Dataset Information

Comparison of First-Line Treatments for Patients With Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Combinations of chemotherapy with immunotherapy or bevacizumab in first-line treatments of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) have been evaluated in various clinical trials. However, it remains unclear what the optimal combination regimen is.

Objective

To clarify which first-line combination regimen is associated with the best tumor response among patients with ES-SCLC.

Data sources

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to extract eligible literature from database inception to December 2019.

Study selection

Head-to-head randomized clinical trials on first-line treatments for patients with ES-SCLC were included with outcomes and toxic effects reported, including objective response rate (ORR, involving complete response and partial response), disease control rate (DCR, involving complete response, partial response, and stable disease), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) of grades 3 to 5. Of 199 eligible articles, 14 were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were independently extracted and collected by 2 reviewers based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

Main outcomes and measures

Main outcomes were OS, PFS, DCR, ORR, and TRAEs of grades 3 to 5.

Results

A total of 3 phase 2 and 11 phase 3 randomized clinical trials involving 4838 patients were included. Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor (durvalumab and atezolizumab) plus etoposide-based chemotherapy, compared with etoposide-based chemotherapy alone, showed the most favorable OS (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.09-1.80) and the best DCR (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.81). Bevacizumab plus etoposide-based chemotherapy provided the best PFS compared with etoposide-based chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.09-2.27), although this was not translated into OS benefit. The addition of PD-L1 inhibitors to etoposide-platinum chemotherapy caused no more toxic effects in general (compared with etoposide-based chemotherapy alone: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.36-2.31), while bevacizumab plus etoposide-platinum regimen induced the most TRAEs grades 3 to 5 among all first-line treatments (eg, compared with irinotecan-platinum regimen: OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.26-14.57). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value, PD-L1 inhibitor plus etoposide-platinum had the highest probability of being ranked first for OS (0.87) and DCR (0.97).

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this systematic review and network meta-analysis suggest that the combination of a PD-L1 inhibitor (durvalumab and atezolizumab) and etoposide-based chemotherapy may be an optimal first-line treatment option for patients with ES-SCLC patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhou T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7573680 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOur goal was to organize the data from randomized controlled trials that evaluated first-line chemotherapy for chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).MethodsThe protocol following PRISMA methodology was submitted as PROSPERO 154049. We included individually randomized trials comparing two or more chemotherapy regimens as the first-line treatment for chemo-naïve ED-SCLC regardless of the age, sex, performance status, co-morbidities, and organ functions written in the English language since 2000. Molecular targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors were considered chemotherapy along with cytotoxic medications. We pooled the logarithm of hazard ratio (HR) and its standard error using the frequentist weighted least squares approach random-model network meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 46 eligible trials that involved 11,987 patients were included. The primary endpoint, HR of overall survival (OS, HRos) of the selected comparisons was as follows: carboplatin+amrubicin (HRos 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.96), carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab (HRos 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92), and carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.91) were compared with carboplatin+etoposide. The carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab regimen was compared with carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.97, 95% CI 0.68-1.37) and cisplatin+irinotecan regimen (HRos 0.87, 95% CI 0.58-1.31). "Selective carboplatin or cisplatin (CBDCA/CDDP)"+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91). Platinum+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with platinum+irinotecan (HRos 0.88, 95% CI 0.67-1.15). Cumulative meta-analysis suggested that platinum+irinotecan was associated with better OS than platinum+etoposide as of 2010 through 40 out of 46 trials in our review that used platinum+etoposide as a reference regimen.ConclusionPatients treated with carboplatin+amrubicin, carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab, CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide+durvalumab, and platinum+irinotecan showed better HRos than those treated with platinum+etoposide, one of the standard regimens.

