4.4 Article

High mortality and poor treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with severe grade checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis in non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

THORACIC CANCER
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 2006-2012

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13187

关键词

Immune checkpoint inhibitor; interstitial lung disease; non-small cell lung cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The treatment efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and clinical outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who develop severe grade checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP) are unclear. Here, we report on the treatment efficacy of ICI and prognosis in NSCLC patients with severe grade CIP. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, CIP severity, CIP-related mortality, and ICI efficacy in 71 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with ICIs were evaluated. Data was obtained from the patients' medical charts. Results All grade and severe grade CIP were observed in 22 and 11 patients, respectively. The CIP-related mortality rate was 22.7% (N = 5). An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) score of >= 2 and pre-existing interstitial lung disease (ILD) were significantly associated with the development of severe grade CIP (P = 0.001 and P = 0.035, respectively). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly shorter in patients with severe grade CIP than in those without severe grade CIP (PFS 1.0 month, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-2.0 vs. 3.5 months, 95% CI 2.0-5.0 months, P = 0.003; OS 3.0 months, 95% CI 0.5-13 vs. 12.7 months, 95% CI 8.0-21.0 months, P = 0.011). Conclusion CIP is a serious complication with a poor prognosis associated with high mortality. The efficacy of ICI is significantly worse in patients with severe grade CIP than in those without severe grade CIP. Whether ICIs should be administered to patients with CIP risk factors, such as an ECOG PS score of >= 2 or pre-existing ILD, should be carefully assessed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据