Abstract:Despite the prominent advancements of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC, acquired resistance remains an insurmountable obstacle.1Wu S.G. Shih J.Y. Management of acquired resistance to EGFR TKI-targeted therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Mol Cancer. 2018; 17: 38Crossref PubMed Scopus (218) Google Scholar At present, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the most common subsequent anticancer therapy after the discontinuation of third-generation EGFR TKI (osimertinib) treatment, the state-of-the-art EGFR TKI in current clinical practice.2Ramalingam S.S. Vansteenkiste J. Planchard D. et al.Overall survival with osimertinib in untreated, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 41-50Crossref PubMed Scopus (660) Google Scholar Nevertheless, chemotherapy has limited long-term survival benefits and the efficacy is far from satisfactory. Therefore, developing novel therapeutic strategies to boost the efficacy is in high demand. Immune checkpoint blockade targeting programmed cell death protein-1 and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) represents another breakthrough in cancer therapy in the past decade.3Melero I. Berman D.M. Aznar M.A. Korman A.J. Pérez Gracia J.L. Haanen J. Evolving synergistic combinations of targeted immunotherapies to combat cancer.Nat Rev Cancer. 2015; 15: 457-472Crossref PubMed Scopus (443) Google Scholar Nevertheless, even the sun has its dark side. The beneficial patient populations seem not to overlap with those who benefit from EGFR TKIs. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy, have been advocated as the standard of care for patients with metastatic NSCLC whose tumors do not harbor EGFR and ALK alterations.4Zhou F. Qiao M. Zhou C. The cutting-edge progress of immune-checkpoint blockade in lung cancer.Cell Mol Immunol. 2021; 18: 279-293Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar Being amazed at the dramatic and durable responses in some cases, integrating ICIs into the treatment course of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC has attracted extensive attention. In the current issue of controversies in thoracic oncology, we here argue for ICIs to be combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with stage IV EGFR-mutant NSCLC whose disease has progressed on all available TKIs. Here, we are kind to remind our readers that the theory “ICIs should not be used in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC” is based on the results of ICI monotherapy from several retrospective studies.5Hastings K. Yu H.A. Wei W. et al.EGFR mutation subtypes and response to immune checkpoint blockade treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer.Ann Oncol. 2019; 30: 1311-1320Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar,6Garassino M.C. Gelibter A.J. Grossi F. et al.Italian nivolumab expanded access program in nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer patients: results in never-smokers and EGFR-mutant patients.J Thorac Oncol. 2018; 13: 1146-1155Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar Because of limited patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC enrolling in the prospective studies, two pooled meta-analyses compared ICI monotherapy with docetaxel as second-line therapy and found no overall survival (OS) benefits in patients who received ICI monotherapy.7Lee C.K. Man J. Lord S. et al.Checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer—a meta-analysis.J Thorac Oncol. 2017; 12: 403-407Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (456) Google Scholar Notably, the sample size of the included patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC was still small (n = 186 and n = 271 in these two meta-analyses) and these two meta-analyses were not performed on the basis of individual patient data.7Lee C.K. Man J. Lord S. et al.Checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer—a meta-analysis.J Thorac Oncol. 2017; 12: 403-407Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (456) Google Scholar,8Lee C.K. Man J. Lord S. et al.Clinical and molecular characteristics associated with survival among patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4: 210-216Crossref PubMed Scopus (259) Google Scholar ATLANTIC was the first prospective study that evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab in patients with oncogene-driven advanced NSCLC with disease progression after at least two previous systemic regimens.9Garassino M.C. Cho B.C. Kim J.H. et al.Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 521-536Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (306) Google Scholar Specifically, cohort I enrolled 111 patients with EGFR or ALK-positive tumors after failure on previous TKI therapy. Although objective response rates (ORRs) were not encouraging (12.2% in PD-L1 expression ≥ 25% patients),9Garassino M.C. Cho B.C. Kim J.H. et al.Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 521-536Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (306) Google Scholar long-term survival benefits were observed in some patients on account of the final OS analysis.10Garassino M.C. Cho B.C. Kim J.H. et al.Final overall survival and safety update for durvalumab in third- or later-line advanced NSCLC: the phase II ATLANTIC study.Lung Cancer. 2020; 147: 137-142Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar The 2-year OS rate was 40.7% in patients with EGFR or ALK-positive tumors and PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 25% tumors, whereas it was 24.2% in patients with EGFR and ALK-negative tumors and PD-L1 expression greater than or equal to 25% tumors.10Garassino M.C. Cho B.C. Kim J.H. et al.Final overall survival and safety update for durvalumab in third- or later-line advanced NSCLC: the phase II ATLANTIC study.Lung Cancer. 2020; 147: 137-142Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar The median OS was 13.3 months and 10.9 months, respectively, suggesting the OS of patients with EGFR or ALK-positive tumors was at least not inferior to that of patients with EGFR and ALK-negative tumors when receiving durvalumab monotherapy. Notably, an exploratory analysis revealed that patients with EGFR-mutant and PD-L1 greater than or equal to 25% had a median OS of 16.1 months.10Garassino M.C. Cho B.C. Kim J.H. et al.Final overall survival and safety update for durvalumab in third- or later-line advanced NSCLC: the phase II ATLANTIC study.Lung Cancer. 