Pembrolizumab, either as a type of monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic anticancer agents, is effective in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the development of cancer cachexia may adversely affect anticancer drug therapy. The present study investigated the effect of cancer cachexia on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC who received first-line pembrolizumab. The data of patients with advanced NSCLC receiving first-line monotherapy or combination therapy with pembrolizumab were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Clinical outcome was compared between patients with and without cancer cachexia. A total of 53 patients were analyzed. Among all patients, median TTF and OS were significantly shorter in patients with cancer cachexia than in those without [TTF: 5.8 vs. 10 months; hazard ratio (HR): 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-4.24; P=0.016; OS: 12.1 months vs. not reached; HR: 5.85; 95% CI: 2.0-17.1; P=0.001]. In addition, TTF in the pembrolizumab monotherapy group was significantly shorter in patients with cancer cachexia than in those without, but no significant difference was detected in patients receiving pembrolizumab combination therapy. The incidence of AEs did not significantly differ between patients with and without cancer cachexia, except with regard to hypothyroidism. In conclusion, although cancer cachexia is prognostic of a poor outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC who receive first-line pembrolizumab, cancer cachexia might not affect therapeutic efficacy in combination therapy with pembrolizumab and cytotoxic anticancer agents.

No abstract

Background/Aim: We evaluated the efficacy of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim (PEG) for febrile neutropenia (FN) in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients receiving amrubicin (AMR). Patients and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with SCLC receiving AMR as second-line therapy. Results: A total of 33 patients were treated with AMR (no PEG group), while 13 patients were treated with AMR plus prophylactic administration of PEG (PEG group). The severity of neutropenia was significantly reduced in the PEG group compared to the no PEG group (p=0.02). The incidence of FN in the no PEG and PEG groups was 27.3% and 7.7%, respectively. The time to development of FN tended to be longer in the PEG group compared to the no PEG group (p=0.132). Conclusion: Primary prophylaxis with PEG may be beneficial in reducing the risk of FN in patients with SCLC receiving AMR.