Combined chemo-immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: feasible in the elderly?

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as the most common subtype. In the past decades, immunotherapy deeply changed paradigms for care of newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC patients without oncogenic driver mutations. An immunotherapy-based regimen alone or in combination to chemotherapy was crown as the preferred option to choice, according to worldwide guideline.

AREAS COVERED

Newly diagnoses of advanced NCSLC occurred predominantly in elderly patients, representing over half of patients treated in daily practice. However, data on older patients' treatments are still lacking, because they are under-represented in clinical trials. This leads to a "black hole" of knowledge about efficacy and safety of immune-checkpoint inhibitors use in this cohort of population.

EXPERT OPINION

According to available data from subgroup analyses, immunotherapy as single agent seem to work in elderly similarly to younger patients, with no excess of toxicities. In contrast, the real impact - and not least the safety - of an immune-chemo combination use in elderly population was still unclear. Awaiting data from dedicated clinical trials, this review will discuss available results from randomized phase III clinical trials comparing immune-chemo combinations to chemotherapy alone, focusing on elderly subgroup enrolled.

Long-term survival with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolongs survival versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We further characterized clinical benefit with this regimen in a large pooled patient population and assessed the effect of response on survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were pooled from four studies of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC (CheckMate 227 Part 1, 817 cohort A, 568 Part 1, and 012). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety were assessed. Landmark analyses of OS by response status at 6 months and by tumor burden reduction in responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were also assessed.

RESULTS

In the pooled population (N = 1332) with a minimum follow-up of 29.1-58.9 months, median OS was 18.6 months, with a 3-year OS rate of 35%; median PFS was 5.4 months (3-year PFS rate, 17%). Objective response rate was 36%; median duration of response was 23.7 months, with 38% of responders having an ongoing response at 3 years. In patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, ≥1%, 1%-49%, or ≥50%, 3-year OS rates were 30%, 38%, 30%, and 48%. Three-year OS rates were 30% and 38% in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. Efficacy outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years were similar to the overall pooled population (median OS, 20.1 months; 3-year OS rate, 34%). In the pooled population, responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab at 6 months had longer post-landmark OS than those with stable or progressive disease; 3-year OS rates were 66%, 22%, and 14%, respectively. Greater depth of response was associated with prolonged survival; in patients with tumor burden reduction ≥80%, 50% to <80%, or 30% to <50%, 3-year OS rates were 85%, 72%, and 44%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in the pooled population.

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival benefit and durable response with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in this large patient population further support this first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, including patients with ECOG performance status 2 and other special populations: CheckMate 817

BACKGROUND

CheckMate 817, a phase 3B study, evaluated flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, in this research, we report on first-line treatment in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0-1 (cohort A) and special populations (cohort A1: ECOG PS 2; or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, or controlled HIV infection).

METHODS

Cohorts A and A1 received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade 3-4 and grade 5 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs; adverse events (AEs) deemed potentially immune-related, occurring <100 days of last dose, and treated with immune-modulating medication (except endocrine events)) and treatment-related select AEs (treatment-related AEs with potential immunological etiology requiring frequent monitoring/intervention, reported between first dose and 30 days after the last dose) in cohort A; efficacy endpoints were secondary/exploratory. In cohort A1, safety/efficacy assessment was exploratory.

RESULTS

The most common grade 3-4 IMAEs were pneumonitis (5.1%), diarrhea/colitis (4.9%), and hepatitis (4.6%) in cohort A (N=391) and diarrhea/colitis (3.5%), hepatitis (3.5%), and rash (3.0%) in cohort A1 (N=198). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related select AEs were hepatic (5.9%), gastrointestinal (4.9%), and pulmonary (4.6%) events in cohort A and gastrointestinal (4.0%), skin (3.5%), and endocrine (3.0%) events in cohort A1. No grade 5 IMAEs or treatment-related select AEs occurred. Treatment-related deaths occurred in 4 (1.0%) and 3 (1.5%) patients in cohorts A and A1, respectively. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 33.7% and 20.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Flat-dose nivolumab plus weight-based ipilimumab was associated with manageable safety and durable efficacy in cohort A, consistent with data from phase 3 metastatic NSCLC studies. Special populations of cohort A1 including patients with ECOG PS 2 or ECOG PS 0-1 with untreated brain metastases had manageable treatment-related toxicity and clinically meaningful 3-year OS rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02869789.

