Kartik Sehgal1,2, Ritu R Gill3, Page Widick1, Poorva Bindal1, Danielle C McDonald1, Meghan Shea1, Deepa Rangachari1, Daniel B Costa1. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Despite approximately 40% of patients having Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) scores of at least 2 in the real world, most landmark clinical trials that led to the use of pembrolizumab as standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) excluded this group. Objective: To evaluate whether an ECOG PS score of at least 2 at the start of therapy is associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced NSCLC treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all consecutive patients with advanced NSCLC who underwent treatment with palliative pembrolizumab monotherapy from February 2016 to October 2019 at a single academic cancer center, with data censoring on January 15, 2020. Exposures: ECOG PS score at start of therapy, with 0 and 1 indicating fully active or restricted in strenuous activity and scores of 2 and higher indicating increasing disability. Main Outcomes and Measures: PFS and OS, measured from initiation of pembrolizumab monotherapy. Results: Of 74 patients (median [range] age, 68.5 [33-87] years; 36 [48.7%] women; 53 [71.6%] White individuals) with median follow-up of 19.5 (95% CI, 13.4-27.8) months, 45 (60.8%) had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1, while 29 (39.2%) had an ECOG PS of at least 2. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics, except in age. Compared with patients with PS scores of 0 or 1, those with PS scores of at least 2 had significantly lower disease control rates (38 [88.4%] vs 15 [53.6%]; P = .002), shorter median PFS (7.9 [95% CI, 4.6-15.4] months vs 2.3 [95% CI, 1.8-4.8] months; P = .004), and shorter median OS (23.2 [14.0 vs 35.7] months vs 4.1 [95% CI, 2.1-6.9] months; P < .001). Among those potentially eligible for subsequent cancer-directed therapy beyond pembrolizumab monotherapy, patients in the group with PS scores of at least 2 were less likely to receive it than those with PS scores of 0 or 1 (2 [8.3%] vs 14 [45.2%]; P = .003). Multivariable adjustment for baseline characteristics confirmed ECOG PS of at least 2 as an independent risk factor for worse PFS (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.09-3.74; P = .03) and worse OS (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.40-5.89; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, having an ECOG PS score of at least 2 was associated with poorer prognosis for treatment of advanced NSCLC with palliative pembrolizumab monotherapy. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate more objective and consistent measures of functional status to facilitate identification of patients with borderline performance status who may achieve durable clinical benefit from treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
Importance: Despite approximately 40% of patients having Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) scores of at least 2 in the real world, most landmark clinical trials that led to the use of pembrolizumab as standard of care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) excluded this group. Objective: To evaluate whether an ECOG PS score of at least 2 at the start of therapy is associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced NSCLC treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all consecutive patients with advanced NSCLC who underwent treatment with palliative pembrolizumab monotherapy from February 2016 to October 2019 at a single academic cancer center, with data censoring on January 15, 2020. Exposures: ECOG PS score at start of therapy, with 0 and 1 indicating fully active or restricted in strenuous activity and scores of 2 and higher indicating increasing disability. Main Outcomes and Measures: PFS and OS, measured from initiation of pembrolizumab monotherapy. Results: Of 74 patients (median [range] age, 68.5 [33-87] years; 36 [48.7%] women; 53 [71.6%] White individuals) with median follow-up of 19.5 (95% CI, 13.4-27.8) months, 45 (60.8%) had an ECOG PS of 0 or 1, while 29 (39.2%) had an ECOG PS of at least 2. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics, except in age. Compared with patients with PS scores of 0 or 1, those with PS scores of at least 2 had significantly lower disease control rates (38 [88.4%] vs 15 [53.6%]; P = .002), shorter median PFS (7.9 [95% CI, 4.6-15.4] months vs 2.3 [95% CI, 1.8-4.8] months; P = .004), and shorter median OS (23.2 [14.0 vs 35.7] months vs 4.1 [95% CI, 2.1-6.9] months; P < .001). Among those potentially eligible for subsequent cancer-directed therapy beyond pembrolizumab monotherapy, patients in the group with PS scores of at least 2 were less likely to receive it than those with PS scores of 0 or 1 (2 [8.3%] vs 14 [45.2%]; P = .003). Multivariable adjustment for baseline characteristics confirmed ECOG PS of at least 2 as an independent risk factor for worse PFS (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.09-3.74; P = .03) and worse OS (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.40-5.89; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, having an ECOG PS score of at least 2 was associated with poorer prognosis for treatment of advanced NSCLC with palliative pembrolizumab monotherapy. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate more objective and consistent measures of functional status to facilitate identification of patients with borderline performance status who may achieve durable clinical benefit from treatment with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
Authors: David R Spigel; Michael McCleod; Robert M Jotte; Lawrence Einhorn; Leora Horn; David M Waterhouse; Ben Creelan; Sunil Babu; Natasha B Leighl; Jason C Chandler; Felix Couture; George Keogh; Glenwood Goss; Davey B Daniel; Edward B Garon; Lee S Schwartzberg; Rohini Sen; Beata Korytowsky; Ang Li; Nivedita Aanur; Maen A Hussein Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Holly G Prigerson; Yuhua Bao; Manish A Shah; M Elizabeth Paulk; Thomas W LeBlanc; Bryan J Schneider; Melissa M Garrido; M Carrington Reid; David A Berlin; Kerin B Adelson; Alfred I Neugut; Paul K Maciejewski Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Martin Reck; Delvys Rodríguez-Abreu; Andrew G Robinson; Rina Hui; Tibor Csőszi; Andrea Fülöp; Maya Gottfried; Nir Peled; Ali Tafreshi; Sinead Cuffe; Mary O'Brien; Suman Rao; Katsuyuki Hotta; Melanie A Leiby; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Yue Shentu; Reshma Rangwala; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gary Middleton; Kristian Brock; Joshua Savage; Rhys Mant; Yvonne Summers; John Connibear; Riyaz Shah; Christian Ottensmeier; Paul Shaw; Siow-Ming Lee; Sanjay Popat; Colin Barrie; Gloria Barone; Lucinda Billingham Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Laura A Petrillo; Areej El-Jawahri; Ryan D Nipp; Morgan R L Lichtenstein; Sienna M Durbin; Kerry L Reynolds; Joseph A Greer; Jennifer S Temel; Justin F Gainor Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rajwanth Veluswamy; Liangyuan Hu; Cardinale Smith; Jiayi Ji; Xiaoliang Wang; Juan Wisnivesky; Jose Morillo; Minal S Kale Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2022-03-02
Authors: Erica Quaquarini; Federico Sottotetti; Francesco Agustoni; Emma Pozzi; Alberto Malovini; Cristina Maria Teragni; Raffaella Palumbo; Giuseppe Saltalamacchia; Barbara Tagliaferri; Emanuela Balletti; Pietro Rinaldi; Costanza Canino; Paolo Pedrazzoli; Antonio Bernardo Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-04-24
Authors: Mathias Schlögl; Anand S Iyer; Florian Riese; David Blum; Lanier O'Hare; Tejaswini Kulkarni; Sophie Pautex; Jan Schildmann; Keith M Swetz; Pallavi Kumar; Christopher A Jones Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 2.947