4.5 Article

Pulmonary Lymphoepithelioma-Like Carcinoma Treated with Immunotherapy or Chemotherapy: A Single Institute Experience

期刊

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 1073-1081

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S290113

关键词

lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma; ICIs; PD-L1; immunotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrated that in patients with LELC, immunotherapy showed higher objective response rates and disease control rates compared to chemotherapy. The depth of response was better in the ICI group, with significantly longer progression-free survival and higher 1-year PFS rate.
Background: Lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC) is a rare malignant tumor of the lung. It is related to EB virus infection. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) are rarely found in this disease, while high level programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is observed. Here a series of patients with advanced LELC treated with immunotherapy were summarized. Methods: This retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients who were pathologically confirmed, metastatic or recurrent LELC patients. Patients were prescribed with either chemotherapy or immunotherapy, according to treating physicians' discretion. Results: A total of 27 patients were included in our study, 10 with immunotherapy (ICI group) and 17 with chemotherapy (Chemo group). The objective response rates (ORR) of the two groups were 80.0% and 70.5% (p=0.678), and disease control rates (DCR) were 100% and 88.2% (p=0.516). However, the response depth was better in the ICI group. Although the cohort of patients in the ICI group was in a disadvantageous state (both up-front and salvage), the progression-free survival (PFS) was much longer (15.0 and 7.9 m, p=0.005). The 1-year PFS rate in the ICI group was also much higher (40% and 5.9%, p=0.047). Conclusion: This study implicated the high efficiency of ICI therapy in this disease.

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

4.5
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