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

First-Line Sunvozertinib in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutations

Progression-free survival (PFS) was higher in the Sun group vs chemotherapy, 10.3 m vs 7.5 m with HR of .65 with higher responses (58.9% vs 31.1%) diarrhea high CK and anemia were the most common side effects. The issue is that amivan was not part of treatment and compared to chemotherapy ami in addition to chemotherapy had 11m PFS also in this trial few had brain mets so no evaluation for CNS protection or treatment. But an oral agent in patients who don’t want to come to the office often.

Read More »

Selpercatinib in Early-Stage RET Fusion–Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

109 patients with stage II or IIIA disease, 2-year investigator-assessed event-free survival was 92% with selpercatinib and 61% with placebo (HR for disease recurrence, progression, or death, 0.17 P<0.001). Patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), event-free survival at 2 years was 94% with selpercatinib and 70% with placebo. Genomic testing is expanding now for early stage NSCLC. More study in the adjuvant setting showing promise with targeted therapy.

Read More »

Ensartinib in Resected ALK-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

It seems the old cliche of more drugs than patients is becoming true for most providers here. The data needs to mature further here but likely this will be another option for Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)+ non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in the adjuvant setting. It does look like CNS protection benefits are meaningful as well.

Read More »
Load More