Configuring Therapeutic Aspects of Immune Checkpoints in Lung Cancer

Immune checkpoints are unique components of the body's defense mechanism that safeguard the body from immune responses that are potent enough to harm healthy body cells. When proteins present on the surface of T cells recognize and bind to the proteins present on other tumor cells, immune checkpoints are triggered. These proteins are called immunological checkpoints. The T cells receive an on/off signal when the checkpoints interact with companion proteins. This might avert the host's immune system from eliminating cancer cells. The standard care plan for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been revolutionized with the use of drugs targeting immune checkpoints, in particular programmed cell death protein 1. These drugs are now extended for their potential to manage SCLC. However, it is acknowledged that these drugs have specific immune related adverse effects. Herein, we discuss the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with NSCLC and SCLC, their outcomes, and future perspectives.

Changes in Circulating Tumor DNA Reflect Clinical Benefit Across Multiple Studies of Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

PURPOSE

As immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) become increasingly used in frontline settings, identifying early indicators of response is needed. Recent studies suggest a role for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in monitoring response to ICI, but uncertainty exists in the generalizability of these studies. Here, the role of ctDNA for monitoring response to ICI is assessed through a standardized approach by assessing clinical trial data from five independent studies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patient-level clinical and ctDNA data were pooled and harmonized from 200 patients across five independent clinical trials investigating the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-directed monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. CtDNA levels were measured using different ctDNA assays across the studies. Maximum variant allele frequencies were calculated using all somatic tumor-derived variants in each unique patient sample to correlate ctDNA changes with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

We observed strong associations between reductions in ctDNA levels from on-treatment liquid biopsies with improved OS (OS; hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.20; P < .001) and PFS (PFS; hazard ratio 1.76; 95% CI, 1.31 to 2.36; P < .001). Changes in the maximum variant allele frequencies ctDNA values showed strong association across different outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this pooled analysis of five independent clinical trials, consistent and robust associations between reductions in ctDNA and outcomes were found across multiple end points assessed in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with an ICI. Additional tumor types, stages, and drug classes should be included in future analyses to further validate this. CtDNA may serve as an important tool in clinical development and an early indicator of treatment benefit.

Sarcopenia Was a Poor Prognostic Predictor for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Background

It remains not well known whether skeletal muscle mass (SMM) loss has any impact on the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced lung cancer. We aimed to evaluate the association between SMM and clinical outcome of patients with advanced lung cancer receiving ICIs as first line or second line.

Materials and Methods

From March 1st, 2019 to March 31st, 2021 at our hospital, 34 patients with advanced lung cancer treated with first-line or second-line ICIs were enrolled retrospectively. The estimation of skeletal muscle index (SMI) for sarcopenia was assessed at the level of the third lumbar vertebra (L3) on computed tomography (CT) images obtained within 4 weeks before initiation of ICIs treatment. The impact of sarcopenia (low SMI) on progression free survival (PFS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. The effect of various variables on PFS was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression model with univariate and multivariate analysis. The impact on treatment response including objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) and immunotherapy related adverse events (irAEs) between patients with and without sarcopenia was compared by the chi-squared test. The comparison of SMI value between patients with objective response (OR), disease control (DC) and those without OR and DC was used student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

Both in univariate and multivariate analysis, sarcopenia and treatment lines were the predictive factors for PFS (p < 0.05). Patients with sarcopenia had significantly shorter PFS than that of non-sarcopenic ones [6.57 vs. 16.2 months, hazard ratios (HR) = 2.947 and 3.542, and 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.123–13.183 and 1.11–11.308, p = 0.022 and 0.033]. No significant difference in ORR and irAEs was found. Patients with sarcopenia had lower DCR than those without sarcopenia. The mean SMI value of DCR group and non-DCR group was 32.94 ± 5.49 and 44.77 ± 9.06 cm²/m², respectively (p = 0.008).

Conclusion

Sarcopenia before immunotherapy might be a significant predictor for poor prognosis including shorter PFS and lower DCR in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with ICIs as first line or second line.

Correlations between objective response rate and survival-based endpoints in first-line advanced non-small cell lung Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The study objective was to estimate the relationship between objective response and survival-based endpoints by drug class, in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line aNSCLC therapies reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or objective response rate (ORR). Trial-level and arm-level linear regression models were fit, accounting for inclusion of immunotherapy (IO)-based or chemotherapy-only RCT arms. Weighted least squares-based R² were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the main trial-level analysis of OS vs. ORR, the surrogate threshold effect was estimated. Exploratory analyses involved further stratification by: IO monotherapy vs. chemotherapy, dual-IO therapy vs. chemotherapy, and IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy.

