Deniz Can Guven1, Emre Yekeduz2, Enes Erul3, Sati Coskun Yazgan4, Taha Koray Sahin3, Gokturk Karatas4, Sercan Aksoy5, Mustafa Erman5, Suayib Yalcin5, Yuksel Urun2, Saadettin Kilickap6,7. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. denizcguven@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Cancer Institute, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey. 7. Medical Oncology Unit, Liv Hospital Ankara, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Treatment beyond progression (TBP) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is an evolving field due to the limitations of conventional imaging in response evaluation. However, real-life data on the benefit of TBP is scarce, especially from the limited resource settings and patients treated in the later lines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the survival benefit of TBP with ICIs in patients with advanced tumors from a limited resource setting. METHODS: For this multi-center retrospective cohort study, we included 282 patients treated with ICIs and had radiological progression according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. We evaluated post-progression survival according to the use of TBP (TBP and non-TBP groups) with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The cohort's median age was 61, and 84.4% were treated in the second or later lines. 82 (29.1%) of 282 patients continued on ICIs following the initial progression. In multivariate analyses, patients in the TBP group had improved post-progression survival compared to non-TBP (13.18 vs. 4.63 months, HR: 0.500, 95% CI: 0.349-0.717, p < 0.001). The benefit of the TBP was independent of the tumor type, treatment line, and age. Furthermore, TBP with ICIs remained associated with improved post-progression survival (HR: 0.600, 95% CI: 0.380-0.947, p = 0.028) after excluding the patients with no further treatment after progression in the non-TBP arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that patients receiving ICIs beyond progression had considerably longer survival. Continuation of ICIs after progression should be considered a reasonable management option for patients with advanced cancer, specifically for patients with limited alternative options.
OBJECTIVE: Treatment beyond progression (TBP) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is an evolving field due to the limitations of conventional imaging in response evaluation. However, real-life data on the benefit of TBP is scarce, especially from the limited resource settings and patients treated in the later lines. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the survival benefit of TBP with ICIs in patients with advanced tumors from a limited resource setting. METHODS: For this multi-center retrospective cohort study, we included 282 patients treated with ICIs and had radiological progression according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. We evaluated post-progression survival according to the use of TBP (TBP and non-TBP groups) with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The cohort's median age was 61, and 84.4% were treated in the second or later lines. 82 (29.1%) of 282 patients continued on ICIs following the initial progression. In multivariate analyses, patients in the TBP group had improved post-progression survival compared to non-TBP (13.18 vs. 4.63 months, HR: 0.500, 95% CI: 0.349-0.717, p < 0.001). The benefit of the TBP was independent of the tumor type, treatment line, and age. Furthermore, TBP with ICIs remained associated with improved post-progression survival (HR: 0.600, 95% CI: 0.380-0.947, p = 0.028) after excluding the patients with no further treatment after progression in the non-TBP arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that patients receiving ICIs beyond progression had considerably longer survival. Continuation of ICIs after progression should be considered a reasonable management option for patients with advanced cancer, specifically for patients with limited alternative options.
Authors: Leisha A Emens; Paolo A Ascierto; Phillip K Darcy; Sandra Demaria; Alexander M M Eggermont; William L Redmond; Barbara Seliger; Francesco M Marincola Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jaafar Bennouna; Javier Sastre; Dirk Arnold; Pia Österlund; Richard Greil; Eric Van Cutsem; Roger von Moos; Jose Maria Viéitez; Olivier Bouché; Christophe Borg; Claus-Christoph Steffens; Vicente Alonso-Orduña; Christoph Schlichting; Irmarie Reyes-Rivera; Belguendouz Bendahmane; Thierry André; Stefan Kubicka Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E Borcoman; Y Kanjanapan; S Champiat; S Kato; V Servois; R Kurzrock; S Goel; P Bedard; C Le Tourneau Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Anna Małgorzata Czarnecka; Paweł Sobczuk; Paweł Rogala; Tomasz Świtaj; Joanna Placzke; Katarzyna Kozak; Anna Mariuk-Jarema; Mateusz Spałek; Monika Dudzisz-Śledź; Paweł Teterycz; Aneta Borkowska; Piotr Rutkowski Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 6.630
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