Therapeutic vaccines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2024
12 Mar 2024
Historique:
pmc-release:
12
03
2025
medline:
13
3
2024
pubmed:
12
3
2024
entrez:
12
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
New strategies in immunotherapy with specific antigens that trigger an anti-tumour immune response in people with lung cancer open the possibility of developing therapeutic vaccines aimed at boosting the adaptive immune response against cancer cells. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of therapeutic vaccines for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wanfang Data, and China Journal Net (CNKI) up to 22 August 2023. We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic cancer vaccine, alone or in combination with other treatments, in adults (> 18 years) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whatever the line of treatment. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival, and serious adverse events; secondary outcomes were three- and five-year survival rates and health-related quality of life. We included 10 studies with 2177 participants. The outcome analyses included only 2045 participants (1401 men and 644 women). The certainty of the evidence varied by vaccine and outcome, and ranged from moderate to very low. We report only the results for primary outcomes here. TG4010 The addition of the vector-based vaccine, TG4010, to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone in first-line treatment, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may increase progression-free survival slightly (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 1 study, 222 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.19; 2 studies, 362 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidermal growth factor vaccine Epidermal growth factor vaccine, compared to best supportive care as switch maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 1 study, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.98; 2 studies, 458 participants; low-certainty evidence). hTERT (vx-001) The hTERT (vx-001) vaccine compared to placebo as maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.34; 1 study, 190 participants). Racotumomab Racotumomab compared to placebo as a switch maintenance treatment post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 176 participants. It may increase overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.87). It may make little to no difference in progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00) and in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.18). Racotumomab versus docetaxel as switch maintenance therapy post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 145 participants. The study did not report hazard rates on overall survival or progression-free survival time, but the difference in median survival times was very small - less than one month. Racotumomab may result in little to no difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event compared with docetaxel (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83). Personalised peptide vaccine Personalised peptide vaccine plus docetaxel compared to docetaxel plus placebo post-chemotherapy treatment may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52) and progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.42). OSE2101 The OSE2101 vaccine compared with chemotherapy, after chemotherapy or immunotherapy, was assessed in one study with 219 participants. It may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19). It may result in a small difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99). SRL172 The SRL172 vaccine of killed Mycobacterium vaccae, added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, may result in no difference in overall survival, and may increase the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.43; 351 participants). Adding a vaccine resulted in no differences in overall survival, except for racotumomab, which showed some improvement compared to placebo, but the difference in median survival time was very small (1.4 months) and the study only included 176 participants. Regarding progression-free survival, we observed no differences between the compared treatments, except for TG4010, which may increase progression-free survival slightly. There were no differences between the compared treatments in serious treatment-related adverse events, except for SRL172 (killed Mycobacterium vaccae) added to chemotherapy, which was associated with an increase in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, and OSE2101, which may decrease slightly the proportion of people having at least one serious treatment-related adverse event. These conclusions should be interpreted cautiously, as the very low- to moderate-certainty evidence prevents drawing solid conclusions: many vaccines were evaluated in a single study with small numbers of participants and events.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
New strategies in immunotherapy with specific antigens that trigger an anti-tumour immune response in people with lung cancer open the possibility of developing therapeutic vaccines aimed at boosting the adaptive immune response against cancer cells.