An open, observational, three-arm clinical study of 2–3 cycles of treatment as neoadjuvant therapy in operable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An interim analysis

BackgroundAn open, observational, three-arm clinical study aimed at investigating the efficacy of different neoadjuvant therapies (neoadjuvant immunotherapy with(out) chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant targeted therapy) in operable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NS...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in immunology 2022-08, Vol.13, p.938269-938269
Hauptverfasser: Gu, Linping, Wang, Xue, Sun, Yile, Xu, Yunhua, Niu, Xiaomin, Zhao, Ruiying, Yao, Yaxian, Jian, Hong, Han, Yuchen, Wei, Jinwang, Chen, Zhiwei, Lu, Shun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BackgroundAn open, observational, three-arm clinical study aimed at investigating the efficacy of different neoadjuvant therapies (neoadjuvant immunotherapy with(out) chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant targeted therapy) in operable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was conducted (NCT04197076). We report an interim analysis of 49 of 53 evaluable patients. MethodsThis study was conducted at Shanghai Chest Hospital and included eligible NSCLC patients who were 18 years old and had clinical stage IIB-IIIB disease. All 49 patients had surgical resection within 4-6 weeks after 2-3 cycles of neoadjuvant treatment consisting of immunotherapy (24 patients), chemotherapy (16 patients), and a targeted therapy (9 patients) regimen starting on the first day of each 21-day cycle. Pathologic complete response (pCR) was evaluated as the primary endpoint. Major pathological response (MPR) and tumor regression rate (TRR) were also evaluated. ResultsAn improved pathologic complete response was achieved in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy arm compared with the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm and neoadjuvant targeted therapy arm [20.8% (5/24) vs. 6.3% (1/16) vs. 0.0% (0/9); P = 0.089, 95% CI 0.138-0.151]. More importantly, we found that the curative effect of the neoadjuvant immunotherapy arm in pCR+MPR was better than that of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm and neoadjuvant targeted therapy arm [45.8% (11/24) vs. 18.8% (3/16) vs. 0.0% (0/9); P = 0.006, 95% confidence interval, 0.008-0.012]. Different neoadjuvant therapies had a statistically significant effect on postoperative pathological tumor downstaging (P = 0.017). ConclusionsNeoadjuvant immunotherapy was associated with a trend toward better pCR than the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm and neoadjuvant targeted therapy. Curative effect (pCR + MPR) was significantly better with neoadjuvant immunotherapy (P = 0.006, 95% confidence interval, 0.008-0.012). Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04197076?recrs=a&cond=NCT04197076&draw=2&rank=1.
ISSN:1664-3224
1664-3224
DOI:10.3389/fimmu.2022.938269