De-Escalation Strategies With Immune Checkpoint Blockers in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Do We Already Have Enough Evidence?

Author(s): Jordi Remon, MD, PhD1; Martina Bortolot, MD2,3; Paolo Bironzo, MD, PhD1,4; Francesco Cortiula, MD5,6; Jessica Menis, MD7; Mariana Brandao, MD, PhD8; Jarushka Naidoo, MD9; Robin van Geel, PharmD, PhD10,11; Noemi Reguart, MD, PhD12; Oscar Arrieta, MD13; Giannis Mountzios, MD, PhD14; Lizza E.L. Hendriks, MD, PhD2; Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD1
Source: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-24-02347
Original Article
Professional photo of Anjan J Patel, MD

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Very thought-provoking review of immune checkpoint blockade therapy and strategies to possibly de-escalate therapy in the future. Could we reduce doses, extend dose intervals or diminish the duration of treatment? There is some (low-level) data supporting these ideas. However, ongoing prospective studies, mostly being done in countries with nationalized systems, will be informative on these topics. Expect interest in this topic to increase in a couple of years.

ABSTRACT

Immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) have revolutionized the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, one-dose-fits-all maximalist regimens have been considered the standard of care, with ICBs administered at flat doses regardless of patients’ weight. Treatment duration with ICBs is often arbitrary across stages, ranging from a fixed time point to until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ICBs differ significantly from those of traditional cytotoxic drugs and the approved and selected doses on the basis of the maximum tolerated dose are often overestimated as there is limited evidence supporting a direct relationship between therapeutic intensity and outcomes. This can lead to overtreatment of patients, resulting in an increased risk of toxicity without enhanced efficacy. In addition, the use of these drugs is associated with significant costs that burden the global health care system and exacerbate disparities in access to care. De-escalating treatment by reducing the dose, duration, and frequency of administration of ICBs could optimize treatment efficacy, reduce toxicities, improve patients’ quality of life, and even decrease costs. Ultimately, de-escalation strategies may help to reduce treatment inequalities and to improve drug access worldwide. The aim of this review is to summarize and discuss the main issues and challenges regarding the de-escalation of ICBs in patients with NSCLC, focusing on dose-intensity reduction and treatment duration selection. Moreover, we assess the economic impact of implementing de-escalation approaches.

Author Affiliations

1Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; 2Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 3Department of Medicine (DMED), University of Udine, Udine, Italy; 4Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; 5Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht University Medical Centre (+), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 6University Hospital of Udine, Department of Oncology, Udine, Italy; 7Medical Oncology Department, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy; 8Institute Jules Bordet—Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; 9Beaumont Hospital and RCSI University of Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland; 10Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 11CARIM School for Cardiovascular Disease, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 12Department of Oncology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 13Thoracic Oncology Unit, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (INCan), Mexico City, Mexico; 14Fourth Department of Medical Oncology and Clinical Trials Unit, Henry Dunant Hospital Center, Athens, Greece;

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Simultaneous Durvalumab and Platinum-Based Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III PACIFIC-2 Study

PACIFIC-2 was a phase III trial testing durva given concurrently with cCRT (and continued as consolidation) versus placebo + cCRT in unresectable stage III NSCLC, and it did not meet its primary endpoint. The overall response rate (ORR) was essentially identical (60.7% vs 60.6%), and pneumonitis rates were similar (any grade 28.8% vs 28.7%; grade ≥3: 4.6% vs 5.6%), but adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation and fatal AEs were higher with durva (25.6% vs 12.0%; 13.7% vs 10.2%), especially early on. Starting IO up front with cCRT didn’t improve outcomes and added early toxicity—consolidation durva after cCRT is still the way to go.

Read More »

Sevabertinib in Advanced HER2-Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Sevabertinib shows strong efficacy in HER2-mutant NSCLC, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 64% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.3 months in previously treated, HER2-TKI–naive patients, and an overall response rate (ORR) of 71% with a duration of response (DOR) of 11.0 months in first-line therapy. Activity is highest in TKD mutations, especially Y772_A775dupYVMA, and intracranial responses are seen. Safety is manageable: diarrhea is common but mostly low grade, with grade ≥3 in 5–23% and rare discontinuations. Notably, interstitial lung disease (ILD) was not observed. These data position sevabertinib as a viable oral TKI alongside ADCs for HER2-mutant NSCLC, particularly for TKD/YVMA disease.

Read More »

Overall Survival with Amivantamab–Lazertinib in EGFR-Mutated Advanced NSCLC

The combination therapy demonstrated improved overall survival (a 25% reduction in mortality) but was associated with increased toxicity, including skin rash and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). Single-agent osimertinib may lose its role as monotherapy for EGFR-mutated NSCLC, as the FLAURA2 trial showed that combining osimertinib with chemotherapy yielded better outcomes than osimertinib alone.

Read More »

Neoadjuvant Osimertinib for Resectable EGFR-Mutated Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

The phase III NeoADAURA trial evaluated neoadjuvant osimertinib (OSI) with or without platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) versus CT alone in resectable, EGFR-mutated stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Both OSI+CT and OSI monotherapy significantly improved major pathologic response (MPR: 26% and 25% vs 2%), and 12-month event-free survival (EFS) rates were higher with OSI-containing regimens (OSI+CT 93%, OSI 95%, CT 83%). Nodal downstaging was also more frequent with OSI arms (53% vs 21%). Neoadjuvant OSI—with or without CT—looks like a real step forward for our EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients, especially given the robust pathologic responses and high rates of surgical completion.

Read More »

Phase III Study of Mediastinal Lymph Node Dissection for Ground Glass Opacity–Dominant Lung Adenocarcinoma

This large, well-done study compared systematic mediastinal lymph node dissection (LND) versus no LND in patients with GGO-dominant invasive lung adenocarcinoma (CTR ≤0.5, ≤3 cm, cT1N0M0). Interim analysis of 302 patients showed no lymph node metastases in either arm, with both groups achieving 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) of 100% at the time of analysis. The no LND arm had significantly shorter surgery duration (74 vs 109 min), less blood loss (44 vs 82 mL), shorter hospital stays (3.9 vs 4.5 days), and fewer grade ≥2 complications (3.3% vs 9.3%). Based on these findings, the trial was terminated early for nonmaleficence, and the authors recommend omitting systematic mediastinal LND in this population. In short, for carefully selected GGO-dominant lung adenocarcinoma, skipping mediastinal LND appears safe and spares patients’ unnecessary morbidity—this could be a real practice-changer for our early-stage, node-negative cases.

Read More »
Load More