国际肿瘤学杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (6): 366-373.doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn371439-20250225-00062

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

信迪利单抗联合多西他赛治疗宫颈癌疗效及对实验室指标的影响

李锦鑫1,2, 顾芬芬2()   

  1. 1上海中大肿瘤医院药剂科,上海 200080
    2上海交通大学医学院附属新华医院临床药学部,上海 200082
  • 收稿日期:2025-02-25 修回日期:2025-03-19 出版日期:2025-06-08 发布日期:2025-06-26
  • 通讯作者: 顾芬芬 E-mail:enuo302@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    上海交通大学 “交大之星”计划医工交叉项目(YG2023QNA15)

Efficacy of sintilimab combined with docetaxel in the treatment of cervical cancer and its impact on laboratory indicators

Li Jinxin1,2, Gu Fenfen2()   

  1. 1Department of Pharmacy, Shanghai Zhongda Cancer Hospital, Shanghai 200080, China
    2Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200082, China
  • Received:2025-02-25 Revised:2025-03-19 Online:2025-06-08 Published:2025-06-26
  • Contact: Gu Fenfen E-mail:enuo302@163.com
  • Supported by:
    "Jiao Tong University Star" Program Medical Engineering Interdisciplinary Project of Shanghai Jiao Tong University(YG2023QNA15)

摘要:

目的 探究信迪利单抗联合多西他赛治疗宫颈癌的疗效及对实验室指标的影响。方法 选取2019年7月至2022年6月在上海交通大学医学院附属新华医院治疗的86例晚期宫颈癌患者作为研究对象,按照治疗方法将患者分为研究组(n=43)和对照组(n=43)。研究组采用信迪利单抗联合多西他赛治疗,对照组采用多西他赛治疗。治疗6个周期后,比较两组临床疗效、血管内皮生长因子受体(VEGFR)水平、肿瘤标志物水平、免疫功能指标、程序性死亡受体1(PD-1)、程序性死亡受体配体1(PD-L1)水平以及治疗过程中的不良反应。比较两组患者1年无进展生存(PFS)率及总生存(OS)率。结果 治疗6个周期后,研究组和对照组客观缓解率(ORR)分别为48.84%(21/43)、30.23%(13/43),差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.11,P=0.078);两组疾病控制率(DCR)分别为86.05%(37/43)、62.79%(27/43),差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.11,P=0.013)。