Association of race/ethnicity and insurance with survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in a large real-world cohort.

The large real-world EHR dataset Flatiron has shown that race was not significantly associated with poorer survival in patients with DLBCL. Medicaid insurance status was significantly associated with poorer overall survival and time to second-line therapy or death due to any cause in patients with DLBCL aged <65 years.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated disparities in race, ethnicity, and health insurance in real­world health outcomes for patients with diffuse large B­cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This study aimed to evaluate association between racial disparities and health insurance with real­world health outcomes. METHODS: Patients with DLBCL (January 2011­July 2021) treated with first­line therapy were selected from a real­world database. Variables of interest included race/ethnicity, health insurance type (Medicaid, Commercial) by patient age (<65, ≥65 years), stage at diagnosis, overall survival (OS), and time to second­line therapy or death due to any cause (TTNTD). RESULTS: Among 5362 patients with DLBCL (82% White, 7% Black, 8% Hispanic/Latino, 3% Asian), White patients were older (mean age, 66.7 vs. 59.3­62.5 years) and less likely to have Medicaid insurance (1.7% vs. 3.4%­5.9%). Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for OS (Black, 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.72­1.07]; Hispanic/Latino, 0.84 [0.70­1.03]; Asian, 0.82 [0.59­1.16]) and TTNTD (Black, 0.89 [0.75­1.05]; Hispanic/Latino, 0.85 [0.73­1.00]; Asian, 1.11 [0.86­1.43]) were similar to those of White patients. Among patients aged <65 years, Medicaid­insured versus Commercially insured patients had more advanced disease (stage III­IV, 66% vs. 48%), worse OS (aHR, 0.52 [0.34­0.80]; p = 0.003), and shorter TTNTD (aHR, 0.70 [0.49­0.99]; p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in these variables/outcomes between Medicaid­insured and commercially insured patients aged ≥65 years. Medicaid­insured status was significantly associated with poorer OS and TTNTD in patients with DLBCL aged <65 years but not in those aged ≥65 years, with or without adjusting for other baseline characteristics. Race was not significantly associated with these outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of PD-1 monoclonal antibody combined with interferon-alpha 1b and anlotinib hydrochloride as the second-line therapy in patients with unresectable advanced melanoma: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors are now used more commonly in combination than monotherapy as the first-line choice in patients with unresectable advanced melanoma. Nevertheless, for cases that progressed after the initial combination therapy, the subsequent regimen option can be very difficult. Herein, we reported the efficacy and safety of a triple combination regimen in Chinese unresectable advanced melanoma patients who had poor responses to the first-line immune therapy. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical profiles of patients diagnosed with stage IIIC-IV melanoma between June 1, 2020, and September 30, 2023. The patients who failed the prior immune therapies and received anti-PD-1 mono antibody plus interferon(IFN)-alpha 1b and anlotinib hydrochloride as the second-line therapy were enrolled in the retrospective analysis. Additionally, we examined the exhaustion of T-cells using mIHC staining in available tumor samples. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included in this study. The median follow-up period was 13.6 months. The objective response rate evaluated by the investigators was 9.1%(1CR, 4PR). The disease control rate was 47.3%. The median overall survival was 17.6 months, and the median progression-free survival was 2.8 months. The adverse events rate of any grade was 100%. Grade 3 or 4 irAEs were observed in 29.1% of cases. Multiplex immunohistochemical staining revealed an increased trend of TIM3 expression on tumor-infiltrating T cells in patients without objective response. CONCLUSION: PD-1 monoclonal antibody plus interferon-alpha 1b plus anlotinib showed acceptable tolerability and anticancer benefits in Chinese metastatic melanoma patients as a second-line therapy.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy plus PD-1 antibody and SOX chemotherapy as second-line therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a single-arm, phase II clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of concurrent hypofractionated radiotherapy plus anti-PD-1 antibody and SOX chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) after failure of first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed mPC who failed standard first-line chemotherapy were enrolled. The patients were treated with a regimen of hypofractionated radiotherapy, SOX chemotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors at our institution. We collected the patients' clinical information and outcome measurements. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was the primary endpoint of the study, followed by disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), median overall survival (mOS) and safety. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers related to the benefits. RESULTS: Between February 24, 2021, and August 30, 2023, twenty-five patients were enrolled in the study, and twenty-three patients who received at least one dose of the study agent had objective efficacy evaluation. The mPFS was 5.48 months, the mOS was 6.57 months, and the DCR and ORR were 69.5% and 30.4%, respectively. Among the seven patients who achieved a PR, the median duration of the response was 7.41 months. On-treatment decreased serum CA19-9 levels were associated with better overall survival. Besides, pretreatment inflammatory markers were associated with tumor response and survival. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful antitumor activity and favorable safety profiles were demonstrated after treatment with these combination therapies in patients with refractory mPC. On-treatment decreased serum CA19-9 levels and pretreatment inflammatory markers platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) might be biomarkers related to clinical benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=130211 , identifier: ChiCTR2100049799, date of registration: 2021-08-09.

