Comparing Immunotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone as Second-Line Therapy for Malignant Tumors of the Biliary Tract: A Retrospective Study.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology Pub Date : 2025-02-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11795549251317012
Chengzhi Jiang, Liu Yang, Ling Yang Kong, Tianyuan Fang, Lele Chang, Lei He, Qian Ma, YiBo Cheng, Wanying Wang, Zhigang Ma, Qingwei Li, Ji Tao
{"title":"Comparing Immunotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone as Second-Line Therapy for Malignant Tumors of the Biliary Tract: A Retrospective Study.","authors":"Chengzhi Jiang, Liu Yang, Ling Yang Kong, Tianyuan Fang, Lele Chang, Lei He, Qian Ma, YiBo Cheng, Wanying Wang, Zhigang Ma, Qingwei Li, Ji Tao","doi":"10.1177/11795549251317012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bile duct carcinoma (BTC) is an uncommon malignant tumor of the gastrointestinal tract. Management is limited after the progress of first-line treatment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been proven popular in solid tumors. Immunotherapy plus chemotherapy has been a standard scheme in the management of multiple types of cancer. However, their efficacy and safety still need further exploration in patients who diagnosed BTC. This research mainly discusses the efficacy of immunotherapy in the second-line use of cholangiocarcinoma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 126 individuals with BTC diagnosis from 2014 to 2024, who were treated with first-line or neoadjuvant treatment but were evaluated for progression or intolerance, were retrospectively included. All patients received standard chemotherapy, 57 received ICIs in combination with targeted therapy or not, and 69 did not. Patients were divided into simple chemotherapy (SC) and CT. Differences in efficacy, adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), progressive disease (PD), and efficacy of multiple factors and efficacy were analyzed. The primary endpoint is defined as OS. The secondary endpoint is defined as PFS, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse reactions (TRAEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PFS and OS of 4.68 and 30.26 months for ICIs with or without targeted therapy were proven statistically significant (<i>P</i> = .0012; <i>P</i> < .001). The ORR was 5.26% (3/57) in the CT group and 1.45% (1/69) in the SC group, and the DCR was 54.39% (31/57) compared with 33.33% (23/69). Cox analysis showed that TNM stage, T stage, histology grade, CA199 level, and treatment assessment grade were associated with OS (<i>P</i> < .05). Histologic differentiation (<i>P</i> = .009) and CA199 reduced (<i>P</i> = .003) were proven as independent prognostic factors. The highest grade of 3 to 4 adverse reactions (TRAEs) was a reduction in hemoglobin (29.37%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our work concluded that immunocombined chemotherapy with or without specific treatment showed significant antitumor activity and acceptable safety. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are likely to be a reliable second-line therapy for advanced BTC.</p>","PeriodicalId":48591,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology","volume":"19 ","pages":"11795549251317012"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11831633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights-Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11795549251317012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bile duct carcinoma (BTC) is an uncommon malignant tumor of the gastrointestinal tract. Management is limited after the progress of first-line treatment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been proven popular in solid tumors. Immunotherapy plus chemotherapy has been a standard scheme in the management of multiple types of cancer. However, their efficacy and safety still need further exploration in patients who diagnosed BTC. This research mainly discusses the efficacy of immunotherapy in the second-line use of cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods: In total, 126 individuals with BTC diagnosis from 2014 to 2024, who were treated with first-line or neoadjuvant treatment but were evaluated for progression or intolerance, were retrospectively included. All patients received standard chemotherapy, 57 received ICIs in combination with targeted therapy or not, and 69 did not. Patients were divided into simple chemotherapy (SC) and CT. Differences in efficacy, adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), progressive disease (PD), and efficacy of multiple factors and efficacy were analyzed. The primary endpoint is defined as OS. The secondary endpoint is defined as PFS, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse reactions (TRAEs).

Results: The PFS and OS of 4.68 and 30.26 months for ICIs with or without targeted therapy were proven statistically significant (P = .0012; P < .001). The ORR was 5.26% (3/57) in the CT group and 1.45% (1/69) in the SC group, and the DCR was 54.39% (31/57) compared with 33.33% (23/69). Cox analysis showed that TNM stage, T stage, histology grade, CA199 level, and treatment assessment grade were associated with OS (P < .05). Histologic differentiation (P = .009) and CA199 reduced (P = .003) were proven as independent prognostic factors. The highest grade of 3 to 4 adverse reactions (TRAEs) was a reduction in hemoglobin (29.37%).

Conclusion: Our work concluded that immunocombined chemotherapy with or without specific treatment showed significant antitumor activity and acceptable safety. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are likely to be a reliable second-line therapy for advanced BTC.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
比较免疫治疗与单独化疗作为胆道恶性肿瘤的二线治疗:一项回顾性研究。
背景:胆管癌是一种少见的胃肠道恶性肿瘤。一线治疗进展后的管理是有限的。免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)已被证明在实体肿瘤中很受欢迎。免疫治疗加化疗已成为治疗多种类型癌症的标准方案。然而,在诊断为BTC的患者中,其疗效和安全性仍有待进一步探索。本研究主要探讨免疫治疗在胆管癌二线应用的疗效。方法:回顾性分析2014年至2024年126例BTC患者,这些患者均接受了一线或新辅助治疗,但评估为进展或不耐受。所有患者均接受标准化疗,57例接受或未接受ICIs联合靶向治疗,69例未接受ICIs联合靶向治疗。患者分为单纯化疗组(SC)和CT组。分析两组疗效、不良事件、无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期(OS)、进展性疾病(PD)、多因素疗效及疗效的差异。主要端点定义为OS。次要终点定义为PFS、客观缓解率(ORR)、疾病控制率(DCR)和治疗相关不良反应(TRAEs)。结果:ICIs治疗前后PFS和OS分别为4.68个月和30.26个月,差异均有统计学意义(P = 0.0012;P P = 0.009)和CA199降低(P = 0.003)被证明是独立的预后因素。3 ~ 4级不良反应(TRAEs)的最高级别是血红蛋白降低(29.37%)。结论:我们的工作表明,免疫联合化疗有或没有特异性治疗具有显著的抗肿瘤活性和可接受的安全性。免疫检查点抑制剂可能是一种可靠的二线治疗晚期BTC。
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
2.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
57
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine Insights: Oncology is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on all aspects of cancer research and treatment, in addition to related genetic, pathophysiological and epidemiological topics. Of particular but not exclusive importance are molecular biology, clinical interventions, controlled trials, therapeutics, pharmacology and drug delivery, and techniques of cancer surgery. The journal welcomes unsolicited article proposals.
期刊最新文献
First-Line Modified FOLFIRINOX in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Real-World Outcomes and Prognostic Factors From a Vietnamese Cohort. Risk Factors for Febrile Neutropenia in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Undergoing Initial R-CHOP Treatment. National Patterns of Biomarker Testing in Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancers: Insights From the NIH All of Us Research Program. The Prognostic Significance of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF Mutations in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Bevacizumab Plus EGFR-TKIs vs EGFR-TKIs Alone for Advanced EGFR-Mutant NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis.
×
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:604180095
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