| Literature DB >> 35789793 |
Kenji Morimoto1, Tadaaki Yamada1, Takayuki Takeda2, Shinsuke Shiotsu3, Koji Date4, Taishi Harada5, Nobuyo Tamiya6, Yusuke Chihara7, Osamu Hiranuma8, Takahiro Yamada9, Hibiki Kanda10, Takayuki Nakano2, Yoshie Morimoto1, Masahiro Iwasaku1, Shinsaku Tokuda1, Koichi Takayama1.
Abstract
Introduction: To date, the efficacy and safety of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor plus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC), with real-world evidence, stratified on the basis of age and performance status (PS), have not been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD-L1 inhibitor plus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer cachexia; Chemoimmunotherapy; Elderly; Extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer; Poor performance status
Year: 2022 PMID: 35789793 PMCID: PMC9250020 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2022.100353
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep ISSN: 2666-3643
Patient Characteristic
| Characteristics | All Patients (N = 45) | Age ≥ 75 y (n = 18, 40.0%) | Age < 75 y (n = 27, 60.0%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| Median (range) | 73 (50–86) | 79.5 (75–86) | 69 (50–74) | <0.001 |
| Sex, n (%) | ||||
| Male | 36 (80.0) | 15 (83.3) | 21 (77.8) | 0.72 |
| Female | 9 (20.0) | 3 (16.7) | 6 (22.2) | |
| ECOG-performance status, n (%) | ||||
| 0 | 10 (22.2) | 4 (22.2) | 6 (22.2) | 0.20 |
| 1 | 29 (64.4) | 10 (55.6) | 19 (70.4) | |
| 2 | 6 (13.3) | 4 (22.2) | 2 (7.4) | |
| Previous anticancer treatments, n (%) | ||||
| Chemoradiotherapy | 2 (4.4) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (3.7) | |
| Cancer-related surgery | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0) | 1 (3.7) | |
| Smoking status, n (%) | ||||
| Current/former | 44 (97.8) | 17 (94.4) | 27 (100) | 0.40 |
| Never | 1 (2.2) | 1 (5.6) | 0 (0) | |
| BMI | ||||
| Median | 21.4 (17.5–30.1) | 21.4 (18.3–28.8) | 21.4 (17.5–30.1) | 0.87 |
| Cancer cachexia, n (%) | 9 (20.0) | 4 (22.2) | 5 (18.5) | 1.0 |
| Preexisting interstitial lung disease, n (%) | 2 (4.4) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (3.7) | 1.0 |
| Charlson comorbidity index | ||||
| Median (range) | 1 (0–4) | 1 (0–4) | 1 (0–3) | 0.28 |
| G8 | ||||
| Median (range) | 11 (4.5–17) | 11 (5–15) | 11.5 (4.5–17) | 0.99 |
| Regimen, n (%) | ||||
| Carboplatin + etoposide + atezolizumab | 35 (77.8) | 17 (94.4) | 18 (66.7) | 0.03 |
| Carboplatin + etoposide + durvalumab | 8 (17.8) | 1 (5.6) | 7 (25.9) | |
| Cisplatin + etoposide + durvalumab | 2 (4.4) | 0 (0) | 2 (7.4) | |
| Median number of maintenance therapy (range) | 2 (0–6) | 1 (0–5) | 2 (0–6) | 0.24 |
ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; BMI, body mass index; G8, geriatric 8.
ECOG-PS 2 versus 0 or 1.
One patient’s data were missing.
Atezolizumab versus durvalumab.
Figure 1PFS (A) and OS (B) of PD-L1 inhibitor plus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in all patients (n = 45). PFS (C) and OS (D) of PD-L1 inhibitor plus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy compared with age (≥75 y versus <75 y). CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival.
Figure 2(A) Kaplan-Meier curve for PFS of patients with ES-SCLC compared with PS (0 or 1 versus 2). (B) Kaplan-Meier curve for OS of patients with ES-SCLC compared with performance status (0 or 1 versus 2). (C) PFS of PD-L1 inhibitor plus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in ES-SCLC patients with a PS of 2. (D) OS of PD-L1 inhibitor plus platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in ES-SCLC patients with a PS of 2. CI, confidence interval; ES-SCLC, extensive- stage SCLC; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand- 1, PFS, progression-free survival; PS, performance status.
