PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy as 2nd/subsequent line therapy had similar clinical outcome with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy in advanced NSCLC.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21600-e21600
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Zhai ◽  
Yaru Tian ◽  
Weiwei Yan ◽  
Ning An ◽  
Hui Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Monotherapy Group ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Chemotherapy Group ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Nsclc Patients

e21600 Background: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy has been approved as second line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study aims to compare clinical outcome of PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy as 2nd/subsequent line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Methods: The clinical data of NSCLC patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy were retrospectively collected in our study. According to the therapy modality, patients were assigned to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Disease control rates (DCRs), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between the 2 groups. The prognostic role of derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) on the outcomes was also evaluated at the same time. Results: From April 2017 to October 2019, a total of 84 patients were enrolled in the current study. Twenty-six patients were allocated to the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and fifty-eight patients were allocated to PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Chemotherapy regimens were detailed as follow: liposome paclitaxel (n = 15), nab-paclitaxel(n = 12), docetaxel(n = 9), pemetrexed(n = 6), and others(n = 16). Disease control rates (DCRs) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the two groups. Progression free survival (PFS) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy was longer(median PFS: NR vs 4.4 months, p = 0.02). Univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) was independent prognostic factor of OS and gender was independent prognostic factor of PFS. In the second-line therapy subgroup of 38 patients, OS and PFS were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of 46 patients of over 2nd line, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group had longer PFS (median PFS: NR vs 4.0 months, p = 0.01).The incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was no significant difference in the two groups. One patient in the PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group died of immune-related pneumonitis. Conclusions: The addition of chemotherapy to PD-1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy had similar clinical outcomes compared with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy of advanced NSCLC patients.

Survival patterns by line of treatment of stage IIIb/v NSCLC patients from community U. S. oncology practice.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18097-e18097
Author(s):  
Shraddha Chaugule ◽  
Susan H Foltz Boklage ◽  
Charles Kreilick ◽  
Sean D Sullivan ◽  
Scott David Ramsey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Nsclc Patients

e18097 Background: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in men and women worldwide. 80% of the lung cancer patients are diagnosed with NSCLC. Patients have varying survival results from multiple lines of treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate in a real world context, treatment patterns with survival, and the impact of adding a third line of chemotherapy to a stage III/IV NSCLC population. Methods: The Georgia Cancer Specialist database (2005-2011) was used. Patients with stage III or IV primary NSCLC and treated with chemotherapy were followed from initial NSCLC diagnosis until death, study end or lost to follow-up. Patients were stratified into lines and type of protocol for treatments. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare the overall survival results between lines of therapy. Results: A total of 291 patients with advanced NSCLC were identified and included in the primary analysis. Of these, 40 patients received third line therapy. The most commonly used treatment regimens in third line were Pemetrexed with 11 patients (3.8%), Docetaxel with 10 patients (3.4%), Gemcitabine with 4 patients (1.4%), Vinorelbine with 3 patients (1%) Cisplatin/Gemcitabine/Bevacizumab with 2 patients (0.7%). No single treatment regimen was predominantly used in third line. No association of survival gain was seen in patients who received third line therapy over those who received second line therapy (Log-Rank test P=0.4926) Conclusions: In a large EMR physician practice based database of advanced NSCLC patients, we failed to find a difference in the median overall survival of patients who received third line therapy compared to those who received second line therapy. Limitations include a small sample size and no standardized timing of diagnosis and treatment. The lack of a standard of care in third line therapy necessitates the need of further randomized controlled clinical studies to establish a benefit for a particular combination.

scholarly journals Protocol of the EFFORT study: a prospective study of FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line treatment after progression on FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab or during maintenance treatment in patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Koji Ando ◽  
Eiji Oki ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is used as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are no clear recommendations for second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab combination. Here, we describe our planning for the EFFORT study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Methods EFFORT is an open-label, multicenter, single arm phase II study to evaluate whether a FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who received FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy will receive aflibercept and FOLFIRI (aflibercept 4 mg/kg, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, with levofolinate 200 mg/m2 IV over 2 h, followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 46 h) every 2 weeks on day 1 of each cycle. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). To achieve 80% power to show a significant response benefit with a one-sided alpha level of 0.10, assuming a threshold progression-free survival of 3 months and an expected value of at least 5.4 months, we estimated that 32 patients are necessary. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and exploratory biomarker analysis for differentiating anti-VEGF drug in 2nd-line chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Discussion This is the first study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Switching to a different type of anti-VEGF drug in second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab appears to be an attractive treatment strategy when considering survival benefit. It is expected that this phase II study will prove the efficacy of this strategy and that a biomarker for drug selection will be discovered. Trial registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs071190003. Registered April 18, 2019.

