Explore the vast range of titles available.

The global phase 3 IMpower010 study evaluated adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care (BSC) following platinum‐based chemotherapy in patients with resected stage IB–IIIA non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we report a subgroup analysis in patients enrolled in Japan. Eligible patients had complete resection of histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IB (tumors ≥4 cm)–IIIA NSCLC. Upon completing 1–4 cycles of adjuvant cisplatin‐based chemotherapy, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive atezolizumab (fixed dose of 1200 mg every 21 days; 16 cycles or 1 year) or BSC. The primary endpoint of the global IMpower010 study was investigator‐assessed disease‐free survival, tested hierarchically first in patients with stage II–IIIA NSCLC whose tumors expressed programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) on ≥1% of tumor cells, then in all randomized patients with stage II–IIIA NSCLC, and finally in the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) population (stage IB–IIIA NSCLC). Safety was evaluated in all patients who received atezolizumab or BSC. The study comprised 149 enrolled patients in three populations: ITT (n = 117; atezolizumab, n = 59; BSC, n = 58), all‐randomized stage II–IIIA (n = 113; atezolizumab, n = 56; BSC, n = 57), and PD‐L1 tumor cells ≥1% stage II–IIIA (n = 74; atezolizumab, n = 41; BSC, n = 33). At the data cutoff date (January 21, 2021), a trend toward disease‐free survival improvement with atezolizumab vs BSC was observed in the PD‐L1 tumor cells ≥1% stage II–IIIA (unstratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–1.08), all‐randomized stage II–IIIA (unstratified HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35–1.11), and ITT (unstratified HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34–1.10) populations. Atezolizumab‐related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 16% of patients; no treatment‐related grade 5 events occurred. Adjuvant atezolizumab showed disease‐free survival improvement and a tolerable toxicity profile in Japanese patients in IMpower010, consistent with the global study results. This manuscript reports a subgroup analysis of Japanese patients in the global phase 3 IMpower010 study evaluating adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care (BSC) following platinum‐based chemotherapy in resected stage IB‐IIIA non‐small cell lung cancer. Disease‐free survival (DFS) improvement with atezolizumab versus BSC was observed in the Japanese stage II‐IIIA population with PD‐L1 expression on ≥1% of tumor cells; in the Japanese all‐randomized stage II‐IIIA and ITT (stage IB‐IIIA) populations, unstratified DFS hazard ratios favored atezolizumab vs BSC. Adjuvant atezolizumab had a tolerable toxicity profile in Japanese patients in IMpower010, consistent with the global study results.

Pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed‐platinum significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS) with manageable safety compared with placebo plus pemetrexed‐platinum in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non–small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR/ALK alterations in the global, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3 KEYNOTE‐189 study. We present results of Japanese patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE‐189 global and Japan extension studies. Patients were randomized 2:1 to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks (Q3W) for up to 35 cycles. All patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus the investigator’s choice of cisplatin or carboplatin Q3W for four cycles, followed by maintenance pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 Q3W (all intravenous). Co–primary endpoints were OS and PFS. Forty Japanese patients enrolled (pembrolizumab, n = 25; placebo, n = 15). At data cutoff (20 May 2019; median time from randomization to data cutoff, 18.5 [range, 14.7‒38.2] months), the median OS was not reached in the pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed‐platinum arm; the median OS was 25.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9‒29.0) months in the placebo plus pemetrexed‐platinum arm (hazard ratio [HR] .29; 95% CI, .07‒1.15). The median (95% CI) PFS was 16.5 (8.8‒21.1) compared with 7.1 (4.7‒21.4) months (HR, .62; 95% CI, .27‒1.42), respectively. There were no grade 5 adverse events (AE). Grade 3/4 AE occurred in 72% vs 60% of patients in the pembrolizumab vs placebo arms; 40% vs 20% had immune‐mediated AE, and 4% vs 0% had infusion reactions. Efficacy and safety outcomes were similar to those from the global study and support first‐line therapy with pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed‐platinum in Japanese patients with nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR/ALK alterations. In conclusion, consistent with the global KEYNOTE‐189 study, pembrolizumab in combination with pemetrexed and platinum improved OS, PFS, ORR, and PFS2 compared with placebo plus pemetrexed‐platinum and demonstrated a manageable safety profile in Japanese patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. The results from this study confirm the role of pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed‐platinum as a first‐line standard‐of‐care therapy for Japanese patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.

