ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Immunol.

Sec. Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1579420

This article is part of the Research TopicThe Application of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Combined with Chemotherapy in Tumor ImmunotherapyView all 12 articles

The administration sequences of immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy cause discrete efficacy when treating non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study

Provisionally accepted
  • 1Cancer Center, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
  • 2Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China
  • 3Department of Oncology and Hematology, Xiangyang Hospital, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Xiangyang, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with chemotherapy have become a standard first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the optimal sequence of administrating the two treatments remains controversial. Methods: This study included advanced NSCLC patients who received ICIs combined with chemotherapy at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University and Xiangyang Hospital, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine between 1st September 2020 and 30th September 2024. Patients were categorized into the concurrent, immune-chemo, and chemo-immune groups based on different sequences of treatment administration. The primary endpoints evaluated were survival and treatment efficacy. The secondary endpoint assessed was treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).Results: This two-center, retrospective study included 270 NSCLC patients who received ICIs plus chemotherapy. Survival analysis revealed statistically significant differences across treatment groups. The median overall survival (mOS) durations were 636 days (concurrent group), 615 days (immune-chemo group), and 749 days (chemo-immune group), with a log-rank test demonstrating significant intergroup differences (P = 0.0017). Similarly, median progression-free survival (mPFS) showed distinct patterns at 178 days, 180 days, and 216 days for the respective groups (log-rank P = 0.0134). Additionally, the objective response rates (ORRs) for the three groups were 55.82% (72/129), 58.21% (39/67), and 68.92% (51/74), respectively. The incidence of TRAEs of any grade in the concurrent, the immune-chemo, and the chemo-immune groups was 77.52% (100/129), 65.67% (44/67), and 59.46% (44/74) rates, respectively, which was a significant difference (χ²=7.91, P=0.019). Despite patients experiencing Grade 3 or higher TRAEs had extremely poor prognoses, overall, patients who developed any grade of TRAEs had better survival outcomes, particularly those with skin or endocrine toxicity. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the administration sequence of chemotherapy followed by ICIs may yield the greatest clinical benefit, providing a basis for clinical decision-making.

Keywords: immune checkpoint inhibitors, chemotherapy, administration sequence, efficacy, Non-small cell lung cancer

Received: 19 Feb 2025; Accepted: 08 Apr 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zhang, Song, Min, Chen, Wang, Fu and Yin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Yang Fu, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Xiangyang Hospital, Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Xiangyang, China
Jiaxin Yin, Cancer Center, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Research integrity at Frontiers

94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good

Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.


Find out more