2020; 147: 137-142Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar These results supported the activity of durvalumab in patients with previously pretreated, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC whose disease has progressed on TKI therapy. The combination of ICIs and chemotherapy, the current debate issue, has been a standard of care in patients with advanced NSCLC lacking EGFR-sensitizing mutations.4Zhou F. Qiao M. Zhou C. The cutting-edge progress of immune-checkpoint blockade in lung cancer.Cell Mol Immunol. 2021; 18: 279-293Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar The role of this therapeutic strategy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC is still controversial because patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC are usually excluded from previous studies.11Gadgeel S. Rodríguez-Abreu D. Speranza G. et al.Updated analysis from KEYNOTE-189: pembrolizumab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum for previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38: 1505-1517Crossref PubMed Scopus (242) Google Scholar IMpower150 was a phase 3 study that compared atezolizumab, bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ABCP) and atezolizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (ACP) with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel (BCP) in patients with nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC. Notably, this trial enrolled 124 patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC. In this key subgroup analysis, ABCP prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) (10.3 versus 6.1 mo; hazard ratio, 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.23–0.75) and OS (29.4 versus 18.1 mo; hazard ratio, 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.31–1.14) compared with BCP alone in patients with EGFR-sensitizing mutations,12Reck M. Mok T.S.K. Nishio M. et al.Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower150): key subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR mutations or baseline liver metastases in a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.Lancet Respir Med. 2019; 7: 387-401Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar,13Reck M. Mok T. Socinski M.A. et al.1293P IMpower150: updated efficacy analysis in patients with EGFR mutations.Ann Oncol. 2020; 31: S837-S838Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar supporting ABCP regimen as an option for patients with EGFR mutations whose disease has progressed on previous TKIs. A recent phase 2 PROLUNG study that compared pembrolizumab plus docetaxel with docetaxel alone in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC also revealed an encouraging ORR (58.3% versus 23.1%) and PFS (6.8 versus 3.5 mo) in the subgroup of patients with EGFR mutations.14Arrieta O. Barrón F. Ramírez-Tirado L.A. et al.Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel vs docetaxel alone in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: the PROLUNG phase 2 randomized clinical trial.JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 856-864Crossref PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar Nowadays, more and more ICI-based combination trials are being developed in dedicated EGFR-mutant NSCLC patient populations. Recently, a prospective phase 2 study of toripalimab combined with chemotherapy revealed the antitumor activity in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC who failed to previous EGFR TKI therapy, with an ORR of 50% and a median PFS of 7.0 months.15Ren S. Zhang J. Zhao Y. et al.A multi-center phase II study of toripalimab with chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutant advanced NSCLC patients resistant to EGFR TKIs: efficacy and biomarker analysis.J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38 (e21618–e21618)Google Scholar Ongoing phase 3 studies are further evaluating the efﬁcacy of ICIs in combination with chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutations after failure on EGFR TKI treatment (CheckMate-722 [NCT02864251], KEYNOTE-789 [NCT03515837], TREASURE [NCT03924050]). Actually, data from the Flatiron Health-Foundation Medicine clinico-genomic database suggested that 27% of patients after osimertinib discontinuation have been already treated with ICIs combined with chemotherapy,16Janne P.A. Lee J.K. Madison R. et al.Incidence and heterogeneity of C797S and other EGFR resistance mutations on routine comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP).J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39 (9101–9101)Google Scholar reflecting the fact that we are not satisfied with the efficacy of chemotherapy alone as a salvage therapeutic approach. Although extensive research has revealed that EGFR signaling contributes to establish an immunosuppressive and uninflamed tumor microenvironment (TME),17Kumagai S. Koyama S. Nishikawa H. Antitumour immunity regulated by aberrant ERBB family signalling.Nat Rev Cancer. 2021; 21: 181-197Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar several key issues should be considered. First, types of EGFR mutations (L858R or 19DEL, T790M or uncommon mutations) might have distinct TME and diverse responses to ICI treatment.5Hastings K. Yu H.A. Wei W. et al.EGFR mutation subtypes and response to immune checkpoint blockade treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer.Ann Oncol. 2019; 30: 1311-1320Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar,18Chen K. Cheng G. Zhang F. et al.PD-L1 expression and T cells infiltration in patients with uncommon EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer and the response to immunotherapy.Lung Cancer. 2020; 142: 98-105Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar,19Haratani K. Hayashi H. Tanaka T. et al.Tumor immune microenvironment and nivolumab efficacy in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer based on T790M status after disease progression during EGFR-TKI treatment.Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: 1532-1539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar For instance, subpopulations of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC with EGFR L858R mutations, G719 mutations, or T790M-negative tumors have a favorable TME and may derive clinical benefits from ICI treatment.5Hastings K. Yu H.A. Wei W. et al.EGFR mutation subtypes and response to immune checkpoint blockade treatment in non-small-cell lung cancer.Ann Oncol. 2019; 30: 1311-1320Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (123) Google Scholar,18Chen K. Cheng G. Zhang F. et al.PD-L1 expression and T cells infiltration in patients with uncommon EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer and the response to immunotherapy.Lung Cancer. 