Background
Rationale of immunotherapy therapy for SCLC
Clinical outcomes of ICBs in NSCLC and SCLC
NSCLC | SCLC | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | Design | ORR, PFS, and OS | TRAE | Study | Design | ORR, PFS, and OS | TRAE |
First-line | |||||||
NCT 00527735 [48] II R 1: 1: 1 N = 204 | 1. Placebo+Pacl+Carbo 2. Concurrent Ipi+Pacl+Carbo 3. Phased Ipi+Pacl+Carbo | irBORR, 18%, 21%, 32% mWHO-BORR, 14%, 21%, 32% Median irPFS, 4.6 m, 5.5 m, 5.7 m Median PFS, 4.2 m, 4.1 m, 5.1 m Median OS, 8.3 m, 9.7 m, 12.2 m | G3-4 6% 20% 15% | NCT 00527735 [49] II R 1: 1: 1 N = 130 | 1. Placebo+Pacl+Carbo 2. Concurrent Ipi+Pacl+Carbo 3. Phased Ipi+Pacl+Carbo | irBORR, 53%, 49%, 71% mWHO-BORR, 49%, 33%, 57% Median irPFS, 5.3 m, 5.7 m, 6.4 m Median PFS, 5.2 m, 3.9 m, 5.2 m Median OS, 9.9 m, 9.1 m,12.9 m | G3-4 9% 21% 17% |
NCT01285609 [50] III R 1: 1 N = 749 | 1. Phased Placebo+Pacl+Carbo 2. Phased Ipi+Pacl+Carbo | BORR, 47%, 44% Median PFS, 5.6 m, 5.6 m Median OS, 12.4 m, 13.4 m | G3-4 35% 51% | CA184-156 [51] III R 1, 1 N = 954 | 1. Phased Placebo+Etop+Plat 2. Phased Ipi+Etop+Plat | BORR, 62%, 62% Median PFS, 4.4 m, 4.6 m Median OS, 10.9 m, 11.0 m | G3-5 11% 22% |
IMpower131 [52] III R 1: 1 N = 578 | 1. Atezo+Nab-Pacl+Carbo 2. Nab-Pacl+Carbo | ORR, 49%, 41% Median PFS, 6.3 m, 5.6 m Median OS, 14.0 m, 13.9 m | G3-5 67% 58% | IMpower133 [53] III R 1: 1 N = 403 | 1. Atezo+Etop+Carbo 2. Placebo+Etop+Carbo | ORR, 60.2%, 64.4% Median PFS, 5.2 m, 4.3 m Median OS, 12.3 m, 10.3 m | G3-5 58.1% 57.6% |
IMpower132 [54] III R 1: 1 N = 403 | 1. Atezo+Pem+Plat 2. Placebo+Pem+Plat | ORR, 47%, 32% Median PFS, 7.6 m, 5.2 m Median OS,18.1 m, 13.6 m | G3-5 58.1% 57.6% | ||||
IMpower150 [55] III R 1: 1 N = 692 | 1. Atezo+Bev+Pacl+Carbo 2. Bev+Pacl+Carbo | ORR, 63.5%, 48% Median PFS, 8.3 m, 6.8 m Median OS,19.2 m, 14.7 m | G3-5 58.5% 50% | ||||
Second-line and beyond | |||||||
CheckMate 017 [56] Squamous III R 1: 1 N = 272 | 1. Nivo 2. Docetaxel | ORR, 20%, 9% Median PFS, 3.5 m, 2.8 m Median OS, 9.2 m, 6.0 m 1-year OS, 42%, 24% | G3-4 7% 55% | CheckMate 032 [57] I/II NR, N = 216 | 1. Nivo 3 mg/kg 2. Nivo 1 mg/kg + Ipi 3 mg/kg 3. Nivo 3 mg/kg + Ipi 1 mg/kg. | ORR, 10%, 23%, 19% Median PFS, 1.4 m, 2.6 m, 1.4 m Median OS, 4·4 m, 7.7 m, 6.0 m 1-year OS, 33%, 43%, 35% | G3-4 13% 30% 19% |
