Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) and neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (NICT) combined with radical lung cancer resection for the treatment of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To adjust for confounding factors, we innovatively adopted two matching methods: propensity score (PS) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinicopathological features and prognosis of patients with resectable NSCLC treated with NCT or NICT combined with radical lung cancer resection using propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:1 and IPTW to balance potential bias. RESULTS: After PSM, 116 pairs of patients who had undergone NCT or NICT were selected for the final analysis. The pathological complete remission (pCR) and major pathological remission (MPR) rates were significantly better in the NICT group than in the NCT group (pCR rate of 44.8% vs 2.6%, P< 0.001; MPR rate of 66.4% vs 20.7%, P< 0.001). No significant difference was seen between the NICT and NCT groups in terms of postoperative complications (12.1% vs 9.5%, P=0.182). Patients in the NICT group had significantly better disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival(OS) than those in the NCT group ([3-year DFS: 75.2% vs 43.3%, P< 0.001] and [3-year OS: 91.5% vs 58.0%, P< 0.001]). Among all patients, those with postoperative pathology of pCR had better DFS (P< 0.001) and OS (P= 0.009). Patients with postoperative pathology of MPR had better DFS (P< 0.001) and OS (P< 0.001). The IPTW method yielded similar pathologic and prognostic results. CONCLUSION: Patients with resectable NSCLC treated with NICT had better pathological responses and prognosis, than those treated with NCT, and the safety profiles of NICT and NCT were similar.