpc”.

Zhang et al. indicated that the descending type of CEA within one month correlated with PR and SD of EGFR-TKI in patients with lung adenocarcinoma [13]. However, the CEA type can be affected by TMv and can influence the clinician to make a wrong decision [20,22]. In our 170 patient-times with evaluable TM cohort, “type uncertain” was classified when 4-TMpc over the 7th- 14th day was <5%. We divided the others into four groups. Among treatment, patients showing effectiveness may have an ascending 4-TMpc pattern before the descending pattern (type 3). This transient increase in TM levels is known as surges [13,24]. Otherwise, type 2 with fluctuation in 4-TMpc and then an ascending pattern the over 7th-14th day is not logical if TKI targeted therapy is considered effective (Fig 1).

We evaluated the type of 4-TMpc within 14 days of TKI targeted therapy and the relationship with imaging-based response and PFS. The ROC curve analysis showed that using 4-TMs for predicting the efficacy of TKI targeted therapy response had a higher AUC (0.83) than that using CEA (0.51). The Kappa value for the agreement analysis between 157 cases with the type of 4-TMpc and radiographic results was "good" (0.762) (Fig 1). However, using CEA levels, 24% of patients were biochemically non-assessable in this 170 patient-time series. The kappa value was 0.449 only (Fig 2). These findings showed that using 4-TMs to predict TKI targeted therapy response was more accurate than using CEA alone.

The results of sensitizing mutations cannot guarantee a clinical response to TKI targeted therapy [6,7,25]. It is essential to develop a new strategy for early prediction of the effect of TKI targeted therapy. In our series, patients with types 3/4, 4-TMpc had a longer PFS than those with types 1/2. Regarding the ascending (type 3) or descending pattern (type 4) over the 0th-7th day, patients' outcomes were similar. On the contrary, similar PFS was observed in patients with types 1 and 2 (Fig 3A). Regarding activated mutation (Fig 3B) and EGFR and ALK-negative/unknown group (Fig 3C), PFS was also significantly longer in patients with types 3/4 than in patients with types 1/2. Similarly, in multivariate models, our results demonstrate that 4-TMpc and mutation status continues to be the strongest predictors of PFS (Table 3).

Our study's strengths include its prospective design, and a large number of patients included compared to previous TM studies in NSCLC patients under TKI targeted therapy [9,13,14]. However, certain drawbacks should be considered. Firstly, it is a single-center study. Secondly, there is insufficient evidence to define the best cutoff level for minimizing the interference of TMv. Thirdly, we did not extend our study after Feb 2015 because the enrolled cases and the follow-up time are sufficient to reflect the study results in which we did find high-level agreement [kappa = 0.762] by planned accrual [around 190 cases]. Furthermore, the investigated scenario (gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, crizotinib or ceritinib for lung adenocarcinoma patients) was still valid in Taiwan in 2020, although whether our finding was applicable for some new inhibitors (such as osimertinib [26] or alectinib [27]) deserved to be studied.

Conclusion

In conclusion, image evaluation strategy with RECIST for patients with lung cancer has difficulty in obtaining the appropriate quantity of diffuse lung nodules, pleural effusions, and bone metastases. The type of 4-TMpc after 14 days TKI targeted therapy is associated with image response and PFS without accounting for mutation status in advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients. Our study results could help early therapeutic decision making by identifying patients who may benefit from gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, crizotinib, or ceritinib 14 days after TKI targeted therapy.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Chia-Ing Li for her technical help with statistical analysis.

