Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatment beyond progression with prior immunotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study

Continuous immunotherapy beyond disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell and small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The benefits of continuing immunotherapy beyond disease progression in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) remain uncertain, along with the specific patient subgroups that may gain the most from this approach. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the efficacy of this approach and identify target patient populations likely to benefit.

METHODS

We collected data from patients with NSCLC and SCLC who experienced disease progression following initial immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients were categorized based on second-line treatment: those receiving immunotherapy beyond progression (IBP) and those receiving non-immunotherapy beyond progression (NIBP). Survival outcomes and treatment safety were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included, with 111 NSCLC patients (IBP: n = 78, NIBP: n = 33) and 39 SCLC patients (IBP: n = 31, NIBP: n = 8). Significant differences in median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were found in patients with driver gene-negative NSCLC (mPFS: 4.7 vs 1.3 months, HR = 0.29, P < 0.01; mOS: 11.03 vs 2.63 months, HR = 0.13, P < 0.001) and SCLC (mPFS: 3.9 vs 2.1 months, HR = 0.38, P = 0.02; mOS: 9.28 vs 2.27 months, HR = 0.23, P < 0.01). Additionally, among driver gene-negative NSCLC patients, achieving a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) during initial immunotherapy was associated with improved effectiveness of continued immunotherapy beyond progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Continued immunotherapy as a second-line treatment may benefit patients with driver gene-negative NSCLC and SCLC who have progressed after initial immunotherapy.

Immunotherapy beyond progression following first‑line chemotherapy plus immunotherapy in advanced non‑small cell lung cancer: A retrospective study

Immunotherapy has paved the way for new treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, for patients who have progressed following first-line immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy, little is known about the benefits of the continuation of immunotherapy. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy beyond progression (IBP) in patients with advanced NSCLC. A retrospective review of patients with advanced NSCLC who experienced disease progression after receiving a combination of ICIs and chemotherapy was conducted. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times, and log-rank tests were employed to compare inter-group differences. Cox regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with OS and PFS. In total, 136 patients who had disease progression after prior immunotherapy were included. A comparison of patients who were treated with ICIs after disease progression (IBP group) and those who received other treatments (non-IBP group) demonstrated a higher disease control rate after second-line treatment for the IBP group (89.8 vs. 70.8%, respectively; P=0.005). Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed statistical differences in PFS2 (interval from the second-line treatment to progression or death for any reason; P=0.012) and OS (P=0.041). Subgroup analyses indicated superior clinical outcomes for the IBP group. Multivariate analyses revealed IBP to be an independent factor associated with improved PFS2 (hazard ratio, 0.613; 95% confidence interval, 0.403-0.933; P=0.022). In conclusion, favorable clinical outcomes for IBP were observed, and IBP remains a viable choice for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Continuation of same programmed death-1 inhibitor regime beyond progression is a novel option for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer is a significant global malignancy with poor prognosis. Although the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) prolonged the duration of survival, resistance and progression are inevitable. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors in immunotherapy beyond progression (IBP).

METHOD

We divided the advanced gastric cancer patients who received two lines immunotherapy into same regimen group (with same PD-1 inhibitor regime after IBP) and different regimen group (with different PD-1 inhibitor regime after IBP). Statistical analysis conducted to compare patient characteristics and evaluate survival differences between groups.

RESULT

The clinical outcome analysis showed that the same PD-1 inhibitor regime seemed to exhibit a higher disease control rate (DCR) (51.8% vs. 29.2%, P = 0.062), significantly prolonged progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) (162 vs. 75 days, P = 0.001) and overall survival (OS) (312 vs. 166 days, P = 0.022) when compared with those of cross line. In the multivariate analysis, when using different regimen group as reference, the same regimen group was found to be independently associated with improved PFS2 [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.467, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.267-0.816, P = 0.008] and OS (HR = 0.508, 95%CI: 0.278-0.927, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Continuation of the same type of PD-1 inhibitor regime in IBP shows clinical benefits and represents a promising therapeutic approach.

