Literature DB >> 34898553

Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Patients with Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Christopher Cao1,2, Anthony Le1, Matthew Bott3, Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang4, Dominique Gossot5, Franca Melfi6, David H Tian7, Allen Guo1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy has created a paradigm shift in the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), overcoming the therapeutic plateau previously achieved by systemic chemotherapy. There is growing interest in the utility of immunotherapy for patients with resectable NSCLC in the neoadjuvant setting. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide an overview of the existing evidence, with a focus on pathological and radiological response, perioperative clinical outcomes, and long-term survival.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using electronic databases from their dates of inception to August 2021. Pooled data on pathological response, radiological response, and perioperative outcomes were meta-analyzed where possible.
RESULTS: Eighteen publications from sixteen studies were identified, involving 548 enrolled patients who underwent neoadjuvant immunotherapy, of whom 507 underwent surgery. Pathologically, 52% achieved a major pathological response, 24% a complete pathological response, and 20% reported a complete pathological response of both the primary lesion as well as the sampled lymph nodes. Radiologically, 84% of patients had stable disease or partial response. Mortality within 30 days was 0.6%, and morbidities were reported according to grade and frequency.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis demonstrated that neoadjuvant immunotherapy was feasible and safe based on perioperative clinical data and completion rates of surgery within their intended timeframe. The pathological response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy was superior to historical data for patients who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, whilst surgical and treatment-related adverse events were comparable. The limitations of the study included the heterogenous treatment regimens, lack of long-term follow-up, variations in the reporting of potential prognostic factors, and potential publication bias.

Entities:  

Keywords:  immunotherapy; meta-analysis; neoadjuvant therapy; non-small cell lung cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34898553      PMCID: PMC8628782          DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28060395

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol        ISSN: 1198-0052            Impact factor:   3.109


1. Introduction

The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) transformed the landscape of treatment pathways for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after encouraging results were reported from randomized controlled trials [1]. For patients with resectable NSCLC, the therapeutic plateau achieved by systemic chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment reported a modest improvement of 5% over five years [2]. In the context of favorable outcomes identified in the metastatic NSCLC population, there is growing enthusiasm for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC. The proposed benefits of immunotherapy prescribed in the neoadjuvant setting include the increased release of neoantigens from the tumor to stimulate the expansion of specific T-cells, enhanced control of micro-metastases, and enabling the assessment of biologic and immunologic responses of the tumor from resected specimens [3]. Due to the relative paucity of robust clinical data, there is an urgent need to assess the existing literature to analyze the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. The primary aims of the present systematic review and meta-analysis were to identify the pathological and radiological response rates of neoadjuvant ICIs. Secondary endpoints included perioperative mortality, surgical morbidity, treatment-related adverse events, delays in surgery, and the overall long-term and disease-free survival outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

Our methods adhered to the guidelines set forth in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. A systematic review was performed using online databases from their dates of inception to August 2021, including EMBASE, Ovid Medline, and all EBM Reviews. Search terms included neoadjuvant* and (“NSCLC” or “carcinoma, non-small cell lung” or “Non small cell lung”) and (“surg*” or “resect*” or “lobectomy” or “VATS” or “thoracic surgery, video-assisted”) as either Medical Subject Headings or keywords. Reference lists of all retrieved full texts were screened for further identification of potentially relevant studies.

2.2. Selection Criteria and Data Extraction

Selected studies included those in which patients with histologically proven NSCLC were treated with ICI prior to surgical resection and provided data on radiological and pathological response. Publications were limited to human subjects and written in English. Case studies involving 10 or fewer patients, conference abstracts, and poster presentations were excluded. Two investigators (A.G. and A.L.) independently reviewed each retrieved article. Discrepancies between the two reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus after review by the senior investigator (C.C.).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Meta-analysis of proportions or means was performed for categorical or continuous variables via generalized linear mixed models, as appropriate [4]. A random-effects model was applied to account for differing local surgical and immunotherapy protocols. Pooled data are presented as N (%) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). I2 statistic was used to estimate the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. Thresholds for I2 values for low, moderate, and high heterogeneity were considered as 0–49%, 50–74% and ≥75%, respectively. Specific analyses considering confounding factors were not possible because raw data were not available. All p-values were 2-sided, and ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager Version 5.1.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK) or R Version 4.0.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results

