Evidence Hub

Efficacy of a personalized combination regimen combining induction chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy for locally advanced synchronous multiple primary lung cancer: a case report

Yang Yao, Zichao Xu, Lijun Wang, Mengqi Sun

Journal of Medical Case Reports, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Multiple primary lung cancer is becoming increasingly common in clinical practice. It is divided into synchronous multiple primary lung cancer and nonsynchronous multiple primary lung cancer on the basis of a diagnostic interval of 6 months. However, the diagnosis and treatment of multiple primary lung cancer face great challenges in clinical practice. We report a case of a 66-year-old Chinese male patient with locally advanced synchronous multifocal lung cancer. In M 0 months (the time of initial diagnosis), the patient underwent two cycles of carboplatin combined with albumin-bound paclitaxel induction chemotherapy before treatment was suspended due to personal reasons. In M + 10 months, he resumed a personalized multimodal treatment regimen: induction chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy combined with targeted therapy, and adjuvant immunotherapy combined with targeted maintenance therapy. As of M + 72 months, positron positron emission tomography–computed tomography showed lung metastasis, but his Karnofsky Performance Status score remained at 80, and he achieved progression-free survival of 72 months. He continues to receive chemotherapy, tislelizumab immunotherapy, and recombinant human endothelin (Endostar) targeted therapy. As of M + 75 months, he has survived for 75 months without reaching the overall survival endpoint. Clinical practice should adopt a multidisciplinary treatment-based approach, integrating clinical information,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free