Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Oct 1;6(10):1606-1610. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2169.
Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for use in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), but the efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge in mRCC is unknown.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICI rechallenge in patients with mRCC.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with mRCC from 9 institutions in the US who received at least 2 separate lines of ICI (ICI-1, ICI-2) between January 2012 and December 2019.
Receipt of an ICI (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, anti-programmed cell death protein 1, or anti-programmed cell death ligand 1), alone or in combination with other therapies, in at least 2 separate lines of therapy for mRCC.
Investigator-assessed best overall response and immune-related adverse events.
A total of 69 patients were included. Median (range) age at diagnosis of mRCC was 61 (36-86) years. Of these, 50 were men and 19 were women. The most common therapies received at ICI-1 were single-agent ICI (n = 27 [39%]) or ICI in combination with targeted therapy (n = 29 [42%]), while at ICI-2, the most common therapies were single-agent ICI (n = 26 [38%]) or dual ICI (n = 22 [32%]). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 owing to disease progression (n = 50 [72%]) or toxic effects (n = 16 [23%]). The overall response rates at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 37% and 23%, respectively. The likelihood of a response at ICI-2 was greatest among patients who had previously responded to ICI-1 (7 of 24 [29%]), although responses at ICI-2 were seen in those who had progressive disease as their best response following ICI-1 (3 of 14 [21%]) as well as in those who received single-agent ICI at ICI-2 (7 of 23 [30%]). Grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events were seen in 18 patients (26%) and 11 patients (16%) at ICI-1 and ICI-2, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths.
The findings of this multicenter cohort study suggest that ICI rechallenge in patients with mRCC may be safe and reasonably efficacious, with an overall response rate of 23%. Data from prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and determine the role of sequential ICI regimens in treatment of mRCC.
有几种免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)被批准用于转移性肾细胞癌(mRCC)患者,但ICI 再挑战在 mRCC 中的疗效和安全性尚不清楚。
评估 mRCC 患者接受 ICI 再挑战的安全性和疗效。
设计、地点和参与者:这项多中心回顾性队列研究纳入了美国 9 家机构的 mRCC 连续患者,这些患者在 2012 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间至少接受了 2 种不同的 ICI(ICI-1、ICI-2)治疗。
接受 ICI(抗细胞毒性 T 淋巴细胞相关蛋白 4、抗程序性细胞死亡蛋白 1 或抗程序性细胞死亡配体 1)治疗,单独或与其他疗法联合,用于 mRCC 的至少 2 种不同的治疗线。
研究者评估的最佳总体反应和免疫相关不良事件。
共纳入 69 例患者。mRCC 诊断时的中位(范围)年龄为 61(36-86)岁。其中,50 例为男性,19 例为女性。ICI-1 中最常见的治疗方法是单药 ICI(n=27 [39%])或 ICI 联合靶向治疗(n=29 [42%]),而在 ICI-2 中,最常见的治疗方法是单药 ICI(n=26 [38%])或双重 ICI(n=22 [32%])。大多数患者因疾病进展(n=50 [72%])或毒性作用(n=16 [23%])而停止 ICI-1 治疗。ICI-1 和 ICI-2 的总缓解率分别为 37%和 23%。在 ICI-1 有反应的患者中,ICI-2 反应的可能性最大(24 例中有 7 例[29%]),尽管 ICI-2 也可在 ICI-1 后疾病进展作为最佳反应的患者中观察到(14 例中有 3 例[21%]),以及在 ICI-2 接受单药 ICI 的患者中观察到(23 例中有 7 例[30%])。ICI-1 和 ICI-2 分别有 18 例(26%)和 11 例(16%)患者发生 3 级或更高级别的免疫相关不良事件。
这项多中心队列研究的结果表明,mRCC 患者接受 ICI 再挑战可能是安全且合理有效的,总缓解率为 23%。需要前瞻性研究的数据来验证这些发现,并确定序贯 ICI 方案在 mRCC 治疗中的作用。