Real world efficacy of immunotherapy in nonsmall cell lung cancer

Abstract

The evolution of drug therapy in solid tumors primarily leads to the increase in cancer specific survival, but inevitably raises financial burden. So far, none of the countries can venture total reimbursement with all necessary contemporary drugs for all patients. Doubling of expenses for cancer drug therapy in Russia in 2019 allowed oncologists using the most expensive treatments in more than 70 % of patients.Purpose: To evaluate efficacy of various treatment types of non‑small cell lung cancer in real clinical setting.Material and methods. We included patients with histologically verified metastatic non‑small cell lung cancer without activating mutations treated with first or second line therapy in 2018 – 2019. In total 287 patients were included: 230 — for the first line efficacy analysis, 100 — for the second. Time to disease progression, overall survival and objective response rate were evaluated.Results. The use of checkpoint inhibitors in accordance with all actual recommendations (first line pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 > 50 %, chemoimmunotherapy in first line or monotherapy in the second line irrespectively to PD-L1 status) decreased one‑year mortality from 61 % in 2018 to 33 % in 2019, but significantly increased financial cost (p < 0.000). Moreover, checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy irrespectively of PD-L1 expression increased response rate (from 10 % and 21 % for monotherapy and platinum doublet, respectively, to 33,2 % for chemoimmunotherapy). PD‑1 inhibitors as monotherapy increased median time to disease progression (4,1 and 6,2 months for monotherapy with chemotherapy and platinum doublet, respectively, to 6,5 months and not achieved for chemoimmunotherapy and monotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors).Conclusion. More than doubling of financial costs spent for non‑small cell lung cancer treatment allowed access to contemporary treatment for all patients. Such unprecedented measures significantly improved efficacy, including double decrease of one‑year mortality. Nevertheless, rational design of regional clinical guidelines interpretation is of great importance in accurate and effective use of the healthcare budget.