Abstract
BACKGROUND: Besides modeling/simulation-based analysis, no post-approval studies have evaluated the optimal administration frequency of pembrolizumab in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study to evaluate the association between survival outcomes and treatment extensions/delays of pembrolizumab-based regimens in patients with advanced NSCLC. Those who had received at least 4 cycles in routine practice were divided into 2 groups: nonstandard (Non-Std, ≥ 2 cycles at intervals > 3 weeks + 3 days) and standard (Std, all cycles every 3 weeks or 1 cycle > 3 weeks + 3 days).
RESULTS: Among 150 patients, 92 (61%) were eligible for the study (Non-Std, 27; Std, 65). The reasons for patients with extensions/delays in the Non-Std group included: immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (33%), non-irAE-related medical issues (26%), and patient-physician preference (41%). The Non-Std group was more likely to have a higher programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score, a higher number of treatment cycles, and pembrolizumab monotherapy. Univariate and 6-month landmark analyses showed longer median overall survival and progression-free survival in the Non-Std group compared with the Std group. After multivariable adjustment for confounding factors, there was no significant difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-4.8; P = .824) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-9.6; P = .157) between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study shows that a significant proportion of patients with advanced NSCLC receive pembrolizumab-based regimens with extended intervals or delays in routine clinical practice and with similar outcomes to those receiving treatment at label-specified 3-week intervals. Given the durability of benefit seen and the potential for cost reduction and decreased infusion frequency in these patients, this requires validation in prospective trials.