Evaluating the safety and efficacy of seladelpar for adults with primary biliary cholangitis.

INTRODUCTION: Seladelpar (MBX-8025) is a once-daily administered highly specific PPAR-δ agonist in Phase 3 and extension trials for use in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). AREAS COVERED: This review provides background on current treatment options for PBC, and summarizes clinical trial data regarding the safety and effectiveness of seladelpar within the context of these treatments. EXPERT OPINION: Clinical trials results demonstrate the safety and tolerability of seladelpar use for PBC, including in patients with cirrhosis. The primary composite endpoint (ALP <1.67 times ULN, decrease ≥ 15% from baseline, and TB ≤ULN) was met in 61.7% of the patients treated with seladelpar and in 20% receiving placebo (p < 0.001). Moreover, pruritus - a cardinal and often intractable symptom of PBC - was improved with seladelpar treatment, as were overall quality of life measurements. Improvements in markers of inflammation were likewise observed. These biochemical and clinical findings therefore represent landmark developments in PBC treatment and offer a therapeutic option for PBC.

Phase I study of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus irinotecan in combination with bevacizumab as a second-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase I trial is to determine the recommended dose of the TAS-102, irinotecan plus bevacizumab regimen and assess its safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin treatment. METHODS: A 3 + 3 designed dose escalation was performed. Patients were administered TAS-102 (30-35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5) and irinotecan (150-165 mg/m2 on day 1) combined with a fixed dose of bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1) every two weeks. The primary endpoint was the determination of the recommended phase II dose. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled: 6 at the Level 1 (TAS-102 30 mg/m2 twice daily, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg), six at the Level 2 (TAS-102 35 mg/m2 twice daily, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg), and six at the Level 3 (TAS-102 30 mg/m2 twice daily, irinotecan 165 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg). Five dose-limiting toxicities occurred: one observed at Level 1 (thrombocytopenia), two at Level 2 (neutropenia and diarrhea), and two at Level 3 (fatigue and neutropenia). The RP2D was established as TAS-102 30 mg/m2 twice daily and irinotecan 150 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (33.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), and thrombocytopenia (11.1%). No treatment-related death occurred. Two patients (11.1%) experienced partial responses and 14 (77.8%) had stable disease. CONCLUSION: The regimen of TAS-102, irinotecan, and bevacizumab is tolerable with antitumor activity for metastatic colorectal cancer patients refractory to first-line fluoropyrimidines and oxaliplatin treatment.