Background The global Phase III IMpower132 study evaluating atezolizumab plus pemetrexed and carboplatin or cisplatin (APP) versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin or cisplatin (PP) for first‐line treatment of non‐squamous advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) met its co‐primary progression‐free survival (PFS) endpoint at the primary analysis in the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) population. Although the co‐primary overall survival (OS) endpoint was not met, numerical OS improvement favoring APP over PP was observed at the final analysis. We report primary results for Chinese patients in IMpower132. Methods Treatment‐naive Chinese patients with non‐squamous stage IV EGFR/ALK mutation‐negative NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive 4 or 6 cycles of APP or PP, followed by maintenance atezolizumab plus pemetrexed or pemetrexed. Co‐primary endpoints were investigator‐assessed PFS and OS. Results The ITT population included 163 Chinese patients (82 in the APP arm and 81 in the PP arm). At data cutoff (median follow‐up, 11.7 months), the median PFS in the APP and PP arms was 8.3 and 5.8 months, respectively; the unstratified hazard ratio (HR) was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.50, 1.08). At the interim OS analysis, median OS was not estimable in either arm; the unstratified HR was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.40, 1.24). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion Among Chinese patients in IMpower132, PFS benefit was seen with APP versus PP. Though interim OS data were immature, there was a trend toward OS benefit favoring APP versus PP. The safety profile of the APP was consistent with the known risks of the individual treatment components. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02657434. Atezolizumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (APP) versus pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PP) was studied in Chinese patients with non‐squamous advanced non‐small cell lung cancer in IMpower132. Progression‐free survival benefit was seen with APP versus PP; there was a trend toward overall survival benefit favoring APP versus PP, though interim overall survival data were immature at this analysis. No new safety signals were seen with APP in Chinese patients.

This prespecified subanalysis of the global, randomized controlled phase III KEYNOTE‐024 study of pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in previously untreated metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations and a programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) tumor proportion score of 50% or higher evaluated clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in Japan. Treatment consisted of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (35 cycles) or platinum‐based chemotherapy (four to six cycles). The primary end‐point was progression‐free survival; secondary end‐points included overall survival and safety. Of 305 patients randomized in KEYNOTE‐024 overall, 40 patients were enrolled in Japan (all received treatment: pembrolizumab, n = 21; chemotherapy, n = 19). Median progression‐free survival was 41.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2‐42.5) months with pembrolizumab and 4.1 (95% CI, 2.8‐8.3) months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27 [95% CI, 0.11‐0.65]; one‐sided, nominal P = .001). Median overall survival was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 22.9‒NR) and 21.5 (95% CI, 5.2‐35.0) months, respectively (HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.17‐0.91]; one‐sided, nominal P = .012). Treatment‐related adverse events occurred in 21/21 (100%) pembrolizumab‐treated and 18/19 (95%) chemotherapy‐treated patients; eight patients (38%) and nine patients (47%), respectively, had grade 3‐5 events. Immune‐mediated adverse events and infusion reactions occurred in 11 pembrolizumab‐treated patients (52%) and four chemotherapy‐treated patients (21%), respectively; four patients (19%) and one patient (5%), respectively, had grade 3‐5 events. Consistent with results from KEYNOTE‐024 overall, first‐line pembrolizumab improved progression‐free survival and overall survival vs chemotherapy with manageable safety among Japanese patients with metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations and a PD‐L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or higher. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02142738. This prespecified subanalysis of the global, randomized controlled phase III KEYNOTE‐024 study of pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in previously untreated metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations and a PD‐L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or higher evaluated clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in Japan. Consistent with results from KEYNOTE‐024 overall, first‐line pembrolizumab improved progression‐free survival and overall survival vs chemotherapy with manageable safety among 40 Japanese patients in the study.

Cancer immunotherapy involves blocking the interactions between the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints with antibodies. This has shown unprecedented positive outcomes in clinics. Particularly, the PD-L1 antibody therapy has shown the efficiency in blocking membrane PD-L1 and efficacy in treating some advanced carcinoma. However, this therapy has limited effects on many solid tumors, suspecting to be relevant to PD-L1 located in other cellular compartments, where they play additional roles and are associated with poor prognosis. In this review, we highlight the advances of 3 current strategies on PD-1/PD-L1 based immunotherapy, summarize cellular distribution of PD-L1, and review the versatile functions of intracellular PD-L1. The intracellular distribution and function of PD-L1 may indicate why not all antibody blockade is able to fully stop PD-L1 biological functions and effectively inhibit tumor growth. In this regard, gene silencing may have advantages over antibody blockade on suppression of PD-L1 sources and functions. Apart from cancer cells, PD-L1 silencing on host immune cells such as APC and DC can also enhance T cell immunity, leading to tumor clearance. Moreover, the molecular regulation of PD-L1 expression in cells is being elucidated, which helps identify potential therapeutic molecules to target PD-L1 production and improve clinical outcomes. Based on our understandings of PD-L1 distribution, regulation, and function, we prospect that the more effective PD-L1-based cancer immunotherapy will be combination therapies.

This prespecified subanalysis of the global, randomized controlled phase III KEYNOTE‐024 study of pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in previously untreated metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations and a programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) tumor proportion score of 50% or greater evaluated clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in Japan. Treatment consisted of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (35 cycles) or platinum‐based chemotherapy (four to six cycles). The primary end‐point was progression‐free survival; secondary end‐points included overall survival and safety. Of 305 patients randomized in KEYNOTE‐024 overall, 40 patients were enrolled in Japan (all received treatment: pembrolizumab, n = 21; chemotherapy, n = 19). The hazard ratio (HR) for progression‐free survival by independent central review (data cut‐off date, 10 July 2017) was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10‐0.64; one‐sided, nominal P = .001). The HR for overall survival (data cut‐off date, 15 February 2019) was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.17‐0.91; one‐sided, nominal P = .012). Treatment‐related adverse events occurred in 21/21 (100%) pembrolizumab‐treated and 18/19 (95%) chemotherapy‐treated patients; eight patients (38%) and nine patients (47%), respectively, had grade 3‐5 events. Immune‐mediated adverse events and infusion reactions occurred in 11 patients (52%) and four patients (21%), respectively; four patients (19%) and one patient (5%), respectively, had grade 3‐5 events. Consistent with results from KEYNOTE‐024 overall, first‐line pembrolizumab improved progression‐free survival and overall survival vs chemotherapy with manageable safety among Japanese patients with metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations and a PD‐L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02142738. This prespecified subanalysis of the global, randomized controlled phase III KEYNOTE‐024 study of pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in previously untreated metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer without EGFR/ALK alterations and a PD‐L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or higher evaluated clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in Japan. Consistent with results from KEYNOTE‐024 overall, first‐line pembrolizumab improved progression‐free survival and overall survival vs chemotherapy with manageable safety among 40 Japanese patients in the study.

Cancer is now considered a tumor microenvironment (TME) disease, although it was originally thought to be a cell and gene expression disorder. Over the past 20 years, significant advances have been made in understanding the complexity of the TME and its impact on responses to various anticancer therapies, including immunotherapies. Cancer immunotherapy can recognize and kill cancer cells by regulating the body's immune system. It has achieved good therapeutic effects in various solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Recently, blocking of programmed death‐1 (PD‐1), programmed death‐1 ligand‐1 (PD‐L1), and programmed death Ligand‐2 (PD‐L2), the construction of antigen chimeric T cells (CAR‐T) and tumor vaccines have become popular immunotherapies Tumorigenesis, progression, and metastasis are closely related to TME. Therefore, we review the characteristics of various cells and molecules in the TME, the interaction between PD‐1 and TME, and promising cancer immunotherapy therapeutics. In the past decades, the treatment methods for tumors have been changing rapidly. Traditional treatment methods, such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimens, have gradually revealed their shortcomings. As scientists continue to study the tumor microenvironment, new cellular properties, and immune checkpoints regarding TME are being discovered, and immunotherapy based on monoclonal antibodies, engineered cells, tumor vaccines, and other technologies have shown good therapeutic effects and lower risks. This review presents the latest research about TME and the latest progress in immunotherapy.

Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) is a checkpoint receptor expressed on the surface of various immune cells. PD-L1, the natural receptor for PD-1, is mainly expressed in tumor cells. Studies have indicated that PD-1 and PD-L1 are closely associated with the progression of human cancers and are promising biomarkers for cancer therapy. Moreover, the interaction of PD-1 and PD-L1 is one of the important mechanism by which human tumors generate immune escape. This article provides a review on the role of PD-L1/PD-1, mechanisms of immune response and resistance, as well as immune-related adverse events in the treatment of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in human cancers. Moreover, we summarized a large number of clinical trials to successfully reveal that PD-1/PD-L1 Immune-checkpoint inhibitors have manifested promising therapeutic effects, which have been evaluated from different perspectives, including overall survival, objective effective rate and medium progression-free survival. Finally, we pointed out the current problems faced by PD-1/PD-L1 Immune-checkpoint inhibitors and its future prospects. Although PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors have been widely used in the treatment of human cancers, tough challenges still remain. Combination therapy and predictive models based on integrated biomarker determination theory may be the future directions for the application of PD-1/PD-L1 Immune-checkpoint inhibitors in treating human cancers.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) occupies a high incidence among all the genitourinary malignancies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as alternative treatments of metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), have been applied in the treatment of mUC after chemotherapy failure, with comparable efficacy and safety. ICIs can enhance anti-tumor T cell reactivity and promote immune control over the cancerous cells by blocking cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) or the combination of PD-1 and PD-L1. In the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, ICIs show obvious advantage and can enhance survival rates. However, their adverse effects are gradually manifested with increasing clinical applications. Therefore, we review the adverse effects and toxicity of ICIs in patients with UC, aiming to provide sound theoretical references and therapeutic strategies for their clinical application.