Immunotherapy in Malignant Pleura Mesothelioma: Real-world Data from a Tertian hospital in chest diseases.
Rattachement africain : gr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Malignant Pleura Mesothelioma (MPM) is a disease with a dismal prognosis and many years of therapeutic stagnancy. Recently, the approval of immunotherapy either as dual checkpoint inhibition (CTLA-4+PD-1) or as a combination with chemotherapy has raised hope and expectations. Real-world applicability is a field of increasing interest. Methods: We use data from a Tetrian hospital for chest diseases and Center of Excellence for thoracic malignancies. Results: We reviewed 77 patients with MPM from January 2019 to January 2024. Forty-six had ICIs as part of their systemic therapy, 24 as 2nd line and beyond, with 16 taking anti-PD1 as monotherapy until disease progression, and the remaining 22 as 1st line, with Ipilimumab and nivolumab dual inhibition for maximum 2 years. Forty-two had epithelioid subtype, 3 biphasic and 1 sarcomatoid. The median PFS and OS were 7 (95% CI: 4.5-9.4) and 26 months (95% CI:17.57-34.43), respectively, for the Ipi-Nivo regimen and 6 months (95% CI: 3-9.1) and 27 months (95% CI:15.62-38.37) for anti-PD1 monotherapy. Conclusions: The involvement of ICIs in the treatment landscape is the only step forward we have taken for many decades to manage MPM. Rear-world applicability is in accordance with the evidence of RCTs. Biomarker-informed approaches are crucial for tailored therapy in mesothelioma.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Immunotherapy in Malignant Pleura Mesothelioma: Real-world Data from a Tertian hospital in chest diseases.
- Date Crossref
- 27/09/2025
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.