Dataset Information

Feasibility and safety of PD-1/L1 inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer in front-line treatment: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of programmed death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitors in previous untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods:Eligible studies evaluating first-line anti-PD-1/L1 based regimens in advanced NSCLC patients were included. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), as well as treatment-related severe adverse events (tr-SAE) were synthesized within the Bayesian framework. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to PD-L1 expression. Results:Twelve studies including 7,490 patients and 9 treatment strategies were enrolled in this study. For the PD-L1 expression non-selective patients, all chemo-immunotherapies were significantly better than chemotherapy for prolonging OS and PFS, except for caremlizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.72) failed to show advantages for OS. In addition, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy showed better PFS than nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR =0.66). In PD-L1 ?50% patients, all immunotherapy was better than chemotherapy for OS, except for nivolumab (HR =0.83) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR =0.70). For PFS, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.39), atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.47) and pembrolizumab (HR =0.67) were significantly better than chemotherapy. In PD-L1 1-49% patients, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.52) and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.70) were better than chemotherapy for PFS. In the PD-L1 positive or negative group, all included corresponding regimens were equivalence according to OS and PFS. Conclusions:We conducted a systematic comparison of first line immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC. Chemo-immunotherapies were better than chemotherapy and mono-immunotherapies in most patients. Pembrolizumab might have better efficacy than other PD-1/L1 inhibitors.

SUBMITTER: Liang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7225152 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Feasibility and safety of PD-1/L1 inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer in front-line treatment: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Liang Hengrui H Lin Guo G Wang Wei W Huang Jun J Yang Yilin Y Lan Yuting Y Wang Runchen R Cui Fei F Hao Zhexue Z Deng Hongsheng H Zhao Shen S Cheng Bo B Xiong Shan S Li Jianfu J Li Caichen C Liu Jun J He Jianxing J Liang Wenhua W

Translational lung cancer research 20200401 2

<h4>Background</h4>This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of programmed death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitors in previous untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Eligible studies evaluating first-line anti-PD-1/L1 based regimens in advanced NSCLC patients were included. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), as well as treatment-related severe adverse events (tr- ...[more]

PMID: 32420059

Similar Datasets

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recommended as first-line treatment for late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. However, efficacy and safety comparisons between ICIs as monotherapy and ICIs with chemotherapy are lacking. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published before February 29th, 2020, with the search terms "immunotherapy" and "chemotherapy". 10 eligible trials were identified with a total of 5,956 patients. Of these patients, 3,204 received immune therapy and 2,752 received chemotherapy. PD-1 inhibitors with chemotherapy improved OS (HR 0.84, 0.77-0.92), PFS (HR 0.80, 0.75-0.85), and objective response rate (ORR) (odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 1.20-5.28) compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In contrast, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant differences in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitors as monotherapy. When patients were stratified according to PD-L1 expression level, patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%) receiving PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy had improved PFS, but not other outcomes, compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In these patients, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant difference in survival compared with PD-L1 inhibitors. In the low PD-L1 expression group (1%-49%), PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy improved OS and PFS, but no advantage was observed in PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy. When comparing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy, no significant differences were observed in the rate of immune-related adverse events (AEs). In summary, for treating patients with late-stage NSCLC, PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have improved efficacy compared with PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy, but PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have similar efficacy as PD-L1 monotherapy. Survival benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy were particularly significant in patients with low PD-L1 expression levels.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42020166678 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=166678).

Project description:Purpose: The clinical use of immunotherapies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is rapid expanding, but the equivalency of these inhibitors remains unclear. We aimed to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Knowledge, related reviews and abstracts for randomized controlled trials of five PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for patients with solid tumors before November 30th, 2018. We estimated summary hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (ORs) for grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TrAEs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random-effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42018116624). Results: Totally, 43 reports of 35 trials comprising 21261 patients were eligible for the analysis. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and durvalumab were more effective than control treatment, and no significant differences were identified in OS and PFS between any two inhibitors. Avelumab was associated with significantly inferior OS to nivolumab (HR 1.37, 95%CrI 1.05-1.78) and pembrolizumab (HR 1.33, 95%CrI 1.02-1.73), and with inferior PFS to nivolumab (HR 1.60, 95%CrI 1.03-2.51). Compared with placebo, nivolumab had increased risk of grade 3-5 TrAEs (OR 2.35, 95%CrI 1.35-4.17). Compared with standard-of-care, nivolumab (OR 0.39, 95%CrI 0.28-0.54), pembrolizumab (OR 0.43, 95%CrI 0.30-0.60), atezolizumab (OR 0.37, 95%CrI 0.21-0.64) and avelumab (OR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.12-0.48) significantly reduced grade 3-5 TrAEs. There were not significant differences in grade 3-5 TrAEs between any two inhibitors. Conclusion: This Bayesian network meta-analysis revealed that nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and durvalumab yielded equivalent survival, while avelumab was associated with unfavorable survival. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were comparable in the risk of TrAEs, and safer than conventional therapies.

