Analysis of Immunotherapy Combined with Radiotherapy in Patients with Brain Metastasis of Driver Gene-Negative Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Abstract

Purpose. To observe the remission rate and side effects of immunotherapy combined with radiotherapy in patients with brain metastasis of driver gene-negative non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods. 152 patients with NSCLC brain metastasis admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were selected as the research objects. Patients were divided into a single group (85 cases) and a combined group (67 cases) according to treatment methods. The therapeutic effects and side effects of the single group and combined group were compared. In addition, the patients who received immunotherapy combined with radiotherapy were divided into three subgroups: A, B, and C, and the therapeutic effects and side effects of different radiotherapy modes were compared among group A [whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT)], group B (WBRT combined with local radiotherapy) and group C (local radiotherapy). Results. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) in the combined group were higher than those in the single group ( P < 0.05 ). The incidence of reactive capillary hyperplasia and immune-related pneumonia in the combined group were higher than that in the single group ( P < 0.05 ). There was no significant difference in the incidence of other side effects between the two groups ( P > 0.05 ). ORR and DCR in group B were higher than those in group A ( P < 0.05 ). There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects among the three groups ( P > 0.05 ). Conclusion. Immunotherapy combined with radiotherapy is effective in patients with brain metastasis of driver gene-negative NSCLC, which can improve the disease control rate without increasing the side effects. In addition, WBRT combined with local push radiotherapy is effective and safe. Clinical Study Registration Number. The Clinical study registration number is K2019086.

Evaluation safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) and radiotherapy combination versus ICB in non‐small cell lung cancer patients with recurrence or metastasis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…We retrieved 2798 records from three databases, of which 709 duplicated records were excluded. After a series of filters, eventually, 25 journal articles 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 were included for the present meta‐analysis. In some articles, two or more arms of combined treatment of ICB + RT in articles were analyzed separately in our meta‐analysis.…”

“…Results of the meta‐analysis in 10 studies 6 , 7 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 comparing ICB plus RT with ICB were performed in Figure 2 , ICB combined with RT was better than without it both in short‐term and long‐term efficacy without increased toxicity. ORR, DCR, OS, and PFS were significantly inferior in patients with combination therapy ( I 2 = 0.00%, OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13–1.52, I 2 = 0.00%, OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02–1.26, I 2 = 42.1%, OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72–0.92, I 2 = 34.5%, OR 0.80, and 95% CI 0.71–0.89, respectively).…”

Retracted: Analysis of Immunotherapy Combined with Radiotherapy in Patients with Brain Metastasis of Driver Gene‐Negative Non‐Small‐Cell Lung Cancer

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”