Neoadjuvant Immuno-Chemotherapy: A New Perspective for Stage III NSCLC?

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Versus Thoracotomy Following Neoadjuvant Immunochemotherapy in Resectable Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Among Chinese Populations: A Multi-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment but may pose greater technical challenges for surgery. This study aims to assess the feasibility and oncological effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for resectable stage III NSCLC after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy.

METHODS

Initial stage IIIA-IIIB NSCLC patients with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy undergoing either VATS or open lobectomy at 6 medical centers during 2019-2023 were retrospectively identified. Perioperative outcomes and 2-year survival was analyzed. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was employed to balance patient baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Among the total 143 patients, PSM yielded 62 cases each for VATS and OPEN groups. Induction-related adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups. VATS showed a 14.5% conversion rate. Notably, VATS decreased numeric rating scales for postoperative pain, shortened chest tube duration (5[4-7] vs. 6[5-8] days, P = .021), reduced postoperative comorbidities (21.0% vs. 37.1%, P = .048), and dissected less N1 lymph nodes (5[4-6] vs. 7[5-9], P = .005) compared with thoracotomy. Even when converted, VATS achieves perioperative outcomes equivalent to thoracotomy. Additionally, over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, VATS and thoracotomy demonstrated comparable 2-year recurrence-free survival (77.20% vs. 73.73%, P = .640), overall survival (87.22% vs. 88.00%, P = .738), cumulative incidences of cancer-related death, and recurrence patterns. Subsequent subgroup comparisons and multivariate Cox analysis likewise revealed no statistical difference between VATS and thoracotomy.

CONCLUSION

VATS is a viable and effective option for resectable stage III NSCLC patients following neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy, leading to decreased surgical-related pain, earlier chest tube removal, reduced postoperative complications, and similar survival outcomes compared to thoracotomy.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a real-world, multicenter, retrospective study

Background

Resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have a high risk of recurrence. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy brings new hope for these patients. The study aims to evaluate the safety, surgery-related outcomes and oncological outcomes for neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy in real-world setting with a large sample size and long-term follow-up.

Methods

Patients with clinical stage IB-IIIB NSCLC who received neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy at two Chinese institutions were included in this retrospective cohort study. Surgical and oncological outcomes of the enrolled NSCLC patients were collected and analyzed.

Results

There were 158 patients identified, of which 124 (78.5%) were at stage IIIA-IIIB and the remaining 34 (21.5%) were at stage IB-IIB. Forty-one patients (25.9%) received two cycles of neoadjuvant treatment, 80 (50.6%) had three cycles, and 37 (23.4%) had four cycles. Twenty-four patients (15.2%) experienced grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse events. The median interval time between the last neoadjuvant therapy and surgery was 37 [interquartile range (IQR), 31-43] days. Fifty-eight out of 96 (60.4%) central NSCLC patients who were expected to undergo complex surgery had the scope or the difficulty of operation reduced. Ninety-five (60.1%) patients achieved major pathologic response (MPR), including 62 (39.2%) patients with pathologic complete response (pCR). Multivariate regression analysis showed that no clinical factor other than programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was predictive of the pathological response. The median follow-up time from diagnosis was 27.1 months. MPR and pCR were significantly associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Neither stage nor PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with long-term survival.

Conclusions

The neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy is a feasible strategy for NSCLC with a favorable rate of pCR/MPR, modified resection and 2-year survival. No clinical factor other than PD-L1 expression was predictive of the pathological response. pCR/MPR may be effective surrogate endpoint for survival in NSCLC patients who received neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy protocols and cycles for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

This study evaluated the use of different neoadjuvant immunotherapy cycles and regimens for non-small cell lung cancer.

Materials and methods

Databases were searched for articles published up until December 2023. Data on the major pathologic response (MPR), complete pathologic response (pCR), radiological response, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), surgical resection, surgical complications, R0 resection, and conversion to thoracotomy were collected. A subgroup analysis was performed according to the treatment regimens and cycles. Stata/MP software was used for statistical analyses.