Management of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Following First-Line Immune Checkpoint Therapy Failure: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: There is a significant gap in the literature concerning the effective management of second-line therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Most of the published articles were small multicenter series or phase 2 studies. To our knowledge, a systematic review that comprehensively outlines the range of treatment options available for patients with metastatic RCC who do not respond to first-line ICIs has not yet been conducted. Our aim was to synthesize evidence on second-line therapies for patients with metastatic RCC after initial treatment with ICIs and to offer recommendations on the best treatment regimens based on the current literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on 29 February 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We selected articles that met the predetermined inclusion criteria (written in English, retrospective observational studies, prospective series, and randomized trials reporting second-line therapy for metastatic RCC after failure of ICI-based therapy). Relevant articles were identified in the reference lists. The main endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR), with the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: We included 27 studies reporting the outcomes of 1970 patients. Salvage therapies were classified as targeted therapy (VEGFR TKIs) in 18 studies and ICIs in 8 studies. In studies where TKIs were the second line of choice, the pooled ORR was 34% (95% CI: 30.2-38%). In studies where ICIs, alone or in combination with TKIs, were used as second-line therapies, the ORR was 25.7% (95% CI: 15.7-39.2%). In studies where TKIs and ICIs were the second-line choices, the pooled median PFS values were 11.4 months (95% CI: 9.5-13.6 months) and 9.8 months (95% CI: 7.5-12.7 months), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows that VEGFR TKIs and ICIs are effective second-line therapies following an initial treatment with anti-PD(L)1 alone or in combination. The treatment choice should be personalized, taking into account the patient's response to first-line ICIs, the site of the disease, the type of first-line combination (with or without VEGFR TKIs), and the patient's overall condition.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in the second- or later-line treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in Türkiye: a retrospective multicenter non-interventional registry study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in the second-line (2L) or later-line (LL) treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in real-life setting in Türkiye. METHODS: This study was designed as a national, multi-center, retrospective study. The study population was evaluated in two groups for the line of nivolumab therapy: those receiving nivolumab in the 2L (Group 2L) and third-line (3L) or LL (Group 3L/LL). Efficacy was evaluated based on one-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety was evaluated based on treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and nivolumab discontinuation rate. RESULTS: Of 244 patients, 52.9% were in Group 2L and 47.1% were in Group 3L/LL. Demographic and clinical characteristics did not differ between the groups. In Group 2L and Group 3L/LL, one-year OS and PFS rates were 60.8% and 61.4% (p = 0.592) and 31.2% and 21.3% (p = 0.078), respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 34.7% in Group 2L and 27.3% in Group 3L/LL (p = 0.262). The percentage of patients reporting at least one AE in Groups 2L and 3L/LL was 34.9% and 43.5%, respectively (p = 0.169). Fatigue was the most common (16.4%) treatment-related AE in each group. The groups were comparable regarding the AE frequency. Nivolumab was discontinued in 61 patients in Group 2L and 53 patients in Group 3L/LL, with the most common reason being disease progression (57.4% and 66.0%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab is safe and effective in the 2L or 3L/LL treatment of locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC and associated with acceptable AEs in real-life setting.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer (around 85% of all lung cancers). Patients with NSCLC are usually diagnosed at advanced or metastatic stages. When cancer cells spread to other areas from where they first formed, it is called metastatic cancer. Surgery may not be a treatment option for such patients. Currently, immunotherapeutic agents are used in the treatment of NSCLC. Nivolumab is one of the approved immunotherapeutic agents in the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC, who have failed after receiving chemotherapy. Our study explored the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in real-life setting in Türkiye. Nivolumab effectiveness was evaluated by overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates. OS indicates the proportion of patients who are still alive at a given time after diagnosis or treatment initiation. PFS refers to "the length of time during and after cancer treatment that a person lives with the disease but does not get worse." In the present study, one-year OS for 244 patients who received nivolumab was 61.1% and one-year PFS was 26.4%. Nivolumab safety was evaluated based on the frequency of adverse events observed during nivolumab therapy. Of the patients 38.9% had at least one side effect, with fatigue being the most common (16.4%). Our results support the earlier studies and showed that nivolumab was a safe and effective agent and is associated with acceptable side effects.

Regorafenib with immunotherapy versus regorafenib alone as second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter real-world study.