Project description:IntroductionMany randomized controlled trials have indicated that immuno-chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits, though the cost of immuno-chemotherapy was so prohibitive and the options were varied. This investigation aimed at evaluating effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for immuno-chemotherapy as a first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC patients.MethodsMultiple scientific literature repositories were searched for clinical studies where immuno-chemotherapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC, which were published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 30, 2021. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based upon US-resident payer perspectives. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through NMA. In addition, costings, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated by CEA.ResultsWe identified 200 relevant search records, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2,793 patients) were included. NMA demonstrated that the effect of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was ranked at a more elevated position in comparison to other immuno-chemotherapy options and chemotherapy alone, within the general population. The influence of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher within populations experiencing non-brain metastases (NBMs) andbrain metastases (BMs), respectively. The CEA revealed that the ICERs of immuno-chemotherapy over chemotherapyalone were higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in any population. However, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy were more favorable health advantages than other immuno-chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, and the results were 1.02 QALYs and 0.89 QALYs within overall populations and populations with BMs, respectively.ConclusionThe NMA and cost-effectiveness investigation demonstrated that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be an optimal first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC when compared with other immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be the most favorable first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC with BMs.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) including atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab have reported their efficacy and safety profile in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, given the diverse efficacy and inconsistent safety among the ICIs, with the absence of head-to-head researches designed to evaluate the efficacy among them, it might bring with confusion on selection in clinical practice.ObjectivesThe present systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to conduct indirect comparisons on efficacy and safety profile among ICIs, including atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab as first-line treatment in patients with ES-SCLC.DesignSeveral databases were retrieved with established criteria until June 20, 2020, with the main MeSH Terms and their similarities. Hazard ratios of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), odds ratios (ORs) of disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared indirectly with network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane library, and Embase.Eligibility criteriaProspective, randomized, controlled clinical studies, which reported PFS, OS, and AEs.Data extraction and synthesisClinical characteristics were extracted by the 2 authors independently. Comparisons of HRs were calculated for PFS and OS by random effect model. ORR, DCR, and AEs were presented with ORs. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve, and forest plots, efficacy and safety of the treatments were ranked, with predicted histogram described.ResultsIn total, there were 4 studies including 1547 patients who met the eligibility criteria and enrolled. For indirect comparisons, no significant difference on PFS was observed between atezolizumab and durvalumab (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.72-1.29), or between atezolizumab and pembrolizumab (HR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.78-1.43), or between atezolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.18, 95% CI, 0.79-1.79), or between durvalumab and pembrolizumab (HR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.84-1.43). or between durvalumab and nivolumab (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.83-1.82), or between pembrolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI, 0.76-1.66), nor significant difference on OS observed between atezolizumab and durvalumab (HR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.67-1.30), or between atezolizumab and pembrolizumab (HR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.62-1.24), or between atezolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.66-1.66), or between durvalumab and pembrolizumab (HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.25), or between durvalumab and nivolumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI, 0.73-1.71), or between pembrolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.19, 95% CI, 0.77-1.84). However, durvalumab was shown statistical superiority on ORR when compared with atezolizumab (HR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.64-0.98), also with significantly higher risk on immune-related AEs when compared with atezolizumab (OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.10-0.50), and pembrolizumab (OR 3.12, 95% CI, 1.27-7.64).ConclusionsResults of the study revealed that there was no statistical difference on PFS or OS among agents of atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab as first-line treatment in patients with ES-SCLC. However, durvalumab was shown superiority on ORR when compared with atezolizumab, also with significantly higher risk on immune-related AEs.

Project description:ObjectiveIn recent years, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC), but the optimal combination of ICI and standard chemotherapy strategy is yet to be established. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to identify which first-line combination strategy is optimal for patients with ES-SCLC.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the proceedings of international conferences, including American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 31, 2022. The collected primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).ResultsOur NMA study included six phase 3 and three phase 2 RCTs including 4037 patients and 10 first-line regimens. Regarding effectiveness, the addition of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors to standard chemotherapy provided greater efficacy than chemotherapy alone. However, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 inhibitors were not associated with satisfactory prognoses. Serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide (vs. standard chemotherapy, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.49-0.82) and nivolumab plus platinum-etoposide (HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.91) displayed the greatest benefit regarding OS. In terms of PFS, serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide yielded the best benefit of all treatments (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.39-0.6). The combination of ICIs and chemotherapy caused more toxicity in general, but durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (odds ratio [OR] = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.68-1.4), atezolizumab plus carboplatin-etoposide (OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.68-1.6), and adebrelimab plus platinum-etoposide (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.52-2) displayed similar safety as standard chemotherapy. Subgroup analysis by race illustrated that serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide was associated with the best OS in Asian patients. And in non-Asian patients, the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and durvalumab and tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide) displayed superiority to standard chemotherapy.ConclusionsThe results of our NMA study suggested that serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide and nivolumab plus platinum-etoposide are associated with the best OS as first-line treatments for patients with ES-SCLC. Serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide was associated with the best PFS. In Asian patients, serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide had the best OS.Systematic review registrationThis study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022345850.

