Background. A Russian phase IV observational study was initiated to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib with pembrolizumab (Len-Pembro) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving therapy in real-world practice. This article is based on the results of the third analysis conducted with a median follow-up of 23.1 months and reflects data on the efficacy and safety of Len-Pembro in Russian patients. Aim. To evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of Len-Pembro in patients with advanced RCC with a median follow-up increased to 23.1 months. The primary outcome of the study was progression-free survival (PFS), the secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival on next-line therapy (PFS2), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, as well as safety. Materials and methods. The study included data from 165 patients with verified advanced RCC who received Len-Pembro at 36 centers in the Russian Federation from February 05, 2018 to July 30, 2025. The median age was 60 (20–76) years, and 70.3% of the participants were male. Most patients (74.6%) presented with Karnofsky performance score of ≥80%, metachronous metastases (50.9%) of clear cell RCC (93.3%) in 1 organ (75.2%), and had not received any anticancer treatment (91.0%). The IMDC favorable prognosis group included 40 (24.2%), intermediate – 92 (55.8%), and unfavorable prognosis – 33 (20.0%) patients. The median follow-up reached 23.1 (0.5–72.9) months. A total of 110 (66.7%) patients completed Len-Pembro therapy, and 51 (30.9%) patients received next-line treatment. Results. Median PFS reached 25.8 (95% confidence interval – CI 17.0–34.5) months, 23-month PFS – 52.6%; median OS was 39.9 (95% CI 26.9–52.8) months, 23-month OS – 73.1%; median PFS2 was 33.2 (95% CI 23.4–41.1) months, 23-month PFS2 – 66.9%. The ORR was 49.1%, including 3.0% of complete responses, and the disease control rate was 89.1%. The median duration of response reached 29.7 (95% CI 24.9–34.6) months. The incidence of any adverse events (AEs) was 78.8%, severe AEs occurred in 29.1%, fatal AES – in 1.2%, immune-related AEs – 17.0%, severe immune-related AEs – 6.7%. Conclusion. In real-world practice, with increased follow-up duration, the values of PFS, OS, and PFS2 were comparable to those obtained in the registrational study, with a lower ORR and a satisfactory safety profile of the combination of Len-Pembro in advanced RCC.
Background. Cervical cancer (CC) is among the four most common malignancies among the female population. For a long time, platinum-based chemotherapy was the standard of care and practically the only option available. However, treatment outcomes for patients with metastatic and recurrent CC remained poor. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly increased progression-free survival and overall survival in this group of patients. Currently, pembrolizumab is a priority option in treating patients with metastatic, persistent, recurrent CC with CPS ≥ 1 and is included in international and Russian clinical guidelines. Aim. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a pembrolizumab biosimilar (Pembroria®) in patients with metastatic, persistent and recurrent CC in the interim analysis of the PERFECTION observational study. Materials and methods. The study included a group of 51 patients diagnosed with stage IV CC. The treatment efficacy was analyzed using the Fleming method with the objective response rate criterion according to RECIST 1.1. Safety was assessed by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs according to the CTCAE 5.0 toxicity scale. Results. At stage g2, an objective response was reported in 24 (47.1%) patients, which exceeded the target threshold (22 responses). 5 (9.8%) patients experienced immune-mediated AEs, a total of 6 cases, including 1 case of grade 3 AE. The overall objective response rate was consistent with KEYNOTE-826, but the AE rate was lower (34.5% in KEYNOTE-826). Conclusion. Pembroria® has demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of the original pembrolizumab product and an acceptable safety profile. Differences in the incidence of immune-mediated AEs associated with Pembroria® require further study, considering the duration of observation and sample size. The results support using Pembroria® in routine clinical practice.
The article analyzes the literature on the third mobile window syndrome (TMWS), a unique condition characterized by specific disorders of the auditory and vestibular analyzers. The analysis included data on the pathophysiology of the syndrome, epidemiology, etiological factors, biomechanics of disorders, rare and poorly studied variants, as well as modern methods of diagnosis and treatment. Material and methods. The literature review was conducted using the Medline, PubMed, Scopus, CyberLeninka databases; the electronic catalogs of the Elsevier, Springer Medicine, Biomed Central, Media Sphere publishing houses, the eLibrary.RU scientific electronic library were also used. We reviewed the articles published on this topic over the past 30 years. Conclusion. The awareness of specialists about the pathology and clinical manifestations of TMWS would increase the quality of diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitation strategies. В статье проведен анализ литературы, посвященной синдрому третьего мобильного окна (СТМО) – в своем роде уникальной патологии, характеризующейся специфическими нарушениями слухового и вестибулярного анализаторов. В анализ вошли данные по патофизиологии синдрома, эпидемиологии, этиологическим факторам, биомеханики нарушений, редким и малоизученным вариантам, а также современным методам диагностики и лечения. Материал и методы. Обзор литературы проведен по базам данных Medline, PubMed, Scopus, КиберЛенинка, также использован электронный каталог издательств Elsevier, Springer Medicine, Biomed Central, Медиа Сфера; научная электронная библиотека eLIBRARY.RU, опубликованные по данной теме за последние 30 лет. Заключение. Информированность специалистов о патоморфологии и клинических проявлениях СТМО способствует полноценной диагностике и правильному формированию тактики лечебных и реабилитационных мероприятий.