INTRODUCTION: Regorafenib remains the standard and widely used second-line strategy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is still a lack of large-scale multicenter real-world evidence concerning the concurrent use of regorafenib with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). This study aims to evaluate whether combining regorafenib with ICI provides greater clinical benefit than regorafenib monotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced HCC under real-world circumstances. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 208 patients from five medical facilities. One hundred forty-three patients received regorafenib plus ICI combination therapy, while 65 patients received regorafenib monotherapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was employed. RESULTS: The regorafenib plus ICI group demonstrated significantly higher objective response rate (24.3% vs. 10.3%, after PSM, p = 0.030) and disease control rate (79.4% vs. 50.0%, after PSM, p < 0.001) compared to the regorafenib monotherapy group based on mRECIST criteria. Median progression-free survival (7.9 vs. 3.2 months, after PSM, p < 0.001) and overall survival (25.6 vs. 16.4 months, p = 0.010, after PSM) were also considerably longer in the regorafenib plus ICI group. The incidence of Grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was marginally greater in the regorafenib plus ICI group than in the regorafenib group (23.8% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.546). Notably, there were no instances of treatment-related mortality or emergence of new TRAEs in any treatment group. CONCLUSION: The combination of regorafenib and ICI shows potential as a viable second-line treatment for advanced HCC, exhibiting favorable efficacy while maintaining a tolerable safety profile in contrast to regorafenib monotherapy.

Challenges in treating primary immune thrombocytopenia patients undergoing COVID-19 vaccination: A retrospective study.

Background: Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019, countries around the world, including China, have been administering COVID-19 vaccines in response to the pandemic. Our center has observed that treating patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) has become more challenging in this context. Methods: This study compared the treatment response of 25 de novo ITP patients who had received a COVID-19 vaccination (Group 1) with an equal number of de novo ITP patients randomly selected from the 2 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Group 2) by using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact. Results: Patients in both groups had predominantly female gender with similar age and baseline platelet counts. However, on Day 3, the median platelets were 22 and 49 × 109/L, and on Day 7, they were 74 and 159 × 109/L, respectively (P < 0.05). Compared to Group 2, Group 1 showed a suboptimal short-term response to glucocorticoid monotherapy, with a higher proportion of patients requiring combination therapy with other drugs including intravenous immunoglobulin, thrombopoietin receptor agonists, and rituximab. After subgroup analysis, a significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients requiring second-line therapy between the two groups. Conclusions: Our study suggests that COVID-19 vaccination may lead to a lower response rate to first-line treatment in de novo ITP patients. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge the inherent limitations in this conclusion. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and investigate the underlying mechanisms.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma After Exposure to Lenalidomide in First Line of Therapy: A Single Center Database Review in Greece.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of lenalidomide (Len) in first-line (1L) therapy of multiple myeloma (MM) has led to a significant proportion of patients becoming Len-refractory following 1L treatment. However, there are limited real-world data on treatment strategies and outcomes of patients who become Len-refractory following 1L therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This real-world retrospective cohort study analyzed Len-refractory and non-Len-refractory patients who received 1L Len and initiated second-line (2L) therapy at a Greek MM center. The Len-exposed cohort (n = 249) included 55.4% Len-refractory patients after 1L. RESULTS: Compared to non-Len-refractory patients, Len-refractory patients more frequently had high-risk cytogenetics and Revised-International Staging System-3 disease stage at diagnosis, and had shorter progression-free survival (PFS) following 1L therapy. Len-refractory versus non-Len-refractory patients more frequently received triplets (59% vs. 40%), anti-CD38 agents (20% vs. 9%) and pomalidomide (22% vs. 13%). The overall response rate was 53% for Len-refractory patients and 64% for non-Len-refractory patients in 2L therapy; median PFS was 10.7 vs. 18.3 months, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was shorter for Len-refractory patients vs non-Len-refractory patients (23.8 vs. 53.6 months). Len refractoriness was an independent prognostic factor for both PFS and OS in Len-exposed patients. CONCLUSION: In this real-world Len-exposed cohort, Len-refractory patients receiving 1L Len experienced poorer survival outcomes than non-Len-refractory patients, highlighting the unmet need in this patient population which has driven the development of novel therapies.

Rituximab versus Splenectomy in Chronic Primary ITP: Experience of a Single Hematology Clinic.

Background: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an acquired immune-mediated disease that lacks an underlying etiology. Steroids are the main first-line treatment of ITP, while the second-line treatment consists primarily of splenectomy and rituximab. This study aimed to assess and compare the response to rituximab and splenectomy. Methods: This retrospective comparative study reviewed ITP patients treated at a single private hematology clinic from 2007 to 2019. Seventy-four ITP patients were recruited, 27 were on rituximab, and 47 had undergone splenectomy. The initial platelet counts and bleeding symptoms were recorded, and initial and long-term responses to treatment were evaluated based on the American Society of Hematology guidelines. Results: The mean age of the patients was 42.1 years with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.8. The initial mean platelet count was comparable between the rituximab and splenectomy groups (p = 0.749). The initial complete response (CR) differed significantly between the rituximab and splenectomy groups (44.4% versus 83%, p = 0.002). The five-year response rate was significantly higher in the splenectomy than in the rituximab group (74% versus 52%, log-rank 0.038). Splenectomy was the only significant predictive factor for long-term response (OR = 0.193, p = 0.006). Conclusion: The overall response revealed that splenectomy appeared superior to rituximab as a second-line treatment of ITP. Splenectomy was the only positive prognostic indicator of sustained response.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Background: Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Design: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Data sources and methods: A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively. Conclusion: Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab. Trial registration: This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until August 31, 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on 5 clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding database, clinical trials or published literatures. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.86), and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2, and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively. CONCLUSION: Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced ESCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Anlotinib plus docetaxel vs. docetaxel alone for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients who failed first-line treatment: A multicenter, randomized phase II trial.

OBJECTIVES: Given the modest efficacy of docetaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), this study assesses the therapeutic potential and safety profile of anlotinib in combination with docetaxel compared to docetaxel monotherapy as a second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this phase II study, patients with advanced NSCLC experiencing failure with first-line platinum-based regimens were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either anlotinib plus docetaxel or docetaxel alone. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients were randomized. The combination of anlotinib and docetaxel significantly extended median PFS to 4.4 months compared to 1.6 months for docetaxel alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.63, P = 0.0002), and also demonstrated superior ORR (32.5 % vs. 9.3 %, P = 0.0089) and DCR (87.5 % vs. 53.5 %, P = 0.0007). Median OS was observed at 12.0 months in the combination group vs. 10.9 months in the monotherapy group (HR = 0.82, 95 % CI: 0.47-1.43, P = 0.4803). For patients previously treated with immunotherapy, the median PFS was notably longer at 7.8 vs. 1.7 months (HR = 0.22, 95 % CI: 0.09-0.51, P = 0.0290). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events, predominantly leukopenia (15.0 % vs. 7.0 %) and neutropenia (10.0 % vs. 5.0 %), was manageable across both groups. CONCLUSION: Anlotinib plus docetaxel offers a viable therapeutic alternative for patients with advanced NSCLC who failed first-line platinum-based treatments.

Clinical outcomes of second-line therapy following disease progression on first-line modified FOLFIRINOX for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) is one of the standard first-line therapies in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) and locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAPC). However, there is no globally accepted second-line therapy following progression on mFOLFIRINOX. METHODS: Patients with BRPC and LAPC (n = 647) treated with first-line mFOLFIRINOX between January 2017 and December 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. The details of the treatment outcomes and patterns of subsequent therapy after mFOLFIRINOX were reviewed. RESULTS: With a median follow-up duration of 44.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.3-47.6), 322 patients exhibited disease progression on mFOLFIRINOX-locoregional progression only in 177 patients (55.0%) and distant metastasis in 145 patients (45.0%). The locoregional progression group demonstrated significantly longer post-progression survival (PPS) than that of the distant metastasis group (10.1 vs. 7.3 months, p = 0.002). In the locoregional progression group, survival outcomes did not differ between second-line chemoradiation/radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy (progression-free survival with second-line therapy [PFS-2], 3.2 vs. 4.3 months; p = 0.649; PPS, 10.7 vs. 10.2 months; p = 0.791). In patients who received second-line systemic chemotherapy following progression on mFOLFIRINOX (n = 211), gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was associated with better disease control rates (69.2% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.005) and PFS-2 (3.8 vs. 1.7 months, p = 0.035) than gemcitabine monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The current study showed the real-world practice pattern of subsequent therapy and clinical outcomes following progression on first-line mFOLFIRINOX in BRPC and LAPC. Further investigation is necessary to establish the optimal therapy after failure of mFOLFIRINOX.

