Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared to carboplatin plus paclitaxel for carboplatin and paclitaxel pretreated, recurrent, or advanced endometrial cancer.

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMC Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1186/s12916-025-03989-0
Shao-Jing Wang, Lou Sun, Yu-Hsiang Shih, Ting-Fang Lu, Yen-Fu Chen, Shih-Tien Hsu, Chin-Ku Liu, Sheau-Feng Hwang, Jem-Kun Chen, Hsin-Hua Chen, Chien-Hsing Lu
{"title":"Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared to carboplatin plus paclitaxel for carboplatin and paclitaxel pretreated, recurrent, or advanced endometrial cancer.","authors":"Shao-Jing Wang, Lou Sun, Yu-Hsiang Shih, Ting-Fang Lu, Yen-Fu Chen, Shih-Tien Hsu, Chin-Ku Liu, Sheau-Feng Hwang, Jem-Kun Chen, Hsin-Hua Chen, Chien-Hsing Lu","doi":"10.1186/s12916-025-03989-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has demonstrated improved survival compared with doxorubicin or paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancers (ECs). However, response rates to monotherapy are poor in recurrent settings. Herein, we performed a retrospective analysis using real-world data to compare the outcomes of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, carboplatin plus paclitaxel (PT), and doxorubicin for patients with PT-pretreated, advanced, or recurrent ECs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis using de-identified electronic health record database (TriNetX) to compare lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, carboplatin plus paclitaxel (PT), and doxorubicin outcomes in patients with PT-pretreated, advanced, or recurrent ECs. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted. The primary outcome was the overall survival (OS) among treatment groups. The secondary outcome was the adverse event profile.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between January 2012 and September 2023, we identified 397 patients with PT-treated, advanced, or recurrent ECs who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and 469 patients receiving PT at a platinum-free interval of over 6 months. Following PSM, no significant difference in median OS was observed between the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and re-challenge PT groups (19.1 vs. 18.5 months, p = 0.60; hazard ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.46). However, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provided better survival benefits than doxorubicin. Adverse event analysis showed more hypothyroidism, hypertension, and proteinuria with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and more hematologic toxicities in both chemotherapy groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not associated with improved survival when compared with re-challenge PT in patients with a platinum-free interval of over 6 months. Re-challenge PT remains a valid option for PT-treated, recurrent, or advanced ECs, especially in patients with a substantially long platinum-free interval.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"23 1","pages":"160"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11909920/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03989-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab has demonstrated improved survival compared with doxorubicin or paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancers (ECs). However, response rates to monotherapy are poor in recurrent settings. Herein, we performed a retrospective analysis using real-world data to compare the outcomes of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, carboplatin plus paclitaxel (PT), and doxorubicin for patients with PT-pretreated, advanced, or recurrent ECs.

Methods: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis using de-identified electronic health record database (TriNetX) to compare lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, carboplatin plus paclitaxel (PT), and doxorubicin outcomes in patients with PT-pretreated, advanced, or recurrent ECs. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted. The primary outcome was the overall survival (OS) among treatment groups. The secondary outcome was the adverse event profile.

Results: Between January 2012 and September 2023, we identified 397 patients with PT-treated, advanced, or recurrent ECs who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and 469 patients receiving PT at a platinum-free interval of over 6 months. Following PSM, no significant difference in median OS was observed between the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and re-challenge PT groups (19.1 vs. 18.5 months, p = 0.60; hazard ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.46). However, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provided better survival benefits than doxorubicin. Adverse event analysis showed more hypothyroidism, hypertension, and proteinuria with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, and more hematologic toxicities in both chemotherapy groups.

Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not associated with improved survival when compared with re-challenge PT in patients with a platinum-free interval of over 6 months. Re-challenge PT remains a valid option for PT-treated, recurrent, or advanced ECs, especially in patients with a substantially long platinum-free interval.

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
Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab与卡铂+紫杉醇治疗卡铂和紫杉醇预处理、复发或晚期子宫内膜癌的比较
背景:Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab在晚期或复发性子宫内膜癌(ECs)患者中,与阿霉素或紫杉醇单药治疗相比,已证明可提高生存率。然而,在复发的情况下,单药治疗的有效率很差。在此,我们使用真实世界的数据进行了回顾性分析,比较lenvatinib联合派姆单抗、卡铂联合紫杉醇(PT)和阿霉素治疗PT预处理、晚期或复发性ECs患者的结果。方法:我们使用去识别电子健康记录数据库(TriNetX)进行了一项多机构回顾性分析,比较lenvatinib + pembrolizumab,卡铂+紫杉醇(PT)和阿霉素在PT预处理,晚期或复发ECs患者中的结果。进行了1:1的倾向评分匹配(PSM)。主要终点是各治疗组的总生存期(OS)。次要结局是不良事件概况。结果:在2012年1月至2023年9月期间,我们确定了397例接受PT治疗的晚期或复发ECs患者接受lenvatinib + pembrolizumab治疗,469例患者在无铂间隔超过6个月的时间内接受PT治疗。PSM后,lenvatinib + pembrolizumab组和再攻PT组的中位OS无显著差异(19.1个月vs 18.5个月,p = 0.60;风险比:1.08,95%可信区间0.81-1.46)。然而,lenvatinib + pembrolizumab比阿霉素提供更好的生存益处。不良事件分析显示lenvatinib + pembrolizumab组有更多的甲状腺功能减退、高血压和蛋白尿,两个化疗组有更多的血液学毒性。结论:与无铂间隔超过6个月的患者相比,Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab与生存率的提高无关。对于接受过PT治疗的复发性或晚期ECs,尤其是无铂间隔时间较长的患者,再激发PT仍然是一种有效的选择。
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
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
期刊最新文献
Is liquid biopsy a cost-effective method to diagnose Burkitt Lymphoma in children and young adults? A health economic evaluation in Tanzania. The Trial Bank initiative to promote trustworthy living evidence for medication safety (PROMISE) of children: design and pilot validation. The influence of immunohistochemistry-based subtypes on overall survival in breast cancer spine metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Correction: Brain state dynamics and working memory in patients with schizophrenia and unaffected siblings. ADHD and adherence to antihypertensive medication treatment: a multinational cohort study.
×
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