Efficacy and predictors of rechallenge with immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer

β-glucan combined with Envafolimab and Endostar as immune rechallenge for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge has emerged as a prominent study area in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). β-glucan was reported to reverse resistance to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors by regulating the tumor microenvironment. In this self-initiated clinical trial (ChiCTR2100054796), NSCLC participants who have previously failed anti-PD-1 therapy received β-glucan (500 mg, bid, d1-21), Envafolimab (300 mg, d1) and Endostar (210 mg, civ72h) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The clinical efficacy and adverse events were observed, while serum samples were collected for proteomic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty Three patients were enrolled from January 2022 to March 2023 (median age, 65 years; male, n = 18 [78.3%]; squamous NSCLC, n = 9 [39.1%]; mutant type, n = 13 [56.5%]). The overall response rate (ORR) was 21.7% and disease control rate (DCR) was 73.9%. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) was 4.3 months [95% CI: 2.0-6.6] and 9.8 months [95% CI: 7.2-12.4], respectively. The mPFS between PD-L1 positive and negative subgroup has significant difference (6.3 months vs. 2.3 months, p = 0.002). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 52.2% of patients. The most common TRAEs were hypothyroidism (26.1%) and fatigue (26.1%). 2 (8.7%) grade 3 adverse events were reported. No adverse reaction related deaths have been observed. Proteomic analysis revealed that the levels of CASP-8, ARG1, MMP12, CD28 and CXCL5 correlated with resistance to the treatment while the levels of CD40-L and EGF related to the favorable response.

CONCLUSION

β-glucan combined with Envafolimab and Endostar has considerable efficacy and safety for immune rechallenge in metastatic NSCLC patients who failed of anti-PD-1 treatment previously, especially for PD-L1 positive patients.

Rechallenge immunotherapy after immune resistance in patients with advanced thymic carcinoma

BACKGROUNDS

Immunotherapy is effective for patients with advanced thymic carcinoma (TC). However, the effectiveness of rechallenge immunotherapy in patients who are resistant to immunotherapy has not been investigated.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients with advanced TC using immunotherapy between 2016 and 2023 at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, and Fujian Cancer Hospital were evaluated in this study. Tumor response was evaluated according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients were included in this study. The median PFS (mPFS) for all patients was 5.43 months and the median OS (mOS) was 16 months. After rechallenge immunotherapy, only three patients achieved partial response, resulting in an overall response rate of 16.7%, and nine patients attained stable disease, resulting in a disease control rate of 66.7%. Patients who underwent rechallenge immunotherapy had shorter mPFS compared to chemotherapy (3.53 months vs. 6.00 months, P = 0.041). In addition, the incidence of Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in these patients was 22.2%.

CONCLUSION

Rechallenge immunotherapy has poor efficacy in immunotolerant TC patients.

Retreatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the New Scenario of Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

The advent of immunotherapy has transformed the treatment paradigm for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the past few years, several studies have investigated the potential role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in resectable and unresectable locally advanced disease, achieving remarkable results that led to their approval in clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence on immunotherapy rechallenge after recurrence, with the majority of available knowledge coming from retrospective studies which involve heavily pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC. The recent introduction in the curative setting and the potential regulatory restrictions raise questions about the optimal choice of first-line and subsequent therapies for patients with systemic relapse. The role of immunotherapy readministration in this new scenario needs to be clarified, as well as the identification of patients for whom it is more appropriate, including clinical characteristics, duration of response, switching to other ICIs, reasons for discontinuation and immune-related toxicity. Here, we review literature on rechallenge with immunotherapy, including efficacy, safety profile and potential predictive factors of response.

Efficacy of rechallenge immunotherapy after immune monotherapy resistance in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Drug resistance inevitably occurs despite the encouraging results of immunotherapy. This study attempted to investigate immunotherapy rechallenge treatment regimens and factors associated with outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to resistance status.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with advanced NSCLC who received immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy and immune rechallenge between March 2016 and December 2022. Primary resistance (RR) was defined by an absence of response after treatment administered for less than 6 months before progression. Acquired resistance (AR) was defined as a response to immunotherapy treatment administered for more than 6 months before progression. Disease progression in as many as three lesions was defined as systemic progression, whereas disease progression in fewer than three lesions was defined as oligo-progression.

RESULTS

Of 40 patients, 18 (45%) had primary resistance, and 22 (55%) developed AR. Overall survival (OS) was not reached. A significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in individuals rechallenged with ICIs after AR and RR (7.0 months vs. 2.1 months, P = 0.003). Patients receiving interval treatment before rechallenge achieved longer PFS than those who did not (6.2 months vs. 4.0 months, P = 0.027). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that systemic progression was a risk factor significantly associated with PFS after ICI rechallenge (P = 0.006). After AR, ICI rechallenge prolonged the duration of PFS if patients developed oligo-progression (5.4 months vs. 1.1 months, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ICI rechallenge is likely to be an option for patients with oligo-progression during rechallenge, particularly after AR.