Apatinib Plus Toripalimab (Anti-PD1 Therapy) as Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Gastric or Esophagogastric Junction Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the activity of apatinib plus toripalimab in the second line for patients with advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction cancer (GC/EGJC). METHODS: In this open-label, phase II, randomized trial, patients with advanced GC/EGJC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy were enrolled and received 250 mg apatinib per day plus 240 mg toripalimab on day 1 per 3 weeks (arm A) or physician's choice of chemotherapy (PC, arm B). The primary endpoint of this study was the 1-year survival rate. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety were assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients received apatinib plus toripalimab while 26 were enrolled in arm B. The 1-year survival rates of the 2 groups were 43.3% and 42.3%, respectively (P = .903). The PFS was 2.77 versus 2.33 months (P = .660). The OS was 8.30 versus 9.88 months (P = .539). An objective response was reported in 20.0% of patients in arm A compared to 26.9% in arm B (P = .368), respectively. A total of 6 (24.0%) patients experienced adverse events of grade ≥ 3 in arm A, while 9 (34.6%) patients suffered from adverse events of grade ≥ 3 in arm B. No drug-related deaths occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Toripalimab plus apatinib treatment in second-line therapy of advanced GC/EGJC showed manageable toxicity but did not improve clinical outcomes relative to PC treatment (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04190745).

Mesenchymal stromal cells plus basiliximab improve the response of steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease as a second-line therapy: a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (SR-aGVHD), effective second-line regimens are urgently needed. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been used as salvage regimens for SR-aGVHD in the past. However, clinical trials and an overall understanding of the molecular mechanisms of MSCs combined with basiliximab for SR-aGVHD are limited, especially in haploidentical haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HID HSCT). METHODS: The primary endpoint of this multicentre, randomized, controlled trial was the 4-week complete response (CR) rate of SR-aGVHD. A total of 130 patients with SR-aGVHD were assigned in a 1:1 randomization schedule to the MSC group (receiving basiliximab plus MSCs) or control group (receiving basiliximab alone) (NCT04738981). RESULTS: Most enrolled patients (96.2%) received HID HSCT. The 4-week CR rate of SR-aGVHD in the MSC group was obviously better than that in the control group (83.1% vs. 55.4%, P = 0.001). However, for the overall response rates at week 4, the two groups were comparable. More patients in the control group used ≥ 6 doses of basiliximab (4.6% vs. 20%, P = 0.008). We collected blood samples from 19 consecutive patients and evaluated MSC-derived immunosuppressive cytokines, including HO1, GAL1, GAL9, TNFIA6, PGE2, PDL1, TGF-ß and HGF. Compared to the levels before MSC infusion, the HO1 (P = 0.0072) and TGF-ß (P = 0.0243) levels increased significantly 1 day after MSC infusion. At 7 days after MSC infusion, the levels of HO1, GAL1, TNFIA6 and TGF-ß tended to increase; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Although the 52-week cumulative incidence of cGVHD in the MSC group was comparable to that in the control group, fewer patients in the MSC group developed cGVHD involving ≥3 organs (14.3% vs. 43.6%, P = 0.006). MSCs were well tolerated, no infusion-related adverse events (AEs) occurred and other AEs were also comparable between the two groups. However, patients with malignant haematological diseases in the MSC group had a higher 52-week disease-free survival rate than those in the control group (84.8% vs. 65.9%, P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: For SR-aGVHD after allo-HSCT, especially HID HSCT, the combination of MSCs and basiliximab as the second-line therapy led to significantly better 4-week CR rates than basiliximab alone. The addition of MSCs not only did not increase toxicity but also provided a survival benefit.