2020; 142: 98-105Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar,19Haratani K. Hayashi H. Tanaka T. et al.Tumor immune microenvironment and nivolumab efficacy in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer based on T790M status after disease progression during EGFR-TKI treatment.Ann Oncol. 2017; 28: 1532-1539Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar Second, in addition to intrinsic EGFR signaling, EGFR TKI treatment has a significant impact on TME plasticity.20Isomoto K. Haratani K. Hayashi H. et al.Impact of EGFR-TKI treatment on the tumor immune microenvironment in EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer.Clin Cancer Res. 2020; 26: 2037-2046Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar EGFR TKIs could increase infiltration of CD8+ T cells, dendritic cells, and M1 tumor-associated macrophages and inhibit regulatory T cell infiltration.21Jia Y. Li X. Jiang T. et al.EGFR-targeted therapy alters the tumor microenvironment in EGFR-driven lung tumors: implications for combination therapies.Int J Cancer. 2019; 145: 1432-1444Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar,22Sugiyama E. Togashi Y. Takeuchi Y. et al.Blockade of EGFR improves responsiveness to PD-1 blockade in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer.Sci Immunol. 2020; 5eaav3937Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar EGFR TKIs also trigger an adaptive response by means of up-regulation of type I interferons in lung cancer.23Gong K. Guo G. Panchani N. et al.EGFR inhibition triggers an adaptive response by co-opting antiviral signaling pathways in lung cancer.Nat Cancer. 2020; 1: 394-409Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar,24Liu Z. Han C. Dong C. et al.Hypofractionated EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor limits tumor relapse through triggering innate and adaptive immunity.Sci Immunol. 2019; 4eaav6473Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar Third, more complicatedly, the TME of EGFR-mutant tumors may evolve on EGFR TKI exposure21Jia Y. Li X. Jiang T. et al.EGFR-targeted therapy alters the tumor microenvironment in EGFR-driven lung tumors: implications for combination therapies.Int J Cancer. 2019; 145: 1432-1444Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar,25Dominguez C. Tsang K.Y. Palena C. Short-term EGFR blockade enhances immune-mediated cytotoxicity of EGFR mutant lung cancer cells: rationale for combination therapies.Cell Death Dis. 2016; 7e2380Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar (Fig. 1). Intriguingly, longitudinal single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of EGFR-mutant NSCLC tumor samples revealed that EGFR TKIs could shape TME during the treatment course.26Maynard A. McCoach C.E. Rotow J.K. et al.Therapy-induced evolution of human lung cancer revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing.Cell. 2020; 182: 1232-1251.e22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (77) Google Scholar When EGFR TKI treatment was effective (residual disease state), an inflamed TME with more CD8+ T cell infiltration and less macrophage infiltration was observed than before or failure on EGFR TKI treatment. Meanwhile, when disease progressed, indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase-1+ macrophages, regulatory T cells, and other immunosuppressive T cell populations were enriched. Therefore, the residual disease state, characterized by an inflamed TME, may offer a window of opportunity to introduce more effective ICI treatment. Finally, chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy is also able to influence the TME.27He Y. Chen L. Zhao L. et al.Genomic and transcriptional alterations in first-line chemotherapy exert a potentially unfavorable influence on subsequent immunotherapy in NSCLC.Theranostics. 2021; 11: 7092-7109Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar,28Choe E.A. Cha Y.J. Kim J.H. et al.Dynamic changes in PD-L1 expression and CD8(+) T cell infiltration in non-small cell lung cancer following chemoradiation therapy.Lung Cancer. 2019; 136: 30-36Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar Therefore, as EGFR TKI is still the optimal first-line choice, it is crucial to evaluate the TME after exposure to EGFR TKIs, not before EGFR TKIs or exposure to other treatments, to help optimize and develop rationale ICI combinations in EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Side effect is another concern during cancer management. Unlike the toxicity proﬁles of classical chemotherapy, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) may occur in wide ranges of organs, as consequences of nonspeciﬁc and excessive activation of the immune system. Although early attempts of combining EGFR TKIs with ICIs have resulted in disconcerting safety signals, including increased risk of interstitial lung disease29Yang J.C. Shepherd F.A. Kim D.W. et al.Osimertinib plus durvalumab versus osimertinib monotherapy in EGFR T790M-positive NSCLC following previous EGFR TKI therapy: CAURAL brief report.J Thorac Oncol. 2019; 14: 933-939Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar and liver toxicity,30Yang J.C. Gadgeel S.M. Sequist L.V. et al.Pembrolizumab in combination with erlotinib or gefitinib as first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC with sensitizing EGFR mutation.J Thorac Oncol. 2019; 14: 553-559Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (61) Google Scholar ICI either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.9Garassino M.C. Cho B.C. Kim J.H. et al.Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 521-536Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (306) Google Scholar,12Reck M. Mok T.S.K. Nishio M. et al.Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower150): key subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR mutations or baseline liver metastases in a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.Lancet Respir Med. 2019; 7: 387-401Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar The safety profiles of ICIs in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC were consistent with those in patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC, and irAEs were manageable with standard treatment guidelines.9Garassino M.C. Cho B.C. Kim J.H. et al.Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study.Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 521-536Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (306) Google Scholar Recent study revealed that the treatment sequence of ICIs and EGFR TKIs also had a significant impact on the occurrence of irAEs.31Schoenfeld A.J. Arbour K.C. Rizvi H. et al.Severe immune-related adverse events are common with sequential PD-(L)1 blockade and osimertinib.Ann Oncol. 