RESULTS

From 17,040 records, 57 RCTs were included. In the main analysis, trial-level associations between OS and ORR were statistically significant in both the IO-based and chemotherapy-only strata, with R² estimates of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.26-0.81) and 0.34 (0.05-0.63), respectively. OS gains associated with a given ORR benefit were statistically significantly larger within IO vs. chemotherapy comparisons compared to chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy comparisons (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested a trend by IO type: for a given change in ORR, 'pure' IO (IO monotherapy and dual-IO) vs. chemotherapy RCTs tended to have a larger OS benefit than IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy RCTs. For ORR vs. PFS, trial-level correlations were strong in the IO-based vs. chemotherapy (R² = 0.84; 0.72-0.95), and chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy strata (R² = 0.69; 0.49-0.88). For OS vs. PFS, correlations were moderate in both strata (R² = 0.49; 0.20-0.78 and R² = 0.49; 0.23-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The larger OS benefit per unit of ORR benefit in IO-based RCTs compared to chemotherapy-only RCTs provides an important addition to the established knowledge regarding the durability and depth of response in IO-based treatments.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a subanalysis of Asian patients in CheckMate 9LA

Background

CheckMate 9LA, a phase 3, randomized, open-label study in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), showed significantly improved overall survival (OS) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with 2 cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (4 cycles). We present results for the Asian subpopulation enrolled in Japan and China.

Methods

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IV or recurrent NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1 and no sensitizing EGFR/ALK mutations were randomized 1:1 to nivolumab [360 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W)] plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg Q6W) combined with chemotherapy (Q3W for 2 cycles), or chemotherapy alone (Q3W for 4 cycles). Primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).

Results

Twenty-eight patients received nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with chemotherapy and 30 received chemotherapy. At a minimum follow-up of 12.7 months, median OS was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with chemotherapy versus 13.3 months with chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14–0.80]. Median PFS was 8.4 versus 5.4 months (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24–0.92) and ORR was 57% versus 23%, respectively. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 57% versus 60% of patients, respectively.

Conclusion

Consistent with results in the all randomized population, nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with chemotherapy improved efficacy in the Asian subpopulation versus chemotherapy alone and had a manageable safety profile, supporting its use as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in Asian patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10147-022-02120-0.

Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: Are the Promises of Long-Term Benefit Finally Met?

Over the last few years, agents targeting immune checkpoints have shown potential to improve therapeutic outcomes in patients with lung cancer in multiple clinical settings. Inhibitors of PD-1/PD-L1 have been approved for the treatment of different types of lung cancer by the FDA either alone or in combination with chemotherapy or other immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as anti-CTLA-4 agents. The introduction of these agents in clinical practice has revolutionized the therapeutic approach to lung cancer, keeping the promises of long-term benefit in selected patient populations. The therapeutic indications of immunotherapy in lung cancer are rapidly growing, and multiple combinations entered clinical practice or are under active development. Furthermore, the quest for a reliable predictive biomarker is still ongoing to overcome the limits of currently approved tests for patients' selection. In this review, we summarized the current status and progress of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents in lung cancer treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

AIM

This economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) compared with four cycles of PDC as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC in the United States (US).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed with three mutually exclusive health states: progression free, progressed disease, and death. The analysis was conducted from a US healthcare payer perspective, using a time horizon of 25 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Survival outcomes from CheckMate 9LA were extrapolated with longer follow-up data from CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NIVO + IPI) and validated against data from other relevant clinical trials and real-world registries. Health-related quality of life utility values were derived from EQ-5D-3L data collected in CheckMate 9LA. US-specific costs (2020 dollars) were used for disease management; drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments. Model outcomes included life years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for NIVO + IPI + PDC versus PDC. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

NIVO + IPI + PDC was associated with higher projected health benefits than PDC, including gains in LYs (3.71 vs 1.89) and QALYs (2.86 vs 1.37), and higher costs ($317,581 vs $119,909). The ICER was $132,960/QALY gained. NIVO + IPI + PDC had a 78-100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000-$250,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in key parameters.

LIMITATIONS

The inherent limitation in extrapolating clinical trial data was mitigated using data from the more mature CheckMate 227 Part 1 trial and validating the outcomes against data from other relevant trials and real-world registries.