Add-on immunosuppressive therapy may benefit selected patients with primary biliary cholangitis and autoimmune phenomena.

Background: Mildly elevated levels of transaminase and/or immunoglobulin G (IgG) are common in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). It is still unclear whether adding immunosuppressive therapy to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) benefits those patients who are not fulfilling the diagnostic criteria of PBC with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) features. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of adding immunosuppressive therapy to UDCA for patients with PBC and autoimmune phenomena but not fulfilling the diagnostic criteria of PBC with AIH features. Design: This is a retrospective-prospective cohort study in a tertiary medical center. Methods: Patients with PBC and autoimmune phenomena were defined by the elevation of IgG and/or transaminase but did not fulfill the diagnostic criteria of PBC with AIH features. We grouped these patients based on with and without add-on immunosuppressive therapy and balanced their baseline characteristics using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: A total of 652 patients with PBC and autoimmune phenomena were included, with a median follow-up of 4.08 years. After IPTW, the pseudo sample size in the add-on therapy and monotherapy groups was 558 and 655, respectively. After 1 year of observation, patients in the add-on therapy group had a higher biochemical response rate (normalization of transaminase and IgG levels) (49% versus 17%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, add-on therapy improved the transplant-free survival in the subgroup of patients with PBC and transaminase ⩾3 × upper limit of normal (ULN) or IgG ⩾1.3 × ULN (p = 0.033). Conclusion: Add-on immunosuppressive therapy may improve the normalization rates of transaminase and IgG levels in all patients with PBC and mildly elevated transaminase and IgG levels and the long-term outcomes in the subgroup of the patients with transaminase ⩾3 × ULN or IgG ⩾1.3 × ULN.

A look at add-on immunosuppressive therapy in primary biliary cholangitis patients Adding immunosuppressive therapy may enhance the normalization of ALT, AST and IgG levels in all PBC patients with mild elevation and improve long-term outcomes in those with more severe elevation of ALT, AST and IgG. These findings contribute to our understanding of treatment options for PBC patients with autoimmune phenomena.

Early Changes in LIPI Score Predict Immune-Related Adverse Events: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients on Immune Checkpoint Blockade.

In advanced cancer patients undergoing immune checkpoint blockade, the burden of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is high. The need for reliable biomarkers for irAEs remains unfulfilled in this expanding therapeutic field. The lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) is a noninvasive measure of systemic inflammation that has consistently shown a correlation with survival in various cancer types when assessed at baseline. This study sought to determine whether early changes in the LIPI score could discriminate the risk of irAEs and different survival outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving PD-(L)1 blockade-based therapies. We included consecutive patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC who received pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab as second-line therapy following platinum-based chemotherapy, or first-line pembrolizumab either alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy. The LIPI score relied on the combined values of derived neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) and lactate dehydrogenase. Their assessment at baseline and after two cycles of treatment allowed us to categorize the population into three subgroups with good (LIPI-0), intermediate (LIPI-1), and poor (LIPI-2) prognosis. Between April 2016 and May 2023, we enrolled a total of 345 eligible patients, 165 (47.8%) and 180 (52.2%) of whom were treated as first- and second-line at our facility, respectively. After applying propensity score matching, we considered 83 relevant patients in each cohort with a homogeneous distribution of all characteristics across the baseline LIPI subgroups. There was a noticeable change in the distribution of LIPI categories due to a significant decrease in dNLR values during treatment. Although no patients shifted to a worse prognosis category, 20 (24.1%) transitioned from LIPI-1 to LIPI-0, and 7 (8.4%) moved from LIPI-2 to LIPI-1 (p < 0.001). Throughout a median observation period of 7.3 (IQR 3.9-15.1) months, a total of 158 irAEs (63.5%) were documented, with 121 (48.6%) and 39 (15.7%) patients experiencing mild to moderate and severe adverse events, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the classification and changes in the LIPI score while on treatment were independent predictors of irAEs. The LIPI-0 group was found to have significantly increased odds of experiencing irAEs. Following a median follow-up period of 21.1 (95% CI 17.9-25.8) months, the multivariable Cox model confirmed LIPI categorization at any given time point as a significant covariate with influence on overall survival, irrespective of the treatment line. These findings suggest that reassessing the LIPI score after two cycles of treatment could help pinpoint patients particularly prone to immune-related toxicities. Those who maintain a good LIPI score or move from the intermediate to good category would be more likely to develop irAEs. The continuous assessment of LIPI provides prognostic insights and could be useful for predicting the benefit of PD-(L)1 checkpoint inhibitors.

