The Effects of GCSF Primary Prophylaxis on Survival Outcomes and Toxicity in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer on First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy: A Sub-Analysis of the Spinnaker Study.
GCSF
NSCLC
immune-related toxicity
immunotherapy
lung cancer
neuthrophils
neutropenia
neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR)
outcome
overall survival
prophylaxis
Journal
International journal of molecular sciences
ISSN: 1422-0067
Titre abrégé: Int J Mol Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101092791
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jan 2023
16 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
26
11
2022
revised:
03
01
2023
accepted:
09
01
2023
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
25
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
GCSF prophylaxis is recommended in patients on chemotherapy with a >20% risk of febrile neutropenia and is to be considered if there is an intermediate risk of 10−20%. GCSF has been suggested as a possible adjunct to immunotherapy due to increased peripheral neutrophil recruitment and PD-L1 expression on neutrophils with GCSF use and greater tumour volume decrease with higher tumour GCSF expression. However, its potential to increase neutrophil counts and, thus, NLR values, could subsequently confer poorer prognoses on patients with advanced NSCLC. This analysis follows on from the retrospective multicentre observational cohort Spinnaker study on advanced NSCLC patients. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS. The secondary endpoints were the frequency and severity of AEs and irAEs. Patient information, including GCSF use and NLR values, was collected. A secondary comparison with matched follow-up duration was also undertaken. Three hundred and eight patients were included. Median OS was 13.4 months in patients given GCSF and 12.6 months in those not (p = 0.948). Median PFS was 7.3 months in patients given GCSF and 8.4 months in those not (p = 0.369). A total of 56% of patients receiving GCSF had Grade 1−2 AEs compared to 35% who did not receive GCSF (p = 0.004). Following an assessment with matched follow-up, 41% of patients given GCSF experienced Grade 1−2 irAEs compared to 23% of those not given GCSF (p = 0.023). GCSF prophylaxis use did not significantly affect overall or progression-free survival. Patients given GCSF prophylaxis were more likely to experience Grade 1−2 adverse effects and Grade 1−2 immunotherapy-related adverse effects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36675262
pii: ijms24021746
doi: 10.3390/ijms24021746
pmc: PMC9867035
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2015 Apr;4(2):203-8
pubmed: 25870804
Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 Sep;19(5):426-434.e1
pubmed: 29803574
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Nov 6;99(45):e23172
pubmed: 33158004
Eur J Cancer. 2011 Jan;47(1):8-32
pubmed: 21095116
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2018 Mar;67(3):459-470
pubmed: 29204702
ESMO Open. 2020 Jun;5(Suppl 3):
pubmed: 32581069
Cells. 2022 Feb 23;11(5):
pubmed: 35269405
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Nov;16(11):771-772
pubmed: 32877272
Am J Hematol. 2020 Aug;95(8):E210-E213
pubmed: 32419212
Br J Cancer. 2017 Aug 22;117(5):744-751
pubmed: 28728168
Int Immunopharmacol. 2022 Sep;110:108985
pubmed: 35777264
Br J Cancer. 2003 Sep 15;89(6):1008-12
pubmed: 12966417
Thorac Cancer. 2018 Oct;9(10):1291-1299
pubmed: 30126063
Front Oncol. 2022 Sep 23;12:955501
pubmed: 36212433
Cancer. 2000 Aug 1;89(3):516-22
pubmed: 10931450
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Oct 27;12(11):
pubmed: 33120908
Leuk Lymphoma. 2020 Dec;61(12):2931-2938
pubmed: 32842815
Front Oncol. 2019 Apr 26;9:295
pubmed: 31080780
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 1;33(28):3199-212
pubmed: 26169616
ESMO Open. 2021 Apr;6(2):100078
pubmed: 33735802
ESMO Open. 2020 Apr;5(2):e000765
pubmed: 32245904
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Nov;158:217-224
pubmed: 34627664