Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2021
Safety and efficacy analysis of pembrolizumab dosing patterns in patients with advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Kartolo A, Holstead R, Hopman W, Young L, Baetz T
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the impact of discrepancy between prescribed and recommended fixed 200 mg dose (P-F discrepancy) on immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and treatment efficacy in patients with advanced melanoma and NSCLC.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 177 patients with advanced melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received at least one cycle of single-agent pembrolizumab. We defined P-F discrepancy as the differences between prescribed pembrolizumab dose and 200 mg recommended dose, expressed in percentages. Our primary outcome was immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and our secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS).
RESULTS: The median P-F discrepancy was -21.5%, with the 25th and 75th percentile at -32% and -5.0% respectively. ROC curve analyses did not show any optimal cutoffs to prognosticate irAEs (AUC = 0.558 for all patients) or cancer mortality (AUC = 0.583 for melanoma; AUC = 0.539 for NSCLC) in either cancer type. Separate multivariable Cox analyses suggested no statistically significant association between P-F discrepancy and overall survival in patients with melanoma (HR 1.012, 95%CI 0.987-1.038, P = 0.362) or NSCLC (HR 0.998, 95%CI 0.978-1.019, P = 0.876).
CONCLUSION: There was no optimal pembrolizumab cut-off point to predict irAEs or treatment efficacy. We supported the use of weight-based pembrolizumab dosing, given the potential cost-saving and no differences in terms of irAEs or treatment efficacy in patients with advanced melanoma or NSCLC. Future studies on province- or national-level would be important to validate our findings.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 177 patients with advanced melanoma or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received at least one cycle of single-agent pembrolizumab. We defined P-F discrepancy as the differences between prescribed pembrolizumab dose and 200 mg recommended dose, expressed in percentages. Our primary outcome was immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and our secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS).
RESULTS: The median P-F discrepancy was -21.5%, with the 25th and 75th percentile at -32% and -5.0% respectively. ROC curve analyses did not show any optimal cutoffs to prognosticate irAEs (AUC = 0.558 for all patients) or cancer mortality (AUC = 0.583 for melanoma; AUC = 0.539 for NSCLC) in either cancer type. Separate multivariable Cox analyses suggested no statistically significant association between P-F discrepancy and overall survival in patients with melanoma (HR 1.012, 95%CI 0.987-1.038, P = 0.362) or NSCLC (HR 0.998, 95%CI 0.978-1.019, P = 0.876).
CONCLUSION: There was no optimal pembrolizumab cut-off point to predict irAEs or treatment efficacy. We supported the use of weight-based pembrolizumab dosing, given the potential cost-saving and no differences in terms of irAEs or treatment efficacy in patients with advanced melanoma or NSCLC. Future studies on province- or national-level would be important to validate our findings.