Immunologic constant of rejection as a predictive biomarker of immune checkpoint inhibitors efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Anti-PD1/PDL1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) transformed the prognosis of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the response rate remains disappointing and toxicity may be life-threatening, making urgent identification of biomarkers predictive for efficacy. Immunologic Constant of Rejection signature (ICR) is a 20-gene expression signature of cytotoxic immune response with prognostic value in some solid cancers. Our objective was to assess its predictive value for benefit from anti-PD1/PDL1 in patients with advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

We retrospectively profiled 44 primary tumors derived from NSCLC patients treated with ICI as single-agent in at least the second-line metastatic setting. Transcriptomic analysis was performed using the nCounter® analysis system and the PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel. We then pooled our data with clinico-biological data from four public gene expression data sets, leading to a total of 162 NSCLC patients treated with single-agent anti-PD1/PDL1. ICR was applied to all samples and correlation was searched between ICR classes and the Durable Clinical Benefit (DCB), defined as stable disease or objective response according to RECIST 1.1 for a minimum of 6 months after the start of ICI.

RESULTS

The DCB rate was 29%; 22% of samples were classified as ICR1, 30% ICR2, 22% ICR3, and 26% ICR4. These classes were not associated with the clinico-pathological variables, but showed enrichment from ICR1 to ICR4 in quantitative/qualitative markers of immune response. ICR2-4 class was associated with a 5.65-fold DCB rate when compared with ICR1 class. In multivariate analysis, ICR classification remained associated with DCB, independently from PDL1 expression and other predictive immune signatures. By contrast, it was not associated with disease-free survival in 556 NSCLC TCGA patients untreated with ICI.

CONCLUSION

The 20-gene ICR signature was independently associated with benefit from anti-PD1/PDL1 ICI in patients with advanced NSCLC. Validation in larger retrospective and prospective series is warranted.

Current Status in Rechallenge of Immunotherapy

The treatment of malignant tumors has entered the era of immunotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have brought significant benefits to patients. However, some patients are required to discontinue treatment with ICIs owing to factors such as disease progression and intolerable side effects. Faced with limited subsequent treatment options and complex medical needs, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and the NIH clinical trials database and found that ICI rechallenge could be a relevant clinical strategy. The factors that could affect the rechallenge efficacy include the patients' characteristics, therapeutic strategy selection, and the timing of treatment. Multiple factors are used to identify target population, of which clinical features and PD-L1 expression are more potential. Both single ICI rechallenge and combination therapy may have survival benefits. Patients who have tolerated initial immunotherapy well could undergo ICI rechallenge, while patients who have experienced grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events should be carefully assessed prior to rechallenge. Interventions and the interval between two courses of ICI will clearly have an impact on the efficacy of subsequent treatment. Preliminary data evaluation supports further investigation on ICI rechallenge to identify the factors that could contribute to its efficacy.

Pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of advanced unresectable or metastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the seventh most common malignancy worldwide. Although systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced EC, the available cytotoxic agents have limited efficacy. Pembrolizumab, a humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G4 antibody that inhibits programmed cell death protein 1, has recently been developed for the treatment of patients with advanced EC. In the KEYNOTE-181 trial, pembrolizumab achieved a clinical meaningful overall survival benefit over chemotherapy alone when used as second-line treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who had a combined positive score ⩾10 for expression of programmed death ligand 1. Furthermore, KEYNOTE-590 showed that pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was more effective than chemotherapy alone as first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced EC. Accordingly, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) chemotherapy has become the standard first-line treatment for advanced EC. The use of ICIs in primary therapy has helped to improve the prognosis, especially for ESCC. Moreover, in CheckMate 577, patients who received postoperative nivolumab therapy had a reduced risk of recurrence, and the ability of preoperative ICI chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of recurrence is now under investigation. This review outlines the evidence for use of pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced unresectable or metastatic EC, summarizes the ongoing research on ICI combination chemotherapy, and discusses the associated issues.

Heterogeneous Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Rechallenge in Patients With NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in NSCLC remain uncertain. This study estimated the safety and efficacy of ICI rechallenge and compared rechallenge benefit among different reasons of initial ICI discontinuation in NSCLC.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies on NSCLC retreated with ICI. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progression-free survival (PFS) at initial ICI and rechallenge were analyzed.

Results

A total of 15 studies including 442 patients between 2018 and 2022 were eligible for meta-analysis. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 irAE was lower in rechallenge than initial ICI (8.6% versus 17.8%, p < 0.001). Patients rechallenged with ICI had lower ORR and DCR than initial ICI (13.2% versus 42.4%, p < 0.001; 51.1% versus 74.0%, p < 0.001). The ORR and DCR to ICI rechallenge were both higher in patients who experienced disease progression after stopping ICI or irAE than patients with disease progression during ICI treatment (ORR: 46.2% versus 20% versus 11.4%, p = 0.003; DCR: 84.6% versus 90.0% versus 55.0%, p = 0.002). In addition, 34.7% of 69 patients with individual response to ICI and PFS experienced the same or better response to ICI rechallenge in comparison with initial ICI, although PFS in initial ICI was longer than that in ICI rechallenge (median: 8.90 versus 3.67 mo, hazard ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.59).

Conclusions

ICI rechallenge had less severe toxicity than initial ICI treatment. Patients undergoing disease progression after ICI cessation or ICI discontinuation owing to irAE are more likely to benefit from ICI rechallenge in NSCLC.