治疗前研究组VEGFR2、VEGFR3水平分别为(223.42±57.89)、(3.25±1.22)ng/L,对照组分别为(220.56±58.45)、(3.31±1.17)ng/L,差异均无统计学意义(t=0.23,P=0.820;t=0.23,P=0.817);治疗后研究组VEGFR2、VEGFR3水平分别为(123.21±36.97)、(0.81±0.21)ng/L,对照组分别为(151.22±37.34)、(1.33±0.37)ng/L,差异均有统计学意义(t=3.50,P=0.001;t=8.02,P<0.001);两组患者治疗后VEGFR2、VEGFR3水平均较治疗前下降(均P<0.05)。治疗前研究组癌胚抗原(CEA)、糖类抗原125(CA125)、鳞状细胞癌抗原(SCC-Ag)水平分别为(8.73±1.02)ng/ml、(29.73±5.88)U/ml、(7.23±1.34)ng/ml,对照组分别为(8.41±1.23)ng/ml、(30.12±5.93)U/ml、(7.37±1.43)ng/ml,差异均无统计学意义(t=1.31,P=0.193;t=0.31,P=0.760;t=0.47,P=0.641);治疗后研究组CEA、CA125、SCC-Ag水平分别为(3.52±0.78)ng/ml、(13.28±1.82)U/ml、(2.33±0.49)ng/ml,对照组分别为(3.87±0.62)ng/ml、(14.12±1.72)U/ml、(2.65±0.54)ng/ml,差异均有统计学意义(t=2.30,P=0.024;t=2.20,P=0.031;t=2.88,P=0.005);两组患者治疗后CEA、CA125、SCC-Ag水平均较治疗前下降(均P<0.05)。治疗前研究组T细胞亚群CD4+、CD8+和CD4+/CD8+分别为(27.53±2.23)%、(29.34±3.78)%、0.93±0.33,对照组分别为(28.32±2.31)%、(30.03±3.27)%、0.94±0.42,差异均无统计学意义(t=1.61,P=0.110;t=0.91,P=0.368;t=0.12,P=0.903);治疗后研究组T细胞亚群CD4+、CD8+、CD4+/CD8+分别为(35.33±3.36)%、(44.32±4.33)%、0.80±0.22,对照组分别为(30.31±3.23)%、(42.21±4.31)%、0.71±0.19,差异均有统计学意义(t=7.06,P<0.001;t=2.27,P=0.026;t=2.03,P=0.046);两组治疗后T细胞亚群CD4+、CD8+均高于治疗前,而CD4+/CD8+低于治疗前(均P<0.05)。治疗前研究组PD-1、PD-L1 mRNA分别为1.21±0.21、0.73±0.15,对照组分别为1.23±0.25、0.79±0.14,差异均无统计学意义(t=0.40,P=0.689;t=1.92,P=0.059);治疗后研究组PD-1、PD-L1 mRNA分别为0.77±0.13、0.52±0.13,对照组分别为0.93±0.19、0.66±0.17,差异均有统计学意义(t=4.56,P<0.001;t=4.29,P<0.001);两组患者治疗后PD-1、PD-L1 mRNA水平均较治疗前下降(均P<0.05)。研究组患者1年PFS率、OS率分别为60.47%、72.09%;对照组分别为51.16%、65.12%,差异均无统计学意义(χ2=1.31,P=0.253;χ2=0.82,P=0.365)。研究组消化系统反应、肝肾功能异常、血尿、骨髓抑制、皮疹发生率分别为39.53%(17/43)、13.95%(6/43)、13.95%(6/43)、23.26%(10/43)、37.21%(16/43),对照组分别为32.56%(14/43)、9.30%(4/43)、11.63%(5/43)、18.60%(8/43)、30.23%(13/43),差异均无统计学意义(χ2=0.45,P=0.500;χ2=0.45,P=0.501;χ2=0.10,P=0.747;χ2=0.28,P=0.596;χ2=0.47,P=0.494)。结论 与多西他赛单药治疗相比,信迪利单抗联合多西他赛治疗晚期宫颈癌的DCR高,一定程度上有效降低了VEGFR、血清肿瘤标志物和外周血单核淋巴细胞中PD-1、PD-L1水平,改善患者的免疫功能,药物安全性相当,但两种治疗方案患者1年生存率相当。

