Table 1.
Treatment outcomes of salvage chemotherapy following exposure to immune checkpoint inhibitors, as reported in the literature
| Study design | Number of patients | Number of lines of prior chemotherapy | Immune checkpoint inhibitors | Salvage chemotherapy | Efficacy of salvage chemotherapy | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective case–control study | 67 | Mean: 2.4 (95% CI 2.1–2.6) | Nivolumab (84%) | DTX (62%) | ORR: 27% | Leger et al.1 |
| Pembrolizumab (10%) | PEM (20%) | Odds ratio: 0.30 (95%CI: 0.18–0.50) | ||||
| Atezolizumab (6%) | GEM (12%) | |||||
| PTX (6%) | ||||||
| Retrospective cohort study | 28 | Median: 2 (range 1–4) | Nivolumab (86%) | DTX (50%) | ORR: 39% | Schvartsman et al.2 |
| Pemrolizumab (10%) | GEM (21%) | |||||
| Durvalumab (4%) | PEM (11%) | |||||
| MMC (11%) | ||||||
| Other (7%) | ||||||
| Retrospective cohort study | 32 | Median: 2 (range 1–6) | Nivolumab | PTX + RAM (38%) | ORR: 25% | Grigg et al.3 |
| Pembrolizumab | VNR (22%) | |||||
| Atezolizumab | GEM‐based (19%) | |||||
| Durvalumab | CBDCA doublets (13%) | |||||
| Others (8%) | ||||||
| Case study | 2 | 2 | Nivolumab | S − 1 | PR | Present study |
| 3 | Nivolumab | CBDCA/nab PTX | PR |
CI, confidence interval; CBDCA, carboplatin; DTX, docetaxel; GEM, gemcitabine; MMC, mitomycin C; nab‐PTX, albumin‐bound PTX; ORR, overall response rate; PEM, pemetrexed; PR, partial response; PTX, paclitaxel; RAM, ramucirumab; VNR, vinorelbine.