Abbreviations and acronyms

EGFR

Epidermal growth factor receptor

ALK

anaplastic lymphoma kinase

TKI

tyrosine kinase inhibitor

PFS

progression-free survival

RECIST

Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

TM

tumor marker

CEA

carcinoembryonic antigen

NSCLC

non-small cell lung cancer

CA125

carbohydrate antigen125

CA19-9

carbohydrate antigen 19–9

CA15-3

carbohydrate antigen153

PCR

polymerase chain reaction

IHC

Immunohistochemistry

TMv

tumor markers with inherent intra-individual biological variation and within-laboratory coefficients of variation

4-TMpc

percent of change of 4 tumor markers

TMp

previous TM

TMl

later TM

CXR

chest radiograph

CT

computed tomography

PR

partial response

SD

stable disease

SD-30

stable disease with tumor reduction less than 30%

SD+20

stable disease with tumor increasing less than 20%

PD

progressive disease

ROC

receiver operating characteristic

AUC

area under the curve

CI

confidence interval

HR

hazard ratio

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, et al. (2009) Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 361: 947–957. 10.1056/NEJMoa0810699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A, Massuti B, et al. (2012) Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13: 239–246. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70393-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, O'Byrne K, Hirsh V, et al. (2013) Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol 31: 3327–3334. 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.2806 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kwak EL, Bang YJ, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, Solomon B, et al. (2010) Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 363: 1693–1703. 10.1056/NEJMoa1006448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shaw AT, Kim DW, Mehra R, Tan DS, Felip E, et al. (2014) Ceritinib in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 370: 1189–1197. 10.1056/NEJMoa1311107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.John T, Liu G, Tsao MS (2009) Overview of molecular testing in non-small-cell lung cancer: mutational analysis, gene copy number, protein expression and other biomarkers of EGFR for the prediction of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Oncogene 28 Suppl 1: S14–23. 10.1038/onc.2009.197 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shaw AT, Ou SH, Bang YJ, Camidge DR, Solomon BJ, et al. (2014) Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 371: 1963–1971. 10.1056/NEJMoa1406766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, et al. (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45: 228–247. 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chiu C-H, Shih Y-N, Tsai C-M, Liou J-L, Chen Y-M, et al. (2007) Serum tumor markers as predictors for survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib. Lung Cancer 57: 213–221. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fritsche HA (1993) Serum tumor markers for patient monitoring: a case-oriented approach illustrated with carcinoembryonic antigen. Clin Chem 39: 2431–2434. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ferrigno D, Buccheri G (1995) Clinical applications of serum markers for lung cancer. Respir Med 89: 587–597. 10.1016/0954-6111(95)90225-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Grunnet M, Sorensen J (2012) Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as tumor marker in lung cancer. Lung Cancer 76: 138–143. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.11.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang Y, Jin B, Shao M, Dong Y, Lou Y, et al. (2014) Monitoring of carcinoembryonic antigen levels is predictive of EGFR mutations and efficacy of EGFR-TKI in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Tumor Biology 35: 4921–4928. 10.1007/s13277-014-1646-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Facchinetti F, Aldigeri R, Aloe R, Bortesi B, Ardizzoni A, et al. (2015) CEA serum level as early predictive marker of outcome during EGFR-TKI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients. Tumour Biol 36: 5943–5951. 10.1007/s13277-015-3269-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Huang SF, Liu HP, Li LH, Ku YC, Fu YN, et al. (2004) High frequency of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations with complex patterns in non-small cell lung cancers related to gefitinib responsiveness in Taiwan. Clin Cancer Res 10: 8195–8203. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Joshi M, Rizvi SM, Belani CP (2015) Afatinib for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res 7: 75–82. 10.2147/CMAR.S51808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chiu CH, Yang CT, Shih JY, Huang MS, Su WC, et al. (2015) Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Treatment Response in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinomas with G719X/L861Q/S768I Mutations. J Thorac Oncol 10: 793–799. 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shen Y-C, Tseng G-C, Tu C-Y, Chen W-C, Liao W-C, et al. (2017) Comparing the effects of afatinib with gefitinib or Erlotinib in patients with advanced-stage lung adenocarcinoma harboring non-classical epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. Lung Cancer 110: 56–62. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Marchetti A, Di Lorito A, Pace MV, Iezzi M, Felicioni L, et al. (2016) ALK protein analysis by IHC staining after recent regulatory changes: a comparison of two widely used approaches, revision of the literature, and a new testing algorithm. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 11: 487–495. 10.1016/j.jtho.2015.12.111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tuxen MK, Soletormos G, Petersen PH, Schioler V, Dombernowsky P (1999) Assessment of biological variation and analytical imprecision of CA 125, CEA, and TPA in relation to monitoring of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 74: 12–22. 10.1006/gyno.1999.5414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tso E, Elson P, Vanlente F, Markman M (2006) The "real-life" variability of CA-125 in ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 103: 141–144. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sturgeon CM (2001) Tumor markers in the laboratory: closing the guideline-practice gap. Clin Biochem 34: 353–359. 10.1016/s0009-9120(01)00199-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li T, Kung HJ, Mack PC, Gandara DR (2013) Genotyping and genomic profiling of non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for current and future therapies. J Clin Oncol 31: 1039–1049. 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.3753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kim HS, Park YH, Park MJ, Chang MH, Jun HJ, et al. (2009) Clinical significance of a serum CA15-3 surge and the usefulness of CA15-3 kinetics in monitoring chemotherapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118: 89–97. 10.1007/s10549-009-0377-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cappuzzo F, Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, Cicenas S, Szczésna A, et al. (2010) Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. The lancet oncology 11: 521–529. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70112-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Soria J-C, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, Reungwetwattana T, Chewaskulyong B, et al. (2018) Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 378: 113–125. 10.1056/NEJMoa1713137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Peters S, Camidge DR, Shaw AT, Gadgeel S, Ahn JS, et al. (2017) Alectinib versus crizotinib in untreated ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 377: 829–838. 10.1056/NEJMoa1704795 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Christina L Addison