Background. Prior to the introduction of new agents — immune checkpoint inhibitors — for inoperable and/or metastatic melanoma (IMM), chemotherapy outcomes were generally poor. The median (Me) overall survival (OS) in IMM was no more than 6-9 months, and the Me of progression-free survival (PFS) was about 2 months. The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy changed the prognosis for the life of IMM patients dramatically. The development, studies, and approval of a new original PD-1 inhibitor, prolgolimab, in Russia in 2020 prompted the professional community to conduct a prospective observational study in the Russian Federation to assess its real-world efficacy and safety. Aim To evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of prolgolimab in patients with IMM. Materials and methods. From October 2020 to October 2022, 700 patients with IMM receiving prolgolimab in real clinical settings in oncological institutions of various levels in the Russian Federation were included in the study. The main inclusion criteria were: pathology-confirmed diagnosis of melanoma; metastatic and/or inoperable type; use of prolgolimab outside of clinical trials; and signed informed consent. Objective response rate in the general population and the Intention-to-treat and Per Protocol populations was considered the main criterion for evaluating the efficacy of therapy, and the safety criterion was the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). PFS and OS rates were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 25.0 software package. Results. The objective response rate for the Per Protocol population (with radiographic assessment available) was 42% (n=235/559). Disease progression was reported in 26.7% (n=149) of patients, stabilization in 31.3% (n=175), and disease control in 73.3% of patients with IMM, regardless of the line of therapy. At the follow-up Me of 12 months (0-36), PFS for all patients regardless of the line of therapy was 8 months (95% confidence interval [Cl] 6.537-9.463), 6-month PFS was 55%, and 12-month PFS was 41%. OS Me for all included patients was 32 months, 6-month OS was 82%, and 12-month OS was 69%. Depending on the line of therapy, the OS Me was: line 1 - not reached, line 2-30 months (95% Cl 16.007-43.993), line 3 and subsequent- 22 months (95% Cl 14.264-29.736); p=0.736. According to the CTCAE 5.0 general terminology criteria for AEs, a total of 136/693 (19.6%) AEs of varying degrees were reported, in particular: grade 1-2 - 105/693 (15.2%), grade 3-4 - 25/693 (3.6%), unknown grade - 5/693 (0.7%), as well as one fatal case (0.1%) due to thromboembolism in the vascular center with an unclear (according to the investigator's assessment) relation with prolgolimab. Conclusion The results obtained at 12 months of follow-up confirm the high efficacy and satisfactory tolerability of prolgolimab in patients with IMM in real-world practice, regardless of the line of therapy and other characteristics.
Background. In an era of breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy, CheckMate 067 studies declared the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors a new standard of care for patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). A significant limitation of the widespread use of the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab in routine clinical practice is the high risk of severe immune-mediated adverse events. Prolgolimab and nurulimab are a combination of fixed doses of original monoclonal antibodies (manufactured by JSC "BIOCAD," Russia) to the PD-1 receptor (prolgolimab) and the CTLA-4 receptor (nurulimab) (3:1 ratio). This paper presents the results of an international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, comparative, randomized, phase II OBERTON clinical study to investigate the efficacy and safety of nurulimab + prolgolimab combination therapy with continued prolgolimab therapy compared to prolgolimab alone as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable melanoma (uRM) or MM (NCT03913923). Materials and methods. The study included patients with uRM or MM who were not previously treated for metastatic disease. The patients were randomized into two groups (1:1). Patients in group 1 were treated with a nurulimab (1 mg/kg) and prolgolimab (3 mg/kg) combination at a dose of 0.2 mL/kg (equivalent to 1 mg/kg of nurulimab and 3 mg/kg of prolgolimab) once every 3 weeks during the first 4 blinded infusions. Patients in group 2 received prolgolimab monotherapy at a dose of 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks during the first 4 blinded infusions. Starting from infusion 5, patients in both groups received open prolgolimab 1 mg/kg once every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT05732805 and is currently ongoing, but recruitment of new patients has been completed. Results. One hundred seventeen patients were randomized and received at least one dose of the study therapy. At a median follow-up of 16.79 months, the median PFS was 12.2 (4.9; not achieved) months in the nurulimab + prolgolimab group and 2.8 (1.5; 4.7) months in the prolgolimab monotherapy group (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.90, hazard ratio 0.57). PFS at 24 months was 41% in the nurulimab + prolgolimab group and 25.4% in the prolgolimab monotherapy group. In both groups, the therapy was well tolerated. Grade 3-4 immune-mediated adverse events were reported in 15.5% of patients who received nurulimab + prolgolimab, compared with 1.7% of those who received prolgolimab alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in both treatment groups were increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase and asthenia. Overall, the safety profile was favorable, as expected for the class of immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA-4, and anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies. Discussion. The results demonstrate a favorable safety profile in both the nurulimab + prolgolimab combination and prolgolimab monotherapy groups as the first-line treatment for uRM or MM. The assessment of the primary endpoint, PFS, showed the benefit of combination immunotherapy followed by switching to prolgolimab compared to prolgolimab alone. Conclusion. Combination immunotherapy with the CTLA-4 inhibitor nurulimab and the PD-1 inhibitor prolgolimab, available as a combination of solutions of two drugs in a single vial, with a further switch to monotherapy with prolgolimab, can fill an important niche in the treatment of patients with uRM or MM. Confirmation of the obtained data on the efficacy and safety of the combined regimen of nurulimab + prolgolimab in comparison with PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy is expected from the ongoing phase III BCD-217-2 OCTAVA study (NCT05732805).