3.1. Quantity and Quality of Trials

A total of 4143 references were identified through the electronic search; 2914 potentially relevant articles remained for screening after the removal of duplicated studies. After applying the selection criteria, 33 studies remained for full assessment, and 18 publications from 16 studies were selected for quantitative analysis [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Two publications reported on the same trials with a focus on different clinical outcomes [6,7,12,13]. Eleven publications from nine studies were prospectively registered in national clinical trial registries [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. There was one randomized controlled trial, which compared neoadjuvant nivolumab with nivolumab and ipilimumab prior to surgical resection [8]. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy agents included durvalumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, sintilimab, and camrelizumab. A summary of the search strategy is presented in the PRISMA chart in Supplementary Figure S1, and a summary of the study characteristics is presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Study characteristics of trials on neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

StudyInstitutionRecruitmentPeriodF/U (Months)ImmunotherapyChemotherapyAdjuvantImmunotherapy
Rothschild, 2021 [5]14 institutions in Sweden6/2016–1/201929Durvalumab (750 mg) 2 cyclesCisplatin + docetaxelDurvalumab 26 cycles
NADIMProvencio, 2021 [6]Roman, 2021 [7]18 institutions in Spain4/2017–8/201824Nivolumab (360 mg) 3 cyclesPaclitaxel + carboplatin 3 cyclesNivolumab (240 mg q2w for 4 months then 480 mg q4w for 8 months)
NEOSTARCascone, 2021 [8]MD AndersonCancer Center, USA6/2017–11/201822Nivolumab (3 mg/kg on D1, 15, 29) 3 cycles or Nivolumab 3 cycles + Ipilimumab(1 mg/kg on D1 only)NSNS
NEOMUNEichhorn, 2021 [9]HeidelbergUniversity Hospital, Germany5/2018–3/2020NSPembrolizumab (200 mg)2 cyclesNSNS
Tong, 2021 [10]Mayo Clinic; Dartmouth-Hitchcock; Duke University, USA4/2017–2/201911Pembrolizumab (200 mg)2 cyclesNSPembrolizumab 4 cycles
Shu, 2020 [11]Columbia University; MGH; BWH; Vanderbilt University Medical Center, USA5/2016–3/01913Atezolizumab (1200 mg)4 cyclesPaclitaxel + carboplatin 4 cyclesNS
Bott, 2019 [12]Forde, 2018 [13]Johns Hopkins; MSKCC, USA8/2015–10/201620Nivolumab (3 mg/kg) 2 cyclesNSNS
Gao, 2020 [14]PUMC3/2018–3/20193Sintilimab (200 mg) 2 cyclesNSSintilimab
Yang, 2018 [15]Duke University Medical Centre, USA3/2013–12/201524Ipilimumab (10 mg/kg)2 cyclesPaclitaxel + cisplatin or carboplatin 3 cyclesNS
Wang, 2021 [16]Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, China9/2019–7/2020NSNivolumab (200 mg),pembrolizumab (100 mg), camrelizumab (200 mg)2 cyclesPaclitaxel + carboplatin q3wNS
Shen, 2021 [17]Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, China6/2019–7/20207Pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) 2 cyclesPaclitaxel + carboplatin 2 cyclesNS
Jiang, 2021 [18]Shanghai Chest Hospital, China9/2018–4/2020NSPembrolizumab or nivolumab 3 cyclesNSVariable
Huang, 2021 [19]Qingdao University Hospital, China6/2019–12/2020NSNivolumab (3 mg/kg) 2 cyclesNSNS
Duan, 2021 [20]Tangdu Hospital; Chongqing Medical University, China6/2018–6/2020NSSintilimab or nivolumab or pembrolizumab, 3–4 cyclesPemetrexed + cisplatin or Paclitaxel +nedaplatin or Gemcitabine + nedaplatin or Paclitaxel + Carboplatin 3–4 cyclesNS
Chen, 2021 [21]Shanghai Chest Hospital, China1/2019–3/202018Pembrolizumab 4 cycles or nivolumab 2 cyclesCarboplatin and paclitaxelVariable
Chen, 2021 [22]Tianjin Medical UniversityCancer Institute and Hospital1/2019–5/202013Pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg)2 cycles q3wCisplatin + paclitaxel liposome or pemetrexed q3wNS

MSKCC, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre; PUMC, Peking Union Medical College; MGH, Massachusetts General Hospital; BWH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; F/U, Follow-up; NS, Not specified.