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of therapeutic vaccines for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wanfang Data, and China Journal Net (CNKI) up to 22 August 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic cancer vaccine, alone or in combination with other treatments, in adults (> 18 years) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whatever the line of treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival, and serious adverse events; secondary outcomes were three- and five-year survival rates and health-related quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 10 studies with 2177 participants. The outcome analyses included only 2045 participants (1401 men and 644 women). The certainty of the evidence varied by vaccine and outcome, and ranged from moderate to very low. We report only the results for primary outcomes here. TG4010 The addition of the vector-based vaccine, TG4010, to chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy alone in first-line treatment, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05; 2 studies, 370 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may increase progression-free survival slightly (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 1 study, 222 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.19; 2 studies, 362 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidermal growth factor vaccine Epidermal growth factor vaccine, compared to best supportive care as switch maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy, may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 1 study, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.98; 2 studies, 458 participants; low-certainty evidence). hTERT (vx-001) The hTERT (vx-001) vaccine compared to placebo as maintenance treatment after first-line chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.34; 1 study, 190 participants). Racotumomab Racotumomab compared to placebo as a switch maintenance treatment post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 176 participants. It may increase overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.87). It may make little to no difference in progression-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00) and in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.18). Racotumomab versus docetaxel as switch maintenance therapy post-chemotherapy was assessed in one study with 145 participants. The study did not report hazard rates on overall survival or progression-free survival time, but the difference in median survival times was very small - less than one month. Racotumomab may result in little to no difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event compared with docetaxel (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83). Personalised peptide vaccine Personalised peptide vaccine plus docetaxel compared to docetaxel plus placebo post-chemotherapy treatment may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52) and progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.42). OSE2101 The OSE2101 vaccine compared with chemotherapy, after chemotherapy or immunotherapy, was assessed in one study with 219 participants. It may result in little to no difference in overall survival (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19). It may result in a small difference in the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99). SRL172 The SRL172 vaccine of killed Mycobacterium vaccae, added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, may result in no difference in overall survival, and may increase the proportion of people with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.43; 351 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Adding a vaccine resulted in no differences in overall survival, except for racotumomab, which showed some improvement compared to placebo, but the difference in median survival time was very small (1.4 months) and the study only included 176 participants. Regarding progression-free survival, we observed no differences between the compared treatments, except for TG4010, which may increase progression-free survival slightly. There were no differences between the compared treatments in serious treatment-related adverse events, except for SRL172 (killed Mycobacterium vaccae) added to chemotherapy, which was associated with an increase in the proportion of participants with at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, and OSE2101, which may decrease slightly the proportion of people having at least one serious treatment-related adverse event. These conclusions should be interpreted cautiously, as the very low- to moderate-certainty evidence prevents drawing solid conclusions: many vaccines were evaluated in a single study with small numbers of participants and events.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38470132
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013377.pub2
pmc: PMC10929364
doi:
Substances chimiques
Docetaxel
15H5577CQD
Vaccines
0
EGF Family of Proteins
0
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD013377Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 14;5(4):e006321
pubmed: 25872936
Curr Opin Immunol. 2014 Apr;27:16-25
pubmed: 24531241
Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 25;6:32020
pubmed: 27558285
Health Econ Rev. 2013 May 16;3(1):15
pubmed: 23680096
Immunotherapy. 2014;6(11):1221-35
pubmed: 25496336
J Immunother Cancer. 2017 Sep 19;5(1):70
pubmed: 28923084
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Aug 21;105(16):1172-87
pubmed: 23852952
Vaccine. 2017 Jan 23;35(4):577-585
pubmed: 28012777
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013 May;1284:1-5
pubmed: 23651186
Future Oncol. 2016 Feb;12(4):551-64
pubmed: 26776915
Semin Oncol. 2015 Aug;42(4):523-38
pubmed: 26320058
Lung Cancer. 2017 Apr;106:70-75
pubmed: 28285697
Qual Life Res. 2014 Apr;23(3):971-6
pubmed: 24097080
Science. 2011 Mar 25;331(6024):1565-70
pubmed: 21436444
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2016 Jan;65(1):37-45
pubmed: 26589409
J Immunother Cancer. 2017 Jan 17;5:4
pubmed: 28116088
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(2):352-7
pubmed: 24196313
World J Clin Oncol. 2018 Nov 10;9(7):140-147
pubmed: 30425939
J Immunol. 2008 Nov 1;181(9):6625-34
pubmed: 18941253
Trials. 2007 Jun 07;8:16
pubmed: 17555582
Ann Transl Med. 2016 Jul;4(14):268
pubmed: 27563655
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):33
pubmed: 28534248
CA Cancer J Clin. 1999 Mar-Apr;49(2):70-3, 65
pubmed: 11198888
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
Annu Rev Immunol. 2011;29:235-71
pubmed: 21219185
Front Immunol. 2017 Mar 13;8:269
pubmed: 28348561
Am J Clin Exp Immunol. 2016 Mar 23;5(1):1-20
pubmed: 27168951
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 10;34(26):3204-12
pubmed: 27432922
Future Oncol. 2014 Jan;10(1):91-105
pubmed: 24143916
J Immunol. 2011 Mar 15;186(6):3735-44
pubmed: 21300821