2019; 30: 839-844Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar Interestingly, ICIs followed by osimertinib were associated with high frequency of severe irAEs (14.6%, 6 of 41) and no irAEs occurred among patients treated with osimertinib or other EGFR TKIs followed by ICIs. In this interim, switching to ICI-based combinations after failure on EGFR TKIs is a safe choice. Hyperprogressive disease (HPD), which was characterized by an acceleration of tumor growth kinetics (tumor growth kinase ≥ 2 or time to treatment failure ≤ 2 mo), may also arise concerns during ICI treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC because a retrospective study found that EGFR mutations were associated with increased risk of HPD.32Kato S. Goodman A. Walavalkar V. Barkauskas D.A. Sharabi A. Kurzrock R. Hyperprogressors after immunotherapy: analysis of genomic alterations associated with accelerated growth rate.Clin Cancer Res. 2017; 23: 4242-4250Crossref PubMed Scopus (490) Google Scholar A recent study also revealed that nivolumab boosted tumor growth by means of antibody–Fc and FcR interaction on M2 tumor-associated macrophages in EGFR-mutant patient-derived xenografts.33Lo Russo G. Moro M. Sommariva M. et al.Antibody-Fc/FcR interaction on macrophages as a mechanism for hyperprogressive disease in non-small cell lung cancer subsequent to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade.Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 25: 989-999Crossref PubMed Scopus (199) Google Scholar Nevertheless, whether this phenomenon is a causal relationship between EGFR mutations and HPD or just reflecting the intrinsic resistance character of EGFR-mutant tumors to ICI monotherapy needs further investigation. Furthermore, subsequent larger sample studies failed to reveal a positive correlation between EGFR mutations and the incidence of HPD.34Kim C.G. Kim K.H. Pyo K.H. et al.Hyperprogressive disease during PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.Ann Oncol. 2019; 30: 1104-1113Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (115) Google Scholar, 35Ferrara R. Mezquita L. Texier M. et al.Hyperprogressive disease in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors or with single-agent chemotherapy.JAMA Oncol. 2018; 4: 1543-1552Crossref PubMed Scopus (368) Google Scholar, 36Kim Y. Kim C.H. Lee H.Y. et al.Comprehensive clinical and genetic characterization of hyperprogression based on volumetry in advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor.J Thorac Oncol. 2019; 14: 1608-1618Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar Notably, in contrast to ICI monotherapy,37Mok T.S.K. Wu Y.L. Kudaba I. et al.Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial.Lancet. 2019; 393: 1819-1830Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1162) Google Scholar no initial crossing of survival curves in both OS and PFS when ICIs were combined with chemotherapy suggested that the addition of chemotherapy to ICIs may avoid the occurrence of HPD.11Gadgeel S. Rodríguez-Abreu D. Speranza G. et al.Updated analysis from KEYNOTE-189: pembrolizumab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum for previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2020; 38: 1505-1517Crossref PubMed Scopus (242) Google Scholar Interestingly, a recent study verified that the incidence of HPD was significantly lower in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with ICIs combined with chemotherapy than those treated with ICI monotherapy (2.9% versus 17.6%).38Matsuo N. Azuma K. Kojima T. et al.Comparative incidence of immune-related adverse events and hyperprogressive disease in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors with and without chemotherapy.Investig New Drugs. 2021; 39: 1150-1158Crossref PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar Therefore, HPD may also not be a problem in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC during ICI treatment, especially with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Taken together, in our opinion, it is still too early to draw the final conclusion that EGFR-mutant NSCLC is the restricted zone for ICI treatment. In fact, our attempts to improve the poor prognosis of patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC after failure on all available TKIs by means of novel cancer immunotherapy are always underway.39Shi M. Chen J. Li K. et al.SHR-1701, a bifunctional fusion protein targeting PD-L1 and TGF-β, for advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutations: data from a multicenter phase 1 study.J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39 (9055–9055)Google Scholar,40Bendell J.C. LoRusso P. Overman M.J. et al.Safety and efficacy of the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody (mAb) oleclumab ± durvalumab in patients (pts) with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), or EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (EGFRm NSCLC).J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39 (9047–9047)Google Scholar If one therapeutic approach, here we mean ICIs combined with chemotherapy, has revealed promising efficacy, without extra toxicity and unpredictable risk, why do we not consider it? We would rather feel regret after trying our best than giving up an opportunity, which may bring long-term survival to our patients. Fei Zhou: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—Original draft preparation, Funding acquisition. Caicun Zhou: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—Reviewing and editing, Funding acquisition. The authors thank Drs. Fengying Wu and Meng Qiao for all their constructive comments and advice. This study was supported in part by grants from the Shanghai “Rising Stars of Medical Talent” Youth Development Program and Shanghai Innovative Collaboration Project (number 2020CXJQ02). Combination Chemotherapy Alone Should Be Used in the Treatment of Patients With Stage IV EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Whose Disease Has Progressed on All Available Tyrosine Kinase InhibitorsJournal of Thoracic OncologyVol. 16Issue 10PreviewThe discovery of the driver gene EGFR and the precision treatment of this target have been a revolution in the treatment of NSCLC. The EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), osimertinib, has become a standard treatment for patients with advanced or resected NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations. In the FLAURA study, osimertinib was administered as first-line treatment in advanced disease, and compared with first-generation drugs, it significantly improved the duration of response (from 8.5 to 17.2 mo), progression-free survival (from 10.2 to 18.9 mo), and overall survival (OS) (from 31.8 to 38.6 mo). Full-Text PDF

