ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard treatments for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with poor performance status (PS) are underrepresented in clinical trials. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICIs in a real-world setting. METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study to assess clinical outcomes of NSCLC treated with ICIs. We categorized pts within two groups (PS 0-1 vs 2) and assessed clinical outcomes and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty nine patients were included, 44 patients (16.4%) had baseline PS 2 and 223 patients (82.9%) PS 0-1. The overall response rate (ORR) was 30.4%, median PFS was 7.26 months (95% CI 5.1-9.4), and median OS was 15.18 months (95% CI 9.5-20.9). Patients with a PS 2 were most likely to received ICIs in the second or later line (84.1% vs 64.6%; p = 0.01), had baseline steroids (21.4% vs 8.2%; p 0.010), lower response rate (16.7% vs 34.5%; p 0.02) and clinical benefit (35.7% vs 71%; p 0.000) compared to PS 0-1 pts. Moreover, PS ≥ 2 patients had shorter PFS, median 2.2 months (95% CI 1.3-3.1) compared to 9.9 months (95% CI 6.7-13.1] and shorter OS, 3.3 months (95% CI 2.6-4.2) versus 24.1 months (95% CI 16.1-32.1), respectively. PS was significantly associated with PFS and OS in multivariate analysis. As it was expected, immunotherapy was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to the previous published data. CONCLUSION: Based on these retrospective results, patients with poor baseline performance status seem to have poor clinical outcomes with ICIs in the real-world setting.
