Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Early morning immune checkpoint blockade and overall survival of patients with metastatic cancer: An In-depth chronotherapeutic study.

INTRODUCTION: Recent retrospective studies suggest potential large patient's benefit through proper timing of immune checkpoint blockers (ICB). The association between ICB treatment timing and patient survival, neoplastic response and toxicities was investigated, together with interactions with performance status (PS) and sex.

METHODS: A cohort of patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors, who received pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, or avelumab, alone or with concomitant chemotherapy, between November 2015 and March 2021, at the Centre Leon Bérard (France), was retrospectively studied.

RESULTS: 361 patients were investigated (80% non-small cell lung cancer patients, mean [SD] age: 63 [11] years, 39% of women, 83% PS0-1 at first infusion, 19% received concomitant chemotherapy). ICB were administered from 07:25 to 17:21 and optimal morning/afternoon cut-off was 11:37. Morning infusions were associated with increased OS as compared to afternoon (median 30.3 vs 15.9 months, p = 0.0024; HR 1.56 [1.17-2.1], p = 0.003). A strong PS-timing interaction was found (PS0-1 patients, HR=1.53 [1.10-2.12], p = 0.011; PS2-3 patients, HR=0.50 [0.25-0.97], p = 0.042). Morning PS0-1 patients displayed increased OS (median 36.7 vs 21.3 months, p = 0.023), partial/complete response rate (58% vs 41%, p = 0.027), and grade1-3 toxicities (49% vs 34%, p = 0.028). Mortality risk ratio between infusions at worst time-of-day, estimated at 13:36 [12:48-14:23], and in early morning was equal to 4.8 ([2.3-10.1], p = 0.008). Timing differences in toxicities resulted significant only in female patients (women vs men: p < 0.001 vs 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS: Early morning ICB infusion was associated with increased OS, response, and toxicities in patients with PS0-1 as compared to later infusions within the day. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm this retrospective study.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app