CONCLUSION

NIVO + IPI + PDC (two cycles) provides a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC that is cost-effective within a range considered acceptable in the US.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

AIM

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) for the first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a third-party payer perspective in the United States (US).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed using efficacy, safety, and utility inputs derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826) with 37.7-month minimum follow-up for overall survival (OS). OS and progression-free (PF) survival were extrapolated over a 20-year time-horizon using parametric spline-based models selected based on goodness of fit and validated with data from external sources. Duration of treatment Kaplan-Meier curves were used for treatment cost calculations. US-specific costs (2021 dollars) for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; disease management (PF and progressed disease health states); end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments were derived from publicly available sources. Time-to-death utilities were applied in the base case, whereas treatment-specific progression-based utilities were tested in a scenario analysis. Main outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model uncertainty was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

NIVO + IPI resulted in 1.53 additional life-years, 1.33 additional QALYs, and $142 088 in additional costs compared with PDC. The incremental cost per LYG was $92 651, whereas incremental cost per QALY gained was $106 553. The application of treatment-specific progression-based utilities yielded an incremental cost per QALY gained of $117 076. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 98% probability that NIVO + IPI was cost-effective versus PDC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO + IPI was estimated to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for stage IV or recurrent NSCLC in the US, with increased survival and higher cost compared with PDC.

The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in thoracic malignancies

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has rapidly transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple cancer types, including thoracic malignancies. In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), ICIs have shifted treatment paradigm and improved overall survival reaching almost one-third of patients alive at 5 years. ICIs therapies have also modified the therapeutic strategy in first-line setting in metastatic small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients as well as in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) improving the overall survival compared with standard treatment. This phenomenon is of huge relevance as both SCLC and MPM were considered orphan diseases without any significant improvement in the therapeutic strategy in the first-line setting during the last 15 years. In this review, we aim to review the efficacy of ICI in thoracic malignancies either in monotherapy or in combination, according to predictive biomarkers, and to the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency approvals of treatment strategies. We address the efficacy of these agents, especially in NSCLC according to PD-L1 expression and histologic subtype.

Immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: rationale, recent advances and future perspectives

Lung cancer, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) being the major type, is the second most common malignancy and the leading cause of cancer-related death globally. Immunotherapy, represented by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has been one of the greatest advances in recent years for the treatment of solid tumors including NSCLC. However, not all NSCLC patients experience an effective response to immunotherapy with the established selection criteria of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and tumor mutational burden (TMB). Furthermore, a considerable proportion of patients experience unconventional responses, including pseudoprogression or hyperprogressive disease (HPD), immune-related toxicities, and primary or acquired resistance during the immunotherapy process. To better understand the immune response in NSCLC and provide reference for clinical decision-making, we herein review the rationale and recent advances in using immunotherapy to treat NSCLC. Moreover, we discuss the current challenges and future strategies of this approach to improve its efficacy and safety in treating NSCLC.

Advances in systemic therapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer related mortality worldwide. Despite numerous advances in treatments over the past decade, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains an incurable disease for most patients. The optimal treatment for all patients with locally advanced, but surgically resectable, NSCLC contains at least chemoradiation. Trimodality treatment with surgical resection has been a subject of debate for decades. For patients with unresectable or inoperable locally advanced disease, the incorporation of immunotherapy consolidation after chemoradiation has defined a new standard of care. For decades, the standard of care treatment for advanced stage NSCLC included only cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, with the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy, the landscape of treatment has rapidly evolved. This review discusses the integration of these innovative therapies in the management of patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Currently, several immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been investigated; their overall efficacy and safety remain unclear.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ICIs with or without chemotherapy to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. We collected and compaired thier parameters, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of grade ≥3.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs involving 8869 patients with NSCLC were included. Pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy had higher OS and PFS than platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.67; HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.70, respectively). Pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy had higher ranked ORR than platinum-based chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 2.92, 95% CI 1.99-4.22). In terms of OS, atezolizumab, pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab ranked as the best treatments for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels of ≥50%, 1-49%, and <1%, respectively. In terms of PFS, pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy ranked as the best treatment for patients with any PD-L1 expression levels. However, ipilimumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy, nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy have higher TRAEs of grade ≥3 than platinum-based chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy prevailed in rank in OS, PFS, and ORR benefit. The TRAEs of pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy were more than ICI monotherapy and chemotherapy.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial

INTRODUCTION

In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up.

METHODS

Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs).

RESULTS

After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51-0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population.

CONCLUSIONS

At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients.

Combination strategies of immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: facts and challenges

ABSTRACT

Immunotherapy has dramatically altered the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Currently, the emergence of combination strategies in immunotherapy has brightened the prospects of improved clinical outcomes and manageable safety profiles in the first/second-line settings. However, sub-optimal response rates are still observed in several clinical trials. Hence, alternative combination models and candidate selection strategies need to be explored. Herein, we have critically reviewed and commented on the published data from several clinical trials, including combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents, epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors, radiotherapy, and other immune checkpoint inhibitors.

