Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor With or Without Chemotherapy for Non–Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Oncolytic viruses: a promising therapy for malignant pleural effusion and solid tumors

Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are natural or recombinant viruses that can directly lyse tumor cells without damaging normal cells. They enhance anti-tumor immunity by releasing antigens and activating inflammatory responses within the tumor microenvironment (TME). This offers a new therapeutic approach for MPE and solid tumors. This review discusses the progress of OVs administered via intrapleural and intratumoral routes, emphasizing their potential in MPE treatment and the challenges posed by the complex intrapleural environment, which affects the direct interaction between OVs, tumor cells, and immune cells. This review also discusses the regulatory barriers, safety concerns and accessibility of oncolytic virus therapy.

Utility of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel combination for the treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients with malignant pleural effusion

Background

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) remains a negative prognostic factor in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), even after the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of MPE. Bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against VEGF, is a key agent for patients who develop MPE. However, it is unclear whether MPE is a poor prognostic factor in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC receiving treatment with the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ABCP) regimen. Moreover, the effect of ABCP on MPE control is unknown. This study aimed to elucidate the efficacy and safety of ABCP for non-squamous NSCLC patients with MPE.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC who received treatment with ABCP (January 2019-September 2023). Patients were divided into two groups (non-MPE and MPE), and treatment outcomes were compared. In the MPE group, treatment efficacy for MPE control and toxicity were evaluated.

Results

Of the 46 patients enrolled, 17 and 29 were included in the non-MPE and MPE groups, respectively. The objective response and disease control rates were not significantly different between the non-MPE and MPE groups (76.5% vs. 51.7%, P=0.13; 88.2% vs. 82.8%, P>0.99; respectively). Similarly, the median progression-free survival and median overall survival were not significantly different (9.9 vs. 10.1 months, P=0.87; 16.0 vs. 19.9 months, P=0.87, respectively). In the MPE group, 25 patients (86.2%) achieved MPE control lasting >8 weeks from the initiation of treatment with ABCP; the median progression-free survival without an unequivocal increase in MPE was 15.0 months. The incidence rates of grade ≥3 non-immune- and immune-related adverse events were 83% and 17%, respectively. There was no treatment-related death.

Conclusions

The ABCP regimen may be a promising treatment option for non-squamous NSCLC patients with MPE.

Advancing non-small cell lung cancer treatment: the power of combination immunotherapies

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains an unsolved challenge in oncology, signifying a substantial global health burden. While considerable progress has been made in recent years through the emergence of immunotherapy modalities, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), monotherapies often yield limited clinical outcomes. The rationale behind combining various immunotherapeutic or other anticancer agents, the mechanistic underpinnings, and the clinical evidence supporting their utilization is crucial in NSCLC therapy. Regarding the synergistic potential of combination immunotherapies, this study aims to provide insights to help the landscape of NSCLC treatment and improve clinical outcomes. In addition, this review article discusses the challenges and considerations of combination regimens, including toxicity management and patient selection.

Case report: Envafolimab combined with Endostar in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with malignant pleural effusion

Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is one of the common complications of lung cancer. The quality of life and prognoses for MPE patients are significantly compromised. Controlling the production of MPE can relieve patients' symptoms, improve their quality of life, and prolong their survival. This article presents a case of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with MPE and negative driver genes. The patient received envafolimab and Endostar in combination, resulting in a complete reduction of MPE and durable clinical benefits. The exploratory use of this treatment method improved the quality of life of this patient and has the potential to prolong the survival of this patient.

First-line treatment of driver gene-negative metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with malignant pleural effusion: Should chemotherapy be combined with an immune checkpoint inhibitor or bevacizumab?

Patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma (MLA) and malignant pleural effusion (MPE) without driver gene mutations have a poor prognosis. None of the standard treatment strategies is recommended for such patients. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of the first-line treatment for this specific population: standard platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (CT), CT plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor (CT plus ICI), and CT plus bevacizumab (CT plus Bev). A total of 323 eligible patients were enrolled: CT alone (n = 166), CT plus Bev (n = 72), and CT plus ICI (n = 85). Treatment efficacy assessments were performed every two cycles according to the RECIST guidelines. The endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Kaplan-Meier (K‒M) curves and the log-rank test were used to compare OS and PFS. p < 0.05 was the threshold of significance (statistical software: SPSS). The median follow-up was 11.4 months (range, 2.1-49.6 months). PFS and OS in the CT plus ICI/CT plus Bev cohort were significantly longer than those in the CT group (PFS: 7.8/6.4/3.9 months, p < 0.0001; OS: 16.4/15.6/9.6 months, p < 0.0001, respectively). CT plus Bev had better PFS and OS than CT plus ICI/CT in PD-L1 < 1% patients (PFS: 8.4/5.0/3.8 months, p < 0.0001; OS: 15.6/12.9/9.3 months, p < 0.0001). Among patients with PD-L1 1-49%, CT plus ICI led to a longer PFS and OS (PFS: 8.9/5.8/4.2 months, p = 0.009; OS: 24.2/18.8/11.5 months, p = 0.03). In the cohort with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, CT plus ICI was still the best first-line treatment (PFS: 19.7/13.8/9.6 months, p = 0.033; OS: 27.2/19.6/14.9 months, p = 0.047). In driver gene-negative MLA with MPE, CT plus Bev or ICI better controlled MPE and significantly prolonged survival compared to CT alone. PD-L1 expression (negative/positive) may be a key factor influencing the choice of CT plus Bev or ICI.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer with malignant pleural effusion: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) combined with chemotherapy are efficacious for treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the effectiveness of this approach in the malignant pleural effusion (MPE) population is unclear. This study evaluated ICI plus chemotherapy in NSCLC patients with MPE.

