Farmacia hospitalaria : organo oficial de expresion cientifica de la Sociedad Espanola de Farmacia Hospitalaria · 2021
Effectiveness and safety of atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Burgos-San José Amparo, Colomer-Aguilar Claudia, Martínez-Caballero Daniel, Massutí-Sureda Bartomeu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
METHOD: This is a retrospective observational study including patients treated in second line and beyond. The effectiveness of treatment was assessed by means of overall survival and progression free survival measurements. Toxicity was described according to the Common Criteria for Adverse Event Terminology v5.0.
RESULTS: The study included 8 patients treated with atezolizumab,19 with nivolumab, and 16 with pembrolizumab. Median progression free survival with atezolizumab was 9.6 months (95%CI 2-17.2), 12.6 months (95%CI 6.9-18.2) for nivolumab, and 8.5 months (95%CI 0-19) for pembrolizumab. Median overall survival was 13.4 months (95%CI 6- 20.9) for nivolumab. Both PFS and OS were statistically higher in patients with grade 0-1 metastasis in the case of nivolumab, and in ECOG 0-1 patients for pembrolizumab. Median overall survival was not reached for atezolizumab or pembrolizumab. Around 85% of patients suffered adverse effects of some degree. Two of the patients treated with nivolumab developed vitiligo. Overall survival of both was higher than 2.5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: For the patients included in the sample, nivolumab was less effective in those with two or more metastases; the effectiveness of pembrolizumab was lower in ECOG-2 patients. Vitiligo was related to a more durable response to treatment.
METHOD: This is a retrospective observational study including patients treated in second line and beyond. The effectiveness of treatment was assessed by means of overall survival and progression free survival measurements. Toxicity was described according to the Common Criteria for Adverse Event Terminology v5.0.
RESULTS: The study included 8 patients treated with atezolizumab,19 with nivolumab, and 16 with pembrolizumab. Median progression free survival with atezolizumab was 9.6 months (95%CI 2-17.2), 12.6 months (95%CI 6.9-18.2) for nivolumab, and 8.5 months (95%CI 0-19) for pembrolizumab. Median overall survival was 13.4 months (95%CI 6- 20.9) for nivolumab. Both PFS and OS were statistically higher in patients with grade 0-1 metastasis in the case of nivolumab, and in ECOG 0-1 patients for pembrolizumab. Median overall survival was not reached for atezolizumab or pembrolizumab. Around 85% of patients suffered adverse effects of some degree. Two of the patients treated with nivolumab developed vitiligo. Overall survival of both was higher than 2.5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: For the patients included in the sample, nivolumab was less effective in those with two or more metastases; the effectiveness of pembrolizumab was lower in ECOG-2 patients. Vitiligo was related to a more durable response to treatment.