Results

In total, 2430 individuals were assessed from 44 studies. Compared with those following neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone (MPR/pCR/TRAEs/SAEs: ES=0.26/0.07/0.43/0.08, 95% CI: 0.18-0.34/0.04-0.10/0.28-0.58/0.04-0.14), the MPR and pCR rates, incidence of TRAEs and SAEs following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy increased significantly (MPR/pCR/TRAEs/SAEs: ES=0.55/0.34/0.81/0.22, 95% CI: 0.48-0.63/0.28-0.41/0.69-0.90/0.13-0.33, P=0.001/0.002/0.009/0.034). No significant differences were found in the surgical resection, surgical complications, R0 resection, or conversion to thoracotomy. In the chemoimmunotherapy group, no statistically significant differences were found in the MPR and pCR rates, incidence of TRAEs and SAEs in the two-cycle, three-cycle and four-cycle groups (MPR/pCR/TRAEs/SAEs: ES=0.50;0.70;0.36/0.32;0.49;0.18/0.95;0.85;0.95/0.34;0.27;0.37, P=0.255/0.215/0.253/0.848). In the ICIs group, there was little change in the MPR and pCR rates, incidence of TRAEs and SAEs in the two-cycle group compared to the three-cycle group. (MPR/pCR/TRAEs/SAEs: ES=0.28;0.20/0.06;0.08/0.45;0.35/0.10;0.02, P=0.696/0.993/0.436/0.638). The neoadjuvant treatment cycle had no significant effect on surgical resection, surgical complications, R0 resection, or conversion to thoracotomy in both regimens.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy significantly increased the rate of tumor pathological remission compared to neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone but also increased the incidence of TRAEs and SAEs. The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy are found to be favorable when administered for a duration of three cycles, in comparison to both two and four cycles.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42023407415.

Does major pathological response after neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in resectable nonsmall-cell lung cancers predict prognosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Overall survival is the gold-standard outcome measure for phase 3 trials, but the need for a long follow-up period can delay the translation of potentially effective treatment to clinical practice. The validity of major pathological response (MPR) as a surrogate of survival for non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after neoadjuvant immunotherapy remains unclear.

METHODS

Eligibility was resectable stage I-III NSCLC and delivery of PD-1/PD-L1/CTLA-4 inhibitors prior to resection; other forms/modalities of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapies were allowed. Statistics utilized the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect or random-effect model depending on the heterogeneity ( I2 ).

RESULTS

Fifty-three trials (seven randomized, 29 prospective nonrandomized, 17 retrospective) were identified. The pooled rate of MPR was 53.8%. Compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy achieved higher MPR (OR 6.19, 4.39-8.74, P <0.00001). MPR was associated with improved disease-free survival/progression-free survival/event-free survival (HR 0.28, 0.10-0.79, P =0.02) and overall survival (HR 0.80, 0.72-0.88, P <0.0001). Patients with stage III (vs I/II) and PD-L1 ≥1% (vs <1%) more likely achieved MPR (OR 1.66,1.02-2.70, P =0.04; OR 2.21,1.28-3.82, P =0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy achieved higher MPR in NSCLC patients, and increased MPR might be associated with survival benefits treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy. It appears that the MPR may serve as a surrogate endpoint of survival to evaluate neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

A Systematic Review of Short-Term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lung Cancer after Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgeries for non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (VATSs) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (RATSs) have become standard of care for patients needing surgical resection in early stages. The role for neoadjuvant systemic therapy has increased with patients receiving neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy and immunotherapy. However, there has been some equipoise over the intraoperative and overall outcomes for these patients. Here, we review the current data regarding outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgical resection after systemic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or both.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies presenting data on patients with NSCLC that underwent neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by minimally invasive surgery was performed assessing complications, conversion rates, and lymph node yield.