Cox Proportional Hazard Models for Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Patients With Extensive-Stage SCLC Who Received PD-L1 Inhibitor Plus Platinum-Etoposide Chemotherapy in Multivariate Analysis
| Items | Multivariate Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progression-Free Survival | Overall Survival | |||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age ≥75 y (vs. age < 75 y) | 1.08 (0.53–2.23) | 0.83 | 1.13 (0.45–2.82) | 0.80 |
| Male sex (vs. female sex) | 0.47 (0.19–1.17) | 0.10 | 0.98 (0.27–3.51) | 0.97 |
| ECOG-PS 2 (vs. ECOG-PS 0 or 1) | 3.83 (1.40–10.4) | 0.008 | 7.31 (2.19–24.4) | 0.001 |
| Durvalumab regimen (vs. atezolizumab regimen) | 0.46 (0.18–1.18) | 0.11 | 0.17 (0.02–1.42) | 0.10 |
CI, confidence interval; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HR, hazard ratio; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1.
Comparison Between Patients With and Without Discontinuation Due to AEs
| Characteristics | With Discontinuation Due to AEs (n = 6, 13.3%) | Without Discontinuation Due to AEs (n = 39, 86.7%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| Median (range) | 81.5 (72–84) | 72 (50–86) | 0.009 |
| Sex, n (%) | |||
| Male | 5 (83.3) | 31 (79.5) | 1.0 |
| Female | 1 (16.7) | 8 (20.5) | |
| ECOG-PS, n (%) | |||
| 0 | 1 (16.7) | 9 (23.1) | 1.0 |
| 1 | 4 (66.7) | 25 (64.1) | |
| 2 | 1 (16.7) | 5 (12.8) | |
| Cancer cachexia, n (%) | 0 (0) | 9 (23.1) | 0.32 |
| Smoking status, n (%) | |||
| Current/former | 5 (83.3) | 39 (100) | 0.13 |
| Never | 1 (16.7) | 0 (0) | |
| BMI | |||
| Median | 24.2 (20.8–28.1) | 21.0 (17.5–30.1) | 0.20 |
| Charlson comorbidity index | |||
| Median (range) | 2 (0–3) | 1 (0–4) | 0.14 |
| G8 | |||
| Median (range) | 11.5 (11–14) | 11 (4.5–17) | 0.46 |
| Regimen, n (%) | |||
| Carboplatin + etoposide + atezolizumab | 6 (100) | 29 (74.4) | 0.31 |
| Carboplatin + etoposide + durvalumab | 0 (0) | 8 (20.5) | |
| Cisplatin + etoposide + durvalumab | 0 (0) | 2 (5.1) |
AE, adverse event; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; BMI, body mass index; G8, geriatric 8.
ECOG-PS 2 versus 0 or 1.
Atezolizumab versus durvalumab.
Treatment-Related Severe Adverse Events Compared With Age (≥75 y Versus <75 y)
| AEs | ≥75 y (n = 18, 40.0%) | <75 y (n = 27, 60.0%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonhematological AEs, grade ≥4, n (%) | |||
| Febrile neutropenia | 3 (16.7) | 1 (3.7) | 0.29 |
| Neutropenia | 8 (44.4) | 17 (63.0) | 0.24 |
| Hematological AEs, grade ≥3, n (%) | |||
| Fatigue | 1 (5.6) | 0 (0) | 0.40 |
| Anorexia | 1 (5.6) | 1 (3.7) | 1.0 |
| Urinary tract infection | 0 (0) | 1 (3.7) | 1.0 |
| Pneumonitis | 1 (5.6) | 0 (0) | 0.40 |
| Myasthenia gravis | 0 (0) | 1 (3.7) | 1.0 |
| Discontinuation of all treatment due to AEs | 5 (27.8) | 1 (3.7) | 0.03 |
| Event leading to death | 2 | 0 (0) | 0.16 |
AE, adverse event.
Sepsis in two patients.
Severity of AEs of Pneumonitis Compared With Age (≥75 y Versus <75 y)
| Pneumonitis | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Grade 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total, n (%) | |||||
| (n = 45) | 1 (2.2) | 2 (4.4) | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| ≥75 y (n = 18) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | 1 (5.6) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| <75 y (n = 27) | 0 (0) | 1 (3.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |