Efficacy and safety of first-line checkpoint inhibitors-based treatments for non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
checkpoints inhibitors
frontline therapy
network meta-analysis
non-small-cell lung cancer
systematic review
Journal
ESMO open
ISSN: 2059-7029
Titre abrégé: ESMO Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101690685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
19
11
2021
revised:
16
02
2022
accepted:
09
03
2022
pubmed:
16
4
2022
medline:
12
7
2022
entrez:
15
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based regimens in non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been deeply investigated. To rank the available therapeutic options, we carried out a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICI regimens, and a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) with an all-comers and a stratified strategy were conducted. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Nineteen RCTs involving 17 treatment regimens were included. For the all-comers population, pembrolizumab/chemotherapy (CT) and cemiplimab were most likely the best treatments. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% nivolumab/ipilimumab with/without CT, for PD-L1 >1% and 1%-49% pembrolizumab/CT and for PD-L1 >50% cemiplimab ranked first for OS. In non-squamous (NSQ), pembrolizumab with/without CT ranked first for OS; cemiplimab ranked worse than the unselected population. In squamous (SQ), pooled hazard ratio (HR) showed a better chance in improving efficacy for combination strategy, while monotherapy did not, except for cemiplimab that ranked second. Atezolizumab/CT/bevacizumab ranked first in most subgroups for PFS. Direct comparison showed a non-statistically significant benefit of ICI regimens for the liver metastases cohort in OS, with a good ranking for pembrolizumab/CT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab/CT. Regarding brain metastases, all ICI regimens demonstrated an improvement in OS and PFS compared to CT. Nivolumab/ipilimumab/CT ranked better in this subset. Our meta-analysis updated on the most recent findings demonstrates that different ICI treatments rank differently in specific NSCLC settings (histology, biomarker and clinical presentation) offering a novel challenging scenario for clinical decision making and research planning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based regimens in non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been deeply investigated. To rank the available therapeutic options, we carried out a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
METHODS
A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICI regimens, and a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) with an all-comers and a stratified strategy were conducted. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).
RESULTS
Nineteen RCTs involving 17 treatment regimens were included. For the all-comers population, pembrolizumab/chemotherapy (CT) and cemiplimab were most likely the best treatments. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% nivolumab/ipilimumab with/without CT, for PD-L1 >1% and 1%-49% pembrolizumab/CT and for PD-L1 >50% cemiplimab ranked first for OS. In non-squamous (NSQ), pembrolizumab with/without CT ranked first for OS; cemiplimab ranked worse than the unselected population. In squamous (SQ), pooled hazard ratio (HR) showed a better chance in improving efficacy for combination strategy, while monotherapy did not, except for cemiplimab that ranked second. Atezolizumab/CT/bevacizumab ranked first in most subgroups for PFS. Direct comparison showed a non-statistically significant benefit of ICI regimens for the liver metastases cohort in OS, with a good ranking for pembrolizumab/CT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab/CT. Regarding brain metastases, all ICI regimens demonstrated an improvement in OS and PFS compared to CT. Nivolumab/ipilimumab/CT ranked better in this subset.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis updated on the most recent findings demonstrates that different ICI treatments rank differently in specific NSCLC settings (histology, biomarker and clinical presentation) offering a novel challenging scenario for clinical decision making and research planning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35427835
pii: S2059-7029(22)00083-7
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100465
pmc: PMC9271478
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
Ipilimumab
0
Bevacizumab
2S9ZZM9Q9V
Nivolumab
31YO63LBSN
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
100465Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Références
Ann Oncol. 2016 Oct;27(10):1953-8
pubmed: 27502709
Ann Oncol. 2021 Jul;32(7):881-895
pubmed: 33894335
Immunotherapy. 2011 Jan;3(1):1-4
pubmed: 21174549
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb;22(2):198-211
pubmed: 33476593
Lancet Respir Med. 2019 May;7(5):387-401
pubmed: 30922878
Intern Emerg Med. 2017 Feb;12(1):103-111
pubmed: 27913917
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Mar;9(3):305-314
pubmed: 33347829
Front Immunol. 2021 Aug 16;12:731546
pubmed: 34484242
Theranostics. 2021 Mar 11;11(11):5365-5386
pubmed: 33859752
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021 Apr;25(7):2866-2884
pubmed: 33877652
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Sep;11(9):1411-22
pubmed: 27296106
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 22;376(25):2415-2426
pubmed: 28636851
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 03;8(10):e76654
pubmed: 24098547
Cell. 2011 Mar 4;144(5):646-74
pubmed: 21376230
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1540-1550
pubmed: 26712084
Cancer Treat Rev. 2020 Sep;89:102067
pubmed: 32682248
J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Jul;16(7):1099-1117
pubmed: 33839365
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jan;106:144-159
pubmed: 30528799
Cancer Discov. 2018 Sep;8(9):1069-1086
pubmed: 30115704
J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Jan;16(1):162-168
pubmed: 33069888
Lancet. 2017 Jan 21;389(10066):255-265
pubmed: 27979383
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84
pubmed: 26030634
J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Mar;8(1):
pubmed: 32217756
Res Synth Methods. 2010 Apr;1(2):97-111
pubmed: 26061376
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;37(7):537-546
pubmed: 30620668
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Apr;140(4):326-31
pubmed: 26756647
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1627-39
pubmed: 26412456
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382(20):1894-1905
pubmed: 32402160
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 20;35(30):3449-3457
pubmed: 28854067
Value Health. 2014 Mar;17(2):157-73
pubmed: 24636374
JAMA Oncol. 2020 May 1;6(5):661-674
pubmed: 32271377
J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Apr;16(4):653-664
pubmed: 33333328
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;76:193-9
pubmed: 26939929
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20(7):924-937
pubmed: 31122901
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020 Apr;9(2):188-203
pubmed: 32420059
JAMA Oncol. 2021 May 01;7(5):709-717
pubmed: 33792623
Rheumatol Int. 2014 Nov;34(11):1489-96
pubmed: 24691560
Front Oncol. 2020 Oct 20;10:564382
pubmed: 33194639
Lancet. 2021 Feb 13;397(10274):592-604
pubmed: 33581821
J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Aug;15(8):1351-1360
pubmed: 32302702
J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Sep;16(9):1512-1522
pubmed: 34033975
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 03;9(7):e99682
pubmed: 24992266