Abstract:Programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapies are currently established as standard care of first-line treatment in NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression.1Gandhi L. Rodríguez-Abreu D. Gadgeel S. et al.Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 2078-2092Google Scholar, 2Paz-Ares L. Luft A. Vicente D. et al.Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 2040-2051Google Scholar, 3Socinski M.A. Jotte R.M. Cappuzzo F. et al.Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 2288-2301Google Scholar, 4West H. McCleod M. Hussein M. et al.Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20: 924-937Google Scholar However, the development and the successful outcomes of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibition combined with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in lung cancer urged clinical researchers to further test these agents with chemotherapy (chemo). In this issue of the journal, Leighl et al.5Leighl N.B. Laurie S.A. Goss G.D. et al.CCTG BR34: a randomized phase II trial of durvalumab and tremelimumab +/− platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.J Thorac Oncol. 2022; 17: 434-445Google Scholar reported a randomized phase 2 trial of durvalumab and tremelimumab with or without platinum-based chemo in patients with metastatic NSCLC (CCTG BR34). In this trial, the addition of chemo to durvalumab plus tremelimumab in the first-line treatment of stage IV NSCLC did not improve overall survival (OS) compared with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (16.6 mo versus 14.1 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, p = 0.46), but progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer with the addition of chemo than with immunotherapy alone (7.7 mo versus 3.2 mo, HR = 0.67, p = 0.003). Durvalumab has been approved since 2017 to treat patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC whose disease has not progressed after concurrent platinum-based chemo and radiation therapy.6Antonia S.J. Villegas A. Daniel D. et al.Overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC.N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 2342-2350Google Scholar,7Antonia S.J. Villegas A. Daniel D. et al.Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non–small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 1919-1929Google Scholar It has been hypothesized that the combination with tremelimumab may amplify antitumor T-cell responses through an immune checkpoint blockade and provide additive or synergistic activity.8Chaft J. Cho B.C. Ahn M.J. et al.Safety and activity of second-line durvalumab + tremelimumab in non-squamous advanced NSCLC.Cancer Res. 2018; 78: CT113Google Scholar The first clinical study performed to evaluate such a hypothesis and the safety of the scheme was performed by Antonia et al.9Antonia S. Goldberg S.B. Balmanoukian A. et al.Safety and antitumour activity of durvalumab plus tremelimumab in non-small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, phase 1b study.Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17: 299-308Google Scholar in 2016; the authors evaluated durvalumab plus tremelimumab in 102 patients with immunotherapy-naive advanced NSCLC in a nonrandomized study at five cancer centers in the United States. Investigator-confirmed objective responses were achieved by 6 of 26 patients in the combined cohort (23%, 95% confidence interval: 9–44%). Over approximately 2 years, treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events were observed in 36% of the cases. The authors concluded that durvalumab plus tremelimumab combination revealed a manageable tolerability profile; interestingly, clinical activity was noted regardless of PD-L1 expression. The randomized phase 3 MYSTIC clinical trial investigated whether durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in first-line treatment compared with chemo improved survival in patients with metastatic NSCLC.10Rizvi N.A. Cho B.C. Reinmuth N. et al.Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab vs standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: the MYSTIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial.JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 661-674Google Scholar In this study, first-line treatment with durvalumab did not significantly improve OS compared with chemo (16.3 mon versus 12.9 mo, HR = 0.76, p = 0.04 [nonsignificant]), but it was associated with a lower risk of death, whereas durvalumab plus tremelimumab did not significantly improve OS (p = 0.2) or PFS (p = 0.71) compared with chemo. However, first-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 227)11Hellmann M.D. Paz-Ares L. Bernabe Caro R. et al.Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2020-2031Google Scholar resulted in a longer OS compared with chemo in patients with advanced-stage NSCLC, independent of the PD-L1 expression level. The median duration of response was also longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than chemo.11Hellmann M.D. Paz-Ares L. Bernabe Caro R. et al.Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2020-2031Google Scholar Interestingly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved this regimen for patients with tumor cell PD-L1 positivity of greater than or equal to 1% according to the Dako 28-8 assay (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA). Finally, the phase 3 KEYNOTE-598 trial12Boyer M. Şendur M.A. Rodríguez-Abreu D. et al.Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab or placebo for metastatic non− small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥50%: randomized, double-blind phase III KEYNOTE-598 study.J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39: 2327-2338Google Scholar provides a comparison of the efficacy of combined pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab with that of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with PD-L1–high (≥50%) advanced-stage NSCLC without EGFR or anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. No significant difference in median OS was observed between the pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus placebo arms (21.4 mo, HR = 1.08, p = 0 .74), respectively. There is emerging evidence that adding anti–CTLA-4 to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemo might confer additional clinical and longer survival benefits in NSCLC. CheckMate 9LA13Paz-Ares L. Ciuleanu T.E. Cobo M. et al.First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22: 198-211Google Scholar revealed considerable improvement in the primary end points in the experimental group compared with the control group. The median OS was 15.6 months in the doublet immunotherapy–chemo arm and 10.9 months in the chemo arm. A 12-month OS rate benefit was observed in the experimental group when compared with the control group (63% versus 47%). The participants in the experimental group experienced improved PFS compared with those in the control group (6.8 mo versus 5.0 mo). Thus, CheckMate 9LA confirmed the survival benefit of double immunotherapy plus chemo. The positive results of the clinical trial led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve nivolumab combined with ipilimumab and two cycles of chemo for the treatment of advanced NSCLC without targetable driver mutations. The POSEIDON trial14Johnson M. Cho B.C. Luft A. et al.Durvalumab ± tremelimumab + chemotherapy as first-line treatment for mNSCLC: results from the phase 3 POSEIDON study. Presented at: 2021 IASLC World Conference on Lung Cancer.September 8-14, 2021Google Scholar evaluated durvalumab with or without tremelimumab, in combination with investigator-choice chemo regimens as first-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC. In the POSEIDON trial, first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab and chemo revealed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and OS versus chemo alone in patients with metastatic NSCLC. The OS and PFS benefits were more prominent among nonsquamous patients (than squamous patients) histology. These findings could add to our understanding of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC and dampen enthusiasm for the approach that combined chemo and immunotherapy. Previous studies have revealed that the early survival curves of patients who receive immunotherapy alone are entangled with, or are lower than, those of chemo-treated patients.15Rittmeyer A. Barlesi F. Waterkamp D. et al.Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2017; 389: 255-265Google Scholar,16Borghaei H. Paz-Ares L. Horn L. et al.Nivolumab versus docetaxel in Advanced nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 1627-1639Google Scholar CheckMate 9LA revealed that the OS and PFS curves of the combination treatment group were separated from those of the chemo group at an early point without crossover. The addition of chemo may benefit those patients who have not benefited from immunotherapy at the beginning of the treatment. The effect of immunotherapy alone may be restricted owing to extensive tumor antigen heterogeneity that prevents the immune system from triggering effective attacks.17Leonetti A. Wever B. Mazzaschi G. et al.Molecular basis and rationale for combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.Drug Resist Updat. 2019; 46: 100644Google Scholar Chemo, even at a low dose, has synergistic effects when combined with immunotherapy. Chemo can release antigens, induce immunogenic cell death, activate the antitumor immune response, and increase PD-L1 expression on malignant cells.18Wang Q. Ju X. Wang J. Fan Y. Ren M. Zhang H. Immunogenic cell death in anticancer chemotherapy and its impact on clinical studies.Cancer Lett. 2018; 438: 17-23Google Scholar,19Kyi C. Postow M.A. Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in solid tumors: opportunities and challenges.Immunotherapy. 2016; 8: 821-837Google Scholar In summary, both POSEIDON and CheckMate 9LA have confirmed that the addition of chemo cycles in double immunotherapy has avoided the typical early intersection of the curves, saving those patients who do not respond to immunotherapy alone. Finally, the CCTG BR34 trial5Leighl N.B. Laurie S.A. Goss G.D. et al.CCTG BR34: a randomized phase II trial of durvalumab and tremelimumab +/− platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.J Thorac Oncol. 2022; 17: 434-445Google Scholar further indicated a question: what is the role of chemo in the dual immune checkpoint inhibition era? For patients with low or absent PD-L1 expression, or those with high PD-L1 expression with an immediate need for cytoreduction? PD-1 or PD-L1 antibodies plus histology-selected platinum-doublet chemotherapies have been approved as first-line therapy. Meanwhile, which patients will benefit from CTLA-4 plus PD-1 or PD-L1 plus chemo? We tend to favor patients with PD-L1–negative squamous carcinoma with best HR (Table 1, from CheckMate-9LA, HR = 0.48), further biomarker studies are necessary to identify subgroups of better responders and fewer adverse events, prospective studies are needed to identify the potential role of CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitors combination as first-line treatments for metastatic NSCLC. Anti–CTLA-4 plus anti–PD-L1 or PD-1 may be another choice for patients who cannot tolerate chemo.Table 1Trials of Immunotherapy Plus Chemo in NSCLCKEYNOTE-1891Gandhi L. Rodríguez-Abreu D. Gadgeel S. et al.Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 2078-2092Google Scholar,20Rodríguez-Abreu D. Powell S.F. Hochmair M.J. et al.Pemetrexed plus platinum with or without pembrolizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: protocol-specified final analysis from KEYNOTE-189.Ann Oncol. 2021; 32: 881-895Google ScholarKEYNOTE-4072Paz-Ares L. Luft A. Vicente D. et al.Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 2040-2051Google Scholar,21Paz-Ares L. Vicente D. Tafreshi A. et al.A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC: protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-407.J Thorac Oncol. 2020; 15: 1657-1669Google ScholarCheckMate-227 Part 111Hellmann M.D. Paz-Ares L. Bernabe Caro R. et al.Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2020-2031Google Scholar,22Paz-Ares L.G. Ramalingam S.S. Ciuleanu T.E. et al.First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC: 4-year outcomes from the randomized, open-label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial.J Thorac Oncol. 2022; 17: 289-308Google ScholarMYSTIC10Rizvi N.A. Cho B.C. Reinmuth N. et al.Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab vs standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: the MYSTIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial.JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6: 661-674Google ScholarCheckMate-9LA13Paz-Ares L. Ciuleanu T.E. Cobo M. et al.First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol. 2021; 22: 198-211Google ScholarPOSEIDON14Johnson M. Cho B.C. Luft A. et al.Durvalumab ± tremelimumab + chemotherapy as first-line treatment for mNSCLC: results from the phase 3 POSEIDON study. Presented at: 2021 IASLC World Conference on Lung Cancer.September 8-14, 2021Google ScholarAll patients410 vs. 206278 vs. 281Nivo + Ipi vs. Chemo 583 vs. 583Nivo + Ipi + Chemo vs. Chemo361 vs 358Durv + Chemo vs. Durv + Trem + Chemo vs. Chemo338 vs. 338 vs. 337mOS, mo22.0 vs. 10.617.1 vs. 11.617.1 vs. 13.915.8 vs. 11.013.3 vs. 14.0 vs. 11.7HR, OS0.600.710.720.720.86 (Durv + Chemo vs. Chemo)0.77 (Durv + Trem + Chemo vs. Chemo)mPFS, mo9.0 vs. 4.98.0 vs. 5.15.1 vs. 5.56.7 vs. 5.35.5 vs. 6.2 vs. 4.8HR, PFS0.490.570.790.670.74 (D + Chemo vs. Chemo)0.72 (Durv + Trem + Chemo vs. Chemo)PD-L1 ≥1% and ≥50%patientsPD-L1 ≥50%132 vs. 70PD-L1 ≥1%176 vs. 177PD-1 ≥1%Nivo + Ipi vs. Nivo vs. Chemo (396 vs. 396 c 397)PD-L1 TC ≥25%Durv vs. Durv + Trem vs. Chemo163 vs. 163 vs. 162PD-L1 ≥1%204 vs. 204PD-L1 ≥1%225 vs. 213 vs. 207mOS, mo27.7 vs. 10.118.9 vs. 12.817.1 vs. 15.7 vs. 14.916.3 vs. 11.9 vs. 12.915.8 vs. 10.9HR, OS0.590.670.76 (Nivo + Ipi vs. Chemo)0.91 (Nivo vs. Chemo)0.76 (Durv vs. Chemo:)0.85 (Durv + Trem vs. Chemo)0.700.79 (Dur v + Chemo vs. Chemo)0.76 (Durv + Trem + Chemo vs. Chemo)mPFS, mo11.1 vs. 4.88.2 vs. 4.65.1 vs. 4.2 vs. 5.64.7 vs. 3.9 vs. 5.47.0 vs. 5.0HR, PFSH0.350.500.81 (Nivo + Ipi vs. Chemo)0.98 (Nivo vs. Chemo)1.05 (Durv + T rem vs. Chemo)0.87 (Durva vs. Chemo)0.67PD-L1 <1%patientsPD-L1 <1%127 vs. 63PD-L1 <1%95 vs. 99PD-L1 <1%Nivo + Ipi vs. Nivo + Chemo vs. Chemo187 vs. 177 vs. 186PD-L1 TC <1%Durv vs. Durv + Trem vs. Chemo:95 vs. 76 vs. 83PD-L1 <1%135 vs. 129PD-L1 TC <1%113 vs. 125 vs. 130mOS, mo17.2 vs. 10.2PD-L1 <1% (part 1b)Nivo + Ipi vs. Nivo + Chemo vs. Chemo187 vs. :177 :vs. 18617.2 vs. 15.2 vs. 12.210.1 vs. 11.9 vs. 10.317.7 vs. 9.8HR, OS0.510.790.64 (Nivo + Ipi vs. Chemo)0.82 (Nivo + Chemo vs. Chemo)0.73 (Durv vs. Chemo)1.18 (Durv + Trem vs. Chemo)0.67NSQ: 0.75SQ: 0.480.99 (Durv + Chemo vs. Chemo)0.77 (D + T + Chemo vs. Chemo)mPFS, mo6.2 vs. 5.16.3 vs. 5.95.1 vs. 5.6 vs. 4.75.8 vs. 4.9HR, PFS0.670.670.74 (Nivo + Ipi vs. Chemo)0.72 (Nivo + Chemo vs. Chemo)0.68Chemo, chemotherapy; Durva, durvalumab; HR, hazard ratio; Ipi, ipilimumab; mOS, median overall survival; mPFS, median progression-free survival; Nivo, nivolumab; NSQ, nonsquamous; OS, overall survival; PD-1, programmed death 1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival; SQ, squamous; Trem, Tremelimumab; TC, tumor cell. Open table in a new tab Chemo, chemotherapy; Durva, durvalumab; HR, hazard ratio; Ipi, ipilimumab; mOS, median overall survival; mPFS, median progression-free survival; Nivo, nivolumab; NSQ, nonsquamous; OS, overall survival; PD-1, programmed death 1; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand 1; PFS, progression-free survival; SQ, squamous; Trem, Tremelimumab; TC, tumor cell. Ziming Li: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Shun Lu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Validation, Supervision. CCTG BR34: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Durvalumab and Tremelimumab With or Without Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic NSCLCJournal of Thoracic OncologyVol. 17Issue 3PreviewFirst-line therapy for patients with metastatic NSCLC includes checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, dual checkpoint inhibition, or combination with chemotherapy. We compared outcomes with combination chemoimmunotherapy versus dual checkpoint inhibition as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic NSCLC. Full-Text PDF Open Access

