Dataset Information

Are there any ethnic differences in the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of lung cancer?

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, has revolutionized the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. However, data on ethnic differences in response to these treatments are still lacking. We reviewed the currently available clinical data on immune checkpoint inhibitors and analyzed the ethnic difference in terms of treatment efficacies and side effects. Despite different epidemiology, genetic susceptibility and molecular profiles, Asian lung cancer patients demonstrated comparable outcomes to Western patients in terms of response rates and survival benefits. The incidence of immune-related adverse events has been reported with a higher incidence in Japanese patients, but was not consistent across other Asian patient populations, and warrants further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Lee J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7399433 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are there any ethnic differences in the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of lung cancer?

Lee Jiyun J Sun Jong-Mu JM Lee Se-Hoon SH Ahn Jin Seok JS Park Keunchil K Ahn Myung-Ju MJ

Journal of thoracic disease 20200701 7

Immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, has revolutionized the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. However, data on ethnic differences in response to these treatments are still lacking. We reviewed the currently available clinical data on immune checkpoint inhibitors and analyzed the ethnic difference in terms of treatment efficacies and side effects. Despite different epidemiology, genetic susceptibility and molecular profiles, Asian lung cancer patients demonstrated compar ...[more]

PMID: 32802459

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnlotinib is a new multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and has been shown to have antitumor effects and synergistic antitumor effects with immunotherapy only in animal studies and in the 2nd-line treatment in small clinical trials. A real-world study with large sample to compare the efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with ICIs alone in the multiline treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was urgently needed.MethodsThe data of 535 advanced NSCLC patients were collected from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021. The patients were divided into 2 groups: (I) ICI monotherapy (230 patients); (II) ICI + anlotinib (305 patients). After propensity-score matching (PSM) to reduce the effects of biases and confounding variables, the progression-free survival time (PFS), occurrence of adverse events, disease control rate (DCR), and objective response rate (ORR) of the 2 groups were compared. The effects of clinical factors, including age, gender, gene mutations, tumor proportion score, metastases, and combined radiotherapy, were also analyzed.ResultsAfter PSM, the baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced and the 2 group had a good comparability. Patients in the ICI + anlotinib group had significantly longer median PFS in both the 2nd-line treatment (7.73 vs. 4.70 months; P=0.003) and 3rd-line treatment (5.90 vs. 3.37 months; P=0.020), but the difference lacked statistical significance in the 1st-line treatment (8.40 vs. 5.20 months; P=0.229). The overall median PFS of patients in the ICI + anlotinib group was also much longer than that of patients in the ICI monotherapy group (6.37 vs. 3.90 months; P<0.001). The ICI + anlotinib group also tended to have a higher DCR, a higher ORR, and a higher probability of severe adverse drug reactions during the treatment than the ICI monotherapy group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Combining ICI + anlotinib could improve the outcomes of patients with bone metastasis.ConclusionsAnlotinib + ICI therapy could have greater efficacy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC patients than ICI monotherapy. The probability of adverse events might increase in the combined treatment, but could be controlled.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the standard treatment options for advanced lung cancer. However, adverse events (AEs), particularly immune-related AEs (irAEs), caused by these drugs have aroused public attention. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the risk of AEs across different ICI-based regimens in patients with advanced lung cancer.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception to 19 April 2021) for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more treatments, with at least one ICI administered to patients with advanced lung cancer. The primary outcomes were treatment-related AEs and irAEs, including grade 1-5 and grade 3-5. The secondary outcomes were grade 1-5 and grade 3-5 irAEs in specific organs. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted for chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy, dual ICIs therapy, and dual ICIs + chemotherapy for all safety outcomes. Node-splitting analyses were performed to test inconsistencies in network. Sensitivity analyses were adopted by restricting phase III RCTs and studies that enrolled patients with non-small cell lung cancer.ResultsOverall, 38 RCTs involving 22,178 patients with advanced lung cancer were enrolled. Both pooled incidence and NMA indicated that treatments containing chemotherapy increased the risk of treatment-related AEs when compared with ICI-based regimens without chemotherapy. As for grade 1-5 irAEs, dual ICIs + chemotherapy was associated with the highest risk of irAEs (probability in ranking first: 50.5%), followed by dual-ICI therapy (probability in ranking second: 47.2%), ICI monotherapy (probability in ranking third: 80.0%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (probability in ranking fourth: 98.0%), and finally chemotherapy (probability in ranking fifth: 100.0%). In grade 3-5 irAEs, subtle differences were observed; when ranked from least safe to safest, the trend was dual ICIs therapy (60.4%), dual ICIs + chemotherapy (42.5%), ICI monotherapy (76.3%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (95.0%), and chemotherapy (100.0%). Furthermore, detailed comparisons between ICI-based options provided irAE profiles based on specific organ/system and severity.ConclusionsIn consideration of overall immune-related safety profiles, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy might be a better choice among ICI-based treatments for advanced lung cancer. The safety profiles of ICI-based treatments are various by specific irAEs and their severity.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42021268650.

Dataset Information

Are there any ethnic differences in the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of lung cancer?

Publications

Are there any ethnic differences in the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of lung cancer?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets