Search

Introduction: LIPI has been strongly correlated with immunotherapy (IT) outcomes in advanced NSCLC. Limited data is available for upfront chemotherapy (CT) + IT combinations. We aimed to study its prognostic value in 1st-line CT +/- IT +/- antiangiogenics., Methods: Data from patients with wild-type EGFR/ALK aNSCLC included in IMpower150, IMpower131, and IMpower130 (international phase 3 multicenter studies) treated with 1st-line CT +/- atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab were retrospectively analysed. LIPI was calculated based on the neutrophil/(leucocytes-neutrophils) (dNLR) ratio and serum LDH: good (dNLR < 3 and LDH < ULN), intermediate (dNLR ≥ 3 or LDH ≥ ULN) and poor (dNLR ≥ 3 and LDH ≥ ULN)., Results: Out of 2540 patients, 48.6 % were LIPI good, 40.8 % intermediate and 10.6 % poor. LIPI was significantly associated with treatment outcomes (PFS, OS) in the overall cohort (p < 0.001) and in each treatment cohort (all p < 0.001). After adjustment for age, smoking status, number of metastatic sites, brain or liver involvement and performance status, LIPI remained an independent prognostic factor for PFS and OS. In the LIPI good group (n = 1235), longer PFS was observed in patients treated with CT + IT + AA (median [m] PFS 11.3 vs. < 7.6 months with other regimens, p < 0.001), with a trend for OS (mOS 26.1 vs 20.7 months, p = 0.08). No regimen demonstrated significant PFS benefit in the LIPI poor group compared to chemotherapy. LIPI-good + PD-L1 ≥ 50 % (n = 105) showed long responses (mPFS of 11.1 months, mOS not reached)., Conclusions: LIPI was prognostic for PFS and OS in prospective trials in aNSCLC, regardless of the treatment regimen. LIPI poor patients derived no benefit from combination treatment. LIPI combined to PD-L1 may improve the upfront treatment selection., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy plus immunotherapy is the standard of care for patients with metastatic NSCLC. No study has evaluated the outcomes of second-line chemotherapy treatments after progression following first-line chemo-immunotherapy., Method: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated the efficacy of second line (2L) chemotherapies after progression under first-line (1L) chemo-immunotherapy, measured by overall survival (2L-OS) and progression free survival (2L-PFS)., Results: A total of 124 patients were included. The mean age was 63.1 years, 30.6 % of the patients were female, 72.6 % had an adenocarcinoma and 43.5 % had a poor ECOG-performance status prior to 2L initiation. Sixty-four (52.0 %) patients were considered resistant to first line chemo-immunotherapy. (1L-PFS < 6 months). In 2L treatments, 57 (46.0 %) patients received taxane monotherapy, 25 (20.1 %) taxane plus anti-angiogenic, 12 (9.7 %) platinum-based chemotherapy and 30 (24.2 %) other chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 8.3 months (95 %CI: 7.2-10.2), post initiation of 2L treatment, the median 2L-OS was 8.1 months (95 % CI: 6.4-12.7) and the median 2L-PFS was 2.9 months (95 %CI: 2.4-3.3). Overall, the 2L-objective response and 2L-disease control rates were 16.0 %, and 42.5 %, respectively. Taxane plus anti-angiogenic and platinum rechallenge achieved longest median 2L-OS: not reached (95 %CI: 5.8-NR) and 17.6 months (95 %CI 11.6-NR), respectively (p = 0.05). Patients resistant to the 1L treatment had inferior outcomes (2L-OS 5.1 months, 2L-PFS 2.3 months) compared with 1L responders (2L-OS 12.7 months, 2L-PFS 3.2 months)., Conclusion: In this real-life cohort, 2L chemotherapy achieved modest activity following progression under chemo-immunotherapy. 1L-resistant patients remained a refractory population, highlighting a need for new 2L strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Pleural effusion (PE) is a common metastatic site of NSCLC, associated with poor outcomes. As very few data are available about immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and PE, we aimed to assess the clinical outcome of PE in NSCLC treated with ICI., Method: Multicenter international retrospective study of patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with ICI, between 2012 and 2019. Stratification according to the presence of PE at ICI baseline or appearance under ICI treatment (PE group) versus no history of PE (non-PE group). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and early death rate (EDR, OS ≤ 3 months)., Results: A total of 538 patients were included: 196 in the PE group and 342 in the non-PE group. In the PE group, median age was 64, 31.6 % were female, 77.6 % had non-squamous histology, PD-L1 was ≥50 % in 38.6 % of cases (95 missing). PE was more likely associated with >2 metastatic sites (70.4 % vs. 50 %) and worse performance status (PS ≥ 2, 30.8 % vs 23.1 %). Globally, the overall median OS was 9.7 months [95 %CI: 8.1-11.8]; 6.3 [95 % CI: 4.0-8.6] in PE vs. 11.4 [95 %CI: 9.7-13.8] in the non-PE respectively, P = 0.002. Overall the EDR was 31.4 %; higher in the PE group (38.3 % vs. 27.5 %; OR 1.63, 95 %CI: 1.13-2.37, P = 0.01). In the PE PD-L1≥50 % group, EDR was 33.3 %. In multivariate analysis, after adjustment on PS, liver/intracranial/bone metastasis, ICI line and dNLR, PE remained an independent prognostic factor for OS [HR: 1.38, 95 %CI: 1.09-1.74, P = 0.007]. In the PE group, PE appeared under ICI for 31 patients (16.4 %). We observed lower EDR in this group compared to patients whom PE was already present (29.0 % vs 40.5 %, P = 0.2)., Conclusion: PE is associated with worse immunotherapy outcomes in NSCLC treated with ICI, including in patients with ≥50 % PD-L1 tumors. Thus, in these patients, combination strategies should be explored., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)