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy for patients with biliary tract cancer: what did we learn from TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966

Chemotherapy Should Be Combined with Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Stage IV EGFR-Mutant NSCLC Whose Disease Has Progressed on All Available Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Nivolumab in Combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin for Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancers: Results from a Single Center, Single-Arm, Phase I Study

FDA Approval Summary: Durvalumab and Pembrolizumab, Immune Checkpoint inhibitors for the Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancer

Atezolizumab with or Without Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GO30140): an Open-Label, Multicentre, Phase 1b Study

Abstract CT283: KEYNOTE-966: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Study of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin for the Treatment of Advanced Biliary Tract Carcinoma

P-99 Pembrolizumab in Combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin for the Treatment of Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: Phase 3 KEYNOTE-966 Trial in Progress

78Tip KEYNOTE-966 Trial in Progress: Pembrolizumab Plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer

Abstract CT008: Pembrolizumab (pembro) in Combination with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (gem/cis) for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer (BTC): Phase 3 KEYNOTE-966 Study

Efficacy and safety of a combination of sintilimab, bevacizumab plus gemcitabine, and albumin-bound paclitaxel for initially unresectable gallbladder carcinoma: A prospective, single-arm phase II study.

Superior Survival Benefits of Triple Combination Immunotherapy Compared to Standard Chemotherapy As Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: a Retrospective Analysis

Camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and apatinib in treating advanced PD‐L1‐positive biliary tract cancers

A phase II study of tremelimumab, durvalumab, and bevacizumab in advanced biliary tract cancers.

Genomic and Biomarker Analysis of Immunotherapy Combined with Chemotherapy Treated for Patients with Metastatic BTC Cancer: A Real World Study.

Triple Therapy in Biliary Tract Cancers: GemOX Plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor in Combination with Lenvatinib or NGS-guided Targeted Therapy

BL-8040, a CXCR4 antagonist, in combination with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer: the COMBAT trial

A Retrospective Cohort Study Of Anti-Pd-1 Therapy Combined With Chemotherapy In Patients With Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer.

Evolving approaches in advanced gallbladder cancer with complete pathological response using chemo‑immunotherapy: A case report

Rethinking the Status of Chemotherapy Combined with the Addition of Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte–Associated Antigen 4 Inhibition and Programmed Death 1 or Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Blockade

A phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anlotinib combined with toripalimab for advanced biliary tract cancer

Toripalimab with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract tumors: Update analytic results of an open-label phase II clinical study (JS001-ZS-BC001).