Virtual Library
Start Your Search
M. Behera
Author of
-
+
OA03 - Immunotherapy Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced NSCLC (ID 367)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Chemotherapy/Targeted Therapy/Immunotherapy
- Presentations: 1
-
+
OA03.06 - Evaluation of Toxicity Profile of PD-1 versus PD-L1 Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) (ID 6073)
11:55 - 12:05 | Author(s): M. Behera
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Monoclonal antibodies against Programmed Death 1 (PD-1) and Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) have emerged as effective therapies in NSCLC. We updated our initial systematic review of trials investigating differences in the toxicities of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors.
Methods:
An electronic literature search was performed of public databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) and conference proceedings for trials utilizing PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab) and PD-L1 inhibitors (atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab) in NSCLC patients. Studies that did not report toxicities were excluded. A formal meta-analysis was conducted with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Version 2.2). Clinical and demographic characteristics, response, and toxicity data were compared between the two groups.
Results:
Twenty-two studies reported between 2013-2016 were eligible for this analysis. The total number of patients evaluated for toxicities were 2,863 patients in the PD-1 group and 2,006 patients in the PD-L1 group. Patient characteristics % (PD-1/PD-L1): median age 64/65, male 58/56, smokers 82/83, squamous histology 25/32, performance status 0-1 98/100. There was no difference in response rate between PD-1 (17%) and PD-L1 (18%) inhibitors, p=0.3. The incidence of overall adverse events (AEs), immune related AEs, and pneumonitis trended in favor of the PD-L1 group but did not reach statistical significance (see table). Figure 1
Conclusion:
In this updated systematic review involving 4,869 patients, the toxicity profiles of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in NSCLC patients are not significantly different.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P2.02 - Poster Session with Presenters Present (ID 462)
- Event: WCLC 2016
- Type: Poster Presenters Present
- Track: Locally Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 12/06/2016, 14:30 - 15:45, Hall B (Poster Area)
-
+
P2.02-015 - Guideline Concordant Care is Associated with Better Survival for Patients with Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (ID 5103)
14:30 - 14:30 | Author(s): M. Behera
- Abstract
Background:
Current evidence-based guideline-concordant care (GCC) is administration of platinum-based chemotherapy during thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with good performance status. This study evaluates factors associated with lack of GCC.
Methods:
Patients (pts) with unresected stage IIIA/IIIB NSCLC diagnosed from 2005 – 2013 and Charlson-Deyo Score 0 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Primary outcomes measured were receipt of GCC, defined by administration of chemotherapy with TRT commencing within 2 weeks of each other and minimum TRT dose of 60 Gy, and overall survival (OS). Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) modeling was performed to identify variables associated with non-GCC. Cox proportional hazard modeling was utilized to examine OS.
Results:
Patient characteristics (n=37,809) included: mean age 67.8 years; 55% male; 13% African American; 3.4% Hispanic, 3.6% ‘other’ race/ethnicity; 66% government-insured; mean tumor size 5.0 cm; 38% adenocarcinoma; 32% squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 30% large cell/other histology. In total, 28% of pts received GCC. On MLR analysis, Hispanic pts were more likely to receive non-GCC (OR=1.34, p <0.001) compared to non-Hispanic pts. Uninsured pts were more likely to receive non-GCC (OR=1.57, p<0.001) compared to privately-insured pts. Patients treated in the western, southern, or northeastern U.S. were more likely to receive non-GCC (OR= 1.43, 1.45, 1.21, all p values <0.001) compared to pts treated in the Midwest. Adenocarcinoma and large-cell/other histological types were more likely to receive non-GCC (OR= 1.71, 1.39, both p<0.001) compared to SCC. For every one-year increase in age or 50-mile increase in distance to treatment facility, patients had a 4% or 3% increased odds of not receiving GCC (OR=1.04, 1.03; p<0.001, p = 0.003, respectively). On hazard modeling, those receiving non-GCC had higher death rates compared to those receiving GCC (HR=1.42, p<0.001). Survival rates were lower for Hispanics receiving non-GCC versus GCC (HR=1.24, p=0.034). Other groups with lower OS for non-GCC versus GCC included: the uninsured (HR=1.61, p<0.001), treatment in the western, southern, or northeastern US (HRs= 1.56, 1.40, 1.33, respectively, p<0.001), adenocarcinomas and large cell/other histologies (both HR=1.40, p<0.001).
Conclusion:
Socioeconomic factors, including Hispanic ethnicity, lack of insurance, geographic location, and distance from treatment facility are associated with receipt of non-GCC. Patient and disease specific factors including increasing age and adenocarcinoma histology are also associated with non-GCC. Future interventions could target these groups to improve provision of GCC.