The prognostic factors of clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving subsequent treatments after progression on initial immunotherapy

Background

The standard of care for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who encounter progression on initial immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) based treatment is uncertain. In the real world, there are various subsequent treatment options, but how to find the most suitable treatment for different patients is still unknown. The present study aimed to explore prognostic factors of subsequent treatment after progression (STAP) (defined as the next treatment after progression from the initial immunotherapy) of initial immunotherapy.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, NSCLC patients received regimens after progression of initial immunotherapy at Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University, between March 2016 and May 2023 were retrieved. The major efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival 2 (PFS2), defined as the time from the initiation of next treatment after initial immunotherapy failure to disease progression or death from any cause. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to baseline characteristics, some subsequent regimens beyond progression, etc. for prognostic factors exploration. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis.

Results

There were 176 patients enrolled. Median age was 64 years. There were 36 (20.5%) females, and 123 (69.9%) were smokers. Adenocarcinoma (99, 56.2%) was the major histological subtype. There were 95 (54.0%) patients with negative expression for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). After progressive disease, 92 (52.3%) patients reused ICI-based treatment after progressive disease. Median PFS2 was 3.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8-4.4]. Longer PFS2 was observed in patients with PD-L1 positive expression [hazard ratio (HR) =0.672, 95% CI: 0.477-0.947, P=0.023] or PFS ≥6 months in initial immunotherapy (HR =0.543, 95% CI: 0.358-0.824, P=0.004). Besides, patients switching to new ICI-based treatments without radiotherapy gained better PFS2 compared with patients receiving prior regimens (P=0.019).

Conclusions

PD-L1 positive expression, and longer PFS in initial immunotherapy would be good prognostic factors for NSCLC patients undergoing STAP on first immunotherapy. Besides, compared with original regimen, changing ICI would prolong PFS2 for NSCLC patients reusing ICI.

Application of combined ablation and immunotherapy in NSCLC and liver cancer: Current status and future prospects

This review examines combining tumor ablation therapy with immunotherapy for respiratory and digestive system tumors, particularly NSCLC and liver cancer. Despite advancements in traditional methods, they face limitations in advanced-stage tumors. Ablation techniques like RFA, MWA, and cryoablation offer minimally invasive options, while immune checkpoint inhibitors enhance the immune system's tumor-fighting ability. This review highlights their synergistic effects, clinical outcomes, and future research directions, including optimizing protocols, exploring new combinations, uncovering molecular mechanisms, advancing precision medicine, and improving accessibility. Combined therapy is expected to improve efficacy and patient outcomes significantly.

Sacituzumab Govitecan Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Randomized, Open-Label Phase III EVOKE-01 Study

PURPOSE

The open-label, phase III EVOKE-01 study evaluated sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus standard-of-care docetaxel in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with progression on/after platinum-based chemotherapy, anti-PD-(L)1, and targeted treatment for actionable genomic alterations (AGAs). Primary analysis is reported.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by histology, best response to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen, and AGA treatment received or not) to SG (one 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) or docetaxel (one 75 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on day 1) in 21-day cycles. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Key secondary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, patient-reported symptom assessment, and safety.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat population (SG, n = 299; docetaxel, n = 304), 55.4% had one previous line of therapy. Median follow-up was 12.7 months (range, 6.0-24.0). The primary end point was not met. There was a numerical OS improvement for SG versus docetaxel (median, 11.1 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .0534), consistent across squamous and nonsquamous histologies. Median PFS was 4.1 versus 3.9 months (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.11]). An OS benefit was observed for SG (n = 192) versus docetaxel (n = 191) in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen (3.5-month median OS increase; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97]); this was consistent across histologies. Among patients receiving SG and docetaxel, 6.8% and 14.2% discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), respectively; 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, had TRAEs leading to death.

CONCLUSION

Although statistical significance was not met, OS numerically improved with SG versus docetaxel, which was consistent across histologies. Clinically meaningful improvement in OS was noted in mNSCLC nonresponsive to last anti-PD-(L)1-containing regimen. SG was better tolerated than docetaxel and consistent with its known safety profile, with no new safety signals.

