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
YO24 - Long-term Response to aumolertinib in NSCLC Harboring EGFR Mutation and High PD-L1 Expression: Case Report
Presenter: Wanwan Cheng
Session: Poster viewing 06
YO25 - Aumolertinib treatment in L858R patient with brain metastases: A long-term survival Case Report
Presenter: Ling Xin Feng
Session: Poster viewing 06
YO26 - Treatment of ALK positive metastatic adenocarcinoma lung - A case report of sequencing therapy.
Presenter: Rajashree ashwath
Session: Poster viewing 06
YO28 - Successful Multimodal Treatment of an Advanced Case of Axillary Synovial Sarcoma
Presenter: Paula Franco
Session: Poster viewing 06
YO29 - Asymptomatic Mesenteric Desmoid Fibromatosis: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge
Presenter: Paula Franco
Session: Poster viewing 06
YO30 - Demographic, Clinical Profile and Outcomes of Cancer Patients with Covid-19 Infection In a Tertiary Hospital Davao City: A Case Series
Presenter: Perlita Joanne Yu
Session: Poster viewing 06