Project description:Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the United States (US). Methods: The three health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the IMpower133 trial. The parametric survival model and mixture cure model were used for the atezolizumab + chemotherapy group to explore the long-term uncertainty of the effect of immunotherapy, and the parametric survival model was used for the chemotherapy group. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from previous studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability. Results: If the mixture cure model was considered for the intervention group, compared with chemotherapy alone, atezolizumab + chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.11 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of US$84,257. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was US$785,848/QALY. If the parametric survival model was considered for the intervention group, atezolizumab + chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.10 QALYs, with an incremental cost of US$84,257; the ICUR was US$827,610/QALY. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, progression-free (PF) and postprogression (PP) utilities were the main drivers. In the scenario analysis (PF utility = 0.673, PP utility = 0.473), the results showed that the ICUR was US$910,557/QALY and US$965,607/QALY when the mixture cure model and parametric survival model was considered for the intervention group, respectively. In the PSA, the probabilities that atezolizumab + chemotherapy would not be cost-effective were 100% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was US$100,000/QALY. Conclusions: The findings of the present analysis suggest that atezolizumab + chemotherapy is not cost-effective in patients receiving first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC in the US.

Project description:BackgroundThe prognosis of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is poor. Adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) to chemotherapy may exert a synergistic effect and improve survival outcomes. However, for treatment-naive extensive-stage SCLC patients, the efficacy of immunotherapy in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains controversial.ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and risks of the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy and to assess the comparative effectiveness of different first-line treatment strategies for extensive-stage SCLC.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials studying different immunotherapeutics for patients with previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC up to Feb 16, 2020. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events.ResultsWe identified 141 published records, and 4 studies (comprising 2202 patients) were included in the analysis. Immunotherapy (including ipilimumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) plus chemotherapy was associated with better OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.93; risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00) and PFS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99) than placebo plus chemotherapy. The addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy showed similar improvement in ORR, DCR, and adverse events versus placebo plus chemotherapy. On the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) analysis, the anti-PD-L1 agent, atezolizumab, had the highest likelihood of achieving improved OS (93.4%) and PFS (95.0%).ConclusionIn the first-line setting, combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy is better than standard chemotherapy in terms of OS and PFS. Across the eligible studies, PD-L1 inhibitors might be preferred. Further explorations of more ICIs in the first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC patients should be needed.

Project description:The prevalence of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has declined in the U.S. as the prevalence of tobacco use has declined. However, a significant number of people in the U.S. are current or former smokers and are at risk of developing SCLC. Routine histological or cytological evaluation can reliably make the diagnosis of SCLC, and immunohistochemistry stains (thyroid transcription factor-1, chromogranin, synaptophysin, and CD56) can be used if there is uncertainty about the diagnosis. Rarely do patients present with SCLC amendable to surgical resection, and evaluation requires a meticulous workup for extra-thoracic metastases and invasive staging of the mediastinum. Resected patients require adjuvant chemotherapy and/or thoracic radiation therapy (TRT), and prophylactic cranial radiation (PCI) should be considered depending on the stage. For limited-stage disease, concurrent platinum-etoposide and TRT followed by PCI is the standard. Thoracic radiation therapy should be started early in treatment, and can be given twice daily to 45 Gy or once daily to 60-70 Gy. For extensive-stage disease, platinum-etoposide remains the standard first-line therapy, and the standard second-line therapy is topotecan. Preliminary studies have demonstrated the activity of immunotherapy, and the response rate is approximately 10-30% with some durable responses observed. Rovalpituzumab tesirine, an antibody drug conjugate, has shown promising activity in patients with high delta-like protein 3 tumor expression (approximately 70% of patients with SCLC). The emergence of these and other promising agents has rekindled interest in drug development in SCLC. Several ongoing trials are investigating novel agents in the first-line, maintenance, and second-line settings.Implications for practiceThis review will provide an update on the standard therapies for surgically resected limited-stage small cell lung cancer and extensive-stage small cell lung cancer that have been investigated in recent clinical trials.