13 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-12186

Early Serum Tumor Marker Levels After Fourteen Days of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Targeted Therapy Predicts Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the reviewer comments as outlined in attached information.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 15 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christina L Addison, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

3. In the Methods section, please provide the source of the anti-ALK antibody used for your study.

4. Thank you for inncluding your funding statement;"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5.

In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Not all lung adenocarcinomas with sensitive mutations can benefit from targeted therapy. How to distinguish effective and ineffective patients early in patients with targeted therapy has certain clinical significance. The author of the manuscript tried to answer this question through analyzing changes of tumor markers, which gave us some inspirations. There are three questions as follows. Firstly, in manuscript, the authors evaluated the efficacy of targeted therapy by imaging-based response according to the RECIST standard. Why are the patients whose efficacy evaluation are SD divided into SD-20 and SD+30, instead of distinguishing by PR, SD, PD or DCR? It needs to be explained. Secondly, the references at the end of the manuscript seem to be inconsistent with the label in the article. For example, the reference 11 in the article seems to be 13 at the end, and it needs to be revised. Thirdly, cases in this study are all from 2012 to 2015, why are there no recent patients enrolled to increase the sample size for further statistical analysis?

Reviewer #2: It is difficult to evaluate efficacy of treatment in patients with lung cancer in some cases. The present study investigated the association between TKI treatment and tumor markers in advanced lung cancer. Overall, the study is well performed, however, there are potential limitations in this study. First, there was no mention of the reason why the authors chose those tumor markers. Second, a method of obtaining pathological samples in patients with lung cancer was not described in this study. Third, some patients received TKIs regardless of unknown mutation status. Is it ethically acceptable? I would like to recommend the minor revisions for this manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jinliang Wang

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0240736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240736.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Sep 2020

Revision of PONE-D-20-12186.R1

Dear editor,

Thank you for the nice and detailed review. We have made point - by - point revisions and responses to all reviewers’ comments. The reasons and revisions are listed in the following tables to each of the comments, respectively. In the revised manuscript, all the changes are highlighted in RED color. We deeply appreciate your valuable comments, which stimulated a more thorough consideration of the paper. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Hung-Jen Chen, MD

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine,

China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

No. 2, Yude Road, North District, Taichung City 40447, Taiwan

Phone No.: +886-4-22052121#4665

Email: redman0127@gmail.com

Comments to the Author

Editor Q1.