CheckMate 057 [58] Nonsquamous III R 1: 1 N = 582 | 1. Nivo 2. Docetaxel | ORR, 19%, 12% Median PFS,2.3 m, 4.2 m Median OS, 12.2 m, 9.4 m 1-year OS, 51%, 39% | G3-4 10% 54% | CheckMate 331 [59] III R 1: 1 N = 569 | 1. Nivo 2. Topotecan/Amrubicin | ORR, 13.7%, 16.5% Median PFS, 1.5 m, 3.8 m Median OS, 7.5 m, 8.4 m 1-year OS, 37%, 34% | G3-4 4.7% 74% |
KEYNOTE-010 [60] PD-L1 ≥ 1% II/III R 1: 1: 1 N = 1034 | 1. Pembro 2 mg/kg, 2. Pembro 10 mg/kg 3. Docetaxel 75 mg/m2 | ORR, 18%, 18%, 9% Median PFS, 3.9 m, 4.0 m, 4.0 m Median OS, 10·4 m, 12.7 m, 8.5 m 1-year OS, 43.2%, 52.3%, 34.6% | G3-5 13% 16% 35% | KEYNOTE-028 KEYNOTE-158 [61] Ib/II N = 83 | Pembro | ORR, 19.3% Median PFS, 2.0 m Median OS, 7.7 m 1-year OS, 20.7% | G3-5 8% |
POPLAR [62] II R 1: 1 N = 287 | 1. Atezo 2. Docetaxel | ORR, 15%, 15% Median PFS, 2.7 m, 3.0 m Median OS, 12.6 m, 9.7 m | G3-4 11% 39% | IFCT-1603 [63] II R 2: 1 N = 64 | 1. Atezo 2. Etop+Carbo/Topotecan | 6-week ORR, 2.3%, 10% Median PFS, 1.4 m, 4.3 m Median OS, 11.4 m, 9.4 m | G3-4 4.2% ~ 35% |
OAK [64] III R 1: 1 N = 850 | 1. Atezo 2. Docetaxel | ORR, 14%, 13% Median PFS, 2.8 m, 4.0 m Median OS, 13.8 m, 9.6 m | G3-4 15% 43% | ||||
Maintenance | |||||||
PACIFIC [65] III R 2: 1 N = 709 | 1. CRT+Durva 2. CRT+Placebo | Median PFS, 17.2 m, 5.6 m Median OS, NR, 28.7 m 1-year OS, 66.3%, 55.6% | G3-4 30.5% 26.1% | CheckMate 451 III R 1: 1: 1 N = 810 | 1. Nivo 2. Nivo+Ipi 3. Placebo | Maintenance nivo/nivo+ipi did not improve OS | NA |
NCT02359019 [66] II N = 45 | Pembro | Median PFS, 1.4 m Median OS, 9.6 m | ~ 15% |
First-line
Study | Stage | Ph | Pts. | Design | Primary end point | NCT number | Primary completion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First-line | |||||||
KEYNOTE-604 | ED | III | 453 | Pembro+EP v Placebo+EP | PFS, OS | NCT03066778 | December 2019 |
REACTION | ED | II | 118 | Pembro+EP v EP | 6-month PFS | NCT02580994 | August 2020 |
NA | LD/ED | I | 80 | Pembro+EP ± RT | MTD | NCT02402920 | July 31, 2023 |
NA | LD | II / III | 506 | Atezo+EP+RT v EP+RT | PFS, OS | NCT03811002 | May 2024 |
CASPIAN | ED | III | 988 | Durva±Treme+EP v EP | PFS, OS | NCT030s43872 | September 2019 |
CLOVER | LDb | I | 300 | Durva±Treme+EP | DLT; AE | NCT03509012 | April 2022 |
PAVE | ED | II | 55 | Avelumab+EP | 1- year PFS | NCT03568097 | November 2020 |
Second-line and beyond | |||||||
BLOLUMA | LD/EDa | II | 106 | Nivo+Ipi | ORR | NCT03083691 | March 2019 |
MCC-19163 | LD/ED | II | 41 | Nivo+Ipi+Ad.p53-DC vaccine | DCR | NCT03406715 | April 2020 |
CA209-9YT | ED | II | 40 | Nivo+Ipi | Teff/Treg | NCT03670056 | September 2020 |
NA | ED | II | 29 | Nivo+Gemcitabine | ORR | NCT03662074 | September 2020 |
