Comparison of first-line immunotherapy efficacy between advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma and pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma: A propensity score matching multicenter study.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY Journal of cancer research and therapeutics Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2711_22
YuBin Zhou, Jian Huang, Jun Lan, Hao Hu, Zihao Yuan, Longyan Dong, Huiyin Deng, Li-Ao Yue, Yi Xiao, Xiongwen Yang
{"title":"Comparison of first-line immunotherapy efficacy between advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma and pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma: A propensity score matching multicenter study.","authors":"YuBin Zhou,&nbsp;Jian Huang,&nbsp;Jun Lan,&nbsp;Hao Hu,&nbsp;Zihao Yuan,&nbsp;Longyan Dong,&nbsp;Huiyin Deng,&nbsp;Li-Ao Yue,&nbsp;Yi Xiao,&nbsp;Xiongwen Yang","doi":"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2711_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Compared with other lung squamous cell carcinomas (LUSC), pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (pLELC) is closely associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections with a unique molecular profile and immune microenvironment. This study was thus established to compare the treatment response and effectiveness of immunotherapy between pLELC and LUSC.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We enrolled 31 patients with pLELC and 116 with LUSC receiving first-line immunotherapy at three centers in China and compared the treatment response and effectiveness of immunotherapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the differences in baseline data between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Before PSM, progression-free survival and overall survival were longer in the pLELC group than in the LUSC group (progression-free survival: hazard ratio (HR), 1.67, 95% CI: 1.05-2.63, P = 0.028; overall survival: HR, 1.90, 95% CI: 1.06-3.40, P = 0.028). This remained unchanged after PSM (progression-free survival: HR, 1.79, 95% CI: 1.02-3.15, P = 0.044; overall survival: HR, 2.20; 95% CI: 1.10-4.37, P = 0.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>pLELC showed a clinically meaningful survival benefit compared with traditional LUSC following immunotherapy. Subsequent studies should consider the role of the EBV in the tumor immune microenvironment of pLELC.</p>","PeriodicalId":15208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2711_22","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Compared with other lung squamous cell carcinomas (LUSC), pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (pLELC) is closely associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infections with a unique molecular profile and immune microenvironment. This study was thus established to compare the treatment response and effectiveness of immunotherapy between pLELC and LUSC.

Material and methods: We enrolled 31 patients with pLELC and 116 with LUSC receiving first-line immunotherapy at three centers in China and compared the treatment response and effectiveness of immunotherapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the differences in baseline data between the two groups.

Results: Before PSM, progression-free survival and overall survival were longer in the pLELC group than in the LUSC group (progression-free survival: hazard ratio (HR), 1.67, 95% CI: 1.05-2.63, P = 0.028; overall survival: HR, 1.90, 95% CI: 1.06-3.40, P = 0.028). This remained unchanged after PSM (progression-free survival: HR, 1.79, 95% CI: 1.02-3.15, P = 0.044; overall survival: HR, 2.20; 95% CI: 1.10-4.37, P = 0.022).

Conclusion: pLELC showed a clinically meaningful survival benefit compared with traditional LUSC following immunotherapy. Subsequent studies should consider the role of the EBV in the tumor immune microenvironment of pLELC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
晚期肺鳞状细胞癌和肺淋巴上皮瘤样癌一线免疫治疗疗效比较:倾向评分匹配多中心研究
背景:与其他肺鳞状细胞癌(LUSC)相比,肺淋巴上皮瘤样癌(pLELC)具有独特的分子特征和免疫微环境,与eb病毒(EBV)感染密切相关。因此,本研究旨在比较pLELC和LUSC的治疗反应和免疫治疗的有效性。材料和方法:我们在中国的三个中心招募了31例pLELC患者和116例LUSC患者接受一线免疫治疗,并比较了免疫治疗的治疗反应和有效性。使用倾向评分匹配(PSM)来平衡两组之间基线数据的差异。结果:PSM前,pLELC组的无进展生存期和总生存期均长于LUSC组(无进展生存期:风险比(HR), 1.67, 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 2.63, P = 0.028;总生存率:HR, 1.90, 95% CI: 1.06-3.40, P = 0.028)。PSM后这一情况保持不变(无进展生存期:HR, 1.79, 95% CI: 1.02-3.15, P = 0.044;总生存期:HR, 2.20;95% ci: 1.10-4.37, p = 0.022)。结论:与传统LUSC相比,pLELC在免疫治疗后具有临床意义的生存获益。后续研究应考虑EBV在pLELC肿瘤免疫微环境中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
299
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of Medical oncology, radiation oncology, medical imaging, radiation protection, non-ionising radiation, radiobiology. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in technically unresectable moderately advanced oral cavity cancers Gastrointestinal bleeding due to obstruction of the superior mesenteric vein Microwave ablation combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty for treating painful non-small cell lung cancer with spinal metastases under real-time temperature monitoring Incidence of thromboembolic events in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis Intra-fractional dose rate effect in continuous and interrupted irradiation of the MCF-7 cell line: Possible radiobiological implications for breath-hold techniques in breast radiotherapy?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1