Efficacy and safety of programmed death receptor 1 inhibitor combined with anlotinib in treatment of non-small cell lung cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn115355-20240701-00319
- VernacularTitle:程序性死亡受体1抑制剂联合安罗替尼二线治疗非小细胞肺癌的效果和安全性
- Author:
Jing ZHOU
1
;
Yuzhen WANG
;
Lina LI
;
Yahuan GUO
;
Lian DUAN
;
Mi JIAO
;
Pan XI
Author Information
1. 西安交通大学附属陕西省肿瘤医院肿瘤内科，西安 710061
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Carcinoma, non-small-cell lung;
Programmed death receptor 1;
Anlotinib;
Treatment outcome;
Inflammation;
Quality of life;
Adverse reactions
- From:
Cancer Research and Clinic
2025;37(6):401-406
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of a combination of programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) inhibitor and multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib in second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted. Using the random number table method, 118 NSCLC patients who were admitted to Shaanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital from June 2021 to June 2023 were randomly divided into the control group and the observation group, with 59 patients in each group. The observation group was treated with PD-1 inhibitor combined with anlotinib, while the control group was treated with PD-1 inhibitor. There were 36 males and 23 females in the observation group, with an age of (56±5) years; there were 34 males and 25 females in the control group, with an age of (56±5) years. There was no statistically significant difference in general clinicopathological data between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The short-term clinical efficacy [objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR)], tumor-related factor levels [vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP-2), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP), and tumor necrosis factor β1 (TNF-β1)], inflammatory status [plasma fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio (FAR)], lung function [forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow (PEF)] before and after treatment, the European Organization for Research and Treatment on Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire for quality of life assessment (QLQ-C30) score, and occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between two groups of patients. Results:The ORR and DCR of the observation group were 33.90% (20/59) and 69.49% (41/59), respectively; the ORR and DCR of the control group were 10.17% (6/59) and 44.07% (26/59), respectively; the comparison of ORR and DCR between the two groups showed statistically significant differences ( χ2 values were 9.67 and 7.77, both P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the levels of tumor-related factors between the observation group and the control group before treatment (all P > 0.05); after 4 cycles of treatment, the levels of VEGF and MMP-2 in the observation group were lower than those in the control group, while the levels of TIMP and TNF-β1 were higher than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (all P < 0.001). The FAR of the observation group and the control group before treatment were (0.15±0.06) g/L and (0.16±0.06) g/L, respectively, with no statistically significant difference ( t = 0.90, P = 0.367); after 4 cycles of treatment, the FAR were (0.07±0.01) g/L and (0.11±0.04) g/L, respectively, with statistically significant difference ( t = 7.45, P < 0.001). Before treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in FVC and PEF between the observation group and the control group (both P > 0.05); after 4 cycles of treatment, the FVC and PEF in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (both P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores of functional dimension, symptom dimension and global health status/quality of life dimension between the observation group and the control group before treatment (all P > 0.05); after 4 cycles of treatment, the scores of functional dimension and global health status/quality of life dimension in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, while the symptom dimension score was lower than that in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (all P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was 6.78% (4/59), while in the control group it was 10.17% (6/59), and the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.741). Conclusions:The combination of PD-1 inhibitor and anlotinib in second-line treatment of NSCLC has good clinical efficacy, it can reduce the inflammatory response, improve the lung function and quality of life, and has good safety.