AFT-17 | LD/ED | II | 98 | Pembro v Topotecan | PFS | NCT02963090 | May 2019 |
KEYNOTE PN758 | ED | I/ II | 84 | Pembro+Pegzilarginase | AE, ORR | NCT03371979 | December 2020 |
NA | LD/ED | II | 80 | Pembro+EP±RT | PD-L1 | NCT02934503 | October 2019 |
ML39728 | LD/ED | II | 35 | Atezo | ORR | NCT03262454 | December 2019 |
Winship3112-15 | LD/ED | II | 28 | Durva±Treme+RT v RT | PFS, ORR | NCT02701400 | January 2020 |
PASSION | ED | II | 135 | SHR-1210+Apatinib | AE, ORR | NCT03417895 | March 2019 |
Maintenance | |||||||
STIMULI | LD | II | 260 | Nivo+Ipi v Obsesrvation | PFS, OS | NCT02046733 | October 2019 |
CA209-840 | ED | I/ II | 21 | Nivo+Ipi+RT | PFS | NCT03043599 | April 2021 |
ACHILES | LD | II | 212 | Atezo v Observation | 2-year OS | NCT03540420 | December 2023 |
NA | LD | II | 51 | Durva+EP+RT | PFS | NCT03585998 | June 2021 |
ADRIATIC | LD | III | 600 | Durva±Treme v Placebo | PFS, OS | NCT03703297 | June 2021 |
Second-line
Maintenance
Potential mechanisms underlying discrepant outcomes of ICBs between SCLC and NSCLC
Low PD-L1 expression in SCLC
Author | Patientsc | IHC assay | Biopsy types | TC PD-L1 cutoff | Cell type | PD-L1 expression |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Antonia et al. [57] | 146 | 28-8/Dako | Archival or fresh | 1% 5% | Tumor cell | 16.4% 4.8% |
Ott et al. [71] | 145 | 22C3/Dako | Archival or fresh | 1% | Tumor and Stromal cell | 31.7% |
Hyun et al. [72] | 92 | 22C3/Dako | Archival or fresh | 1% | Tumor and stromal cell | 45.7% |
Inamura et al. [77] | 74 | E1 L3N/CST | Archival | 5% | Tumor cell | 18.9% |
Yasuda et al. [78] | 39 | 22C3/Dako | Archival | 1% | Tumor cell | 2.5% |
Pujol et al. [63] | 53 | SP142/Ventana | Archival | 1% | Tumor and stromal cell | 2% |
Gadgeel et al. [66] | 30 20 | 22C3/Dako | Archival | 1% | Tumor cell Stromal cell | 10% 40% |
Schultheis et al. [79]. | 94d | 5H1/Chen’s lab E1 L3N/CST | Archival | 1% | Tumor cell Stromal cell | 0.0% TIMs, 18.5% TILs, 48% |
Berghoff et al. [41] | 32 | NA/Dako | Archival | 5% | Tumor cell Stromal cell | 34.4% TIMs, 28.1% TILs, 25.0% |
Yu et al. [80] | 194e | SP142/Ventana 28-8/Dako | Archival | 1% | Tumor cell Stromal cell | 16.5% TILs, 56.2%, 44.8% |
Kim et al. [81] | 120 | MAB1561/ R&D system | Archival | 1% | Tumor cell Stromal cell | 14.2% TILs, 23.3% |
Komiya et al [82] | 99 | EPR1161/Abcam | Archival | 5% | Tumor cell | 82.8% |
Ishii et al. [83] | 102 | NA/Abcam | Archival | 5% | Tumor cell | 71.6% |