scholarly journals P2.01-049 Long Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival in Advanced NSCLC Patients with EGFR Mutation and Complete Response with TKI Treatment

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. S2088
Author(s):  
O. Macedo-Pérez ◽  
I. Lyra-González ◽  
D. Marroquín-Flores ◽  
G. Cruz-Rico ◽  
L. Ramírez-Tirado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Tki Treatment ◽  
Nsclc Patients

A meta-analysis of comparing EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy as the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19166-e19166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guanghui Gao ◽  
Shengxiang Ren ◽  
Aiwu Li ◽  
Yayi He ◽  
Xiaoxia Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Egfr Mutations ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
Nsclc Patients ◽  
Egfr Tki

e19166 Background: The efficacy of comparing the EGFR-TKI with standard chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with wide-type EGFR were still controversial. To derive a more precise estimation of the two regimens, a meta-analysis was performed. Methods: Medical databases and conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials which compared EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib) with standard second-line chemotherapy (docetaxel or pemetrexed) in patients with NSCLC. Endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival and overall response. Results: Three eligible trials (INTEREST, TITAN and TAILOR) were identified. Lacking for data of overall survival of TAILOR trial, So we only make a preliminary meta-analysis for overall survival. The intention to treatment (ITT) analysis demonstrated that the patients receiving EGFR-TKI had a significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than patients treated with chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.31; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.10-1.56; P = 0.002). The overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) were coparable between this two groups (HR = 0.96; 95%CI = 0.77-1.19; P = 0.69; relative risk (RR) = 0.37; 95%CI = 0.09-1.54; P = 0.17). Conclusions: Although chemotherapy had a clear superiority in PFS as second-line treatment for patients without EGFR mutations compared with EGFR-TKI, OS and ORR were equal in this two regimens. The toxicity profiles might play an important role in the decision to choose EGFR-TKI or chemotherapy. These findings still need to be verified in larger confirmatory studies in future.

A phase II trial comparing pemetrexed with gefitinib as the second-line treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR (CTONG0806).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8042-8042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinji Yang ◽  
Ying Cheng ◽  
Mingfang Zhao ◽  
Qing Zhou ◽  
Hong hong Yan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
Nsclc Patients

8042 Background: Pemetrexed or gefitinib is one of the standard second-line treatments for advanced non-squamousNSCLC in East Asia. The CTONG 0806 a multi-center, randomized, controlled, open-label phase II trial was designed to explore the efficacy of pemetrexed versus gefitinib as the second-line treatment in advanced NSCLC patients without EGFR mutation. Methods: The patients with locally advanced or metastatic, non-squamous NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and no EGFR mutation in exons 18-21 were enrolled. Patients were 1:1 randomized to receive either gefitinib 250 mg per oral every day (G arm) or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 iv day 1 with vitamin B12 and folic acid supplement every 21 days (P arm) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or discontinuation of treatment due to other reason. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were 4-month and 6-month progression-free survival rate, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life using the FACT-L questionnaire and safety, EGFR and K-ras mutation status were evaluated and correlated with outcomes. Results: From Feb. 2009 to Aug. 2012, 157 evaluable patients were randomized (81 cases in G arm and 76 in P arm). Baseline age, gender, and ECOG performance status were balanced between arms. The primary endpoint of PFS was met with 1.6 months for G arm versus 4.8 months for P arm, the HR is 0.51 (95% CI 0.36~0.73, P<0.001). Overall response rates were 14.7 % and 13.3 % (P=0.814) and DCR were 32.0% and 61.3% (P<0.001) for G arm and P arm, respectively. OS data were not yet mature. More skin rash and diarrhoea were seen in G arm, but more fatigue and ALT increased in P arm. CTCAE grade 3 or 4 of AEs was 12.3% in G arm and 32.9% in P arm (p=0.002). The further analyses of efficacy evaluated by IRR and biomarkers analysis will be presented on the ground. Conclusions: CTONG0806 is the first trial to show significant improvements in PFS and DCR with pemetrexed compared with gefitinib in second-line setting for advanced NSCLC with EGFR wild type. Patients with EGFR wild type did not benefit from EGFR TKI gefitinb in second-line setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00891579.

Efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy or beyond for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20517-e20517
Author(s):  
Fan Zhang ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Yuzi Zhang ◽  
Shangli Cai ◽  
Lei Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Combination Therapy Group ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Monotherapy Group ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Nsclc Patients

e20517 Background: Immunotherapy combined with platinum-based chemotherapy is now standard first line treatment for NSCLC patients. However, limited evidence exists to show the efficacy of immunotherapy plus taxanes for patients who have progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Therefore, a retrospective study was conducted to assess whether immunotherapy plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumb could improve efficacy compared with immune monotherapy as second line therapy or beyond for NSCLC patients. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy or combination therapy from 2015 to 2018 were identified in Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital. Patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line therapy or combined with therapies other than nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: Of 59 patients, 42 were treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 17 were treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 8.2 months, combination therapy group showed significantly longer PFS compared with monotherapy group (8.4m vs. 3.7m, P = 0.047). When adjusted by covariates in COX proportional regression model, both treatment group (P = 0.007, Hazard ration [HR] 0.32; 95%CI 0.14-0.73) and performance status (P = 0.018, HR 0.44; 95%CI 0.22-0.87) demonstrated significant contribution to longer PFS. In addition, ORR was 23.5% (4/17) in the combination therapy group versus 12.8% (5/39) in the monotherapy group (P = 0.265) and the DCR was 88.2% (15/17) in the combination therapy group versus 61.5% (24/39) in the monotherapy group (P = 0.061). The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events were 23.5% (4/17) in the combination therapy group and 4.8% (2/42) in monotherapy group (P = 0.052). Conclusions: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab resulted in significantly longer PFS and higher DCR as second line therapy of beyond in metastatic NSCLC patients. These findings need to be further explored by randomized controlled studies.

Progression-free survival in patients with cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: An exploration of response to systemic therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 588-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Bibeau ◽  
Luis Féliz ◽  
Scott Barrett ◽  
Ling Na ◽  
Christine Francis Lihou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

588 Background: Most cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) are diagnosed with advanced disease and are ineligible for surgery. FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements are present in 10–16% of pts with intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) and are reported to be oncogenic drivers. However, little data are available on the role of FGFR2 genetic alterations in the response to systemic cancer therapy. FIGHT-202 is a phase 2 study of pemigatinib (a selective, potent, oral FGFR1–3 inhibitor) in pts with previously treated advanced/metastatic CCA (NCT02924376); primary results were reported at ESMO 2019. FIGHT-202 enrolled pts who progressed on ≥1 prior therapy, allowing the examination of the role of FGFR2 alterations on the response to prior therapy. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate progression free survival (PFS) on standard systemic therapy received prior to study enrollment among pts with CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements ( FGFR2+). Methods: Case report forms were reviewed to determine disease history and exposure to prior lines of systemic cancer therapies (LOSCT) in the advanced setting before receiving pemigatinib. Only pts with sufficient data on prior LOSCT were included in this analysis. Median PFS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 102 pts were included in this analysis (median age 54.5, 61.8% female). Median PFS on first-line therapy was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.0, 8.0) months. Among the 38 pts (37.3%) with ≥2 prior LOSCT, median PFS on second-line therapy was 4.4 (95% CI: 3.0, 5.3) months. Conclusions: This analysis provides data about PFS on standard systemic therapies for pts with FGFR2+ CCA. Median PFS on first-line therapy was lower than historical published data, and median PFS on second-line therapy was slightly longer than previously reported, in unselected CCA populations. Limitations of this analysis include retrospective examination of investigator reported data, and that clinical trial participants may not truly reflect a general CCA patient population. The short PFS on standard therapies in pts with FGFR2+ CCA highlights the need for development of other options including targeted therapies to improve outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document