Continuation of immunotherapy beyond progression is beneficial to the survival of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the potential clinical importance of continuing immunotherapy beyond progression in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

METHODS

The data of patients with aNSCLC who experienced progressive disease after receiving first-line immunotherapy plus chemotherapy were collected from multiple centers for the period from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2022. According to the second-line treatment, the patients were classified into two groups: the continuation of immunotherapy beyond progression (CIBP) group and the discontinuation of immunotherapy beyond progression (DIBP) group. The efficacy and safety of the treatment were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, data from 169 patients were analyzed; 93 patients were enrolled in the CIBP group and 76 patients were in the DIBP group. The median second-line progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the CIBP group, which for the DIBP group was 3.4 (p = 0.011). The median overall survival of the CIBP group was 13.3 months, whereas that of the DIBP group was 8.8 months (p = 0.031). The disease control rate of the CIBP group (79.57%) was observably higher than that of the DIBP group (64.47%; p = 0.028). Among patients who responded better (complete or partial response) to prior therapy, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and 3.3 months in the CIBP and DIBP groups respectively (p = 0.022), and the median overall survival was 14.8 months and 8.8 months in the CIBP and DIBP groups respectively (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing immunotherapy as a second-line treatment could be beneficial to the survival of patients with aNSCLC with disease progression beyond initial chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatment beyond progression with prior immunotherapy in patients with driver-gene negative advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

No definite conclusion has yet to be reached for immunotherapy beyond progression(IBP) of first-line immunotherapy as the second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC patients with negative driver genes. Therefore a retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IBP in this population and investigated whether the cycles best response and progressive mode of first-line immunotherapy could affect the results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical data of patients with advanced NSCLC whose response was evaluated as progressive disease (PD) after receiving a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line therapy were retrospectively collected and the patients were assigned to the IBP and non-IBP groups. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated between the two groups. The survival effects of cycles best response and progressive mode of first-line immunotherapy were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Between January 2019 and January 2022, a total of 121 patients was evaluated as PD after first-line immunotherapy in our institution; 53 (43.8%) patients were included in the IBP group and 68 (56.2%) patients were included in the non-IBP group. The OS and PFS were no significantly different between the two groups in whole population. Further analysis revealed the OS was prolonged with the prolongation of first-line medication cycle. The median OS was 15.4m (15.4 vs 10.8 p=0.047) 16.1m (16.1 vs 10.8 p=0.039), 16.3m (16.3 vs 10.9 p=0.029) for patients with ≥4, ≥6, ≥8 cycles in first-line immunotherapy, respectively. The advantages of OS and PFS were also seen in the subgroup of PR (best response) and oligo progression of first-line immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcomes of IBP were similar to those of non-IBP in patients with PD after first-line immnuotherapy in advanced NSCLC. But more cycles, PR as best response and oligo progression in first-line was benefit.

Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study

We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study included 111 patients who had previously received ICI therapy and experienced disease progression. The primary endpoints assessed were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Our findings revealed that the ICI rechallenge showed promising results in improving patient outcomes. OS (r) is the time from rechallenging with immune checkpoint inhibitors to the last follow-up or death from any cause. The median OS (r) was 14.3 months (95% CI 11.3-17.3 months), with a median PFS (r) of 5.9 months (95% CI 4.1-7.7 months). The ORR was 17.1%; the DCR was 82.3%. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients without brain or liver metastases had a longer OS (r) compared to those with metastases (21.6 vs. 13.8 months, χ2 = 3.873, P = 0.046; 20.8 vs. 9.1 months, χ2 = 10.733, P = 0.001, respectively). Moreover, patients without driver gene mutations exhibited significantly longer OS than those with mutations or wild-type patients (22.9 vs. 16.1 vs. 7.5 months, χ2 = 10.710, P = 0.005). Notably, patients who switched to a different ICI during the rechallenge had shorter OS than those who did not change medications (10.4 vs. 21.1 months, χ2 = 9.014, P = 0.003). The incidence of immune-related adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatment phases. These findings suggest that ICI rechallenge may be a viable therapeutic strategy for select NSCLC patients. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these results and guide treatment decisions for advanced NSCLC.

