Studying Outcomes after Steroid-Sparing Immunosuppressive Agent vs. Steroid-Only Treatment for Immune-Related Adverse Events in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and Melanoma: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Cancers Pub Date : 2024-05-16 DOI:10.3390/cancers16101892
Sharjeel Syed, Jacobi Hines, R. Baccile, Sherin Rouhani, P. Reid
{"title":"Studying Outcomes after Steroid-Sparing Immunosuppressive Agent vs. Steroid-Only Treatment for Immune-Related Adverse Events in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and Melanoma: A Retrospective Case-Control Study","authors":"Sharjeel Syed, Jacobi Hines, R. Baccile, Sherin Rouhani, P. Reid","doi":"10.3390/cancers16101892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The effects of steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents (SSIAs), used for the treatment of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), on immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antitumor activity is not well known. We compared tumor outcomes of patients who received corticosteroid monotherapy (CS) versus a corticosteroid plus SSIA (CS-SSIA) for irAE treatment, using statistical methods to address immortal time bias. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-control study on patients ≥ 18 years with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ≥1 ICI at a quaternary care center between 1 January 2016 and 11 January 2021. Patients were divided into two cohorts: CS or CS-SSIA. We used propensity score nearest-neighbor matching to match on tumor type, stage, and prior lines of therapy. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included the time from the start of the irAE treatment to the irAE resolution. Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression method with both (1) the time to the steroid and SSIA as time-varying covariates and (2) a binary exposure classification not accounting for the time to the treatment. Results: A total of 167 patients were included after matching (132 in the CS cohort and 35 in the CS-SSIA cohort). Sixty-six percent of all the patients had melanoma. The most common irAEs requiring treatment were gastroenterocolitis and hepatitis. In an adjusted analysis not accounting for immortal time bias, there were no significant differences in PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI [0.46–1.23]) or OS (HR 0.82, 95% CI [0.46–1.47]). In analyses using a time-varying treatment indicator, there was a trend toward improved PFS in patients treated with SSIAs (HR 0.54, CI 0.26–1.10). There was no difference in OS (HR 1.11, CI 0.55–2.23). Patients with melanoma who specifically received infliximab had improved PFS compared to patients with CS only, after adjusting for immortal time bias (HR 0.32, CI 0.24–0.43). Conclusions: The use of SSIAs with CS did not have worse outcomes than CS monotherapy. In melanoma, our findings showed improved PFS for the use of infliximab versus steroid monotherapy for irAEs. Large, prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and guide the optimal treatment of irAEs.","PeriodicalId":504676,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16101892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effects of steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents (SSIAs), used for the treatment of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), on immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antitumor activity is not well known. We compared tumor outcomes of patients who received corticosteroid monotherapy (CS) versus a corticosteroid plus SSIA (CS-SSIA) for irAE treatment, using statistical methods to address immortal time bias. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case-control study on patients ≥ 18 years with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ≥1 ICI at a quaternary care center between 1 January 2016 and 11 January 2021. Patients were divided into two cohorts: CS or CS-SSIA. We used propensity score nearest-neighbor matching to match on tumor type, stage, and prior lines of therapy. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included the time from the start of the irAE treatment to the irAE resolution. Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS and OS were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression method with both (1) the time to the steroid and SSIA as time-varying covariates and (2) a binary exposure classification not accounting for the time to the treatment. Results: A total of 167 patients were included after matching (132 in the CS cohort and 35 in the CS-SSIA cohort). Sixty-six percent of all the patients had melanoma. The most common irAEs requiring treatment were gastroenterocolitis and hepatitis. In an adjusted analysis not accounting for immortal time bias, there were no significant differences in PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI [0.46–1.23]) or OS (HR 0.82, 95% CI [0.46–1.47]). In analyses using a time-varying treatment indicator, there was a trend toward improved PFS in patients treated with SSIAs (HR 0.54, CI 0.26–1.10). There was no difference in OS (HR 1.11, CI 0.55–2.23). Patients with melanoma who specifically received infliximab had improved PFS compared to patients with CS only, after adjusting for immortal time bias (HR 0.32, CI 0.24–0.43). Conclusions: The use of SSIAs with CS did not have worse outcomes than CS monotherapy. In melanoma, our findings showed improved PFS for the use of infliximab versus steroid monotherapy for irAEs. Large, prospective, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings and guide the optimal treatment of irAEs.
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
研究非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)和黑色素瘤患者使用类固醇稀释免疫抑制剂与仅使用类固醇治疗免疫相关不良事件的结果:一项回顾性病例对照研究
背景:用于治疗免疫相关不良事件(irAEs)的类固醇疏松免疫抑制剂(SSIAs)对免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)抗肿瘤活性的影响尚不十分清楚。我们比较了接受皮质类固醇单药治疗(CS)和皮质类固醇加SSIA(CS-SSIA)治疗irAE的患者的肿瘤预后,并使用统计方法解决了不朽时间偏倚问题。研究方法我们对2016年1月1日至2021年1月11日期间在一家四级医疗中心接受≥1种ICI治疗的≥18岁黑色素瘤或非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者进行了一项回顾性病例对照研究。患者分为两组:CS 或 CS-SSIA。我们使用倾向得分近邻匹配法来匹配肿瘤类型、分期和先前的治疗方案。主要结果为无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。次要结果包括从开始接受irAE治疗到irAE缓解的时间。PFS和OS的危险比(HRs)采用Cox比例危险回归法进行计算,并将(1)接受类固醇和SSIA治疗的时间作为随时间变化的协变量;(2)二元暴露分类不考虑治疗时间。结果经过匹配后,共纳入了 167 名患者(132 人纳入 CS 队列,35 人纳入 CS-SSIA 队列)。66%的患者患有黑色素瘤。需要治疗的最常见irAE为胃肠结肠炎和肝炎。在不考虑不死时间偏差的调整分析中,PFS(HR 0.75,95% CI [0.46-1.23])和OS(HR 0.82,95% CI [0.46-1.47])没有显著差异。在使用时变治疗指标进行的分析中,接受 SSIAs 治疗的患者的 PFS 有改善趋势(HR 0.54,CI 0.26-1.10)。OS 方面没有差异(HR 1.11,CI 0.55-2.23)。与仅接受CS治疗的黑色素瘤患者相比,特别接受英夫利西单抗治疗的黑色素瘤患者的PFS有所改善,调整不死时间偏差后(HR为0.32,CI为0.24-0.43)。结论在使用 CS 的同时使用 SSIAs 的疗效并不比单用 CS 差。在黑色素瘤中,我们的研究结果表明,使用英夫利西单抗治疗irAEs比单用类固醇治疗的PFS有所改善。需要进行大型、前瞻性、随机对照试验来证实这些发现,并指导irAEs的最佳治疗方法。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Aurora Kinase A Inhibition Potentiates Platinum and Radiation Cytotoxicity in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Cells and Induces Expression of Alternative Immune Checkpoints Development and Characterization of Syngeneic Orthotopic Transplant Models of Obesity-Responsive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in C57BL/6J Mice The Effects of Gynecological Tumor Irradiation on the Immune System A Monocentric Analysis of Implantable Ports in Cancer Treatment: Five-Year Efficacy and Safety Evaluation Drug Combination Nanoparticles Containing Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel Enable Orthotopic 4T1 Breast Tumor Regression
×
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