# Editor Q1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

Reply

# In response to Editor Q1: We thanked the editor to remind the format issue. We had revised the manuscript via using the PLOS ONE style templates. We also highlighted other major changes in RED so the editor and reviewers can easily see where we made significant revision.

Editor Q2.

# Editor Q2. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

Reply

# In response to Editor Q2: We apologized for incomplete description of sample size issue in the previous manuscript. We used the kappa analysis to evaluate the agreement of two methods (image-based response and tumor marker (TM) based) to determined the sample size. The sample size needed for the kappa analysis was calculated by PASS software (version 20.0.1, NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA). Assuming that the proportion of good response is around 50% in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with targeted therapy, a sample of 161 patients achieves 90% power to detect a true Kappa value of 0.60 in a test of H0: Kappa=0.40 vs. H1: Kappa>0.40, at a significance level of 0.05. The kappa value is often interpreted as 0.21 to 0.40, indicating fair, and 0.41 to 0.60 moderate level of agreement. Furthermore, considering that 10-15% of patients cannot be adapted to TM due to biochemical non-accessibility, we increased the sample size to 190 patients. These were clarified in our revised manuscript [method P7. Line 106 - 114]

Change in the text (See Page 7, Line 106-114)

We calculated the sample size needed for the kappa analysis by PASS software (version 20.0.1, NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA) via assuming that the proportion of good response to being around 50% in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma treated with targeted therapy. A sample of 161 patients achieves 90% power to detect a true Kappa value of 0.60 in a test of H0: Kappa=0.40 vs. H1: Kappa>0.40, at a significance level of 0.05. Furthermore, considering that 10-15% of patients cannot be adapted to TM due to biochemical non-accessibility, we increased the sample size to around 190 patients.

Editor Q3.

# Editor Q3. In the Methods section, please provide the source of the anti-ALK antibody used for your study.

Reply

# In response to editor Q3: I am sorry for the apparent mistake and thank the reviewer for the careful review. I had corrected it in the revised manuscript as “ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using the Ventana anti-ALK (D5F3) CDx assay. The staining results were evaluated using a binary scoring system: positive or negative following the manufacturer’s instructions.” [see method P7. Line 124 - 126]

Change in the text (See Page 7, Line 124-126)

ALK immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using the Ventana anti-ALK (D5F3) CDx assay. The staining results were evaluated using a binary scoring system: positive or negative following the manufacturer’s instructions.

Editor Q4.

# Editor Q4. Thank you for including your funding statement; “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Reply

# In response to editor Q4: The authors received no specific funding for this work. This had been clarified in the amended statements [P 25, Line 89]

Editor Q5.

# Editor Q5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Reply

# In response to editor Q5: We had specified the minimal data set in the revised Data Availability statement [P 25, Line 92] and uploaded the data in the Supporting Information files.

Editor Q6.

# Editor Q6. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

Reply

# In response to editor Q6: We had revised our manuscript to include our tables as part of our main manuscript [Table 1-5]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) 

Reviewer #1: Not all lung adenocarcinomas with sensitive mutations can benefit from targeted therapy. How to distinguish effective and ineffective patients early in patients with targeted therapy has certain clinical significance. The author of the manuscript tried to answer this question through analyzing changes of tumor markers, which gave us some inspirations. There are three questions as follows.

Comments to the Author

Reviwer-1 Q1.

Reviwer-1 Q1: Firstly, in manuscript, the authors evaluated the efficacy of targeted therapy by imaging-based response according to the RECIST standard. Why are the patients whose efficacy evaluation are SD divided into SD-20 and SD+30, instead of distinguishing by PR, SD, PD or DCR? It needs to be explained.

