Durvalumab in NSCLC: latest evidence and clinical potential

Muñoz-Unceta, Nerea; Burgueño, Isabel; Jiménez, Elio; Paz‐Ares, Luis

doi:10.1177/1758835918804151

Cited by 24 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 drugs prevent PD-L1 (and PD-L2) from interacting with PD-1, which would normally allow a decrease in T-cells function signaling and their activation against cells. 51 …”

Section: Action Mechanisms: Dissimilarities Among Anti- Pd1 and Anti-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On one hand, this results in a possible higher efficacy even in low PD-L1 tumors, but this would potentially generate more severe irAEs than the anti- PD-L1 drugs. 51 Up-to-date examples listed in this class are the anti-PD1 nivolumab, pembrolizumab, pidilizumab, and AMP-224.…”

Section: Action Mechanisms: Dissimilarities Among Anti- Pd1 and Anti-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the anti-PD-L1 effect is conveyed through dysregulation of tumor cell signaling and can give milder potential irAE. 51 Atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab and BMS-936559 are examples.…”

Section: Action Mechanisms: Dissimilarities Among Anti- Pd1 and Anti-mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 alike? The non-small-cell lung cancer paradigm

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 agents may have intrinsic and clinically relevant differences in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. By reviewing currently available indirect evidence on these agents for NSCLC treatment, highlighting possible inter- and intra-class dissimilarities, anti-PD1 agents showed a higher response rate and a better outcome when combined with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with squamous and PD-L1 low advanced NSCLC, as compared to anti-PD-L1 agents. Conversely, anti-PD-L1 agents were responsible for less severe adverse events (AEs), particularly, immunerelated AEs. These differences could be explained by their different specific properties. Considering possible differences between anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 agents could be clinically relevant for treatment tailoring and inspiring new investigational approaches.

show abstract

Section: Action Mechanisms: Dissimilarities Among Anti- Pd1 and Anti-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Action Mechanisms: Dissimilarities Among Anti- Pd1 and Anti-mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 alike? The non-small-cell lung cancer paradigm

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that can block immunosuppressive molecules such as programmed cell death‐protein 1 (PD‐1) or its ligand PD‐L1, and cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte associated protein 4 have been proven to be effective in treating various kinds of cancers by restoring antitumor immunity. ICIs that have been clinically applied to NSCLC include pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and ipilimumab . Several prospective studies have demonstrated that both ICIs monotherapy and combination regimens showed encouraging efficacies in the treatment of NSCLC .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ICIs that have been clinically applied to NSCLC include pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and ipilimumab. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Several prospective studies have demonstrated that both ICIs monotherapy and combination regimens showed encouraging efficacies in the treatment of NSCLC. 11,12 An early meta-analysis conducted by Wang et al provided clinical evidence that either ICI monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy improved survival in patients with advanced NSCLC, and ICI group had fewer adverse events (AEs).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rational application of the first‐line chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: A meta‐analysis

Cao

Zhang

et al. 2019

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the relative efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or chemotherapy (CT) alone, or their combination modality in the first‐line treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods This meta‐analysis was performed on the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) after searching web databases and meeting abstracts. The main research endpoints were the comparisons of median overall survival (mOS), the OS rate of 6 months (OSR6m), 1 year (OSR1y) and 2 years (OSR2y), median progression‐free survival (mPFS), the PFS rate of 6 months (PFSR6m) and 1‐year (PFSR1y), objective response rates (ORR), and treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs). Results Eleven RCTs comprising 6278 cases were included. In the subgroup of programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) ≥50%, compared with chemotherapy, the ICIs showed similar OSR6m ( P > 0.05), but significantly improved efficacy in mOS, OSR1y, OSR2y, and ORR (all P < 0.05), also had less grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. Compared with pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus CT in the subgroup of PD‐L1 ≥ 50% had similar mOS, OSR6m, OSR1y, and PFSR1y (all P > 0.05), but significantly improved mPFS, PFSR6m, and ORR (all P < 0.05 for interaction). Compared with the CT group, ICIs plus CT group with PD‐L1 ≥ 50% or <1% showed significant benefit in OS, PFS, and ORR (all P < 0.05). However, in the ICIs plus CT group with 1% ≤ PD‐L1 ≤ 49%, only PFS and ORR showed significant benefit compared with CT group (all P < 0.05), but not for results of OS. Conclusions The findings support the rationale for using pembrolizumab alone in the first‐line treatment of PD‐L1 ≥ 50% advanced NSCLC due to the similar OS and lower grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. However, the combination of ICIs and chemotherapy is strongly recommended in patients with PD‐L1 ≤ 49% for significant survival benefit.

show abstract

Role of tumor microenvironment in cancer progression and therapeutic strategy

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer is now considered a tumor microenvironment (TME) disease, although it was originally thought to be a cell and gene expression disorder. Over the past 20 years, significant advances have been made in understanding the complexity of the TME and its impact on responses to various anticancer therapies, including immunotherapies. Cancer immunotherapy can recognize and kill cancer cells by regulating the body's immune system. It has achieved good therapeutic effects in various solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Recently, blocking of programmed death‐1 (PD‐1), programmed death‐1 ligand‐1 (PD‐L1), and programmed death Ligand‐2 (PD‐L2), the construction of antigen chimeric T cells (CAR‐T) and tumor vaccines have become popular immunotherapies Tumorigenesis, progression, and metastasis are closely related to TME. Therefore, we review the characteristics of various cells and molecules in the TME, the interaction between PD‐1 and TME, and promising cancer immunotherapy therapeutics.

show abstract

Durvalumab in NSCLC: latest evidence and clinical potential

Cited by 24 publications

References 73 publications

Are anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 alike? The non-small-cell lung cancer paradigm

Are anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 alike? The non-small-cell lung cancer paradigm

Rational application of the first‐line chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: A meta‐analysis

Role of tumor microenvironment in cancer progression and therapeutic strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About