Frontiers in immunology · 2023
Comparison of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and chemotherapy alone for resectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world cohort study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Zhou Sihao, Liu Yi, Liu Kejun, Zhang Junkai, Liang Hanlin, Wu Yingmeng, Ye Hongyu, Liang Yi, Zhang Jingjing, Huang Weizhao
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We compared the real-world efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A total of 59 consecutive patients were finally selected and divided into two groups: the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (n = 33) and the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group (n = 26). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints were pathological response, clinical response, and adverse events. All patients were followed up to collect perioperative pathology and clinical data.
RESULTS: The objective response rate (ORR), pathological complete response (pCR), and major pathological response (MPR) were significantly higher in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group than in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (73.1% vs. 45.5%, 34.6% vs. 3.0%, and 65.3% vs. 15.1%, respectively; P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival between the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy groups (P = 0.129). Patients in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group had a higher rate of tumor regression than those in neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (37.0% [25 patients] vs. 29.0% [33 patients], P = 0.018). However, no discernible correlation between MPR achievement and the degree of tumor shrinkage was observed in either group (P > 0.05). The cumulative MPR rates were 42.3, 50, and 65.3% for 2, 3, and ≥ 4 cycles, respectively, in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group and 9.1, 12.1, and 15.1% for ≤ 2, 3, and ≥ 4 cycles, respectively, in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. Moreover, No statistical difference was observed between the two groups regarding postoperative complications, resection range, operation time, surgical method, and extent of resection (P > 0.05). Although the incidence of grades III-IV adverse events was higher in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group than in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group (33.3% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.042), there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups (64.6% vs. 83.6%, P = 0.072).
CONCLUSION: In stage III NSCLC, neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy achieved higher pathological and clinical remission rates than chemotherapy alone, with compromising safety, making it an attractive choice for neoadjuvant therapy.
PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A total of 59 consecutive patients were finally selected and divided into two groups: the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (n = 33) and the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group (n = 26). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints were pathological response, clinical response, and adverse events. All patients were followed up to collect perioperative pathology and clinical data.
RESULTS: The objective response rate (ORR), pathological complete response (pCR), and major pathological response (MPR) were significantly higher in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group than in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (73.1% vs. 45.5%, 34.6% vs. 3.0%, and 65.3% vs. 15.1%, respectively; P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival between the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy groups (P = 0.129). Patients in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group had a higher rate of tumor regression than those in neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (37.0% [25 patients] vs. 29.0% [33 patients], P = 0.018). However, no discernible correlation between MPR achievement and the degree of tumor shrinkage was observed in either group (P > 0.05). The cumulative MPR rates were 42.3, 50, and 65.3% for 2, 3, and ≥ 4 cycles, respectively, in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group and 9.1, 12.1, and 15.1% for ≤ 2, 3, and ≥ 4 cycles, respectively, in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group. Moreover, No statistical difference was observed between the two groups regarding postoperative complications, resection range, operation time, surgical method, and extent of resection (P > 0.05). Although the incidence of grades III-IV adverse events was higher in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group than in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group (33.3% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.042), there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups (64.6% vs. 83.6%, P = 0.072).
CONCLUSION: In stage III NSCLC, neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy achieved higher pathological and clinical remission rates than chemotherapy alone, with compromising safety, making it an attractive choice for neoadjuvant therapy.