Evidence Hub

Efficacy and survival of nivolumab treatment for recurrent/unresectable esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma: real-world clinical data from a large multi-institutional cohort

T. Makino, Shigeto Nakai, K. Momose, K. Yamashita, Koji Tanaka, H. Miyata, Sachiko Yamamoto, Masaaki Motoori et al.

Esophagus, 2024

282 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Real-world clinical outcomes of and prognostic factors for nivolumab treatment for esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate real-world outcomes of nivolumab monotherapy in association with relevant clinical parameters in recurrent/unresectable advanced ESCC patients. This population-based multicenter cohort study included a total of 282 patients from 15 institutions with recurrent/unresectable advanced ESCC who received nivolumab as a second-line or later therapy between 2014 and 2022. Data, including the best overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), were retrospectively collected from these patients. Objective response and disease control rates were 17.0% and 47.9%, respectively. The clinical response to nivolumab treatment significantly correlated with development of overall immune-related adverse events (P < .0001), including rash (P < .0001), hypothyroidism (P = .03), and interstitial pneumonia (P = .004). Organ-specific best response rates were 20.6% in lymph nodes, 17.4% in lungs, 15.4% in pleural dissemination, and 13.6% in primary lesions. In terms of patient survival, the median OS and PFS was 10.9 and 2.4 months, respectively. Univariate analysis of OS revealed that performance status (PS; P < .0001), number of metastatic organs (P = .019), C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR; P < .0001), neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (P = .001), and PMI (P = .024) were significant. Multivariate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 282 participants or records.

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