Suppr超能文献

免疫检查点抑制剂再挑战疗法在局部晚期和晚期非小细胞肺癌中的疗效与安全性分析:一项回顾性研究

Efficacy and safety analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge therapy in locally advanced and advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study.

作者信息

Yan Xiaoqi, Zhao Luqing, Wu Fei, Shen Bo, Zhou Guoren, Feng Jifeng, Yue Chao, Zhu Jingni, Yu Shaorong

机构信息

Department of Medical Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University & Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.

Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University & Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research, Nanjing, China.

出版信息

J Thorac Dis. 2024 Mar 29;16(3):1787-1803. doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-1767. Epub 2024 Mar 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically changed the first-line treatment pattern of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver gene alterations. However, the optimal choice for second-line treatment after initial treatment with ICIs is unclear. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge therapy in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the histories of 224 patients with locally advanced or advanced NSCLC treated with programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or antiangiogenic therapy in first-line treatment. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) was the time from the first defined progress disease (PD) to the second disease progression or death. Efficacy evaluation was performed directly in accordance with RECIST v1.1 criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded following the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Survival data were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method or Cox survival regression model and compared using the log-rank test in overall cohort and other subgroups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in objective response rate (ORR) and median PFS2 (mPFS2) between the ICI rechallenge group and non-rechallenge group (ORR: 10.3% 15.3%, P=0.308; mPFS2: 5.33 4.40 months, P=0.715). And the ICI rechallenge group showed no new safety signals compared with non-rechallenge group. In ICI rechallenge group, patients resistant to first-line immunotherapy had a lower ORR and shorter PFS2 compared with those who responded to initial ICIs treatment (ORR: 7.0% 17.6%, P=0.038; mPFS2: 3.68 5.91 months, P=0.014). No significant difference in mPFS2 was observed among different second-line treatment groups (P=0.362). Radiotherapy in second-line treatment and ICI rechallenge therapy were not the main factors affecting PFS2.

CONCLUSIONS

ICI rechallenge therapy beyond disease progression did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, but no new safety signals emerged. However, patients with favorable response to initial ICIs treatment still showed significant efficacy of subsequent ICI rechallenge therapy.

摘要

背景

免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)显著改变了无驱动基因改变的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的一线治疗模式。然而,ICI初始治疗后二线治疗的最佳选择尚不清楚。本研究旨在阐明ICI再挑战疗法在局部晚期和晚期NSCLC中的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们回顾性分析了224例局部晚期或晚期NSCLC患者的病史,这些患者在一线治疗中单独接受程序性死亡-1(PD-1)/程序性死亡配体-1(PD-L1)抑制剂治疗,或与化疗和/或抗血管生成治疗联合使用。无进展生存期2(PFS2)是从首次确定的疾病进展(PD)到第二次疾病进展或死亡的时间。疗效评估直接按照RECIST v1.1标准进行。不良事件(AE)按照美国国立癌症研究所不良事件通用术语标准v5.0进行分级。生存数据采用Kaplan-Meier方法或Cox生存回归模型进行估计,并在整个队列和其他亚组中使用对数秩检验进行比较。

结果

ICI再挑战组和非再挑战组之间的客观缓解率(ORR)和中位PFS2(mPFS2)无显著差异(ORR:10.3%对15.3%,P = 0.308;mPFS2:5.33对4.40个月,P = 0.715)。并且与非再挑战组相比,ICI再挑战组未显示出新的安全信号。在ICI再挑战组中,对一线免疫治疗耐药的患者与对初始ICI治疗有反应的患者相比,ORR更低,PFS2更短(ORR:7.0%对17.6%,P = 0.038;mPFS2:3.68对5.91个月,P = 0.014)。不同二线治疗组之间未观察到mPFS2有显著差异(P = 0.362)。二线治疗中的放疗和ICI再挑战疗法不是影响PFS2的主要因素。

结论

疾病进展后进行ICI再挑战疗法并未改善NSCLC患者的临床结局,但未出现新的安全信号。然而,对初始ICI治疗反应良好的患者后续ICI再挑战疗法仍显示出显著疗效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0600/11009570/29bc79f41c58/jtd-16-03-1787-f1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验