Peripheral Blood Eosinophil Count Optimizes Pembrolizumab-Based Immunotherapy in The First-Line Setting of Advanced or Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Abstract For cancer immunotherapy, the tumor proportion score for the programmed death-1 ligand is not a robust biomarker. The peripheral blood eosinophil count (PEC) is a potential alternative. However, it is not yet established. To test the efficacy of PEC-guided selection of pembrolizumab monotherapy (MONO) or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (COMBO), we retrospectively reviewed data of patients with advanced or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the first-line setting (April 2017 to April 2020). Among 137 patients enrolled, Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed no significant difference between the MONO (n = 84) and COMBO (n = 53) therapies. The influence of PEC before the second administration of each regimen (PEC2) was evaluated. The low PEC2 subgroup (<150 × 106/L) receiving MONO had poorer survival rates than those receiving COMBO (median progression-free survival [mPFS]: 5.75 vs. 7.59 months and median overall survival [mOS]: 12.0 months vs. not reached [NR), respectively). In patients receiving MONO, the low PEC2 showed worse prognosis compared with the high PEC2 group (mPFS: 5.75 vs. 16.1 months and mOS: 12.0 months vs. NR, respectively). PEC2 can be a potential predictive/prognostic biomarker for MONO, which encourages the switch from MONO to COMBO to avoid treatment failure.