CheckMate 73L: A Phase 3 Study Comparing Nivolumab Plus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Durvalumab for Previously Untreated, Locally Advanced Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The 5 year survival rate for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not amenable for definitive resection with historical standard-of-care concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) ranges from 15% to 32%. cCRT primes anti-tumor immunity and also upregulates programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1), providing a rationale for combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with cCRT to improve outcomes. In the PACIFIC trial, consolidation therapy with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) vs. placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after cCRT. CheckMate73L (NCT04026412), a randomized phase 3 study, evaluates the efficacy of nivolumab plus cCRT followed by nivolumab with or without ipilimumab vs. cCRT followed by durvalumab for untreated, stage III NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with untreated, stage III NSCLC will be randomized 1:1:1 to nivolumab plus cCRT followed by nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (Arm A) or nivolumab alone (Arm B); or cCRT followed by durvalumab (Arm C). Primary endpoints are PFS and OS (Arm A vs. Arm C). Secondary endpoints include additional analyses of PFS and OS (Arm A vs. Arm B; Arm B vs. Arm C), as well as objective response rate, complete response rate, time to response, duration of response, time to death or distant metastases, and safety and tolerability. Recruitment began on August 20, 2019, and the estimated primary completion date is October 17, 2022.

PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors: between a dream and a nightmare

PD-L1 is an important predictive biomarker for treatment by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). ICIs are now indicated for the treatment of various cancer depending on the level of expression of PD-L1 on tumor cells. PD-L1 testing is done using immunohistochemistry with five different assays approved as companion diagnostic for ICIs. However, these assays have different score reporting methods and do not accurately measure PD-L1 expression. Exosomal PD-L1 testing has recently emerged as an alternative for cell-surface PD-L1 testing however studies are still premature and more extensive knowledge about this new potential biomarker is needed.

Selecting the optimal immunotherapy regimen in driver-negative metastatic NSCLC

The treatment landscape of driver-negative non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors, specifically those targeting PD-1 or PD-L1, have demonstrated durable efficacy in a subset of patients with NSCLC, and these agents have become the cornerstone of first-line therapy. Approved immunotherapeutic strategies for treatment-naive patients now include monotherapy, immunotherapy-exclusive regimens or chemotherapy-immunotherapy combinations. Decision making in this space is complex given the absence of head-to-head prospective comparisons, although a thorough analysis of long-term efficacy and safety data from pivotal clinical trials can provide insight into the optimal management of each subset of patients. Indeed, histological subtype and the extent of tumour cell PD-L1 expression are paramount to regimen selection, although other clinicopathological factors and patient preferences might also be relevant in certain scenarios. Finally, several emerging biomarkers and novel therapeutic strategies are currently under investigation, and these might further refine the current treatment paradigm. In this Review, we discuss the current treatment landscape and detail our approach to first-line immunotherapy regimen selection for patients with advanced-stage, driver-negative NSCLC.

First-Line Treatment Options for PD-L1-Negative Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

First-line treatment strategies for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients include chemotherapy and combination with anti-angiogenesis drugs and/or immune checkpoint inhibitor. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of these therapeutic options.

Methods

We included phase III randomized controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first-line setting for NSCLC, including data in PD-L1–negative patients. First-line strategies were compared and ranked based on the effectiveness in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). A rank was assigned to each treatment after Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses.

Results

Fourteen trials involving 14 regimens matched our eligibility criteria. For OS, none of the treatment were significantly more effective than chemotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy was probably the best option based on analysis of the treatment ranking (probability = 30.1%). For PFS, nivolumab plus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy were statistically superior to chemotherapy in pairwise comparison. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was likely to be the preferred option based on the analysis of the treatment ranking (probability = 72.9%).

Conclusions

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy, in combination with angiogenesis inhibition or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), had maximal benefits for NSCLC patient of PD-L1–negative expression. These findings may facilitate individualized treatment strategies. Safety at an individual patient level should be considered in decision making. Further validation is warranted.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors a new player in the therapeutic game of mesothelioma: New reality with new challenges

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and orphan thoracic malignancy, with a poor prognosis as the majority of patients are diagnosed with unresectable MPM, with no significant improvements in the therapeutic strategy for over a decade. However, the recent approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in treatment-naïve patients with unresectable MPM marks a significant step forward and hope for the treatment of this disease. In this narrative review, we discuss the biological rationale to use ICI in the treatment of MPM. We summarize the current evidence for the efficacy of ICI in MPM and discuss several unresolved challenges regarding the use of ICI in this disease, such as the best upfront immune approach in MPM (ICI versus ICI plus chemotherapy), the optimal sequential treatment strategy according to the first-line treatment, and the potential role of predictive biomarkers.

