Response rate and local recurrence after concurrent immune checkpoint therapy and radiotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer and melanoma brain metastases

Background Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear. Methods A total of 199 patients with mela...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer 2020-12, Vol.126 (24), p.5274-5282
Hauptverfasser: Qian, Jack M., Martin, Allison M., Martin, Kate, Hammoudeh, Lubna, Catalano, Paul J., Hodi, F. Stephen, Cagney, Daniel N., Haas‐Kogan, Daphne A., Schoenfeld, Jonathan D., Aizer, Ayal A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Prior literature has suggested synergy between immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) and radiotherapy (RT) for the treatment of brain metastases (BrM), but to the authors' knowledge the optimal timing of therapy to maximize this synergy is unclear. Methods A total of 199 patients with melanoma and non–small cell lung cancer with BrM received ICT and RT between 2007 and 2016 at the study institution. To reduce selection biases, individual metastases were included only if they were treated with RT within 90 days of ICT. Concurrent treatment was defined as RT delivered on the same day as or in between doses of an ICT course; all other treatment was considered to be nonconcurrent. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess time to response and local disease recurrence on a per‐metastasis basis, using a sandwich estimator to account for intrapatient correlation. Results The final cohort included 110 patients with 340 BrM, with 102 BrM treated concurrently and 238 BrM treated nonconcurrently. Response rates were higher with the use of concurrent treatment (70% vs 47%; P 
ISSN:0008-543X
1097-0142
DOI:10.1002/cncr.33196