Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Real-world evidence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e21519 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) Cemiplimab and Pembrolizumab have revolutionized the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of ICI in a real-world cSCC population, including patients with conditions which would exclude trial participation. Methods: In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we included all non-trial patients with advanced cSCC treated with ICI between 2017 and 2022. We aimed to assess efficacy outcomes according to age, comorbidities, and immune-related adverse events (irAE). Best overall response (BOR) was investigator-assessed. X 2 , Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare subgroups of interest, and Cox proportional hazards models were fitted. The log-rank test was used to assess progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 35 patients. Characteristics are displayed in the table. Median follow-up was 21.8 months (95% CI 19.3-24.4). BOR to ICI was partial response (PR) in 42.9%, complete response (CR) in 28.6%, and stable disease in (SD) 14.3% of patients. Main reasons for discontinuation of treatment were progression of disease (PD) in 20%, achievement of maximum benefit in 17.1%, and toxicities in 14.3%. Treatment beyond progression was given to 22.9% patients. The PFS rate at 1 year was 62%; median PFS was not reached (NR). PFS and OS were similar between patients with or without comorbidities, ECOG performance status 0-1 versus 2-3, or between age groups ≥75 years versus <75. IrAE grade 1-2 and 3-4 were seen in 80% and 14.3% of patients, respectively. Patients with grade 1-2 irAE had greater PFS than those without toxicities (HR 0.16; 95%CI 0.045-0.567, p=0.005). The OS rate at 1 year was 76%, with a median OS of 38.57 months (95% CI 19.4-57.7). Responders (CR+PR) had a prolonged median OS compared to non-responders (SD+PD): 38.57 months versus 9 months (HR 0.083; 95%CI 0.17-0.406, p=0.002). Conclusions: ICI were effective and safe among real-world cSCC patients, independent of age, comorbidities or ECOG. Our BOR was higher than in the published clinical trials, which might reflect the subjective nature of investigator-assessed response or the small sample size assessed. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".