4.4 Article

Retreatment with pembrolizumab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients previously treated with nivolumab: emerging reports of 12 cases

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 1105-1109

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-018-3585-9

关键词

Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Nivolumab; Pembrolizumab; NSCLC; Relapse; Retreatment

资金

  1. National Hospital Organization fiduciary funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After approval of anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 antibodies, treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has drastically changed. However, even in patients with favorable effects, therapeutic efficacy does not last long. Recently, retreatment with anti-PD-1 antibody has received attention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of retreatment with pembrolizumab in NSCLC patients previously treated with nivolumab. We retrospectively reviewed NSCLC patients retreated with pembrolizumab who were previously treated with nivolumab. We collected the following data: patient characteristics, number of cycles of nivolumab and pembrolizumab, treatment interval between nivolumab and pembrolizumab, best response, and immune-related adverse events. Twelve patients were reviewed. The median number of cycles of nivolumab was 12.5 (range 2-32 cycles). Seven patients (58.3%) achieved a partial response (PR) and two patients (16.7%) achieved stable disease (SD). Eight patients (66.7%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy between nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The median number of cycles of chemotherapy treatment was 4 (range 1-9 cycles). The median number of cycles of pembrolizumab was 3.5 (range 1-17 cycles). One patient (8.3%) achieved PR and four patients (33.3%) achieved SD as their best response to pembrolizumab. All patients showing response to pembrolizumab had very high (ae 80%) tumor PD-Ligand 1 expression. This study suggested that retreatment with anti-PD-1 antibody is a reasonable option for selected NSCLC patients.

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