4.6 Article

Exploring Real World Outcomes with Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Extra-Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Carcinoma (EP-NEC)

期刊

CANCERS
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14112695

关键词

neuroendocrine carcinoma; chemotherapy; checkpoint inhibitor therapy; nivolumab and ipilimumab

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively analyzed the treatment outcomes of EP-NEC patients and found that dual ICPIs showed better progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with EP-NEC in the second-line setting, compared to single ICPIs or cytotoxic chemotherapy.
Simple Summary Extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas (EP-NEC) are a group of tumors which are often metastatic and characterized by poor outcomes. Platinum-etoposide chemotherapy is the current front-line therapy for metastatic EP-NEC, and has been adapted from small cell lung cancer. There are limited treatment options for patients with platinum-resistant EP-NEC, with no current established second-line standard of care. Recently, there has been mixed evidence for the role of immunotherapy in EP-NEC, with limited existing prospective data. In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we compared outcomes between patients with refractory EP-NEC who received single, dual immune check point inhibitors (ICPIs) and cytotoxic chemotherapy in the second-line setting. This real world experience suggests that utilizing ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with second-line pretreated EP-NEC may be more effective than other existing treatment options. Background: Dual utilization of the immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) nivolumab plus ipilimumab has demonstrated clinical promise in the treatment of patients with refractory high-grade neuroendocrine neo-plasms (NENs) in phase II clinical trials (DART SWOG 1609 and CA209), while single agent ICPIs have largely been ineffective for these types of tumors. While both trials demonstrated promising results in high grade NENs, there was no adequate description of the association between tumor differentiation (high-grade well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor vs poorly-differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-NEC) and ICPI outcomes in the DART SWOG 1609 trial. Our study reports on the effectiveness and toxicity profile of dual ICPIs in a real world second-line EP-NEC patient population. Methods: Data on metastatic EP-NEC patients, treated with either ICPIs (single and dual ICPIs) or chemo-therapy in the second-line setting, were retrieved from databases of three comprehensive cancer centers. Associations between treatment characteristics and outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), were evaluated. Results: From 2007 to 2020, we identified 70 patients with metastatic EP-NEC (predominantly of gastro-enteropancreatic origin), of whom 42 patients (23 males, 19 females, median age 62 years old) were eligible for the final analysis. All patients were refractory to platinum etoposide doublet chemotherapy in the first-line setting. The median PFS for patients who received dual ICPIs (11 patients), single agent ICPI (8 patients), and cytotoxic chemotherapy (23 patients) was 258 days, 56.5 days, and 47 days, respectively (p = 0.0001). Median overall survival (OS) for those groups was not reached (NR), 18.7 months, and 10.5 months, respectively (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in treatment outcomes in patients according to tumor mismatch repair (MMR) or tumor mutational burden (TMB) status. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11.1% of the patients who received dual ICPIs; however, none of these AEs led to permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: In the second-line setting, patients with EP-NECs treated with dual ICPIs (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) experienced improved PFS and OS compared to patients treated with single agent ICPI or cytotoxic chemotherapy. These results echo some of the current evidence for ICPIs in grade 3 NENs and need to be validated in future prospective studies.

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

4.6
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