Two Complementarity Immunotherapeutics in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients-Mechanism of Action and Future Concepts

Simple Summary

Here, we focused on the most important mechanisms of action of combined immunotherapy with modern anticancer approaches in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. This knowledge is extremely important for lung cancer clinicians. First, it facilitates proper involvement of the patient in the treatment and monitoring its effectiveness. More importantly, the knowledge of the immunotherapy mechanisms will certainly allow quick recognition of the side effects of such a therapy, which are totally different of those observed after chemotherapy. Side effects of combination therapies can occur at any stage of treatment, and even after completion thereof. This review article could particularly explain the mechanism of action of combined immunotherapy, which have different targets in patients.

Abstract

Due to the limited effectiveness of immunotherapy used as first-line monotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the concepts of combining classical immunotherapy based on immune checkpoint antibodies with other treatment methods have been developed. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were registered in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic NSCLC, while durvalumab found its application in consolidation therapy after successful chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced NSCLC. Exceptionally attractive, due to their relatively low toxicity and high effectiveness, are treatment approaches in which a combination of two different immunotherapy methods is applied. This method is based on observations from clinical trials in which nivolumab and ipilimumab were used as first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC. It turned out that the dual blockade of immune checkpoints activated T lymphocytes in different compartments of the immune response, at the same time affecting the downregulation of immune suppressor cells (regulatory T cells). These experiments not only resulted in the registration of combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab, but also initiated other clinical trials using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with other ICIs or activators of costimulatory molecules found on immune cells. There are also studies in which ICIs are associated with molecules that modify the tumour environment. This paper describes the mechanism of the synergistic effect of a combination of different immunotherapy methods in NSCLC patients.

Combining anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and -programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) agents for cancer immunotherapy

Introduction: Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) represent inhibitory immune checkpoints. Combination immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy with anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies in preclinical models demonstrated greater anti-tumor effect than therapy with either antibody alone. Based upon this anti-tumor effect, anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies have since been tested in a patients, across tumor types, with advanced malignancies.Areas covered: Herein we describe the biologic rationale for combining anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies, the early studies which established different treatment schedules of the ICI combination in melanoma, the definitive studies which established the role for anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies in patients with advanced malignancies and the toxicity profiles of these agents. We also discuss several experimental disease settings where combined CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade is being explored.Expert opinion: We anticipate that combination therapy with anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies will become a treatment standard for patients with cancers both responsive and unresponsive to single agent ICI therapy. Given the toxicity profile, we expect that most patients will be treated with lower doses of anti-CTLA-4 and full doses of anti-PD-1 antibodies, however, there may be instances in which a higher dose of anti-CTLA-4 is preferred.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors: Significant advancements in non-small cell lung cancer treatment

PURPOSE

This article explores the efficacy, toxicity, place in therapy, and considerations for use of recently approved immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

SUMMARY

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States and is responsible for more cancer-related deaths than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer combined. The landscape for lung cancer treatment is evolving with the approval of new and exciting novel therapies. Within the last decade numerous ICIs have been approved for use in the management of the most common subtype of lung cancer, NSCLC. The ICI agents currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in NSCLC include ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, and atezolizumab. These agents are approved for specific indications; therefore, they are not interchangeable. This review focuses on the landmark trials that led to each FDA-approved indication, as well as common toxicities seen with use of these agents. It also discusses the use of ICIs in special populations and unique considerations prior to initiation of treatment with these novel therapies in a patient with NSCLC.

CONCLUSION

ICIs can provide a breakthrough treatment option for the management of NSCLC and are rapidly being adopted into clinical practice. It is important to be familiar with appropriate selection of an ICI therapy option for each patient based on approved indication, unique considerations, and anticipated toxicities.

Real-world outcomes of immunotherapy-based regimens in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

First-line (1L) immunotherapy (I-O) has improved outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinical trials and is now routinely used alone or combined with chemotherapy. Although efficacy and safety of I-O therapies have been established in clinical trials, little is known about their performance and long-term efficacy in the real-world setting. We aimed to characterize real-world outcomes for patients with advanced NSCLC treated with 1L I-O therapy in the United States.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with confirmed advanced (stage III-IV) NSCLC who received either 1L I-O monotherapy or single-agent I-O combined with chemotherapy on or after January 1, 2016 were identified from the Flatiron Health database. Primary objectives were to examine overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival. Index date was defined as date of 1L treatment initiation; data cut-off date was June 30, 2020.

