ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Immunol.
Sec. Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1582299
The comparison of efficacy and safety between cadonilimab (PD-1/CTLA-4) and anti-PD-1 inhibitors in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer: a retrospective real-world study
Provisionally accepted- 1Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC), Guangzhou, China
- 2Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangzhou, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
provides substantial clinical benefits in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (R/M CC) in several clinical trials and meeting abstracts. However, the efficacy of cadonilimab in patients with prior failure of anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, as well as a direct comparison of its efficacy and safety with anti-PD-1 inhibitors, has not been reported in real-world settings.We conducted a retrospective study at our hospital, including two R/M CC patient cohorts.The first cohort consisted of 101 patients who received cadonilimab, either as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies, between July 1, 2022, and October 31, 2024. The second cohort comprised 201 patients who were treated with anti-PD-1 inhibitors (alone or in combination) but did not receive cadonilimab, between August 1, 2018, and March 31, 2024. Clinicopathologic information, peripheral blood markers and treatment regimens were collected and analyzed to identify prognostic factors of cadonilimab through response rate comparison, as well as univariate, and multivariate analyses. The objective response rate (ORR) was compared between the cadonilimab and anti-PD-1 groups, stratified by PD-L1 expression. Safety data were also analyzed.The cadonilimab group achieved an ORR of 59.41%, while the anti-PD-1 inhibitors group had an ORR of 44.28%. R/M CC patients with squamous cell carcinoma independently predicted prolonged progression-free survival (p=0.010). In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, the ORR was 60.32% in the cadonilimab group compared to 48.34% in the anti-PD-1 group. Cadonilimab was associated with a survival benefit in patients who had previously failed anti-PD-1 treatment (p=0.007), and showed a significantly higher ORR than anti-PD-1 inhibitors in patients with negative p=0.033). The occurrence of immune related adverse events (irAEs) appeared to be associated with longer medication cycles, while severe adverse reactions were linked to shorter cycles. In addition, the cadonilimab group had a higher cumulative incidence of irAEs, including severe irAEs (12.87% vs. 1.99%, p=0.001), multi-organ irAEs, dyspnoea and hypothyroidism than anti-PD-1 inhibitors group.Cadonilimab improved survival in R/M CC patients with previous anti-PD-1 treatment failure, achieving higher ORR in patients with negative PD-L1 expression compared to ati-PD-1 inhibitors. However, this benefit was associated with a notable increase in irAEs.
Keywords: Cadonilimab, anti-PD-1, anti-PD-1/CTLA-4, cervical cancer, immune chechpoint inhibitor
Received: 24 Feb 2025; Accepted: 12 May 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Pan, Huang, Wan, Huang, He, Xu, Chen, Yin, Li and Zheng. 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: Min Zheng, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC), Guangzhou, 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.