METHODS

Patients from 3 centers in China with NSCLC and MPE who received ICI plus chemotherapy (ICI Plus Chemo) or chemotherapy alone (Chemo) between December 2014 and June 2023 were enrolled. Clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) were compared.

RESULTS

Of 155 eligible patients, the median age was 61.0 years old. Males and never-smokers accounted for 73.5% and 39.4%, respectively. Fifty-seven and 98 patients received ICI Plus Chemo or Chemo, respectively. With a median study follow-up of 10.8 months, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer with ICI Plus Chemo than with Chemo (median PFS: 7.4 versus 5.7 months; HR = 0.594 [95% CI: 0.403-0.874], P = 0.008). Median overall survival (OS) did not differ between groups (ICI Plus Chemo: 34.2 versus Chemo: 28.3 months; HR = 0.746 [95% CI: 0.420-1.325], P = 0.317). The most common grade 3 or worse AEs included decreased neutrophil count (3 [5.3%] patients in the ICI Plus Chemo group vs. 5 [5.1%] patients in the Chemo group) and decreased hemoglobin (3 [5.3%] versus 10 [10.2%]).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with untreated NSCLC with MPE, ICI plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer PFS than chemotherapy and had a manageable tolerability profile, but the effect on OS may be limited.

Correlative analysis from a phase I clinical trial of intrapleural administration of oncolytic vaccinia virus (Olvi-vec) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

Background

The attenuated, genetically engineered vaccinia virus has been shown to be a promising oncolytic virus for the treatment of patients with solid tumors, through both direct cytotoxic and immune-activating effects. Whereas systemically administered oncolytic viruses can be neutralized by pre-existing antibodies, locoregionally administered viruses can infect tumor cells and generate immune responses. We conducted a phase I clinical trial to investigate the safety, feasibility and immune activating effects of intrapleural administration of oncolytic vaccinia virus (NCT01766739).

Methods

Eighteen patients with malignant pleural effusion due to either malignant pleural mesothelioma or metastatic disease (non-small cell lung cancer or breast cancer) underwent intrapleural administration of the oncolytic vaccinia virus using a dose-escalating method, following drainage of malignant pleural effusion. The primary objective of this trial was to determine a recommended dose of attenuated vaccinia virus. The secondary objectives were to assess feasibility, safety and tolerability; evaluate viral presence in the tumor and serum as well as viral shedding in pleural fluid, sputum, and urine; and evaluate anti-vaccinia virus immune response. Correlative analyses were performed on body fluids, peripheral blood, and tumor specimens obtained from pre- and post-treatment timepoints.

Results

Treatment with attenuated vaccinia virus at the dose of 1.00E+07 plaque-forming units (PFU) to 6.00E+09 PFU was feasible and safe, with no treatment-associated mortalities or dose-limiting toxicities. Vaccinia virus was detectable in tumor cells 2-5 days post-treatment, and treatment was associated with a decrease in tumor cell density and an increase in immune cell density as assessed by a pathologist blinded to the clinical observations. An increase in both effector (CD8+, NK, cytotoxic cells) and suppressor (Tregs) immune cell populations was observed following treatment. Dendritic cell and neutrophil populations were also increased, and immune effector and immune checkpoint proteins (granzyme B, perforin, PD-1, PD-L1, and PD-L2) and cytokines (IFN-γ, TNF-α, TGFβ1 and RANTES) were upregulated.

Conclusion

The intrapleural administration of oncolytic vaccinia viral therapy is safe and feasible and generates regional immune response without overt systemic symptoms.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01766739, identifier NCT01766739.

Choosing the optimal immunotherapeutic strategies for non-small cell lung cancer based on clinical factors

The treatment landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has changed dramatically since the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Although some patients achieve long survival with relatively mild toxicities, not all patients experience such benefits from ICI treatment. There are several ways to use ICIs in NSCLC patients, including monotherapy, combination immunotherapy, and combination chemoimmunotherapy. Decision-making in the selection of an ICI treatment regimen for NSCLC is complicated partly because of the absence of head-to-head prospective comparisons. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is currently considered a standard biomarker for predicting the efficacy of ICIs, although some limitations exist. In addition to the PD-L1 tumor proportion score, many other clinical factors should also be considered to determine the optimal treatment strategy for each patient, including age, performance status, histological subtypes, comorbidities, status of oncogenic driver mutation, and metastatic sites. Nevertheless, evidence of the efficacy and safety of ICIs with some specific conditions of these factors is insufficient. Indeed, patients with poor performance status, oncogenic driver mutations, or interstitial lung disease have frequently been set as ineligible in randomized clinical trials of NSCLC. ICI use in these patients is controversial and remains to be discussed. It is important to select patients for whom ICIs can benefit the most from these populations. In this article, we review previous reports of clinical trials or experience in using ICIs in NSCLC, focusing on several clinical factors that are associated with treatment outcomes, and then discuss the optimal ICI treatment strategies for NSCLC.