.jpeg)
OVERALL SURVIVAL Y PFS QUE APORTAN A LOS PACIENTES LOS MEJORES TRATAMIENTOS DE PRIMERA LINEA ACTUALES Y VENIDEROS :
ATEZOLIZUMAB , DURVALUMAB , SERPLULIMAB , PEMBROLIZUMAB, NIVOLUMAB , TISLELIZUMAB , ADEBRELIMAB . ...
SELECTED FIRST-LINE STUDY RESULTS OF CHECKPOINT INHIBITORS IN EXTENSIVE-STAGE SMALL-CELL LUNG CÁNCER :
Study name | Trial phase | Experimental agent (checkpoint inhibitor) vs. placebo | Additional chemotherapy backbone | Median OS (months) | HR (OS) (95% CI) | Median PFS (months) | HR (PFS) (95% CI) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IMpower133 | Phase III | Atezolizumab | Carboplatin + etoposide | 12.3 vs. 10.3 | 0.70 (0.54–0.91) | 5.2 vs. 4.3 | 0.77 (0.62–0.96) | [5] |
CASPIAN | Phase III | Durvalumab | Platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin) + etoposide | 13.0 vs. 10.3 | 0.73 (0.59–0.91) | 5.1 vs. 5.4 | 0.78 (0.65–0.94) | [7] |
ASTRUM-005 | Phase III | Serplulimab | Carboplatin + etoposide | 15.4 vs. 10.9 | 0.63 (0.49–0.82) | 5.7 vs. 4.3 | 0.48 (0.38–0.59) | [10] |
RATIONALE-312 | Phase III | Tislelizumab | Platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin) + etoposide | 15.5 vs. 13.5 | 0.75 (0.61–0.93) | 4.7 vs. 4.3 | 0.64 (0.52–0.78) | [16] |
LBA93 EXTENTORCH | Phase III | Toripalimab | Platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin) + etoposide | 14.6 vs. 13.3 | 0.80 (0.65–0.98) | 5.8 vs. 5.6 | 0.67 (0.54–0.82) | [17] |
CAPSTONE‑1 | Phase III | Adebrelimab | Carboplatin + etoposide | 15.3 vs. 12.8 | 0.72 (0.58–0.90) | 5.8 vs. 5.6 | 0.67 (0.54–0.83) | [18] |
KEYNOTE-604 | Phase III | Pembrolizumab | Platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin) + etoposide | 10.8 vs. 9.7 | 0.80 (0.64–0.98) | 4.5 vs. 4.3 | 0.75 (0.61–0.91) | [14] |
ECOG-ACRIN EA5161 | Phase 2 | Nivolumab | Platinum (cisplatin/carboplatin) + etoposide | 11.3 vs. 8.5 | 0.67 (0.46–0.98) | 5.5 vsi. 4.6 | 0.65 (0.46–0.91) | [15] |
ETER701 | Phase III | Benmelstobart + anlotinib (multi-target antiangiogenic molecule) | Carboplatin + etoposide | 19.3 vs. 11.9 | 0.61 (0.47–0.79) | 6.9 vs. 4.2 | 0.32 (0.26–0.41) | [56] |
SELECTED SECOND-LINE STUDY RESULTS IN EXTENSIVE-STAGE SMALL-CELL LUNG CÁNCER :
Investigational agent | Comparator arm | Study phase | Overall response rate | Median OS (months) | HR (OS) (95% CI) | Median PFS (months) | HR (PFS) (95% CI) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Topotecan | Best supportive care | III | 7% (5/71) vs. NR | 6.0 vs. 3.2 | 0.64 (0.45 to 0.90) | NR | NR | [26] |
Carboplatin etoposide re-challenge | Topotecan | III | 49% (39/81) vs. 25% (19/81) | 7.5 vs. 7.4 | 1.03 (0.87–1.19) | 5.7 vs. 3.6 | 0.50 (0.37–0.68) | [25] |
LURBINECTEDIN (3.2 mg/m2 dose) | – | II | 35.2% (37/105) | 9.3 | – | 3.5 | – | [31] |
LURBINECTEDIN (2.0 mg/m2 dose) + doxorubicin | Topotecan, irinotecan, CAV | III | 32% (97/307) vs. 30% (91/306) | 8.6 vs. 7.6 | 0.97 (0.82–1.15) | 4.0 vs. 4.0 | 0.83 (0.69–1.00) | [32] |
TARLATAMAB (10 mg dose) (AMG 757) | – | II | 40% (40/100) | 15.2 | – | 4.9 | – | [38] |
