Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Therapeutic strategies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) counteract the immunosuppressive effects of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and ligand-1 (PD-L1). ICI treatment has emerged in first- and second-line therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As immunotherapeutic treatment with ICIs is a dynamic field where new drugs and combinations are constantly evaluated, we conducted an up-to-date systematic review on comparative efficacy and safety in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods

We searched PubMed up to February 2020 and Embase, CENTRAL, and clinical trial registries up to August 2018. Additionally, we checked reference lists. We dually screened titles, abstracts and, subsequently, full-texts for eligibility. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias and graded the certainty of evidence following GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). For second-line therapy, we performed random-effects meta-analyses. Due to considerable clinical heterogeneity, we reported first-line results narratively.

Results

Of 1497 references, we identified 22 relevant publications of 16 studies. For first-line therapy, a combination of an ICI with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to chemotherapy but increased the risk of serious adverse events. Single-agent pembrolizumab increased overall and progression-free survival in patients with PD-L1 expression of ≥50% and resulted in less TRAE than chemotherapy. Compared to placebo, maintenance therapy with durvalumab increased overall and progression-free survival at the downside of higher risk of TRAE. For second-line therapy, a random-effects meta-analysis yielded a statistically significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for ICIs compared to docetaxel (HR 0.69; 95% CI: 0.63-0.75 for OS; HR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.77 - 0.93 for PFS; 6 studies, 3478 patients; median OS benefit in months: 2.4 to 4.2). In meta-analysis, risk of any treatment-related adverse events of any grade was lower for ICI than docetaxel as second-line therapy (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.73-0.79; 6 studies, 3763 patients).

Conclusion

In first-line therapy of patients with advanced NSCLC, ICI is effective when combined with chemotherapy not depending on PD-L1 expression, or as monotherapy in high PD-L1 expressing tumors. For second-line therapy, single-agent ICI improves efficacy and safety compared to docetaxel.

SUBMITTER: Wagner G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458604 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:Background and Objective: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with angiogenesis inhibitors may have synergistic effects in elderly patients with advanced driver-negative NSCLC, but its true efficacy remains unclear. In addition, chemotherapy tolerance in elderly NSCLC patients is poor, and the precise identification of the population that may benefit from ICIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors is also the focus of current research. Methods: We retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of ICIs combined with or without antiangiogenic agents in elderly patients with advanced driver-gene negative NSCLC ≥65 years of age in the Cancer Center of Suzhou Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were OS, ORR, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Results: A total of 36 patients in the IA group (immune checkpoint inhibitors plus angiogenesis inhibitors group) and 43 patients in the NIA group (immune checkpoint inhibitors without angiogenesis inhibitors group) were enrolled in the study between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. The median follow-up time for patients in the IA group and NIA group was 18.2 months (95%CI: 14 - 22.5 months) and 21.4 months (95%CI: 16.7 -26.1 months), respectively. The median PFS and median OS were longer in the IA group compared to the NIA group (8.1 months vs 5.3 months; HR for PFS: 0.778, 95%CI: 0.474-1.276, P=0.32; NA vs 30.9 months; HR for OS: 0.795, 95%CI: 0.396-1.595, P=0.519). There were no significant differences in median PFS and median OS between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that patients in the IA group had significantly longer PFS in the subgroup with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (P=0.017), and the association between different groups and disease progression was still different in the two subgroups (P for interaction = 0.002). There was no significant difference in ORR between the two groups (23.3% vs 30.5%, P=0.465). The incidence of irAEs in the IA group was lower than that in the NIA group (39.5% vs 19.4%, P=0.05), and the cumulative incidence of treatment interruptions due to irAEs was significantly reduced (P=0.045). Conclusion: In elderly patients with advanced driver-negative NSCLC, the addition of antiangiogenic agents to ICIs therapy did not provide significant clinical benefit, but the incidence of irAEs and treatment interruptions due to irAEs was significantly reduced. In the subgroup analysis, we found that the clinical benefit of this combination therapy was observed in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, which warrants further exploration.

Project description:BackgroundTo the authors' knowledge, race-based differences in efficacy for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have not been studied to date due to the underrepresentation of patients of minority backgrounds in pivotal trials. In the current study, the authors examined real-world differences in outcome in a diverse patient population.MethodsThe authors retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced NSCLC who were treated with single-agent immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) between 2013 and July 2018 at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Primary efficacy comparison between Black patients and White patients was performed using bivariate and multivariate analyses for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsData from 257 patients were analyzed. The median age of the patients was 69 years; 50.6% of the patients were female, 63.4% were White, 29.5% were Black, and 7.1% of the patients were of "other" race. ICB was the first-line treatment in 51 patients (19.9%), the second-line treatment in 161 patients (62.6%), and the third-line treatment in 33 patients (12.9%). The most commonly used agents were nivolumab (49.0%), pembrolizumab (25.2%), and atezolizumab (21.3%). No differences with regard to OS (P = .839) and PFS (P = .235) were noted between Black and White patients. The sample overall response rate was 20.6% (15.2% in Black patients and 23.1% in White patients). No differences with regard to OS (P = .081) and PFS (P = .176) were observed between female and male patients. The rate of immune-related adverse events was found to be similar in Black and White patients (20.0% vs 29.9%; P = .148). On multivariate analysis, race was not found to be significantly associated with OS or PFS.ConclusionsReal-world analysis of the authors' institutional experience demonstrated similar efficacy and tolerability of ICB in Black versus White patients with advanced NSCLC. Larger multi-institutional studies including other US minority populations would make the findings of the current study more generalizable.