RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in the second-line (2L) or later-line (LL) treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in real-life setting in Türkiye. METHODS: This study was designed as a national, multi-center, retrospective study. The study population was evaluated in two groups for the line of nivolumab therapy: those receiving nivolumab in the 2L (Group 2L) and third-line (3L) or LL (Group 3L/LL). Efficacy was evaluated based on one-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety was evaluated based on treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and nivolumab discontinuation rate. RESULTS: Of 244 patients, 52.9% were in Group 2L and 47.1% were in Group 3L/LL. Demographic and clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. In Group 2L and Group 3L/LL, one-year OS and PFS rates were 60.8% and 61.4% (p = 0.592) and 31.2% and 21.3% (p = 0.078), respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34.7% in Group 2L and 27.3% in Group 3L/LL (p = 0.262). The percentage of patients reporting at least one AE in Groups 2L and 3L/LL was 34.9% and 43.5%, respectively (p = 0.169). Fatigue was the most common (16.4%) treatment-related AE in each group. The groups were comparable regarding the AE frequency. Nivolumab was discontinued in 61 patients in Group 2L and 53 patients in Group 3L/LL, with the most common reason being disease progression (57.4% and 66.0%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab is safe and effective in the 2L or 3L/LL treatment of locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC and associated with acceptable AEs in real-life setting.
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer (around 85% of all lung cancers). Patients with NSCLC are usually diagnosed at advanced or metastatic stages. When cancer cells spread to other areas from where they first formed, it is called metastatic cancer. Surgery may not be a treatment option for such patients. Currently, immunotherapeutic agents are used in the treatment of NSCLC. Nivolumab is one of the approved immunotherapeutic agents in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC, who have failed after receiving chemotherapy. Our study explored the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in real-life setting in Türkiye. Nivolumab effectiveness was evaluated by overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates. OS indicates the proportion of patients who are still alive at a given time after diagnosis or treatment initiation. PFS refers to "the length of time during and after cancer treatment that a person lives with the disease but does not get worse". In the present study, one-year OS for 244 patients who received nivolumab was 61.1% and one-year PFS was 26.4%. Nivolumab safety was evaluated based on the frequency of adverse events observed during nivolumab therapy. Of the patients 38.9% had at least one side effect, with fatigue being the most common (16.4%). Our results support the earlier studies and showed that nivolumab was a safe and effective agent and is associated with acceptable side effecrs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.
