scholarly journals Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients Receiving Second-Line Therapy for Advanced/Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 3392-3403
Author(s):  
Pranav Abraham ◽  
Joe Gricar ◽  
Ying Zhang ◽  
Veena Shankaran
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Patterns ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of camrelizumab in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16023-e16023
Author(s):  
Qiwei Yao ◽  
Zhichao Fu ◽  
Qisong Chen ◽  
Jianli Huang ◽  
Jintong Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Real World ◽  
Antiangiogenic Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

e16023 Background: Camrelizumab, a programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor, has recently demonstrated efficacy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in a phase III trial. We report real-world clinical outcomes of camrelizumab therapy for ESCC patients in a multicenter prospective cohort. Methods: Eligible patientswereadvanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with stage II-IV confirmed by pathology (including histology or cytology). All patients had received at most one systematic treatment and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Camrelizumab monotherapy(200mg) or combined with chemo-radiotherapy, chemotherapy, chemotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy as a first or second line of therapy were included. Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS) and safety data were evaluated. This abstract summarizes the findings of an exploratory interim analysis (cut-off Dec 2020). Results: From Oct 2019-Dec 2020, 63 patients were enrolled (19 centers in China; mean age 62.26 years; 97% ECOG PS 1; 54% first line therapy). Patients received camrelizumab monotherapy (8; 13%), camrelizumab/chemo-radiotherapy combination therapy (22, 35%), camrelizumab/chemotherapy combination therapy (26, 41%), camrelizumab/chemotherapy/antiangiogenic therapy combination therapy (7, 11%). One patient achieved a complete response and 27 patients achieved a partial response, leading to an ORR of 41.26%. The DCR was 95.24%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.33 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.73-NA). Among patients with adequate samples test for LBH level and (lung immune prognostic index) LIPI score, 15.7% (8/51) patients had a high LBH level;63% (29/46), 32.6% (15/46) and 4.3% (2/46) patients had a good, middle and poor LIPI score, respectively. A significantly longer PFS was observed in patients with a normal LBH level (NA vs. 6.33 months, P = 0.049), and also in patients treated with first-line therapy (6.33 months vs. NA, P = 0.0338). Among adverse events, 4 patients (6.35%) reported grade 3-4 AEs, including pneumonia (n=2 [3.17%]), and bone marrow suppression (n=2 [3.17%]). 10 of 63 patients (15.87%) experienced any grade pneumonia, and 21 of 63 patients (33.33%) experienced grade 1-2 RCCEP. Conclusions: This real-world population showed that camrelizumab as the first- or second-line therapy was an effective and safe treatment for patients with ESCC. Clinical trial information: CHICTR2000039499.

Failure of Second-Line Therapy to Modify Survival in Relapsed Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

1985 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Merlano ◽  
Andrea Grimaldi ◽  
Luigina Bonelli ◽  
Rita Tatarek ◽  
Riccardo Rosso
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Actuarial Survival ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Recurrent Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Between August 1979 and August 1984, 47 consecutive patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck entered one of three consecutive second-line treatments. Response rates with each treatment were very different (70 % vs 5.9 % vs 75 %), but there was no statistical difference in actuarial survival (survival: 30 % vs 29 % vs 20 %, respectively, at 260 days). In light of this observation, the efficacy of the second-line therapy appears doubtful and the survival of relapsing patients seems unrelated to the response achieved.

scholarly journals Benefit of second-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a tri-center propensity score analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110399
Author(s):  
Moritz Müller ◽  
Florian Posch ◽  
Dominik Kiem ◽  
Dominik Barth ◽  
Lena Horvath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Line Therapy

Background: The level of evidence for palliative second-line therapy in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (aESCC) is limited. This is the first study that reports efficacy data comparing second-line therapy + active symptom control (ASC) versus ASC alone in aESCC. Methods: We conducted a tri-center retrospective cohort study ( n = 166) including patients with aESCC who had experienced disease progression on palliative first-line therapy. A propensity score model using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented for comparative efficacy analysis of overall survival (OS) in patients with second-line + ASC ( n = 92, 55%) versus ASC alone ( n = 74, 45%). Results: The most frequent second-line regimens used were docetaxel (36%) and paclitaxel (18%). In unadjusted primary endpoint analysis, second-line + ASC was associated with significantly longer OS compared with ASC alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35–0.69, p < 0.0001]. However, patients in the second-line + ASC group were characterized by more favorable baseline features including a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, a longer first-line treatment duration and lower C-reactive protein levels. After rigorous adjusting for baseline confounders by re-weighting the data with the IPTW the favorable association between second-line and longer OS weakened but prevailed. The median OS was 6.1 months in the second-line + ASC group and 3.2 months in the ASC group, respectively (IPTW-adjusted HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24–0.69, p = 0.001). Importantly, the benefit of second-line was consistent across several clinical subgroups, including patients with ECOG performance status ⩾1 and age ⩾65 years. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with palliative second-line therapy were hematological toxicities. Conclusion: This real-world study supports the concept that systemic second-line therapy prolongs survival in patients with aESCC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document