Treatment outcomes and prognosis of immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy in patients with advanced thymic carcinoma: A multicentre retrospective study

IF 7.6 1区医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY

European Journal of Cancer Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2022.06.059

Wenxian Wang , Gen Lin , Yue Hao , Yelan Guan , Yuxin Zhang , Chunwei Xu , Qian Wang , Dong Wang , Zhansheng Jiang , Jing Cai , Guangyuan Lou , Zhengbo Song , Yongchang Zhang

{"title":"Treatment outcomes and prognosis of immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy in patients with advanced thymic carcinoma: A multicentre retrospective study","authors":"Wenxian Wang , Gen Lin , Yue Hao , Yelan Guan , Yuxin Zhang , Chunwei Xu , Qian Wang , Dong Wang , Zhansheng Jiang , Jing Cai , Guangyuan Lou , Zhengbo Song , Yongchang Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.ejca.2022.06.059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>Immunotherapy has demonstrated good efficacy and survival outcomes in </span>solid tumours<span><span>. However, efficacy data for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced </span>thymic carcinoma are lacking. The present study aimed to assess the activity of ICIs in advanced thymic carcinoma.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A multicentre retrospective study was conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of ICIs for advanced thymic carcinoma. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were analysed. In addition, factors independently associated with treatment efficacy and survival outcomes were evaluated.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>A total of 77 patients with advanced thymic carcinoma were enrolled between March 2016 and September 2021. The ORR was existing the difference between ICIs monotherapy<span> (n = 23) and ICIs combined with chemotherapy (n = 54) (17.4% versus 44.4%, P = 0.024). The ICIs combination treatments were associated with better median PFS (mPFS) compared to ICIs monotherapy (12.7 months versus 2.1 months, P < 0.001). Notably, liver or brain metastasis was a poor </span></span>prognostic factor of mPFS (1.8 months versus 3.5 months, P = 0.012) in the ICIs monotherapy group. In addition, mPFS for the first-line treatment (n = 27) was longer than that for ICIs as the second- or posterior-line treatment (n = 50) (P < 0.001). The incidence of irAEs was 54.5% (42/77) in the 77 enrolled patients. The incidence of grade 3–4 irAE was 15.6% (12/77).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Immunotherapy is effective in advanced thymic carcinoma, especially for combination with chemotherapy showed promising antitumour activity, which indicates worthy of combination treatment strategy for further study. IrAEs also require close monitoring and management.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11980,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Cancer","volume":"174 ","pages":"Pages 21-30"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804922004117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background

Immunotherapy has demonstrated good efficacy and survival outcomes in solid tumours. However, efficacy data for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced thymic carcinoma are lacking. The present study aimed to assess the activity of ICIs in advanced thymic carcinoma.

Methods

A multicentre retrospective study was conducted to explore the efficacy and safety of ICIs for advanced thymic carcinoma. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were analysed. In addition, factors independently associated with treatment efficacy and survival outcomes were evaluated.

Results

A total of 77 patients with advanced thymic carcinoma were enrolled between March 2016 and September 2021. The ORR was existing the difference between ICIs monotherapy (n = 23) and ICIs combined with chemotherapy (n = 54) (17.4% versus 44.4%, P = 0.024). The ICIs combination treatments were associated with better median PFS (mPFS) compared to ICIs monotherapy (12.7 months versus 2.1 months, P < 0.001). Notably, liver or brain metastasis was a poor prognostic factor of mPFS (1.8 months versus 3.5 months, P = 0.012) in the ICIs monotherapy group. In addition, mPFS for the first-line treatment (n = 27) was longer than that for ICIs as the second- or posterior-line treatment (n = 50) (P < 0.001). The incidence of irAEs was 54.5% (42/77) in the 77 enrolled patients. The incidence of grade 3–4 irAE was 15.6% (12/77).

Conclusions

Immunotherapy is effective in advanced thymic carcinoma, especially for combination with chemotherapy showed promising antitumour activity, which indicates worthy of combination treatment strategy for further study. IrAEs also require close monitoring and management.

查看原文本刊更多论文

免疫检查点抑制剂治疗晚期胸腺癌患者的治疗结果和预后:一项多中心回顾性研究

背景免疫疗法在实体肿瘤中已被证明具有良好的疗效和生存预后。然而，免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)在晚期胸腺癌中的疗效数据缺乏。本研究旨在评估晚期胸腺癌中ICIs的活性。方法通过多中心回顾性研究，探讨ICIs治疗晚期胸腺癌的疗效和安全性。分析客观缓解率(ORR)、无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期和免疫相关不良事件(irAEs)。此外，还评估了与治疗疗效和生存结果独立相关的因素。结果2016年3月至2021年9月共纳入77例晚期胸腺癌患者。ICIs单药治疗(n = 23)与ICIs联合化疗(n = 54)的ORR存在差异(17.4% vs 44.4%， P = 0.024)。与ICIs单药治疗相比，ICIs联合治疗与更好的中位PFS (mPFS)相关(12.7个月对2.1个月，P <0.001)。值得注意的是，肝或脑转移是单药治疗组mPFS的不良预后因素(1.8个月对3.5个月，P = 0.012)。此外，一线治疗(n = 27)的mPFS长于二线或后线治疗(n = 50) (P <0.001)。在入选的77例患者中，irae的发生率为54.5%(42/77)。3-4级irAE发生率为15.6%(12/77)。结论免疫治疗对晚期胸腺癌有效，特别是联合化疗具有良好的抗肿瘤活性，值得进一步研究联合治疗策略。经济评估也需要密切监测和管理。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Cancer 医学-肿瘤学

CiteScore

11.50

自引率

4.80%

发文量

953

审稿时长

23 days

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Cancer (EJC) serves as a comprehensive platform integrating preclinical, digital, translational, and clinical research across the spectrum of cancer. From epidemiology, carcinogenesis, and biology to groundbreaking innovations in cancer treatment and patient care, the journal covers a wide array of topics. We publish original research, reviews, previews, editorial comments, and correspondence, fostering dialogue and advancement in the fight against cancer. Join us in our mission to drive progress and improve outcomes in cancer research and patient care.