Abstract 462P
Background
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised the treatment of malignancies particularly in metastatic setting with increased response rates and improved survival rates . Studies have shown that those with complete response tend to have a prolonged duration of response. However there is data lacking particularly in the Indian setting with regard to the duration of treatment in those who achieve a complete response (CR).
Methods
A retrospective study was carried out of all patients who received ICIs between April 2016- October 2021. They were followed up till May 2022. Response was assessed using RECIST criteria. Duration of treatment was noted for those who achieved complete response. Survival analysis was carried out for those who achieved a complete response.
Results
215 patients received checkpoint inhibitors during the study period. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC: n=65,30.2 %), metastatic non small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC: n=62, 28.8%) were the most common indications.The rates of complete response (CR) were : RCC ( n=9,14%), Lung (n=7, 11.6%). The median duration of treatment received before stoppage by those in CR in mRCC was 14 months. All of them continue to be in remission with 5 out of the 9 patients in CR (55.5%) crossing 4 years of survival with a maximum ongoing survival of 72 months being noted. In mNSCLC, those with CR received a median duration of treatment of 12 months before stoppage. All of them continue to be in remission with 5 out of these 7 patients (71%) in CR having crossed 3 years of survival with a maximum ongoing survival of 60 months being noted.
Conclusions
Long lasting responses and survival can be seen with checkpoint inhibitors even after stopping treatment in those who achieve a complete response. Considering cost constraints in developing countries, prospective randomised studies need to be undertaken to evaluate the possibility of a shorter finite duration of treatment of 1 year with ICIs in patients with metastatic malignancies who achieve CR.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Dr. Nitin Yashas.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
A. Rauthan: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: BMS, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
429P - Cancer and COVID-19 in India: Assessing the impact in a nationwide survey
Presenter: Bharti Devnani
Session: Poster viewing 06
430P - Single-cell spatial architecture of tumour microenvironment in patients with in-transit melanoma (ITM)
Presenter: Camelia Quek
Session: Poster viewing 06
431P - Alveolar soft part sarcomas: A tertiary care Indian centre experience
Presenter: Jyoti Bajpai
Session: Poster viewing 06
432P - Representation of countries and gender in abstracts at the 2022 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Scientific Meeting (ASCO ASM)
Presenter: Laure-Anne Teuwen
Session: Poster viewing 06
433P - Variations in radiation oncology treatment access in Asia and its implications on cancer care
Presenter: Abhishek Krishna
Session: Poster viewing 06
434P - Outcome of high grade glioma patients: A single institution experience
Presenter: Adeeba Zaki
Session: Poster viewing 06
435P - The pattern of presentation of cancer in young adults from a tertiary care centre: A cause for concern
Presenter: Deepa Joseph
Session: Poster viewing 06
436P - Oncologic outcomes in patients with extraskeletal Ewing’s sarcoma (EES): A tertiary care centre experience
Presenter: Ashish Gulia
Session: Poster viewing 06
437P - The prevalence of burnout among medical oncology fellows-in-training in the Philippines: A cross-sectional study
Presenter: Daphne Lee
Session: Poster viewing 06
438P - Estimating scenarios for survival time in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy
Presenter: Megan Smith-Uffen
Session: Poster viewing 06