Comparative Effectiveness of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in PD-L1 Negative Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Marjon V Verschueren, Dagmar T A Hiensch, Peter M J Plomp, Lisanne A Kastelijn, Ewoudt M W van de Garde, Bas J M Peters
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in PD-L1 Negative Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.","authors":"Marjon V Verschueren, Dagmar T A Hiensch, Peter M J Plomp, Lisanne A Kastelijn, Ewoudt M W van de Garde, Bas J M Peters","doi":"10.1016/j.cllc.2025.01.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, the combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab and chemotherapy (NIC) became available for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients, introducing a new treatment option. This study aimed to compare the treatment response and real-world outcomes of NIC with the current standard of care pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC) in PD-L1 negative mNSCLC patients treated in clinical practice and to compare these outcomes with the results of the Checkmate-9LA trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All mNSCLC patients with PD-L1<1% treated with NIC or PC at 2 large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between 2019 and 2023 were included. The objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment characteristics of patients treated with NIC were compared to those of patients treated with PC. Additionally, the real-world outcomes of NIC were compared to the results from the CheckMate 9LA trial. A multivariate Cox regression was used to calculate PFS hazard ratios (HR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PD-L1 negative mNSCLC patients treated with NIC had a higher ORR than those treated with PC (41% versus 27%, P = .08). The PFS was slightly longer for patients treated with NIC versus PC (5.5 vs. 4.5 months, aHR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.59-1.58]), although not statistically significant. The treatment discontinuation rates were comparable between the real-world NIC and PC cohorts (72% vs. 68%), mostly due to disease progression (67% vs. 64%). The outcomes for patients treated with NIC in clinical practice were comparable to the Checkmate-9LA trial.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For mNSCLC patients with <1% PD-L1 expression, the treatment responses to NIC were numerically better than to PC. Larger cohorts with longer follow-up periods and overall survival endpoints are needed to further establish the role of NIC in PD-L1 negative patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":10490,"journal":{"name":"Clinical lung cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical lung cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2025.01.009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recently, the combination of nivolumab, ipilimumab and chemotherapy (NIC) became available for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients, introducing a new treatment option. This study aimed to compare the treatment response and real-world outcomes of NIC with the current standard of care pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC) in PD-L1 negative mNSCLC patients treated in clinical practice and to compare these outcomes with the results of the Checkmate-9LA trial.

Methods: All mNSCLC patients with PD-L1<1% treated with NIC or PC at 2 large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between 2019 and 2023 were included. The objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment characteristics of patients treated with NIC were compared to those of patients treated with PC. Additionally, the real-world outcomes of NIC were compared to the results from the CheckMate 9LA trial. A multivariate Cox regression was used to calculate PFS hazard ratios (HR).

Results: PD-L1 negative mNSCLC patients treated with NIC had a higher ORR than those treated with PC (41% versus 27%, P = .08). The PFS was slightly longer for patients treated with NIC versus PC (5.5 vs. 4.5 months, aHR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.59-1.58]), although not statistically significant. The treatment discontinuation rates were comparable between the real-world NIC and PC cohorts (72% vs. 68%), mostly due to disease progression (67% vs. 64%). The outcomes for patients treated with NIC in clinical practice were comparable to the Checkmate-9LA trial.

Conclusion: For mNSCLC patients with <1% PD-L1 expression, the treatment responses to NIC were numerically better than to PC. Larger cohorts with longer follow-up periods and overall survival endpoints are needed to further establish the role of NIC in PD-L1 negative patients.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical lung cancer
Clinical lung cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.80%
发文量
159
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Lung Cancer is a peer-reviewed bimonthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of lung cancer. Clinical Lung Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of lung cancer. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to lung cancer. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信