| Summary: | Misako Nagasaka,1– 3 Saihong Ignatius Ou1,2 1University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA; 2Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Orange, CA, USA; 3Division of Neurology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, JapanCorrespondence: Saihong Ignatius Ou, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology Oncology, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, 200 South Manchester Avenue, Suite 400, Orange, CA, 92868-3298, USA, Tel +1-714-456-5153, Fax +1-714-456-2242, Email siou@hs.uci.eduAbstract: One of the most recent advancements in NSCLC was the approval of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting. Both atezolizumab and pembrolizumab have been approved for the use in early stage NSCLC patients post resection. As it broadens the options for our patients, multiple approvals in the same setting are generally welcomed. However, there were important differences in the two studies that led to the approvals and the data could be confusing. Here we review IMpower010, the study that led to the first approval of atezolizumab in the adjuvant setting with comparison to the Keynote-091 study evaluating pembrolizumab in the adjuvant setting, gaining the most recent FDA approval for adjuvant use in early stage NSCLC.Keywords: post operative therapy, checkpoint inhibitors, atezolizumab, IMpower010, biomarker
|
|---|