Reply

# In response to Reviewer-1 Q1: First, RECIST criteria have been used for evaluating the response of chemotherapy. However, if a targeted therapy for lung cancer responds to SD+29, clinicians may wonder whether this is an effective drug or not. Consequently, some studies used waterfall plots to reveal the response of targeted therapies. Furthermore, from a statistical point of view, it is difficult for PR, SD, or PD to correlate with the tumor marker's ascending or descending. On the contrary, the comparison of 2 * 2 (good/poor response VS. descending/ascending type) will be much more straightforward. Therefore, we combined categories of PR and SD-30 into the "good response group" due to reducing the tumor size. In contrast, the "poor response group" included cases with PD and SD+20 due to increased tumor size. These were clarified in the revised manuscript [method Page 10, Line 188-192; P11, Line 193-194]

Change in the text (See Page 10, Line 188-192; P11, Line 193-194)

While analyzing the correlation between 4-TMpc after 14 days TKI targeted therapy and RECIST assessed response, and we combined categories of PR and SD-30 into the “good response group.” In contrast, the “poor response group” included cases with PD and SD+20. This classification's rationales were that: (1) It was the straight forward approach to classify responders vs. non-responders. (2) It was also difficult for PR, SD, or PD to correlate with the ascending or descending of the 4-TMpc from a statistical point of view.

Reviwer-1 Q2.

# Reviewer-1 Q2: Secondly, the references at the end of the manuscript seem to be inconsistent with the label in the article. For example, the reference 11 in the article seems to be 13 at the end, and it needs to be revised.

Reply

# In response to Reviewer-1 Q2: I am sorry for the apparent mistake and thank the reviewer for the careful review. I had corrected it!

Change in the text (See Page 22, Line 21-22)

Zhang et al. indicated that the descending type of CEA within one month correlated with PR and SD of EGFR-TKI in patients with lung adenocarcinoma [13].

13. Zhang Y, Jin B, Shao M, Dong Y, Lou Y, et al. (2014) Monitoring of carcinoembryonic antigen levels is predictive of EGFR mutations and efficacy of EGFR-TKI in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Tumor Biology 35: 4921-4928.

Reviwer-1 Q3

#Reviewer-1 Q3: Thirdly, cases in this study are all from 2012 to 2015, why are there no recent patients enrolled to increase the sample size for further statistical analysis?

Reply

# In response to Reviewer-1 Q3: We thanked the reviewer for this comment. We used cases within 2012 to 2015 because the enrolled cases and the follow-up time are sufficient to reflect the study results. [Also see the above “in response to editor Q2”]. Because TKI targeted therapy was still the current standard of care for these patients, we believed our study results could help early therapeutic decision making by identifying patients who may benefit from TKI targeted therapy [Discussion; P24, Line 54-61]

Change in the text (Page 24, Line 54-61)

We did not extend our study after Feb 2015 because the enrolled cases and the follow-up time are sufficient to reflect the study results in which we did find high-level agreement [kappa= 0.762] by planned accrual [around 190 cases]. Furthermore, the investigated scenario (gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, crizotinib or ceritinib for lung adenocarcinoma patients) was still valid in Taiwan in 2020, although whether our finding was applicable for some new inhibitors (such as osimertinib or alectinib) deserved to be studied.

Reviewer #2: It is difficult to evaluate efficacy of treatment in patients with lung cancer in some cases. The present study investigated the association between TKI treatment and tumor markers in advanced lung cancer. Overall, the study is well performed, however, there are potential limitations in this study.

Reviwer-2 Q1.

# Reviewer-2 Q1: First, there was no mention of the reason why the authors chose those tumor markers.

Reply

# In response to Reviewer-2 Q1: We thanked the reviewer for this comment. This had been clarified in the revised manuscript [Introduction Page 6, Line 93-96]..