RESULTS

Among 4271 patients receiving I-O plus chemotherapy, median OS was 10.6 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 9.3-11.8) months in patients with squamous NSCLC (n=814) and 12.0 (95 % CI, 11.3-12.8) months in those with non-squamous disease (n=3457). Regardless of histology, patients with high (≥50 %) tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression demonstrated longer median OS vs those with low expression. Among 3041 patients receiving I-O monotherapy, median OS was 11.3 (95 % CI, 9.8-12.8) months in patients with squamous NSCLC (n=875) and 14.1 (95 % CI, 12.4-15.8) months in those with non-squamous disease (n=2166). OS benefit appeared to be greatest in the ≥50 % tumor PD-L1 expression group of the non-squamous cohort.

CONCLUSION

Survival estimates were generally lower than those reported in pivotal clinical trials. These findings indicate that there remains room for improvement of real-world survival outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC who receive 1L I-O-based regimens and for identification of subgroups of patients not benefitting from treatment with current I-O regimens.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of several malignancies including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The inhibition of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and the programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) pathways leads to an activation of the immune response against tumor cells. Thanks to a synergistic effect, the combination of the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab has the potential to improve outcomes of NSCLC patients.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview of clinical trials evaluating the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC patients.

EXPERT OPINION

The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, alone or with a few cycles of chemotherapy, was demonstrated to be a valid option for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR mutation and ALK rearrangement. However, a better understanding of patients who can benefit from this approach is required.

Neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in operable non-small cell lung cancer: the phase 2 randomized NEOSTAR trial

Ipilimumab improves clinical outcomes when combined with nivolumab in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its efficacy and impact on the immune microenvironment in operable NSCLC remain unclear. We report the results of the phase 2 randomized NEOSTAR trial (NCT03158129) of neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab + ipilimumab followed by surgery in 44 patients with operable NSCLC, using major pathologic response (MPR) as the primary endpoint. The MPR rate for each treatment arm was tested against historical controls of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The nivolumab + ipilimumab arm met the prespecified primary endpoint threshold of 6 MPRs in 21 patients, achieving a 38% MPR rate (8/21). We observed a 22% MPR rate (5/23) in the nivolumab arm. In 37 patients resected on trial, nivolumab and nivolumab + ipilimumab produced MPR rates of 24% (5/21) and 50% (8/16), respectively. Compared with nivolumab, nivolumab + ipilimumab resulted in higher pathologic complete response rates (10% versus 38%), less viable tumor (median 50% versus 9%), and greater frequencies of effector, tissue-resident memory and effector memory T cells. Increased abundance of gut Ruminococcus and Akkermansia spp. was associated with MPR to dual therapy. Our data indicate that neoadjuvant nivolumab + ipilimumab-based therapy enhances pathologic responses, tumor immune infiltrates and immunologic memory, and merits further investigation in operable NSCLC.

PD-L1 as a biomarker of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 have already substantially improved the outcomes of patients with many types of cancer, although only 20-40% of patients derive benefit from these new therapies. PD-L1, quantified using immunohistochemistry assays, is currently the most widely validated, used and accepted biomarker to guide the selection of patients to receive anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies. However, many challenges remain in the clinical use of these assays, including the necessity of using different companion diagnostic assays for specific agents, high levels of inter-assay variability in terms of both performance and cut-off points, and a lack of prospective comparisons of how PD-L1⁺ disease diagnosed using each assay relates to clinical outcomes. In this Review, we describe the current role of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays used to inform the selection of patients to receive anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 antibodies, we discuss the various technical and clinical challenges associated with these assays, including regulatory issues, and we provide some perspective on how to optimize PD-L1 as a selection biomarker for the future treatment of patients with solid tumours.

The cutting-edge progress of immune-checkpoint blockade in lung cancer

Great advances in immune checkpoint blockade have resulted in a paradigm shift in patients with lung cancer. Immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment, either as monotherapy or combination therapy, has been established as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations or extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. An increasing number of clinical trials are also ongoing to further investigate the role of ICIs in patients with early-stage lung cancer as neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. Although PD-L1 expression and tumor mutational burden have been widely studied for patient selection, both of these biomarkers are imperfect. Due to the complex cancer-immune interactions among tumor cells, the tumor microenvironment and host immunity, collaborative efforts are needed to establish a multidimensional immunogram to integrate complementary predictive biomarkers for personalized immunotherapy. Furthermore, as a result of the wide use of ICIs, managing acquired resistance to ICI treatment remains an inevitable challenge. A deeper understanding of the underlying biological mechanisms of acquired resistance to ICIs is helpful to overcome these obstacles. In this review, we describe the cutting-edge progress made in patients with lung cancer, the optimal duration of ICI treatment, ICIs in some special populations, the unique response patterns during ICI treatment, the emerging predictive biomarkers, and our understanding of primary and acquired resistance mechanisms to ICI treatment.