Project description:BackgroundThe prognosis of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients is poor, and the standard first-line treatment for limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) is still chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy. The primary objectives of our study were to confirm the superior efficacy of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus etoposide and platinum (EP) for LS-SCLC and find crucial biomarkers.MethodsWe analyzed LS-SCLC patients from three medical centers, employing propensity score matching for group comparability. Survival outcomes were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Additionally, we conducted univariate and multivariate analyses to investigate potential predictive factors.ResultsAmong 150 patients in our study, we successfully matched 41 pairs. The median overall survival (OS) was 29.5 months in the EP + ICIs group and 20.0 months in the EP group {hazard ratio (HR) =0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-1.02], P=0.059}. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly extended in the EP + ICIs group (14.6 months), compared to the EP group (8.6 months) [HR =0.42 (95% CI: 0.28-0.63), P<0.001]. After matching, patients receiving chemo-immunotherapy had a median OS of 36.1 months, significantly surpassing those receiving chemotherapy alone (19.0 months) [HR =0.51 (95% CI: 0.28-0.93), P=0.02]. And the patients in the EP + ICIs group also had longer PFS after matching [HR =0.42 (95% CI: 0.25-0.71), P=0.001]. No significant difference in the objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) between the two groups was found (ORR: EP: 81.0%, EP + ICIs: 90.0%, P=0.14; trAEs: EP: grade 1-2, 49.3%; grade 3-4, 42.5%; EP + ICIs: grade 1-2, 40.0%; grade 3-4, 49.1%, P=0.62). The multivariate analysis presented that the history of immunotherapy [EP + PD-1 inhibitors: HR =0.33 (95% CI: 0.17-0.62), P=0.001; EP + PD-L1 inhibitors: HR =0.18 (95% CI: 0.06-0.60), P=0.005] and baseline lung immune prognostic index (LIPI) [intermediate: HR =2.22 (95% CI: 1.20-4.13), P=0.01; poor: HR =2.03 (95% CI: 0.71-5.77), P=0.18] were independent prognostic factors for PFS among all LS-SCLC cases. However, no independent prognostic factor was identified for OS.ConclusionsOur real-world data showed promising clinical efficacy and tolerable safety of first-line programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors in cases with LS-SCLC. Additionally, LIPI may serve as a valuable prognostic factor.

Project description:Background and objectiveThe programmed death 1 and ligand (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors have significantly altered therapeutic perspectives on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, their efficacy and safety are unknown since direct clinical trials have not yet been performed on them. It is also necessary to determine the economics of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors due to their high cost. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients in China with high PD-L1 expression as first-line treatment.MethodsFrom the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, we retrieved survival, progression, and safety data on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to consider PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in efficacy and safety. A Markov model with a full-lifetime horizon was adopted. Clinical and utility data were collected through the trial. The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThis study included five phase III clinical trials using four drugs: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab. The NMA demonstrated that the four drugs had similar efficacy and safety, while pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were better for than for nivolumab (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.46-0.95 and HR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.37-0.94) in progression-free survival (PFS), and the risk of a severe adverse event was higher for atezolizumab than for nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Compared with nivolumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab had QALY of 0.19, 0.38, and 0.53, respectively, which induced ICERs of $ 197,028.8/QALY, $ 111,859.0/QALY, and $ 76,182.3/QALY, respectively.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety are similar among types of PD-1/PD-L1-inhibitor monotherapy. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab appears optimal, but the other PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are not as cost-effective for the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in China.

Project description:BackgroundImmunotherapy in combination with platinum-etoposide (EP) chemotherapy has been approved as a first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, real-world (RW) data regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in ES-SCLC are lacking. We aimed to assess the differences between programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors, both in conjunction with EP chemotherapy, as first-line treatment for ES SCLC.MethodsWe conducted a real-world, multicenter, retrospective cohort, controlled study to compare the prognosis, efficacy, and safety of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in ES-SCLC patients when used along with chemotherapy. Each patient received up to six cycles of etoposide, carboplatin, or cisplatin combined with ICI drugs, including PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. The primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were the investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1).ResultsBetween January 2017 and December 2021, 194 patients with ES-SCLC from three clinical centers in a PLA general hospital were included in our study, including 93 patients in the PD-1 group and 101 patients in the PD-L1 group. At the time of data cutoff, progression-free survival in the PD-1 group (median PFS, 6.8 months; 95% CI, 5.3-8.1) was similar to that in the PD-L1 group (median PFS, 6.4 months; 95% CI, 5.5-7.5); the stratified hazard ratio for PFS was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.83-1.53; P = 0.452). The median OS was similar in the PD-1 and PD-L1 groups (15.8 m vs. 17.7 m, P = 0.566); the hazard ratio was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.62-1.30, P = 0.566). The two groups had comparable investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rates (ORR) (76.3% vs. 76.2%). Adverse effect (AE)-related discontinuation occurred in 4 (4.3%) patients in the PD-1 group and 2 (2.0%) patients in the PD-L1 group. Deaths due to AEs of any cause occurred in 2 (2.2%) patients in the PD-1 inhibitor group and 1 (1.0%) patient in the PD-L1 inhibitor group.ConclusionsOur research revealed that there were no significant differences in efficacy or prognosis between PD-1 inhibitor + EP chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitor + EP chemotherapy. The two groups seemed to have comparable safety profiles, but the number of discontinuation or death events was too small to draw a firm conclusion.

Dataset Information

Feasibility and safety of PD-1/L1 inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer in front-line treatment: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Publications

Feasibility and safety of PD-1/L1 inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer in front-line treatment: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets