Comparison of the efficacy of immunotherapy at different time points during the perioperative period for stage II-III NSCLC.

Abstract

e20009 Background: The application of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in early-stage lung cancer is fraught with unresolved issues, and there are no clinical studies directly comparing the efficacy of ICIs used in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant therapy across different perioperative time points in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Consequently, the optimal timing for immunotherapy in surgically resectable NSCLC remains uncertain. Methods: This study encompassed 536 patients with stage II-III NSCLC, diagnosed and treated across multiple centers from January 2019 to December 2022. Clinical data for all patients ultimately included in the study were retrospectively collected. The primary endpoints evaluated were event-free survival (EFS)/disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) . Secondary endpoints included pathological complete response (pCR) and major pathological response (MPR). Propensity score matching was utilized to mitigate confounding factors, comparing the efficacy of ICIs across different treatment modalities and time dimensions during the perioperative period of lung cancer. Results: The integration of neoadjuvant ICIs with chemotherapy was observed to significantly enhance pCR ( p < 0.001), MPR ( p < 0.001), EFS ( p = 0.002), and OS ( p < 0.001) in comparison to neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Similarly, the combination of adjuvant ICIs with chemotherapy markedly improved DFS ( p = 0.034) and OS ( p = 0.021) relative to adjuvant chemotherapy alone. Building on these insights, we further delineated the efficacy of ICIs across distinct temporal dimensions within the perioperative interval, categorizing patients into three groups: neoadjuvant ICIs plus chemotherapy, adjuvant ICIs plus chemotherapy, and a sequential regimen of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant ICIs plus chemotherapy. The analysis revealed no significant differences in DFS and OS among the three patient groups for stage II NSCLC. In contrast, for stage III NSCLC, both neoadjuvant ( p = 0.015) and sequential treatment approaches ( p = 0.047) demonstrated significantly improved DFS outcomes compared to the adjuvant protocol, with no substantial statistical difference noted between the neoadjuvant and sequential treatments ( p = 0.274). Furthermore, the sequential regimen outperformed the adjuvant strategy in OS ( p = 0.020). However, when comparing the neoadjuvant strategy with either the adjuvant ( p = 0.054) or sequential approaches ( p = 0.717), there were no statistically significant variances detected. Conclusions: For individuals with resectable stage III NSCLC, perioperative administration of neoadjuvant and sequential adjuvant ICIs appears to confer enhanced survival advantages. Future efforts should focus on refining treatment strategies for early-stage NSCLC, aiming to deliver enhanced survival benefits to patients.