Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Single and Double Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based First-Line Treatments for Advanced Driver-Gene Wild-Type Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Published
September 07, 2021
Journal
Frontiers in immunology
PICOID
7bb2c805
DOI
Citations
10
Keywords
double, first-line, immune checkpoint inhibitors, network meta-analysis, non-small cell lung cancer, single
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Xu, Zhang, Huang, Dai, Gao, Li, Sheng, Huang, Wang and Liu.
Patients/Population/Participants

advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients

Intervention

immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors ± chemotherapy (CT), double ICIs (DICI)-based treatments

Comparison

single ICI (SICI)-based treatments

Outcome

overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs)

Abstract

P
I
C
O

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival for advanced wild-type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) significantly, but few studies compared single ICI (SICI)-based treatments and double ICIs (DICI)-based treatments. We summarized the general efficacy of ICI-related treatments, compared the efficacy and safety of SICI-based [programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) or cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors ± chemotherapy (CT)] and DICI-based (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors+CTLA-4 inhibitors ± chemotherapy) treatments We included phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIB-IV driver-gene wild-type NSCLC who received first-line ICI-related therapy in at least one arm. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2020. This network meta-analysis was performed in a Bayesian framework using GEMTC and JAGS package in R.3.6.1. The research was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020184534). Twenty RCTs were involved, including 13,032 patients and 17 treatment regimens. The results showed that ICI-based therapies could provide a pooled median overall survival (mOS) (POS) of 15.79 (95% CI: 14.85-16.73) months, and there were no significant differences in OS, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs) between DICI-based treatments (POS: 14.81, 12.11-17.52 months) and SICI-based treatments (POS: 16.17, 14.59-17.74 months) in overall patients. However, DICI-based treatments had significantly prolonged the OS over SICI-based treatments in squamous and PD-L1 <1% subgroups. The ranking of OS benefit by Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) spectrum showed that DICI+chemotherapy ranked first for overall population and subgroups including squamous, non-squamous, any level of PD-L1 expression, smoking, male, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) = 0/1, age < 65/≥65 while SICI+CT for low tumor mutation burden (TMB), non-smoking, and female subgroups, and DICI for high TMB subgroups. In the first-line therapy for advanced wild-type NSCLC, both SICI- and DICI-based treatments could bring significant overall advantages over chemotherapy, with comparable outcomes of efficacy and ≥3AEs. DICI-based treatments were more effective than SICI-based treatments in squamous and PD-L1 <1% subgroups. For most populations, DICI+chemotherapy could be the best choice with a survival benefit, while SICI+chemotherapy has established its position actually. [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42020184534].

Similar article map

CEO: Hwi-yeol YunCOO: Jung-woo ChaeCTO: Sangkeun Jung
Location: 204, W6, Chungnam National University, 99, Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Tel: 042-821-7328E-mail: webmaster@lilac-co.kr
Copyright © 2024 by LiLac. All Rights Reserved.