Duration of nivolumab for pretreated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

What is the optimal duration of immune checkpoint inhibitors in malignant tumors?

Immunotherapy, represented by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has made a revolutionary difference in the treatment of malignant tumors, and considerably extended patients' overall survival (OS). In the world medical profession, however, there still reaches no clear consensus on the optimal duration of ICIs therapy. As reported, immunotherapy response patterns, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and tumor stages are all related to the diversity of ICIs duration in previous researches. Besides, there lacks clear clinical guidance on the intermittent or continuous use of ICIs. This review aims to discuss the optimal duration of ICIs, hoping to help guide clinical work based on the literature.

Immune checkpoint-targeted antibodies: a room for dose and schedule optimization?

Anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies that do not target cancer cells but are designed to reactivate or promote antitumor immunity. Dosing and scheduling of these biologics were established according to conventional drug development models, even though the determination of a maximum tolerated dose in the clinic could only be defined for anti-CTLA-4. Given the pharmacology of these monoclonal antibodies, their high interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, the actual clinical benefit as monotherapy that is observed only in a specific subset of patients, and the substantial cost of these treatments, a number of questions arise regarding the selected dose and the dosing interval. This review aims to outline the development of these immunotherapies and considers optimization options that could be used in clinical practice.

Response Prediction and Evaluation Using PET in Patients with Solid Tumors Treated with Immunotherapy

Simple Summary

In cancer treatment, immunotherapy is increasingly becoming important as a component of first-line treatment and has improved the prognosis of patients since its introduction. A large group of patients, however, do not respond to immunotherapy, and predicting a treatment response remains challenging. Furthermore, evaluating a response using conventional computed tomography (CT) scans is not straightforward due to the different mechanism of action of immunotherapy compared to chemotherapy. This review provides an overview of positron emission tomography (PET) in predicting and evaluating treatment response to immunotherapy.

Abstract

In multiple malignancies, checkpoint inhibitor therapy has an established role in the first-line treatment setting. However, only a subset of patients benefit from checkpoint inhibition, and as a result, the field of biomarker research is active. Molecular imaging with the use of positron emission tomography (PET) is one of the biomarkers that is being studied. PET tracers such as conventional ¹⁸F-FDG but also PD-(L)1 directed tracers are being evaluated for their predictive power. Furthermore, the use of artificial intelligence is under evaluation for the purpose of response prediction. Response evaluation during checkpoint inhibitor therapy can be challenging due to the different response patterns that can be observed compared to traditional chemotherapy. The additional information provided by PET can potentially be of value to evaluate a response early after the start of treatment and provide the clinician with important information about the efficacy of immunotherapy. Furthermore, the use of PET to stratify between patients with a complete response and those with a residual disease can potentially guide clinicians to identify patients for which immunotherapy can be discontinued and patients for whom the treatment needs to be escalated. This review provides an overview of the use of positron emission tomography (PET) to predict and evaluate treatment response to immunotherapy.

Complete response of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung following treatment with pembrolizumab in an elderly patient: A case report

Complete response of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy is rare. Here, we encountered an elderly patient who showed complete response of NSCLC following treatment with pembrolizumab. An 84‐year‐old man with a history of bloody sputum for several weeks visited a general physician. At that time, a chest X‐ray revealed a tumor shadow in the left middle lung field, and the patient was referred to our hospital. Following transbronchial biopsy, he was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) in tumor cells was 80% or more by immunostaining. Based on the above, immunotherapy with pembrolizumab was performed as first‐line therapy. The cancer cells completely disappeared at the end of the fifth cycle. There were no side effects during the therapeutic course. Treatment with pembrolizumab continued for two years and was then discontinued at the patient's request. Since then, no tumor recurrence has been detected for about one and a half years without treatment. There have been few reports of lung cancer disappearing after treatment with pembrolizumab. In conclusion, in elderly NSCLC patients with PD‐L1 expression of 50% or more, pembrolizumab should be considered as first‐line treatment with the treatment period, and mechanism suggested in this report.

Duration of nivolumab for pretreated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

A standard of care for pretreated, advanced non–small‐cell lung cancers (NSCLCs), nivolumab has demonstrated long‐term benefit when administered for 2 years. We aimed to better discern an optimized administration duration by retrospectively analyzing real‐life long‐term efficacy in a prospective cohort.

Methods

All nivolumab‐treated adults with advanced NSCLCs (01/09/2015 to 30/09/2016) from nine French centers were eligible. On 31/12/2018, patients who are alive ≥ 2 years after starting nivolumab were defined as long‐term survivors (LTSs) and were divided into three nivolumab treatment groups: <2, 2, or > 2 years. Co‐primary endpoints were LTSs’ progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

The median follow‐up was 32 months (95% CI, 31.0 to 34.0). The 3‐year OS rate for the 259 cohort patients was 16.6%. Among them, 65 were LTSs: 47 treated < 2 years, 7 for 2 years, and 11 > 2 years. Their respective characteristics were: median age: 59, 52, and 58 years; smoking history: 92.9, 100, and 100%; adenocarcinomas: 66, 57.1, and 54.5%. LTSs’ median (m)PFS was 28.4 months; mOS was not reached. LTSs’ objective response rate was 61.6%. mOS was 32.7 months for those treated < 2 years and not reached for the others. The > 2‐year group's 3‐year OS was longer. Twenty‐eight LTSs experienced no disease progression; 7 had durable complete responses. However, LTSs had more frequent and more severe adverse events.

Conclusion

In real‐life, prolonged nivolumab use provided long‐term benefit with 16.6% 3‐year OS and 25% LTSs. Survival tended to be prolonged with nivolumab continued beyond 2 years. Prospective randomized trials with adequate design are needed.