Concurrent immune checkpoint blockade with chemoradiation: when more is less

The PACIFIC trial (1,2) established a 12-month course of consolidation with the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody durvalumab following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as the standard of care for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The observed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit and favorable safety profile observed on the PACIFIC trial prompted further study. Researchers questioned whether earlier integration of immune checkpoint blockade could improve patient outcomes. The PACIFIC-2 trial (3) addressed this by evaluating durvalumab added concurrently with CRT, followed by consolidation durvalumab. Importantly, the control arm did not include consolidation durvalumab as per the standard of care established by PACIFIC, using chemoradiation with placebo as the comparator arm. The hypothesis was that starting immunotherapy during radiation would enhance immune priming, prevent early disease progression, and help patients with high-risk or aggressive disease. PACIFIC-2 did not confirm this. The trial did not improve PFS (hazard ratio, 0.85; P=0.247) or OS (hazard ratio, 1.03; P=0.823) despite the lack of consolidation durvalumab on the control arm, suggesting that concurrent use negated any benefit to consolidation. Objective response rates (ORRs) were similar: 60.7% for durvalumab and 60.6% for placebo [difference, 0.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI): −15.2% to 16.3%; P=0.976]. Similar findings were observed with the randomized phase 3 ECOG/ACRIN EA5181 trial, which compared CRT with concurrent and consolidation durvalumab to CRT with consolidation durvalumab in locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Similar to the PACIFIC-2 trial, no PFS or OS benefit was observed (4). In this commentary, we will explore the clinical and biological differences that may have contributed to the divergent outcomes between these trials.

The first consideration is the enrolled patient populations. The PACIFIC trial included only patients who had completed CRT without disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. This design selected individuals with demonstrated clinical treatment tolerance and positive response to therapy. In contrast, the PACIFIC-2 trial enrolled patients at therapy initiation, before assessing CRT effects on disease or performance status. As a result, although grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred at similar rates in both arms, those receiving concurrent durvalumab discontinued therapy early more often (25.6% vs. 12.0%). The combination of concurrent durvalumab and CRT yields more toxicity than sequential therapy (53.4% in PACIFIC-2 vs. 29.9% in PACIFIC). This combination of an unselected patient population and increased toxicity led to a higher early discontinuation rate in PACIFIC-2 (25.6% vs. 15.4%). In contrast, baseline placebo discontinuation rates were comparable between trials (12.0% in PACIFIC-2 and 9.8% in PACIFIC). This higher early discontinuation rate will naturally reduce the potential benefit of immunotherapy, which may be reflected in a modest graphical separation of the PFS Kaplan-Meier curve, but it was statistically insignificant.

The second consideration is the biological context of concurrent immunotherapy and radiation. Seminal preclinical studies suggest radiation may enhance antitumor immunity in the concurrent setting (5,6). However, several key principles from these early findings were missed in translation. First, the radiation in these studies was not conventionally fractionated, as in the PACIFIC-2 trial. PACIFIC-2 delivered 1.8–2 Gy doses over multiple fractions for 6 weeks. The initial studies used stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), delivering 5–20 Gy in 1 to 5 treatments over 1 week. These different schedules yield very different biological responses. With conventional therapy to larger radiation fields including significant bone marrow and blood pool, patients may experience acute systemic lymphocyte depletion (7), poor perfusion due to endothelial cell damage (8), and repeated killing of newly infiltrating tumor lymphocytes (9,10) as lymphocytes are the most radiosensitive cells. These problems may compromise checkpoint inhibitors, which function by boosting lymphocyte populations and increasing tumor infiltration through the vasculature (11,12). Therefore, the immunologic environment from conventional radiation may not favor antitumor activity, even if antigen release occurs. Short bursts of radiation, as in early studies, might induce the desired antigen release and acute inflammatory response without depleting lymphocytes or causing vascular injury, thus resulting in the desired in-situ vaccination effect (13). This conceptual framework is yet unproven, and mechanistic data are limited. Nonetheless, it suggests that long-course, concurrent radiation could blunt the effect of checkpoint blockade, rather than enhance it.

Data from settings beyond NSCLC suggest similar findings. The NRG LU-005 trial in limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) found that concurrent and consolidation atezolizumab failed to improve OS when added to concurrent chemoradiation (14). By contrast, the ADRIATRIC trial found a PFS benefit to consolidation-only durvalumab following CRT for LS-SCLC.

