Cargando…

Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review

BACKGROUND: Based on several phase III studies, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are essential and promising drugs for the treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in patients previously treated with ICI, the efficacy and safety of rechallenging the same or another type of ICI in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kitagawa, Shingo, Hakozaki, Taiki, Kitadai, Rui, Hosomi, Yukio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32421224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13483
_version_ 1783552589601701888
author Kitagawa, Shingo
Hakozaki, Taiki
Kitadai, Rui
Hosomi, Yukio
author_facet Kitagawa, Shingo
Hakozaki, Taiki
Kitadai, Rui
Hosomi, Yukio
author_sort Kitagawa, Shingo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Based on several phase III studies, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are essential and promising drugs for the treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in patients previously treated with ICI, the efficacy and safety of rechallenging the same or another type of ICI inhibitor remain unclear. Moreover, clinical data about the efficacy of switching the administration of anti‐programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) antibodies (e.g. nivolumab, pembrolizumab) and anti‐programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) antibodies (e.g. atezolizumab) as ICI rechallenge are limited. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of such treatment strategy in NSCLC patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 17 patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC who received both anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies during their clinical courses. RESULTS: Among the 17 patients, one (5.9%) and nine (52.9%) achieved partial response and stable disease, respectively, after ICI rechallenge. The median progression‐free survival of ICI rechallenge in these patients was 4.0 (range: 0.4–8.0) months, and the median overall survival from the start of the initial ICI was 31.0 (range: 7.6–46.8) months. Of the 10 patients who developed immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) during the first ICI treatment, five presented with these events after the readministration of ICI. Among them, four experienced relapsed irAEs and two patients had pneumonitis, which is a grade 3 or higher irAE. Almost all irAEs during the rechallenge treatment were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Switching the administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as ICI rechallenge could be a treatment option for some NSCLC patients. KEY POINTS: • SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: In this study, switching the administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as ICI rechallenge could be an effective and safe treatment option for some patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC. • WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Switching the administration of ICI may increase the efficacy of readministration. However, the mechanism is unknown. Thus, further accumulation of cases is required, and extensive investigations must be conducted to elucidate the mechanism and benefits of such treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7327670
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73276702020-07-02 Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review Kitagawa, Shingo Hakozaki, Taiki Kitadai, Rui Hosomi, Yukio Thorac Cancer Original Articles BACKGROUND: Based on several phase III studies, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are essential and promising drugs for the treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in patients previously treated with ICI, the efficacy and safety of rechallenging the same or another type of ICI inhibitor remain unclear. Moreover, clinical data about the efficacy of switching the administration of anti‐programmed death‐1 (PD‐1) antibodies (e.g. nivolumab, pembrolizumab) and anti‐programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) antibodies (e.g. atezolizumab) as ICI rechallenge are limited. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of such treatment strategy in NSCLC patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 17 patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC who received both anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies during their clinical courses. RESULTS: Among the 17 patients, one (5.9%) and nine (52.9%) achieved partial response and stable disease, respectively, after ICI rechallenge. The median progression‐free survival of ICI rechallenge in these patients was 4.0 (range: 0.4–8.0) months, and the median overall survival from the start of the initial ICI was 31.0 (range: 7.6–46.8) months. Of the 10 patients who developed immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) during the first ICI treatment, five presented with these events after the readministration of ICI. Among them, four experienced relapsed irAEs and two patients had pneumonitis, which is a grade 3 or higher irAE. Almost all irAEs during the rechallenge treatment were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Switching the administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as ICI rechallenge could be a treatment option for some NSCLC patients. KEY POINTS: • SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: In this study, switching the administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as ICI rechallenge could be an effective and safe treatment option for some patients with advanced or recurrent NSCLC. • WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Switching the administration of ICI may increase the efficacy of readministration. However, the mechanism is unknown. Thus, further accumulation of cases is required, and extensive investigations must be conducted to elucidate the mechanism and benefits of such treatment. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2020-05-18 2020-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7327670/ /pubmed/32421224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13483 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kitagawa, Shingo
Hakozaki, Taiki
Kitadai, Rui
Hosomi, Yukio
Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review
title Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review
title_full Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review
title_fullStr Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review
title_full_unstemmed Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review
title_short Switching administration of anti‐PD‐1 and anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: Case series and literature review
title_sort switching administration of anti‐pd‐1 and anti‐pd‐l1 antibodies as immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer: case series and literature review
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327670/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32421224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13483
work_keys_str_mv AT kitagawashingo switchingadministrationofantipd1andantipdl1antibodiesasimmunecheckpointinhibitorrechallengeinindividualswithadvancednonsmallcelllungcancercaseseriesandliteraturereview
AT hakozakitaiki switchingadministrationofantipd1andantipdl1antibodiesasimmunecheckpointinhibitorrechallengeinindividualswithadvancednonsmallcelllungcancercaseseriesandliteraturereview
AT kitadairui switchingadministrationofantipd1andantipdl1antibodiesasimmunecheckpointinhibitorrechallengeinindividualswithadvancednonsmallcelllungcancercaseseriesandliteraturereview
AT hosomiyukio switchingadministrationofantipd1andantipdl1antibodiesasimmunecheckpointinhibitorrechallengeinindividualswithadvancednonsmallcelllungcancercaseseriesandliteraturereview