Impact on second-line treatment after failure of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination chemotherapy in extensive-disease small cell lung cancer: Experience of the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group.

Authors

null

Yuka Kato

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan

Yuka Kato , Taku Noumi , Kazuhiko Saeki , Kiichiro Ninomiya , Toshio Kubo , Masanori Fujii , Kammei Rai , Eiki Ichihara , Kadoaki Ohashi , Masahiro Tabata , Katsuyuki Hotta , Toshiyuki Kozuki , Yoshinobu Maeda , Katsuyuki Kiura

Organizations

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan, Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Japan, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Respiratory Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan

Research Funding

No funding received
None

Background: For patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC), amrubicin monotherapy is an important therapy in the treatment of recurrence, but there has been no adequate evaluation of how effective it actually is after failure of first-line chemotherapy including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). Therefore, the purposes of this study are to determine the proportion of patients who received amrubicin monotherapy in the treatment of relapse after first-line treatment with ICI (arm A) and to investigate the efficacy of amrubicin therapy after arm A compared with after chemotherapy without ICI (arm B). Methods: Consecutive 40 pts with ED-SCLC NSCLC were retrospectively assessed who underwent ICI-containing chemotherapy (n = 19) or standard cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 21) in the 1st-line setting between 2017 and 2020. Results: In arm A, 3 of 19 patients (16%) were still on first-line ICI maintenance therapy, 2 (2/19; 11%) had ICI treatment adverse events (interstitial pneumonia, cardiopulmonary arrest), and 1 patient could not receive second-line therapy due to a decrease in performance status (PS) to 3. In arm B, 11 of 21 patients (52%) did not receive amrubicin as second-line therapy, including 1 patient with worsening PS, 1 patient with adverse events (hematologic toxicity), 1 patient refusal, and 6 patients with combination of ICI and chemotherapy. 23 patients (arm A; 13 (57%), arm B; 10 (43%)) were able to receive amrubicin monotherapy, including 7 patients (6 cases vs 1 case) were sensitive relapses, and 16 (7 vs 9 cases) were refractory relapses. There was no significant difference in either PFS or survival after first-line treatment in 16 patients with refractory relapse who received amrubicin as second-line treatment (PFS: 4.8 vs 5.2 months, p = 0.51), (median survival after first-line treatment: 9.6 vs 12.8, p = 0.75). Conclusions: Patients who received ICI in the first-line treatment were fully eligible to receive amrubicin in the second-line treatment. The recurrence pattern tended to be sensitive relapse and we found that the efficacy of amrubicin in refractory relapse was not affected by the administration of ICI in the first-line treatment.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2021 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Publication Only: Lung Cancer—Non-Small Cell Local-Regional/Small Cell/Other Thoracic Cancers

Track

Lung Cancer

Sub Track

Small Cell Lung Cancer

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 15; abstr e20590)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.e20590

Abstract #

e20590

Abstract Disclosures