3.2. Patient Characteristics

In total, 548 patients were treated with at least one cycle of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, with 507 patients (96%) undergoing subsequent surgery. The overall incidence of male patients was 73.7%, and the interquartile range of age across different studies was 61.5–65.5. Overall, 81.7% of patients were either former or current smokers. Histologically, 56.6% of patients had squamous cell carcinoma, 36.9% had adenocarcinoma, and 4.2% had other subtypes. The clinical stage was reported according to either the 7th or 8th edition of the TNM staging system, with 78.0% of patients reported as clinical stage IIIA and 1.0% of patients as stage IIIB [23,24]. Further details of patient characteristics are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

A summary of baseline patient characteristics in selected studies on neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

HistopathologyClinical Stage
StudyNeoadjuvantImmunotherapyOperation (%)Male (%)AgeSmokingHistory (%)SCCADCOtherIAIBIIAIIBIIIAIIIB
Rothschild [5]62 ^5588.7%3552.2%616492.3%223780000670
Provencio [6] *Roman [7] *464189.1%3473.9%6346100%162640001450
Cascone [8] *443988.6%2863.6%65.63681.8%172618157590
Eicchorn [9] *1515100%746.7%59.8--2130000690
Tong [10]302583.3%1653.3%722686.7%17103097680
Shu [11]302996.7%1550.0%6730100%121710043230
Bott [12]Forde [13]222090.9%1045.5%671881.8%5142225570
Gao [14] *403997.5%3382.5%623280.0%336126113108
Yang [15]241354.2%1250.0%652395.8%91500032190
Wang [16]7272100%6691.7%62.26083.3%66510000720
Shen [17]3737100%3594.6%62.83183.8%37000003286
Jiang [18] *3131100%2993.5%61722.6%229000141610
Huang [19] *252496.0%1664.0%62.91560.0%81330000250
Duan [20]232087.0%2295.7%61.82295.7%1940003389
Chen [21] *1212100%975.0%61975.0%462000075
Chen [22] *3535100%2982.9%62.22777.1%26720000314
Total54850795.9%39673.7%IQR(61.5–65.5)44681.7%56.6%36.9%4.2%0.1%0.2%2.3%6.2%78.0%1.0%

* AJCC 8th edition TNM staging system; ^ 62/67 enrolled patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; ADC, adenocarcinoma.

3.3. Surgical Approach and Resection Type

The most common type of resection was lobectomy (67.5%), followed by bilobectomy (12.1%), and pneumonectomy (8.6%). Surgical access was performed with minimal invasiveness through a video-assisted or robotic-assisted approach in 47.4% of operations, but 12.4% patients underwent a conversion to open thoracotomy after an intended minimally invasive approach. Overall, thoracotomy was performed in 51.7% of all operations. A complete microscopic resection (R0) was reported in 97.3% of all patients. The interquartile time interval from the final dose of immunotherapy to the time of operation was 27–32 days, and 2.0% of patients were delayed from their intended time of operation after treatment with neoadjuvant immunotherapy. The interquartile range of operative duration was 171–239 min. A total of 11 transfusion events occurred in 417 patients (6.9%). A summary of surgical details is presented in Table 3.
Table 3