关键词: 宫颈肿瘤, 免疫检查点抑制剂, 多西他赛, 治疗结果, 信迪利单抗

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the efficacy of the combination of sintilimab and docetaxel in the treatment of cervical cancer and its impact on laboratory indicators. Methods A total of 86 patients with advanced cervical cancer treated at Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from July 2019 to June 2022 were selected as the study subjects. The patients were divided into a study group (n=43) and a control group (n=43) according to the treatment method. The study group was treated with a combination of sintilimab and docetaxel, while the control group was treated with docetaxel. After 6 cycles of treatment, the clinical efficacy, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) levels, tumor marker levels, immune function indicators, programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels, and adverse reactions during treatment between the two groups were compared. 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate between the two groups of patients were compared. Results After 6 cycles of treatment, the objective response rates (ORR) of the study group and the control group were 48.84% (21/43) and 30.23% (13/43), respectively, with no statistically significant difference (χ2=3.11, P=0.078); the disease control rates (DCR) of the two groups were 86.05% (37/43) and 62.79% (27/43), respectively, with a statistically significant difference (χ2=6.11, P=0.013). Before treatment, the levels of VEGFR2 and VEGFR3 in the study group were (223.42±57.89), (3.25±1.22) ng/L, respectively, while those in the control group were (220.56±58.45), (3.31±1.17) ng/L, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (t=0.23, P=0.820; t=0.23, P=0.817). After treatment, the VEGFR2 and VEGFR3 levels in the study group were (123.21±36.97), (0.81±0.21) ng/L, respectively, while those in the control group were (151.22±37.34), (1.33±0.37) ng/L, respectively, with statistically significant differences (t=3.50, P=0.001; t=8.02, P<0.001). However, the levels of VEGFR2 and VEGFR3 in both groups of patients decreased after treatment compared to before treatment (all P<0.05). Before treatment, the levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), and squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) in the study group were (8.73±1.02) ng/ml, (29.73±5.88) U/ml, and (7.23±1.34) ng/ml, respectively, while those in the control group were (8.41±1.23) ng/ml, (30.12±5.93) U/ml, and (7.37±1.43) ng/ml, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (t=1.31, P=0.193; t=0.31, P=0.760; t=0.47, P=0.641). After treatment, the CEA, CA125, and SCC-Ag levels in the study group were (3.52±0.78) ng/ml, (13.28±1.82) U/ml, and (2.33±0.49) ng/ml, respectively, while those in the control group were (3.87±0.62) ng/ml, (14.12±1.72) U/ml, and (2.65±0.54) ng/ml, respectively, with statistically significant differences (t=2.30, P=0.024; t=2.20, P=0.031; t=2.88, P=0.005). However, the levels of CEA, CA125, and SCC-Ag in both groups of patients decreased after treatment compared to before treatment (all P<0.05). Before treatment, the T cell subsets CD4+, CD8+, and CD4+/CD8+ in the study group were (27.53±2.23) %, (29.34±3.78) %, and 0.93±0.33, respectively, while those in the control group were (28.32±2.31) %, (30.03±3.27) %, and 0.94±0.42, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (t=1.61, P=0.110; t=0.91, P=0.368; t=0.12, P=0.903). After treatment, the T cell subsets CD4+, CD8+, and CD4+/CD8+ in the study group were (35.33±3.36) %, (44.32±4.33) %, and 0.80±0.22, respectively, while those in the control group were (30.31±3.23) %, (42.21±4.31) %, and 0.71±0.19, respectively, with statistically significant differences (t=7.06, P<0.001; t=2.27, P=0.026; t=2.03, P=0.046). After treatment, the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell subsets in both groups were higher than before treatment, while the CD4+/CD8+ was lower than before treatment (all P<0.05). Before treatment, the levels of PD-1 and PD-L1 mRNA in peripheral blood mononuclear lymphocytes of the study group were 1.21±0.21 and 0.73±0.15, respectively, while those in the control group were 1.23±0.25 and 0.79±0.14, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (t=0.40, P=0.689; t=1.92, P=0.059). After treatment, the levels of PD-1 and PD-L1 mRNA in peripheral blood mononuclear lymphocytes of the study group were 0.77±0.13 and 0.52±0.13, respectively, while those in the control group were 0.93±0.19 and 0.66±0.17, respectively, with statistically significant differences (t=4.56, P<0.001; t=4.29, P<0.001). However, the levels of PD-1 and PD-L1 mRNA in both groups of patients decreased after treatment compared to before treatment (all P<0.05). The 1-year PFS rate and OS rate of the study group patients were 60.47% and 72.09%, respectively; while those in the control groups were 51.16% and 65.12%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (χ2=1.31, P=0.253; χ2=0.82, P=0.365). The incidences of digestive system response, abnormal liver and kidney function, hematuria, bone marrow suppression, and rash in the study group were 39.53% (17/43), 13.95% (6/43), 13.95% (6/43), 23.26% (10/43), and 37.21% (16/43), respectively, while those in the control group were 32.56% (14/43), 9.30% (4/43), 11.63% (5/43), 18.60% (8/43), and 30.23% (13/43), respectively, with no statistically significant differences (χ2=0.45, P=0.500; χ2=0.45, P=0.501; χ2=0.10, P=0.747; χ2=0.28, P=0.596; χ2=0.47, P=0.494). Conclusions Compared with monotherapy with docetaxel, the combination of sintilimab and docetaxel has a higher DCR in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer. To a certain extent, it effectively reduces the expression levels of VEGFR, serum tumor markers, and PD-1, PD-L1 in peripheral blood mononuclear lymphocytes, improves the immune function of patients, and has comparable drug safety. However, the two treatment options have comparable 1-year survival rates.

Key words: Uterine cervical neoplasms, Immune checkpoint inhibitors, Docetaxel, Treatment outcome, Sintilimab