Nivolumab treatment beyond progressive disease in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Expanding the applications of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced lung cancer beyond disease progression

Background

Immunotherapy, particularly the utilization of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), assumes a pivotal role in the comprehensive management of advanced lung cancer. There has been substantial deliberation regarding the appropriateness of extending ICIs treatment beyond the point of disease progression. This study delves into the potential benefits of sustained utilization of ICIs subsequent to disease progression in patients.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 248 patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer who received treatment with ICIs. The study population comprised 99 patients in the treatment beyond progression (TBP) group and 42 patients in the non-treatment beyond progression (NTBP) group. Parameters including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were assessed. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was employed to analyze prognostic factors related to immunotherapy.

Results

Patients undergoing primary treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibited a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.3 months. In the context of disease progression, a comparison between the TBP and NTBP groups was performed with respect to mPFS. The results demonstrated that the TBP group manifested an mPFS of 8.6 months, contrasting with the NTBP group's mPFS of 4.0 months (p=0.028). The mean overall survival (mOS) in the TBP group exhibited a statistically significant increase in comparison to the NTBP group (14.1 months vs. 6.0 months, p=0.028). Evaluation of the objective response rate (ORR) between the TBP and NTBP groups revealed a substantial distinction. The TBP group displayed an ORR of 12.1%, while the NTBP group exhibited a lower ORR of 2.4%. The statistical analysis yielded a p-value of 0.068, signifying a notable trend towards significance. The disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed and exhibited a noteworthy variance between the two groups, with a higher DCR of 92.9% in contrast to 71.4% in the control group (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Subsequent to ICIs treatment, a subset of patients may derive continued benefits from anticancer therapy, notwithstanding the progression of their advanced lung cancer.

The benefit of treatment beyond progression with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multi-center retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Treatment beyond progression (TBP) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is an evolving field due to the limitations of conventional imaging in response evaluation. However, real-life data on the benefit of TBP is scarce, especially from the limited resource settings and patients treated in the later lines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the survival benefit of TBP with ICIs in patients with advanced tumors from a limited resource setting.

METHODS

For this multi-center retrospective cohort study, we included 282 patients treated with ICIs and had radiological progression according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. We evaluated post-progression survival according to the use of TBP (TBP and non-TBP groups) with univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The cohort's median age was 61, and 84.4% were treated in the second or later lines. 82 (29.1%) of 282 patients continued on ICIs following the initial progression. In multivariate analyses, patients in the TBP group had improved post-progression survival compared to non-TBP (13.18 vs. 4.63 months, HR: 0.500, 95% CI: 0.349-0.717, p < 0.001). The benefit of the TBP was independent of the tumor type, treatment line, and age. Furthermore, TBP with ICIs remained associated with improved post-progression survival (HR: 0.600, 95% CI: 0.380-0.947, p = 0.028) after excluding the patients with no further treatment after progression in the non-TBP arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that patients receiving ICIs beyond progression had considerably longer survival. Continuation of ICIs after progression should be considered a reasonable management option for patients with advanced cancer, specifically for patients with limited alternative options.

Treatment beyond progression in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Treatment beyond progression (TBP) is defined as treatment continuing in spite of disease progression, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide evidence for the effects of TBP on lung cancer survival.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study has been conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials from the inception of each database to December 2021 was conducted. Two authors independently reviewed articles for inclusion and extract data from all the retrieved articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Hazard ratios (HRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for survival outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified five (15.6%) prospective randomized trials and twenty-seven (84.4%) retrospective observational studies of a total of 9,631 patients for the meta-analysis. 3,941 patients (40.9%) were in a TBP group and 5,690 patients (59.1%) were in a non-TBP group. There is a statistically significant advantage for patients who received TBP compared with those who did not in post progression progression-free survival (ppPFS), post progression overall survival (ppOS), and overall survival (OS) from initiation of drugs (ppPFS: HR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.644-0.865; P<0.001; ppOS: HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.596-0.797; P<0.001; OS from initiation of drugs: HR, 0.515; 95% CI, 0.387-0.685; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence in support of TBP for NSCLC, however, these results require cautious interpretation. Large, randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TBP in lung cancer treatment are warranted.

SYSTEMIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ identifier CRD42021285147.