A summary of operative details for patients who underwent neoadjuvant immunotherapy in the treatment of resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Resection MarginType of SurgerySurgical ApproachFinal Immunotherapy to Surgery Blood Loss
StudyR0R1R2PneumonectomyBilobectomyLobectomySleeveLobectomyWedgeOtherExploratoryThoracotomyMISConversion to OpenMedian DaysDelay (n)Time (min)Blood Loss (mL)Transfusion
Rothschild [5]51315743------------
Provencio [6],Roman [7]4100333230-024/4117/414/41-0195-1
Cascone [8]3900----------318---
Eicchorn [9]1500001500-0----1---
Tong [10]223031182-1-7/2518/255/25261305-2
Shu [11]26--341900-314/2912/29-270--2
Bott [12]Forde [13]20--211511--14/206/207/20180228100-
Gao [14]36011351810-229/3910/39--2---
Yang [15]1300111001--4/139/133/13-2--2
Wang [16]--------------0---
Shen [17]370027226---12/3725/37---184--
Jiang [18]24432418700023/318/31134-1582002
Huang [19]23101319--1-0/2424/24-29019692-
Duan [20]1910221150-06/2014/202/20--250212.52
Chen [21]120001830-09/123/12-281140200-
Chen [22]3500399--14 #-34/351/35-330---
Overall97.3%1.7%0.6%8.6%12.1%67.5%7.8%0.9%5.0%1.4%51.7%47.4%12.4%IQR (27– 32)2.0%IQR (171–239)96–2076.9%

Duration from last dose of immunotherapy; # included sleeve and Pancoast tumor resections; IQR, Interquartile range; MIS, minimally invasive surgery.

3.4. Radiological Response

Radiological response outcomes were consistently reported according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria [25]. Overall, 0.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1–6.3%) of patients reported complete response, 48.0% (95% CI: 36.0–60.2%) reported partial response, 35.9% (95% CI: 22.3–52.3%) reported stable disease, and 3.6% (95% CI: 1.5–8.1%) reported progressive disease, as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Forest plot summarizing the proportion of patients with radiological response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

3.5. Pathological Response

Pathological response outcomes were reported as ‘major pathological response’ (MPR) when less than 10% of the viable tumor was identified in the primary lesion, and ‘complete pathological response’ (pCR) when no viable tumor was identified. However, some studies specifically reported pCR when both the primary lesion as well as the sampled lymph nodes were free from any viable tumor [5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,17,19,22], whereas others did not specify if nodal assessments were performed for pathological responses [8,11,15,16,18,20,21]. In addition, two studies defined MPR and pCR as being mutually exclusive, whereby patients who achieved a complete pathological response were not included within the group defined as a major pathological response [9,21]. The pathological response data from these studies were adjusted during statistical analysis to conform with other reports that included pCR patients within the MPR group. From the available data, 52% (95% CI: 42–62%; I2 = 73%) of patients who underwent surgery following neoadjuvant immunotherapy achieved MPR, 24% (95% CI, 17–34%; I2 = 76%) achieved pCR of the primary lesion, and 20% (95% CI: 9–36%; I2 = 86%) achieved pCR of both the primary lesion as well as the sampled lymph nodes. A summary of radiological and pathological response rates is presented in Table 4, and meta-analyzed forest plots of MPR, pCR, and pCR, including lymph nodes, are presented in Figure 2A–C.
Table 4

A summary of radiological and pathological responses after neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Radiological Response *Pathological Response
StudyCRPRSDPDMajor Pathological ResponseComplete Pathological Response Primary LesionComplete Pathological ResponsePrimary Lesion + Nodes
Rothschild [5]4/6232/6216/627/6234/5510/5510/55
Provencio [6]Roman [7]2/4633/4611/46034/4126/4126/41
Cascone [8]1/448/4428/446/4413/378/37-
Eicchorn [9]04/1510/1504/15 ^2/152/15
Tong [10]---1/307/253/252/25
Shu [11]019/309/302/3017/2910/29-
Bott [12]Forde [13]02/2118/211/219/203/202/20
Gao [14]08/4028/404/4015/376/373/37
Yang [15]014/242/248/24-2/13-
Wang [16]21/7247/723/721/72-21/72-
Shen [17]10/3722/375/37024/3717/3717/37
Jiang [18]024/315/312/3112/313/31-
Huang [19]08/2516/251/259/241/241/24
Duan [20]017/236/23010/206/20-
Chen [21]06/126/1209/12 ^5/12-
Chen [22]017/3518/35026/3518/3516/35
Total 0.8% 48.0% 35.9% 3.6% 52.0% 24.3% 19.6%

* According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria: CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease. ^ Major pathological response included all patients with <10% viable tumor.