Genome-wide Analysis Identified SEMA4D, Novel Candidate Gene for Temperature Sensitivity in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the era of precision medicine, individual temperature sensitivity has been highlighted. This trait has traditionally been used for cold-heat pattern identification to understand the inherent physical characteristics, which are influenced by genetic factors, of an individual. However, genome-wide association studies (GWASs) on this trait are limited.

METHODS

Using genotype data from 90 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, we performed a GWAS to assess the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and temperature sensitivity, such as cold and heat scores. The score of each participant was evaluated using self-administered questionnaires on common symptoms and a 15-item symptom-based cold-heat pattern identification questionnaire.

RESULTS

The GWAS was adjusted for confounding factors, including age and sex, and significant associations were identified for cold and heat scores: SNP rs145814326, located on the intron of SORCS2 at chromosome 4p16.1, had a P-value of 1.86 × 10-7; and SNP rs79297667, located upstream from SEMA4D at chromosome 9q22.2, had a P-value of 8.97 × 10-8. We also found that the genetic variant regulates the expression level of SEMA4D in the main tissues, including the lungs and white blood cells, in NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMA4D was found to be significantly associated with temperature sensitivity in patients with NSCLC, suggesting an increased expression of SEMA4D in patients with higher heat scores. The potential role of temperature sensitivity as a prognostic or predictive marker of immune response in NSCLC should be further studied.

Future Perspectives in the Second Line Therapeutic Setting for Non-Oncogene Addicted Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the management of non-oncogene addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Blocking the anti-PD-1 axis represents the current standard of care in the first-line setting, with drugs administered either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. Despite notable successes achieved with ICIs, most of their long-term benefits are restricted to approximately 20% of patients. Consequently, the post-failure treatment landscape after failure to first-line treatment remains a complex challenge. Currently, docetaxel remains the preferred option, although its benefits remain modest as most patients do not respond or progress promptly. In recent times, novel agents and treatment combinations have emerged, offering fresh opportunities to improve patient outcomes. ICIs combined either with antiangiogenic or other novel immunotherapeutic compounds have shown promising preliminary activity. However, more mature data concerning specific combinations do not support their benefit over standard of care. In addition, antibody-drug conjugates seem to be the most promising alternative among all available compounds according to already-published phase I/II data that will be confirmed in soon-to-be-published phase III trial data. In this report, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current second-line treatment options and discuss future therapeutic perspectives.

Research progress of biomarkers in the prediction of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapeutic efficiency in lung cancer

Currently, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors is widely used in the treatment of multiple cancer types including lung cancer, which is a leading cause of cancer death in the world. However, only a limited proportion of lung cancer patients will benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Therefore, it is of importance to predict the response to immunotherapy for the precision treatment of patients. Although the expression of PD-L1 and tumor mutation burden (TMB) are commonly used to predict the clinical response of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, other factors such as tumor-specific genes, dMMR/MSI, and gut microbiome are also promising predictors for immunotherapy in lung cancer. Furthermore, invasive peripheral blood biomarkers including blood DNA-related biomarkers (e.g., ctDNA and bTMB), blood cell-related biomarkers (e.g., immune cells and TCR), and other blood-related biomarkers (e.g., soluble PD-L1 and cytokines) were utilized to predict the immunotherapeutic response. In this review, the current achievements of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy and the potential biomarkers for the prediction of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment were summarized and discussed.

[Advances of Immunotherapy Resistance and Coping Strategies in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer]

Immunotherapy has significantly improved clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however, along with the popularization of immunotherapy, immune resistance has become an unavoidable problem. Immunotherapy can induce extensive cellular and molecular alterations in the tumor microenvironment. Considering the mechanisms of immune resistance are not yet fully understood and the efficacy of standard chemotherapy regimens is limited, more effective coping strategies based on resistance mechanisms are urgently needed. In this review, we intend to summarize the known mechanisms of immune resistance and feasible strategies, so as to provide a foundation for clinicians to develop more individualized and precise regimens and finally improve patients' prognosis.
.