Immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) for stage I to III non-small cell lung cancer treated with surgery or radiotherapy with curative intent

Therapeutic vaccines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

New strategies in immunotherapy with specific antigens that trigger an anti-tumour immune response in people with lung cancer open the possibility of developing therapeutic vaccines aimed at boosting the adaptive immune response against cancer cells.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of therapeutic vaccines for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wanfang Data, and China Journal Net (CNKI) up to 22 August 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic cancer vaccine, alone or in combination with other treatments, in adults (> 18 years) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whatever the line of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival, and serious adverse events; secondary outcomes were three- and five-year survival rates and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 2177 participants. The outcome analyses included only 2045 participants (1401 men and 644 women). The certainty of the evidence varied by vaccine and outcome, and ranged from moderate to very low. We report only the results for primary outcomes here. TG4010 The addition of the vector-based vaccine, TG4010, to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone in first-line treatment, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may increase progression-free survival slightly (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 1 study, 222 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.19; 2 studies, 362 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidermal growth factor vaccine Epidermal growth factor vaccine, compared to best supportive care as switch maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 1 study, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.98; 2 studies, 458 participants; low-certainty evidence). hTERT (vx-001) The hTERT (vx-001) vaccine compared to placebo as maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.34; 1 study, 190 participants). Racotumomab Racotumomab compared to placebo as a switch maintenance treatment post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 176 participants. It may increase overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.87). It may make little to no difference in progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00) and in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.18). Racotumomab versus docetaxel as switch maintenance therapy post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 145 participants. The study did not report hazard rates on overall survival or progression-free survival time, but the difference in median survival times was very small - less than one month. Racotumomab may result in little to no difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event compared with docetaxel (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83). Personalised peptide vaccine Personalised peptide vaccine plus docetaxel compared to docetaxel plus placebo post-chemotherapy treatment may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52) and progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.42). OSE2101 The OSE2101 vaccine compared with chemotherapy, after chemotherapy or immunotherapy, was assessed in one study with 219 participants. It may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19). It may result in a small difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99). SRL172 The SRL172 vaccine of killed Mycobacterium vaccae, added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, may result in no difference in overall survival, and may increase the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.43; 351 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adding a vaccine resulted in no differences in overall survival, except for racotumomab, which showed some improvement compared to placebo, but the difference in median survival time was very small (1.4 months) and the study only included 176 participants. Regarding progression-free survival, we observed no differences between the compared treatments, except for TG4010, which may increase progression-free survival slightly. There were no differences between the compared treatments in serious treatment-related adverse events, except for SRL172 (killed Mycobacterium vaccae) added to chemotherapy, which was associated with an increase in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, and OSE2101, which may decrease slightly the proportion of people having at least one serious treatment-related adverse event. These conclusions should be interpreted cautiously, as the very low- to moderate-certainty evidence prevents drawing solid conclusions: many vaccines were evaluated in a single study with small numbers of participants and events.

Drug resistance mechanism and reversal strategy in lung cancer immunotherapy

Among all malignant tumors, lung cancer has the highest mortality and morbidity rates. The non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are the most common histological subtypes. Although there are a number of internationally recognized lung cancer therapy regimens, their therapeutic effects remain inadequate. The outlook for individuals with lung carcinoma has ameliorated partly thanks to the intensive study of the tumor microenvironment and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Numerous cancers have been effectively treated with immunotherapy, which has had positive therapeutic results. Global clinical trials have validated that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are effective and safe for treating lung cancer either independently or in combination, and they are gradually being recommended as systemic treatment medications by numerous guidelines. However, the immunotherapy resistance restricts the immunotherapy efficacy due to the formation of tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment and tumor mutations, and immunotherapy is only effective for a small percentage of lung cancer patients. To summarize, while tumor immunotherapy is benefiting an increasing number of lung cancer patients, most of them still develop natural or acquired resistance during immunotherapy. Consequently, a crucial and urgent topic is understanding and tackling drug resistance triggered by immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment. This review will outline the presently recognized mechanisms of immunotherapy resistance and reversal strategies in lung cancer.

The benefit and risk of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents as second or later-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials

Background

Previous studies revealed that Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/Programmed cell death-Ligand protein 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents had extensive anti-tumor activities. However, almost all studies on the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents as second or later-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer are non-randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes, which might lead to a lack of effective metrics to assess the effectiveness and safety of the therapeutic regimen. Here, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents as second or later-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Methods

A single-arm meta-analysis was performed, and published literature from PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases as of January 13, 2023, was systematically retrieved. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) Methodological items to evaluate the quality of eligible clinical trials. Outcomes including overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were extracted for further analysis. The random effect model is used to calculate the pooled parameters.

Results

19 studies (16 were non-comparative single-arm clinical trials and 3 were randomized controlled trials) were enrolled in this meta-analysis. In terms of tumor response, the pooled ORR and DCR were 22.4% (95% CI, 16.6-28.1%) and 76.8% (95% CI, 72.6-81.1%), respectively. With regard to survival analysis, the pooled PFS and OS were 5.20 (95% CI, 4.46-5.93) months and 14.09 (95% CI, 13.20-14.97) months, respectively. The pooled grade ≥3 adverse effect (AE) rate was 47.6% (95% CI, 33.1-62.0%).