Figure 2

(A) Forest plot summarizing the proportion of patients with major pathological responses after neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer. (B) Forest plot summarizing the proportion of patients with complete pathological response of the primary tumor after neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer. (C) Forest plot summarizing the proportion of patients with complete pathological response of the primary tumor and sampled lymph nodes after neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

3.6. Mortality and Morbidity

Overall, four deaths (0.6%) were reported within 30 days of surgery from all selected studies. However, some studies reported deaths within the same admission beyond 30 days [5]. Adverse events were commonly reported according to the grades of severity, ranging from grade 1–5. The most common surgical complications included prolonged air leak, pneumonia, atrial arrhythmias, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, anorexia, nausea, alopecia, neutropenia, and rash. A summary of surgical and treatment-related adverse events, including specified grade 3–5 adverse events, are summarized in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2, respectively, and illustrated in Supplementary Figures S2 and S3. Adverse events were only tabulated if they were reported in three or more individual studies, unless the severity of an adverse event was ≥3, in which case they were included irrespective of frequency.

3.7. Overall Survival and Disease-Free Survival

Six studies provided survival data in the form of Kaplan–Meier graphs, but a statistical summary of these data was not possible due to different timeframes of survival calculation [5,6,8,11,12,22]. Survival was calculated from the time of registration [5], diagnosis [6], randomization [8], treatment initiation [11], surgery [13], or unspecified reasons [22]. The follow-up periods of these studies were also limited, ranging from 13–29 months.

4. Discussion

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide an overview of the existing evidence for patients who underwent neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable NSCLC. The key findings of the study identified a major pathological response rate of 52% and a complete pathological response of 24%. These values compared favorably to historical data for chemotherapy, which reported estimated rates of MPR and pCR as 22% and 4%, respectively [26,27]. When the sampled lymph nodes as well as the primary lesions were assessed by selected studies, the meta-analysis of pCR for neoadjuvant immunotherapy was 20%. The radiological response was less consistent, with 83.9% of patients reporting either stable disease or partial regression according to RECIST criteria. The lack of correlation between pathological and radiological responses can be partially attributed to the pseudoprogression phenomenon, whereby the infiltration of T-cells and peritumoral inflammation were associated with the increased size and activity of lesions on imaging, but favorable pathological responses in histopathology [12]. The incidence of this phenomenon in the recent NEOSTAR and NEOMUN trials was low, and its clinical significance remains to be seen [6,7,9]. The present study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors when given prior to surgery, with 96% of patients undergoing surgery after systemic treatment, and a surgical delay rate of 2.0%. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.6% across all studies, and surgical morbidities were similar in type and frequency to contemporary series of thoracic resections without neoadjuvant immunotherapy [28,29]. Surgical resection was performed by open thoracotomy in 51.7% of all cases, including in 12.4% patients who were converted from an intended minimally invasive approach. These findings compared favorably to outcomes reported by the National Cancer Data Base, which reported a thoracotomy rate of 73.2% and a conversion rate of 18.9% for VATS and 10.3% for robotic VATS [30]. For patients with advanced-stage NSCLC who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, outcomes from tertiary institutions reported conversion rates of 26% after attempted VATS or robotic VATS [29,31]. The higher proportion of patients who were able to complete their operations via a minimally invasive approach identified in the present systematic review was likely due to the selection of specialized academic centers recruited for clinical trials. Encouragingly, the completeness of resection (R0) was achieved in 97.3% of all patients, and the pneumonectomy rate was 8.6%, which was relatively low compared to other series that reported 15.8–17.6% for patents who had neoadjuvant chemotherapy [29,32]. Technical challenges after neoadjuvant immunotherapy included increased fibrosis, adhesions, and granulomatous changes found within lymph nodes that Cascone termed ‘nodal immune flare’ [8], which could make the dissection around critical structures difficult and unsafe. Similar findings were reported by Bott, who also described dense adhesions surrounding the fissure and aorta [12]. Several limitations should be acknowledged from the present study, and results should be interpreted with caution. Some endpoints were inconsistently reported by studies identified in the present systematic review. Most importantly, a complete pathological response was defined as ‘no viable tumor within the resected specimen’, but there was variable reporting on whether the resected lymph nodes were also assessed. Travis advocated for a systematic approach to evaluate sampled nodes, particularly in the context of clinical trials, to confirm an absence of a tumor within the nodes (ypN0) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy [33]. Several studies [10,12,13,14,22] reported the presence of a tumor in nodal specimens when the primary lesions had pCR, and future studies should routinely assess and report on the pathological response of nodal tissue to understand their incidence and clinical significance. The variations in patient inclusion criteria, neoadjuvant treatment regimen, and subsequent adjuvant therapy may impact the overall and disease-free survival outcomes, which should also be reported from well-defined timeframes, such as the time of operation. The follow-up periods were relatively short, and only limited survival data have been published to date. Finally, there is a potential publication bias, as the abstracts identified in our screening process reported the early termination of trials due to lack of efficacy or excessive postoperative mortality, but their data were not included for quantitative analysis as they did not meet the study selection criteria [34,35]. Many challenging questions remain about the utility of immunotherapy for patients with resectable NSCLC. The potential prognostic value of PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) was evaluated at separate cut-off points and measured against different surrogate endpoints such as MPR and pCR [5,6,7,8,9,22]. Such variations between studies dilute the strength of data interpretation, and the impact on overall survival and justification for patient selection remains uncertain. Future studies evaluating PD-L1 should routinely report on standardized endpoints such as overall survival and pCR, with accepted thresholds such as <1% vs. >1%. The type of immune check inhibitor, number of cycles, and additional prescription of chemotherapy in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings varied between studies. The optimal treatment regimen is most likely personalized to the individual patient based on predictive factors not yet elucidated from the published data. Larger studies with longer follow-up may answer some of these questions, and novel predictors of response, such as microbiome analysis and tumor mutational burden should be further examined [8,13].
  33 in total

