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

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

Confirmed objective response was 76% the median duration of response was 15.2 months and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.4 months Of the patients with brain mets 47% had a confirmed intracranial objective response Zongertinib showed sustained efficacy in previously untreated patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) with mostly low-grade toxicity.

Read More »

Setidegrasib in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Pancreatic Cancer

45 patients with Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) who received the 600-mg dose, 36% had a partial response, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.3 months, estimated 12-month overall survival was 59% 21 patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma 24% had a response, the median PFS was 3.0 months and the median overall survival was 10.3 months.

Read More »

Amivantamab Plus Lazertinib in Atypical EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From CHRYSALIS-2

The CHRYSALIS-2, the cohort C analysis of patients with atypical EGFR mutations showed meaningful and durable activity. Atypical mutations can be difficult to deal with as a clinician, and having concrete data on these (S768I, L861Q and G719ZX) mutations gives assurance that this doublet is active. Overall response rate (ORR) was 52% and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.1 months in refractory patients and 19.5 months in the treatment-naive population.

Read More »