Is There Room for Liposomal Irinotecan in Biliary Tract Cancer? A Meta-analysis of Randomised Trials.

AIMS: The combination of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is widely acknowledged as the standard regimen for second-line treatment in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) has demonstrated its activity in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Recent studies have investigated the activity of nal-IRI in combination with 5-FU/LV for biliary tract cancer. However, the results have been contradictory. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess survival outcomes and response rates in randomised trials investigating the activity of nal-IRI in previously treated biliary tract cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically collected potentially relevant findings from PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane library and EMBASE. Abstracts presented at major international oncological meetings were also reviewed. We extracted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for progression-free survival and overall survival, as well as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for objective response rate. The outcomes of the accessible randomised studies evaluating the activity of nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV were analysed. RESULTS: The combination therapy exhibited a statistically significant decrease in the risk of progression (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.97) when compared with 5-FU/LV alone. Additionally, the dual regimen yielded longer overall survival and a higher objective response rate. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV had a superior activity in comparison with 5-FU/LV. Further investigations are required to elucidate the role of nal-IRI in this setting and to identify subgroups of patients who could derive the greatest benefit from its administration.

Critical shortfalls in the management of PBC: Results of a UK-wide, population-based evaluation of care delivery.

Background & Aims: Guidelines for the management of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) were published by the British Society of Gastroenterology in 2018. In this study, we assessed adherence to these guidelines in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods: All NHS acute trusts were invited to contribute data between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022, assessing clinical care delivered to patients with PBC in the UK. Results: We obtained data for 8,968 patients with PBC and identified substantial gaps in care across all guideline domains. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) was used as first-line treatment in 88% of patients (n = 7,864) but was under-dosed in one-third (n = 1,964). Twenty percent of patients who were UDCA-untreated (202/998) and 50% of patients with inadequate UDCA response (1,074/2,102) received second-line treatment. More than one-third of patients were not assessed for fatigue (43%; n = 3,885) or pruritus (38%; n = 3,415) in the previous 2 years. Fifty percent of all patients with evidence of hepatic decompensation were discussed with a liver transplant centre (222/443). Appropriate use of second-line treatment and referral for liver transplantation was significantly better in specialist PBC treatment centres compared with non-specialist centres (p <0.001). Conclusions: Poor adherence to guidelines exists across all domains of PBC care in the NHS. Although specialist PBC treatment centres had greater adherence to guidelines, no single centre met all quality standards. Nationwide improvement in the delivery of PBC-related healthcare is required. Impact and implications: This population-based evaluation of primary biliary cholangitis, spanning four nations of the UK, highlights critical shortfalls in care delivery when measured across all guideline domains. These include the use of liver biopsy in diagnosis; referral practice for second-line treatment and/or liver transplant assessment; and the evaluation of symptoms, extrahepatic manifestations, and complications of cirrhosis. The authors therefore propose implementation of a dedicated primary biliary cholangitis care bundle that aims to minimise heterogeneity in clinical practice and maximise adherence to key guideline standards.