• Thorac Cancer · Apr 2019

    Meta Analysis Comparative Study

    Comparative efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Rui Chen, Xiaoming Hou, Liping Yang, and Da Zhao.
    • Department of Internal Medicine-Oncology, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
    • Thorac Cancer. 2019 Apr 1; 10 (4): 607-623.

    BackgroundNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the predominant type of lung cancer, and most clinically curable patients are diagnosed with locally advanced disease. Although the efficacy of standard platinum-based chemotherapy doublets is relatively limited. The effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains controversial, and its role in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC is obscure. Thus, we carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ICIs for advanced NSCLC.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Central Register Trial, and American Society of Clinical Oncology databases were searched from inception to 30 April 2018. We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing single-agent programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab) or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitor (ipilimumab) with chemotherapy in NSCLC patients. Progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events were pooled for meta-analysis by Review Manager (RevMan version 5.3) software.ResultsAfter exclusion of ineligible studies, 12 eligible randomized controlled trials were included. Data showed that ICIs significantly improved progression-free survival (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.77, P < 0.00001), overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.91, P = 0.003), and but not objective response rate (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.25-3.13, P = 0.004) in all unselected NSCLC populations. However, they failed to increase the OS of programmed death-ligand 1 = 1-49% subgroup (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51-1.19, P = 0.25) and PFS of programmed death-ligand 1<1% subgroup (HR 0.85; 95%CI 0.70 to 1.03, P=0.09) in ICIs+chemotherapy over chemotherapy. Meanwhile, OS of programmed death-ligand =1-49% subgroup (HR 0.92; 95%CI 0.77 to 1.10, P=0.36) and PFS of programmed death-ligand 1≥50% subgroup (HR 0.76; 95%CI 0.52 to 1.11, P=0.15) showed no significant differences in ICIs over chemotherapy. Furthermore, fewer adverse events were observed in the ICIs groups than control groups.ConclusionICIs are overall better tolerated than chemotherapy. Our results provide further evidence supporting the favorable risk/benefit ratio for ICIs.© 2019 The Authors. Thoracic Cancer published by China Lung Oncology Group and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…