Collectively, PACIFIC-2 suggests that the benefit of PD-L1 blockade in unresectable stage III NSCLC is highly dependent on timing and treatment context. Consolidation durvalumab follows a period of recovery from acute CRT-related toxicity, partial immune reconstitution, and ongoing antigen exposure. In contrast, concurrent administration with large field CRT overlaps with maximal physiologic stress, increases early treatment discontinuation, and likely limits effective immunotherapy delivery. The assumption that earlier or more intensive combination therapy will yield improved outcomes is intuitively appealing but requires careful evaluation of past pre-clinical data and clinical reality. The interaction between radiation and the immune system is complex and may vary substantially by radiation dose, fractionation schedule, anatomic site, and baseline patient characteristics.

If concurrent CRT and immunotherapy are to be reconsidered, several strategies could be considered. More rigorous patient selection, such as limiting enrollment to individuals with excellent performance status or implementing a brief run-in period to confirm treatment tolerance, may help ensure adequate drug exposure. Alternative immunotherapy agents or dosing regimens that minimize overlapping pulmonary toxicity should also be evaluated, as pneumonitis was the most common cause of discontinuation. Furthermore, future trials should incorporate systematic rather than optional biological sampling, including post-treatment tumor biopsies and serial blood-based immune profiling, to clarify how radiation influences the tumor–immune interface over time. Such data will be essential for iterative rational trial design and for identifying patient subgroups most likely to benefit from specific therapeutic combinations.

The PACIFIC-2 experience highlights the value of evaluating both positive and negative clinical trials. By identifying when immunotherapy works best, PACIFIC-2 supports durvalumab as consolidation therapy and guides ongoing efforts to combine immunotherapy with radiation. As the field advances, a robust, high-resolution atlas of various radiation regimens is needed to delineate the real-world effects of our decades-long accumulation of knowledge in radiobiology and immune dynamics, enabling the development of biologically rational and clinically feasible treatment combinations.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, AME Clinical Trials Review. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://actr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/actr-26-0022/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://actr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/actr-26-0022/coif). M.E.D. has received research funding from Genentech, Merck, and EMD Serono; consulting fees for consulting/attending advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Bristol Meyer Squibb (BMS), Novocure, and IDEOlogy; and speaking fees for talks from CURIO, AstraZeneca, and DAVA. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al. Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1919-29. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al. Overall Survival with Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III NSCLC. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2342-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Bradley JD, Sugawara S, Lee KH, et al. Simultaneous durvalumab and platinum-based chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: the phase III PACIFIC-2 study. J Clin Oncol 2025;43:3610-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Varlotto JM, Xie Y, Pennell N, et al. Phase 3 Trial of Concurrent and Consolidative Durvalumab vs Consolidation Durva Alone for Unresectable Stage 3 NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 2025;20:S4-S5.
5. Demaria S, Kawashima N, Yang AM, et al. Immune-mediated inhibition of metastases after treatment with local radiation and CTLA-4 blockade in a mouse model of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:728-34.
6. Dewan MZ, Galloway AE, Kawashima N, et al. Fractionated but not single-dose radiotherapy induces an immune-mediated abscopal effect when combined with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:5379-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Cho Y, Kim Y, Chamseddine I, et al. Lymphocyte dynamics during and after chemo-radiation correlate to dose and outcome in stage III NSCLC patients undergoing maintenance immunotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2022;168:1-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Drexler H, Hornig B. Endothelial dysfunction in human disease. J Mol Cell Cardiol 1999;31:51-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Stewart CC, Perez CA. Effect of irradiation on immune responses. Radiology 1976;118:201-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Nakamura N, Kusunoki Y, Akiyama M. Radiosensitivity of CD4 or CD8 positive human T-lymphocytes by an in vitro colony formation assay. Radiat Res 1990;123:224-7.
11. Curran MA, Montalvo W, Yagita H, et al. PD-1 and CTLA-4 combination blockade expands infiltrating T cells and reduces regulatory T and myeloid cells within B16 melanoma tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:4275-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Tumeh PC, Harview CL, Yearley JH, et al. PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance. Nature 2014;515:568-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Huang J, Theelen WSME, Belcaid Z, et al. Combination of pembrolizumab and radiotherapy induces systemic antitumor immune responses in immunologically cold non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Cancer 2025;6:1676-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Higgins K, Hu C, Ross HJ, et al. Concurrent chemoradiation±atezolizumab (atezo) in limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC): results of NRG Oncology/Alliance LU005. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024;120:S2.