Conclusion

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents has promising efficacy and safety as second or later-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023407559.

Comprehensive treatment for ROS1-overexpressed pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma: A case report

Key Clinical Message

In conclusion author highlights the tumor cell genetic testing or molecular pathological diagnosis plays a key role in the individualized treatment of PSC, which could benefit patients with advanced PSC.

Abstract

An uncommon form of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a poor prognosis is pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (PSC). Surgical resection is currently the preferred treatment, but guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy have not yet been established, especially for the advanced stage. The development of molecular subgroups in the field of tumors may be advantageous to advanced PSC patients with the ongoing progress of genomics and immunology. A 54-year-old man presented to Xishan People's Hospital of Wuxi City with recurrent intermittent dry cough with fever for 1 month. Further examinations suggested the diagnosis of PSC occupying almost the entire right interlobar fissure area combined with malignant pleural effusion (Stage IVa). Pathological examination confirmed the diagnosis of PSC with ROS1 overexpressing via genetic testing. However, after three cycles of chemo-, antiangiogenetic- and immunochemical therapy, the lesion was localized, and pleural effusion disappeared, the patient subsequently received an operation which was performed as R0 resection. Unfortunately, the patient became deteriorated quickly followed by extensive metastatic nodules in the thoracic cavity. Although the patient continued to receive chemo- and immunochemical-therapy, it did not limit the progress of the tumor, leading to widespread metastasis, and eventually died of multiple organ failure. For PSC patients with Stage IVa, chemo-, antiangiogenetic- and immunochemical-therapy performs well in clinical efficacy, and comprehensive panel-based genetic testing may offer PSC patients a somewhat better prognosis. However, blindly implementing surgical treatment may bring harm to the patient and affect long-term survival. It's essential to know the surgical indications precisely by NSCLC guidelines.

Immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) for stage I to III non-small cell lung cancer treated with surgery or radiotherapy with curative intent

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common lung cancer, accounting for approximately 80% to 85% of all cases. For people with localised NSCLC (stages I to III), it has been speculated that immunotherapy may be helpful for reducing postoperative recurrence rates, or improving the clinical outcomes of current treatment for unresectable tumours. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017 and it includes two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) among  people  with localised NSCLC of stages I to III who received curative intent of radiotherapy or surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases (from inception to 19 May 2021): CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and five trial registers. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs conducted in adults (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with  NSCLC stage I to III after surgical resection, and those with unresectable locally advanced stage III NSCLC receiving radiotherapy with curative intent. We included participants who underwent primary surgical treatment, postoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy if the same strategy was provided for both intervention and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used survival analysis to pool time-to-event data, using hazard ratios (HRs). We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Due to clinical heterogeneity (immunotherapeutic agents with different underlying mechanisms), we combined data by applying random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs involving 5128 participants (this included 2 new trials with 188 participants since the last search dated 20 January 2017). Participants who underwent surgical resection or received curative radiotherapy were randomised to either an immunotherapy group or a control group. The immunological interventions were active immunotherapy Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) adoptive cell transfer (i.e. transfer factor (TF), tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), dendritic cell/cytokine-induced killer (DC/CIK), antigen-specific cancer vaccines (melanoma-associated antigen 3 (MAGE-A3) and L-BLP25), and targeted natural killer (NK) cells. Seven trials were at high risk of bias for at least one of the risk of bias domains. Three trials were at low risk of bias across all domains and one small trial was at unclear risk of bias as it provided insufficient information. We included data from nine of the 11 trials in the meta-analyses involving 4863 participants. There was no evidence of a difference between the immunotherapy agents and the controls on any of the following outcomes: overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; P = 0.27; 4 trials, 3848 participants; high-quality evidence), progression-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.03; P = 0.19; moderate-quality evidence), adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; P = 0.11; 4 trials, 4126 evaluated participants; low-quality evidence), and severe adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40; 6 trials, 4546 evaluated participants; low-quality evidence).  Survival rates at different time points showed no evidence of a difference between immunotherapy agents and the controls. Survival rate at 1-year follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; I2 = 57%; 7 trials, 4420 participants; low-quality evidence), 2-year follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 7 trials, 4420 participants; moderate-quality evidence), 3-year follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 7 trials, 4420 participants; I2 = 22%; moderate-quality evidence) and at 5-year follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; 7 trials, 4389 participants; moderate-quality evidence).  Only one trial reported overall response rates. Two trials provided health-related quality of life results with contradicting results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this updated review, the current literature does not provide evidence that suggests a survival benefit from adding immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) to conventional curative surgery or radiotherapy, for people with localised NSCLC (stages I to III). Several ongoing trials with immune checkpoints inhibitors (PD-1/PD-L1) might bring new insights into the role of immunotherapy for people with stages I to III NSCLC.