RESULTS

Our search strategy and review of references resulted in 239 publications to screen with 88 full texts assessed and 21 studies included in our final review. VATS had a statistically significant higher lymph node yield in five studies. The reported conversion rates ranged from 0 to 54%. Dense adhesions, bleeding, and difficult anatomy were the most common reported reasons for conversion to open surgeries. The most common complications between both groups were prolonged air leak, arrythmia, and pneumonia. VATS was found to have significantly fewer complications in three papers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature supports VATS as safe and feasible for patients with NSCLC after neoadjuvant systemic treatment. Surgeons should remain prepared to convert to open surgeries in those patients with dense adhesions and bleeding risk.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer patients with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy: a single-center retrospective study

Background

Neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy has been increasingly applied to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the comparison between robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in the feasibility and oncological efficacy following neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy is scarce. This study aims to assess the superiorities of RATS over (VATS) concerning short-term outcomes in treating NSCLC patients with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy.

Methods

NSCLC patients receiving RATS or VATS lobectomy following neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy at Shanghai Chest Hospital from 2019 to 2022 were retrospectively identified. Baseline clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and survival profiles were analyzed.

Results

Forty-six NSCLC patients with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy were included and divided into the RATS (n=15) and VATS (n=31) groups. The baseline clinical characteristics and induction-related adverse events were comparable between the two groups (all p>0.050). The 30-day mortality in the RATS and VATS groups were 0% and 3.23%, respectively (p=1.000). Patients undergoing RATS were associated with reduced surgical-related intensive unit care (ICU) stay than those receiving VATS (0.0 [0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0-1.0] days, p=0.026). Moreover, RATS assessed more N1 LNs (6.27 ± 1.94 vs 4.90 ± 1.92, p=0.042) and LN stations (3.07 ± 1.03 vs 2.52 ± 0.57, p=0.038) compared with VATS. By comparison, no difference was found in surgical outcomes, pathological results, and postoperative complications between the RATS and VATS groups (all p>0.050). Finally, RATS and VATS achieved comparable one-year recurrence-free survival (82.96% vs. 85.23%, p=0.821) and the timing of central nervous system, LN, and bone recurrences (all p>0.050).

Conclusion

RATS is safe and feasible for NSCLC patients with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy, reducing surgical-related ICU stay, assessing increased N1 LNs and stations, and achieving similar survival profiles to VATS.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for advanced, resectable non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (nIT) is a rapidly emerging paradigm for advanced resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objectives of this PRISMA/MOOSE/PICOD-guided systematic review and meta-analysis were (1) to assess the safety and efficacy of nIT, (2) to compare the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (nCIT) versus chemotherapy alone (nCT), and (3) to explore predictors of pathologic response with nIT and their association with outcomes.

METHODS

Eligibility was resectable stage I-III NSCLC and the receipt of programmed death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)/cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 inhibitors before resection; other forms and modalities of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapies were allowed. For statistical analysis, the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect or random-effect model was used, depending on the heterogeneity (I2 ).

RESULTS

Sixty-six articles met the criteria (eight randomized studies, 39 prospective nonrandomized studies, and 19 retrospective studies). The pooled pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 28.1%. The estimated grade ≥3 toxicity rate was 18.0%. Compared with nCT, nCIT achieved higher rates of pCR (odds ratio [OR], 7.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-12.97; p < .001), progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.67; p < .001), and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.74; p = .0003) but yielded similar toxicity rates (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.67-1.52; p = .97). The results remained robust on sensitivity analysis when all retrospective publications were removed. pCR was associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.25; 0.15-0.43; p < .001) and OS (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10-0.67; p = .005). PD-L1 expressors (≥1%) were more likely to achieve a pCR (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.22-7.03; p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced resectable NSCLC, neoadjuvant immunotherapy was safe and efficacious. nCIT improved pathologic response rates and PFS/OS over nCT, particularly in patients who had tumors that expressed PD-L1, without increasing toxicities.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This meta-analysis of 66 studies showed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy for advanced resectable non-small cell lung cancer is safe and efficacious. Compared with chemotherapy alone, chemoimmunotherapy improved pathologic response rates and survival, particularly for patients who had tumors that expressed programmed cell death ligand-1, without increasing toxicities.