ASCO 2020 non-small lung cancer (NSCLC) personal highlights

In this article we summarize our personal non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) highlights of the virtual ASCO 2020 meeting, covering developments in early and advanced-stage NSCLC. Until recently early stage NSCLC patients were treated independently of their genetic profile. Now the ADAURA study proved that postoperative osimertinib significantly prolongs disease-free survival compared to standard chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC , underlining the high efficacy of targeted therapies in early stages. In advanced-stage disease, of course immunotherapy (IO) was at the center of attention. Final analysis of KEYNOTE-189 (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone) and 3‑year update of CheckMate 227 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus standard chemotherapy) proved the long-term overall survival benefit of IO combinations in the first-line setting independent of PD-L1 status. The innovative CheckMate 9LA study demonstrated rapid disease control with limited-course chemotherapy plus IO doublet, while sparing chemotoxicity and may soon become a new clinical treatment choice. Moreover, the phase II CITYSCAPE trial presented significant response rates of the TIGIT-inhibitor tiragolumab plus atezolizumab in PD-L1 positive NSCLC. For HER2-mutated patients a highly effective drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan was presented in a phase II study, extending targeted agents in genetically driven NSCLC. Altogether, ASCO 2020 could excite with inspiring new data for an optimized and more individualized NSCLC treatment regimen, contributing to a better outcome for both early and late-stage diseased patients and continuing to decrease lung cancer mortality.

Primary and Acquired Resistance to Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer: Unveiling the Mechanisms Underlying of Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapy

After several decades without maintained responses or long-term survival of patients with lung cancer, novel therapies have emerged as a hopeful milestone in this research field. The appearance of immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, has improved both the overall survival and quality of life of patients, many of whom are diagnosed late when classical treatments are ineffective. Despite these unprecedented results, a high percentage of patients do not respond initially to treatment or relapse after a period of response. This is due to resistance mechanisms, which require understanding in order to prevent them and develop strategies to overcome them and increase the number of patients who can benefit from immunotherapy. This review highlights the current knowledge of the mechanisms and their involvement in resistance to immunotherapy in lung cancer, such as aberrations in tumor neoantigen burden, effector T-cell infiltration in the tumor microenvironment (TME), epigenetic modulation, the transcriptional signature, signaling pathways, T-cell exhaustion, and the microbiome. Further research dissecting intratumor and host heterogeneity is necessary to provide answers regarding the immunotherapy response and develop more effective treatments for lung cancer.

Advances in the management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A new practice changing data from asco 2020 annual meeting

At the meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO 2020), held this year virtually on May 29-31, investigators presented important practice changing findings in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the early-stage resectable NSCLC, the key presentation was ADAURA study. This phase III clinical trial showed that the use of adjuvant osimertinib in stage IB-IIIA NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations had a clinically meaningful benefit. In locally advanced NSCLC, the recent studies investigated the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) administred early with or before concurrent chemoradiotherapy. In advanced-stage NSCLC with driver mutations, new targets and drugs were explored. The major step forward was the approval of personalized treatment in very uncommon genomic alterations, as RET fusions or MET mutations. In advanced NSCLC without targetable mutations, some new immunotherapy combination strategies have been presented. One of such combination was tiragolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor binding to TIGIT, evaluated with atezolizumab. There were also data from the Checkmate 227 and Checkmate 9LA trials that led to recent approvals.

Tracking the tail

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors have deeply changed the therapeutic landscape of advanced non-small cell lung cancer without actionable genomic alterations. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors have become standard front-line therapy, especially among patients with tumours expressing high levels of programmed death ligand-1; yet, many patients do not respond to therapy. This has led to the adoption of front-line combination therapies, administering programmed death-1 inhibitors concomitantly either with other checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy or both. Today’s approved standard of care includes options with chemoimmunotherapy or dual checkpoint blockade, but each combination has only been compared to chemotherapy alone and no head-to-head trials exist. In cross-trial comparisons, combinations trials appear to show numerically superior responses to single-agent checkpoint inhibitors but the question is whether they ultimately offer a survival advantage. In this manuscript, we summarize and analyse all currently available front-line immune-checkpoint inhibitor trials in non-small cell lung cancer, whether as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy, second immunotherapy agents or both. Should standards of care change given the current data? While we ponder this question, we illustrate current data and conclude that the answer lies in tracking the tail of the survival curves.