Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and denosumab improves clinical outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer with bone metastases
Menée au Japon à partir de données portant sur 86 patients atteints d'un cancer du poumon non à petites cellules et présentant des métastases osseuses, cette étude rétrospective évalue l'efficacité, du point de vue du taux de réponse au niveau des métastases osseuses, du taux de contrôle de la maladie, de la survie globale et de la survie sans progression dans un contexte de vie réelle, et la toxicité de l'ajout de dénosumab à un traitement par inhibiteur de point de contrôle immunitaire
Background: The concomitant use of denosumab and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment may have synergistic effects and enhance antitumor activity; however, this has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with bone metastases receiving combination therapy and to identify the best combination regimen. Methods: Eighty-six NSCLC patients with bone metastases who received ICI treatment were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups; a denosumab combination group (D + ICI group; n = 47) and a non-combination group (non-D + ICI group; n = 39). The response rate (RR) for bone metastases, disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), real world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were evaluated. Additionally, the time when denosumab treatment should commence and concomitant treatment duration were evaluated. Results: The D + ICI group showed significantly better RR (40.4 % vs. 20.5 %, p = 0.01), DCR (67.3 % vs. 38.7 %, p = 0.02), OS (14.2 vs. 8.6 months, p = 0.02), and rwPFS (7.4 vs. 3.6 months, p < 0.01) than the non-D + ICI group; however, incidence of irAEs showed no difference (29.7 % vs. 12.8 %, p = 0.07). Although clinical outcomes did not differ regardless of whether denosumab was initiated before or after ICI treatment, the group that received concomitant denosumab for more than four months had significantly better RR (46.2 % vs. 17.4 %, p = 0.03), OS (20.3 vs. 3.8 months, p < 0.01), and rwPFS (10.9 vs. 2.8 months, p < 0.01) than the group that received concomitant denosumab for less than four months. However, the landmark analysis showed no significant differences in OS (20.4 vs. 12.7 months, p = 0.11) and rwPFS (22.8 vs. 11.2 months, p = 0.21), and the results of denosumab duration were influenced by long-term survivors. Conclusion: Denosumab showed favorable synergistic effects with ICI treatment and may significantly improve the response to bone metastasis and prognosis without increasing the incidence of irAEs.