Beyond first-line therapy: efficacy and safety outcomes of continuing immunotherapy in extensive stage small cell lung cancer after PD-L1 inhibitor progression.
{"title":"Beyond first-line therapy: efficacy and safety outcomes of continuing immunotherapy in extensive stage small cell lung cancer after PD-L1 inhibitor progression.","authors":"Jianfeng Peng, Xueying Zhai, Xiaomei Liu, Zhaoqin Huang, Yimeng Wang, Peizhu Wu, Ran Gao, Xiangjiao Meng","doi":"10.1016/j.tranon.2024.102249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the continuing immunotherapy as subsequent therapy in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients who have progressed after initial immunotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with ES-SCLC who experienced disease progression after receiving programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors combined with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment at three sites in China. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether to continue second-line immunotherapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In a cohort of 150 ES-SCLC patients evaluated post-progression following first-line PD-L1 inhibitors, second-line treatment regimens varied: 86 patients received immunotherapy beyond progression (IBP) and 64 did not proceed to second-line immunotherapy (non-IBP). IBP significantly increased both disease control rates (DCR, 68.6% vs. 32.8%, p<0.001) and overall response rate (ORR, 33.7% vs. 15.6%, p=0.012) and extended median progression-free survival (PFS, 4.1 vs. 2.4 months, HR=0.46, p<0.001) when compared with non-IBP group. The median overall survival (OS) in the IBP group was also longer than that in the non-IBP group (11.2 months vs. 9.0 months, HR=0.68, 95%CI 0.47-0.98, p=0.042). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant survival advantage with IBP treatment in patients presenting with baseline liver metastases, less than three metastatic organs, and those who were nonsmokers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with ES-SCLC who received first-line PD-L1 inhibitors, continuing IBP extended second-line survival without increasing adverse events (AEs). A more pronounced OS benefit with IBP was noted within specific patient subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":23244,"journal":{"name":"Translational Oncology","volume":"52 ","pages":"102249"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2024.102249","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the continuing immunotherapy as subsequent therapy in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients who have progressed after initial immunotherapy.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with ES-SCLC who experienced disease progression after receiving programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors combined with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment at three sites in China. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether to continue second-line immunotherapy.
Results: In a cohort of 150 ES-SCLC patients evaluated post-progression following first-line PD-L1 inhibitors, second-line treatment regimens varied: 86 patients received immunotherapy beyond progression (IBP) and 64 did not proceed to second-line immunotherapy (non-IBP). IBP significantly increased both disease control rates (DCR, 68.6% vs. 32.8%, p<0.001) and overall response rate (ORR, 33.7% vs. 15.6%, p=0.012) and extended median progression-free survival (PFS, 4.1 vs. 2.4 months, HR=0.46, p<0.001) when compared with non-IBP group. The median overall survival (OS) in the IBP group was also longer than that in the non-IBP group (11.2 months vs. 9.0 months, HR=0.68, 95%CI 0.47-0.98, p=0.042). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant survival advantage with IBP treatment in patients presenting with baseline liver metastases, less than three metastatic organs, and those who were nonsmokers.
Conclusions: In patients with ES-SCLC who received first-line PD-L1 inhibitors, continuing IBP extended second-line survival without increasing adverse events (AEs). A more pronounced OS benefit with IBP was noted within specific patient subgroups.
期刊介绍:
Translational Oncology publishes the results of novel research investigations which bridge the laboratory and clinical settings including risk assessment, cellular and molecular characterization, prevention, detection, diagnosis and treatment of human cancers with the overall goal of improving the clinical care of oncology patients. Translational Oncology will publish laboratory studies of novel therapeutic interventions as well as clinical trials which evaluate new treatment paradigms for cancer. Peer reviewed manuscript types include Original Reports, Reviews and Editorials.