1.  Outcomes of surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in locally advanced stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Alejandra Romero Román; Jose Luis Campo-Cañaveral de la Cruz; Iván Macía; Ignacio Escobar Campuzano; Santiago Figueroa Almánzar; María Delgado Roel; Carlos Gálvez Muñoz; Eva M García Fontán; Ignacio Muguruza Trueba; Laura Romero Vielva; José Ramón Cano Garcia; Elisabeth Martínez Téllez; Concepción Partida González; Marcelo Fernando Jiménez López; Unai Jiménez Maestre; Roberto Mongil Poce; David Sánchez Lorente; Antonio Álvarez Kindelán; Mariano Provencio Pulla
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 4.191

2.  Neoadjuvant PD-1 Inhibitors and Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced NSCLC: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Tianxiang Chen; Junwei Ning; Alessio Campisi; Andrea Dell'Amore; Angelo Paolo Ciarrocchi; Ziming Li; Liwei Song; Jia Huang; Yunhai Yang; Franco Stella; Qingquan Luo
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours.

Authors:  Peter Goldstraw; John Crowley; Kari Chansky; Dorothy J Giroux; Patti A Groome; Ramon Rami-Porta; Pieter E Postmus; Valerie Rusch; Leslie Sobin
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 15.609

4.  Improved Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Compared to Adjuvant Immunotherapy to Eradicate Metastatic Disease.

Authors:  Jing Liu; Stephen J Blake; Michelle C R Yong; Heidi Harjunpää; Shin Foong Ngiow; Kazuyoshi Takeda; Arabella Young; Jake S O'Donnell; Stacey Allen; Mark J Smyth; Michele W L Teng
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 39.397

5.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  SAKK 16/14: Durvalumab in Addition to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Stage IIIA(N2) Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer-A Multicenter Single-Arm Phase II Trial.

