程序性细胞死亡配体1 (PD-L1)抑制剂与程序性细胞死亡1 (PD-1)抑制剂用于广泛期小细胞肺癌的一线治疗:一项倾向评分匹配研究

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Future oncology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-29 DOI:10.1080/14796694.2025.2562731
Zhuoran Sun, Yingfan Guo, Shuangqing Lu, Jiling Niu, Qinhao Xu, Hui Zhu, Yaru Tian
{"title":"程序性细胞死亡配体1 (PD-L1)抑制剂与程序性细胞死亡1 (PD-1)抑制剂用于广泛期小细胞肺癌的一线治疗:一项倾向评分匹配研究","authors":"Zhuoran Sun, Yingfan Guo, Shuangqing Lu, Jiling Niu, Qinhao Xu, Hui Zhu, Yaru Tian","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2562731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical efficacy and safety differences between PD-L1 inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors remain controversial for ES-SCLC. We conduct the retrospective study and propensity score-matched analysis to explore the potential differences between them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed 736 ES-SCLC patients from three centers treated with EP plus either a PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor. According to PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitors, they were divided into two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1) was performed to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As a result, 485 patients received PD-L1 inhibitors plus EP and 251 received PD-1 inhibitors plus EP. Before PSM, the PD-1 inhibitor group showed a significantly longer PFS (8.26 vs. 7.44 months; HR 1.252, p = 0.007), but no significant OS difference (20.30 vs. 18.85 months; p = 0.337). After PSM, both median OS (22.43 vs. 20.69 months) and PFS (8.23 months for both) were comparable, with no statistical differences (OS: HR 0.938, p = 0.613; PFS: HR 1.008, p = 0.940). Safety profiles were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In conclusion, the overall efficacy and safety profile were similar between PD-L1 inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"3293-3304"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors for the first-line therapy of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study.\",\"authors\":\"Zhuoran Sun, Yingfan Guo, Shuangqing Lu, Jiling Niu, Qinhao Xu, Hui Zhu, Yaru Tian\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14796694.2025.2562731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical efficacy and safety differences between PD-L1 inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors remain controversial for ES-SCLC. We conduct the retrospective study and propensity score-matched analysis to explore the potential differences between them.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed 736 ES-SCLC patients from three centers treated with EP plus either a PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor. According to PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitors, they were divided into two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1) was performed to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As a result, 485 patients received PD-L1 inhibitors plus EP and 251 received PD-1 inhibitors plus EP. Before PSM, the PD-1 inhibitor group showed a significantly longer PFS (8.26 vs. 7.44 months; HR 1.252, p = 0.007), but no significant OS difference (20.30 vs. 18.85 months; p = 0.337). After PSM, both median OS (22.43 vs. 20.69 months) and PFS (8.23 months for both) were comparable, with no statistical differences (OS: HR 0.938, p = 0.613; PFS: HR 1.008, p = 0.940). Safety profiles were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In conclusion, the overall efficacy and safety profile were similar between PD-L1 inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3293-3304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2562731\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2562731","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:PD-L1抑制剂和PD-1抑制剂治疗ES-SCLC的临床疗效和安全性差异仍存在争议。我们通过回顾性研究和倾向评分匹配分析来探讨两者之间的潜在差异。方法:这项回顾性研究分析了来自三个中心的736例ES-SCLC患者,他们接受EP加PD-L1或PD-1抑制剂治疗。根据PD-L1或PD-1抑制剂分为两组。采用倾向评分匹配(PSM, 1:1)来平衡两组的基线特征。主要终点为OS和PFS。结果:485例患者接受PD-L1抑制剂加EP治疗,251例患者接受PD-1抑制剂加EP治疗。PSM前,PD-1抑制剂组PFS明显延长(8.26 vs. 7.44个月;HR 1.252, p = 0.007), OS差异无统计学意义(20.30 vs. 18.85个月;p = 0.337)。PSM后,中位OS(22.43个月vs. 20.69个月)和PFS(8.23个月)具有可比性,无统计学差异(OS: HR 0.938, p = 0.613; PFS: HR 1.008, p = 0.940)。两组之间的安全性相似。结论:总之,PD-L1抑制剂和PD-1抑制剂一线治疗ES-SCLC的总体疗效和安全性相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors for the first-line therapy of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety differences between PD-L1 inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors remain controversial for ES-SCLC. We conduct the retrospective study and propensity score-matched analysis to explore the potential differences between them.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 736 ES-SCLC patients from three centers treated with EP plus either a PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor. According to PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitors, they were divided into two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1) was performed to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS.

Results: As a result, 485 patients received PD-L1 inhibitors plus EP and 251 received PD-1 inhibitors plus EP. Before PSM, the PD-1 inhibitor group showed a significantly longer PFS (8.26 vs. 7.44 months; HR 1.252, p = 0.007), but no significant OS difference (20.30 vs. 18.85 months; p = 0.337). After PSM, both median OS (22.43 vs. 20.69 months) and PFS (8.23 months for both) were comparable, with no statistical differences (OS: HR 0.938, p = 0.613; PFS: HR 1.008, p = 0.940). Safety profiles were similar between groups.

Conclusions: In conclusion, the overall efficacy and safety profile were similar between PD-L1 inhibitors and PD-1 inhibitors for the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Future oncology
Future oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.00%
发文量
335
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Oncology (ISSN 1479-6694) provides a forum for a new era of cancer care. The journal focuses on the most important advances and highlights their relevance in the clinical setting. Furthermore, Future Oncology delivers essential information in concise, at-a-glance article formats - vital in delivering information to an increasingly time-constrained community. The journal takes a forward-looking stance toward the scientific and clinical issues, together with the economic and policy issues that confront us in this new era of cancer care. The journal includes literature awareness such as the latest developments in radiotherapy and immunotherapy, concise commentary and analysis, and full review articles all of which provide key findings, translational to the clinical setting.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信