Change in the text (See Page 6, Line 93-96)

The selection of these tumor markers was based on reports [9-14] and our previous pilot study results (data not shown). There 4-TMs were also easy to assess in clinical practice and provided the most cost-effective coverage in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

9. Chiu C-H, Shih Y-N, Tsai C-M, Liou J-L, Chen Y-M, et al. (2007) Serum tumor markers as predictors for survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib. Lung Cancer 57: 213-221.

10. Fritsche HA (1993) Serum tumor markers for patient monitoring: a case-oriented approach illustrated with carcinoembryonic antigen. Clin Chem 39: 2431-2434.

11. Ferrigno D, Buccheri G (1995) Clinical applications of serum markers for lung cancer. Respir Med 89: 587-597.

12. Grunnet M, Sorensen J (2012) Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as tumor marker in lung cancer. Lung Cancer 76: 138-143.

13. Zhang Y, Jin B, Shao M, Dong Y, Lou Y, et al. (2014) Monitoring of carcinoembryonic antigen levels is predictive of EGFR mutations and efficacy of EGFR-TKI in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Tumor Biology 35: 4921-4928.

14. Facchinetti F, Aldigeri R, Aloe R, Bortesi B, Ardizzoni A, et al. (2015) CEA serum level as early predictive marker of outcome during EGFR-TKI therapy in advanced NSCLC patients. Tumour Biol 36: 5943-5951.

Reviwer-2 Q2.

#Reviewer-2 Q2: Second, a method of obtaining pathological samples in patients with lung cancer was not described in this study.

Reply

# In response to Reviewer-2 Q2: We thanked the reviewer to point this issue. This had been clarified in the revised manuscript [Results Page 12, Line 218-221].

Change in the text (See Page 12, Line 218-221)

……184 patients and 191 patient-times were enrolled in this study, including 29 accepted the diagnostic procedure of computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy, 68 accepted transbronchial biopsy, 20 accepted ultrasound-guided biopsy, 27 accepted thoracentesis or pericardiocentesis, and 40 accepted operative procedures.

# Reviwer-2 Q3.

# Reviewer-2 Q3: Third, some patients received TKIs regardless of unknown mutation status. Is it ethically acceptable?

Reply

# In response to Reviewer-2 Q3: We thanked the reviewer for addressing this issue. We had clarified that this strategy is ethically acceptable in Taiwan. We included 28% of patients without mutation or with unknown mutation status. The rationale is that a portion of patients with EGFR wild type mutations and ALK-negative have shown a response to TKI targeted therapies [1,2]. Besides, our study was approved by the Institutional Review Board with written informed consent from all patients, and this approach was also reimbursed by Taiwan National Health insurance for selected patients.

1. John T, Liu G, Tsao MS (2009) Overview of molecular testing in non-small-cell lung cancer: mutational analysis, gene copy number, protein expression and other biomarkers of EGFR for the prediction of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Oncogene 28 Suppl 1: S14-23.

2. Shaw AT, Ou SH, Bang YJ, Camidge DR, Solomon BJ, et al. (2014) Crizotinib in ROS1-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 371: 1963-1971.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jinliang Wang

Reviewer #2: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point to point_PONE-D-20-12186.docx

Decision Letter 1

Christina L Addison

2 Oct 2020

Early Serum Tumor Marker Levels After Fourteen Days of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Targeted Therapy Predicts Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma

PONE-D-20-12186R1

Dear Dr. Dr. Chen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Christina L Addison, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Not all lung adenocarcinomas with sensitive mutations can benefit from targeted therapy. How to distinguish effective and ineffective patients early in patients with targeted therapy has certain clinical significance. The author of the manuscript tried to answer this question through analyzing changes of tumor markers, which supplied us a new method.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Fumihiro Yamaguchi

Acceptance letter

Christina L Addison

13 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-12186R1

Early Serum Tumor Marker Levels After Fourteen Days of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Targeted Therapy Predicts Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma

Dear Dr. Chen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. R&R PLOS

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES