Department of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Osaka, Japan; Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan.
Department of Thoracic Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Osaka, Japan.
Clin Lung Cancer. 2024 Nov;25(7):643-652.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2024.07.014. Epub 2024 Jul 25.
The optimal subsequent treatment strategy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and consolidative durvalumab therapy remains unknown. We aimed to determine the optimal subsequent treatment strategy for this clinical population.
We retrospectively enrolled 523 consecutive patients with LA-NSCLC treated with CRT and analyzed the treatment outcomes of subsequent therapy after progression following CRT and consolidative durvalumab therapy. Patients who received tyrosine kinase inhibitors as subsequent therapy were excluded.
Out of 122 patients who received subsequent chemotherapy, 55% underwent platinum-based, 25% non-platinum-based, and 20% immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-containing therapies. In the platinum-based group, patients with a durvalumab-progression-free survival (Dur-PFS) ≥ 1 year had a significantly longer median subsequent therapy-PFS (SubTx-PFS) than those with Dur-PFS < 1 year (13.2 months vs. 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.97; P = .04). Furthermore, among patients receiving non-platinum-based chemotherapy, the median SubTx-PFS was longer in the combined with angiogenesis inhibitor group than in the without group, although the difference was not statistically significant. No significant difference of SubTx-PFS was observed between the reason for durvalumab discontinuation and the outcomes of ICI-containing therapy.
In clinical practice, platinum-based chemotherapy rechallenge is frequently employed following progression subsequent to CRT and consolidative durvalumab therapy for LA-NSCLC. Optimal treatment strategies may consider Dur-PFS and angiogenesis inhibitor feasibility. Further research is warranted to identify clinical biomarkers that can help identify patients who would benefit from ICI rechallenge.
放化疗(CRT)和巩固性 durvalumab 治疗后局部晚期非小细胞肺癌(LA-NSCLC)的最佳后续治疗策略仍不清楚。我们旨在确定该临床人群的最佳后续治疗策略。
我们回顾性纳入了 523 例接受 CRT 治疗的 LA-NSCLC 连续患者,并分析了 CRT 和巩固性 durvalumab 治疗后进展后后续治疗的治疗结果。排除接受酪氨酸激酶抑制剂作为后续治疗的患者。
在 122 例接受后续化疗的患者中,55%接受了铂类药物治疗,25%接受了非铂类药物治疗,20%接受了免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)治疗。在铂类药物组中,durvalumab-无进展生存期(Dur-PFS)≥1 年的患者的中位后续治疗无进展生存期(SubTx-PFS)显著长于 Dur-PFS<1 年的患者(13.2 个月比 4.7 个月;风险比,0.45;95%置信区间,0.21-0.97;P=0.04)。此外,在接受非铂类化疗的患者中,联合血管生成抑制剂组的中位 SubTx-PFS 长于无联合组,但差异无统计学意义。durvalumab 停药原因与 ICI 治疗结果之间未观察到 SubTx-PFS 的显著差异。
在临床实践中,在 CRT 和巩固性 durvalumab 治疗后局部晚期非小细胞肺癌进展后,经常采用铂类药物化疗再挑战。最佳治疗策略可能需要考虑 Dur-PFS 和血管生成抑制剂的可行性。需要进一步研究以确定有助于识别从 ICI 再挑战中获益的临床生物标志物。