Authors:  Sacha I Rothschild; Alfred Zippelius; Eric I Eboulet; Spasenija Savic Prince; Daniel Betticher; Adrienne Bettini; Martin Früh; Markus Joerger; Didier Lardinois; Hans Gelpke; Laetitia A Mauti; Christian Britschgi; Walter Weder; Solange Peters; Michael Mark; Richard Cathomas; Adrian F Ochsenbein; Wolf-Dieter Janthur; Christine Waibel; Nicolas Mach; Patrizia Froesch; Martin Buess; Pierre Bohanes; Gilles Godar; Corinne Rusterholz; Michel Gonzalez; Miklos Pless
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Perioperative safety and feasibility outcomes of stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer following neoadjuvant immunotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhangfeng Huang; Zhe Wu; Yi Qin; Yandong Zhao; Yunpeng Xuan; Tong Qiu; Ao Liu; Yanting Dong; Wenhao Su; Wenxing Du; Tianxiang Yun; Lingjie Wang; Dahai Liu; Lili Sun; Wenjie Jiao
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-04

8.  The surgical perspective in neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Long Jiang; Jia Huang; Shanshan Jiang; Wenwen Rong; Yaofeng Shen; Chongwu Li; Yu Tian; Junwei Ning; Xiaoke Chen; Yunhai Yang; Zhengping Ding; Ziming Li; Qingquan Luo
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 6.968

9.  Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for the treatment of stage IIB-IIIB resectable lung squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Dijian Shen; Jiangfeng Wang; Jie Wu; Sheng Chen; Jianqiang Li; Jinshi Liu; Qixun Chen; Youhua Jiang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.895

10.  The safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant programmed death 1 inhibitor therapy with surgical resection in stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Jiangfeng Wang; Jianqiang Li; Lei Cai; Sheng Chen; Youhua Jiang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-03
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Exploring the Evolving Scope of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in NSCLC.

Authors:  John F Roller; Nirmal K Veeramachaneni; Jun Zhang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 6.639

2.  Immunotherapy in Thoracic Malignancies: New Treatment and New Hope.

Authors:  Barbara Melosky
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  [Progress of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].

Authors:  Chao Guo; Jiaqi Zhang; Shanqing Li
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2022-07-20

Review 4.  Concomitant Statins and the Survival of Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Hong Wang; Jizheng Tian; Lili Sui; Xiaoyan Chen
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.149

Review 5.  International expert consensus on immunotherapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Wenhua Liang; Kaican Cai; Qingdong Cao; Chun Chen; Haiquan Chen; Jun Chen; Ke-Neng Chen; Qixun Chen; Tianqing Chu; Yuchao Dong; Jiang Fan; Wentao Fang; Junke Fu; Xiangning Fu; Shugeng Gao; Di Ge; Guojun Geng; Qing Geng; Jie He; Jian Hu; Jie Hu; Wei-Dong Hu; Feng Jiang; Tao Jiang; Wenjie Jiao; He-Cheng Li; Qiang Li; Shanqing Li; Shuben Li; Xiangnan Li; Yong-De Liao; Changhong Liu; Hongxu Liu; Yang Liu; Zhuming Lu; Qingquan Luo; Haitao Ma; Xiaojie Pan; Guibin Qiao; Shengxiang Ren; Weiyu Shen; Yong Song; Daqiang Sun; Guangsuo Wang; Jie Wang; Mengzhao Wang; Qiwen Wang; Wen-Xiang Wang; Li Wei; Ming Wu; Nan Wu; Hui Xia; Shi-Dong Xu; Fan Yang; Kang Yang; Yue Yang; Fenglei Yu; Zhen-Tao Yu; Dong-Sheng Yue; Lanjun Zhang; Weidong Zhang; Zhenfa Zhang; Guofang Zhao; Jian Zhao; Xiaojing Zhao; Chengzhi Zhou; Qinghua Zhou; Kunshou Zhu; Yuming Zhu; Toyoaki Hida; Wolfram C M Dempke; Antonio Rossi; Marc de Perrot; Robert A Ramirez; Mariano Provencio; Jay M Lee; Antonio Passaro; Lorenzo Spaggiari; Jonathan Spicer; Nicolas Girard; Patrick M Forde; Tony S K Mok; Tina Cascone; Jianxing He
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2022-09

6.  Neoadjuvant immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.

Authors:  He Wang; Tingting Liu; Jun Chen; Jun Dang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 7.  Updated Prognostic Factors in Localized NSCLC.

Authors:  Simon Garinet; Pascal Wang; Audrey Mansuet-Lupo; Ludovic Fournel; Marie Wislez; Hélène Blons
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 6.639

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.