Dataset Information

Indirect comparison between immunotherapy alone and immunotherapy plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment for advanced (stage IIIB/IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. Clinical trials comparing single-drug immunotherapy (IO) with immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (IC) are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy of IO alone with that of IC as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase for related studies on NSCLC; ClinicalTrials.gov, American Society of Clinical Oncology Meeting Library and World Conference on Lung Cancer for relevant conference abstracts (to July 2019).

Eligibility criteria

Articles meeting the following criteria were selected: (1) randomised controlled trials on NSCLC treatment, (2) all individuals in the studies had not received treatment previously and (3) research on IO monotherapy using programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors or IC.

Data extraction and synthesis

After reading the original literature, two reviewers independently extracted the relevant information. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). We also extracted data on treatment-related adverse events and immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

Results

Overall, 10 randomised controlled clinical trials (n=5765) were included. As first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC, IC tended to yield better PFS, OS and ORR than did IO. Furthermore, IC yielded significantly better PFS than IO when tumour PD-L1 expression was at least 50% (HR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.78) and yielded a better OS and PFS when tumour PD-L1 expression was at least 1%; IO resulted in fewer adverse events than did IC. However, the incidence of irAEs was higher for IO than for IC.

Conclusions

The findings of the indirect comparison indicate that IC as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC is significantly more effective than IO in patients with PD-L1 expression in at least 50% of tumour cells.

Trial registration number

CRD 42018116589.

SUBMITTER: Li L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7682470 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objective Tislelizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line option for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared with chemotherapy alone, resulted in significantly prolonged survival outcomes; however, evidence regarding its relative efficacy and cost is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with that of chemotherapy alone, from the health care perspective in China. Methods A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used for this study. The survival data were obtained from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Cost-effectiveness was defined as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Incremental net health benefits (INHB), incremental net monetary benefits (INMB), and subgroup analyses were also assessed. Sensitivity analyses were further established to assess the model stability. Results Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy increased by 0.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 1.48 life-years, and yielded an increase of $16,631 in cost per patient. The INMB and INHB were $7,510 and 0.20 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, respectively. The ICER was $26,162/QALY. The outcomes were most sensitive to the HR of OS for tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arm. The probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective was 87.66% and >50% in most of the subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $86,376/QALY, the probability achieved 99.81%. Furthermore, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective in subgroups of patients with liver metastases and PD–L1 expression ≥50% were 90.61 and 94.35%, respectively. Conclusion Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in China.

Project description:ImportanceThis study demonstrates that tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC).ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety/tolerability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for patients with advanced sq-NSCLC.Design, setting, and participantsThis open-label, randomized phase 3 clinical trial was conducted at 46 sites in China between July 2018 and June 2019 and included patients with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV sq-NSCLC. The data cutoff for these analyses was December 6, 2019; data extraction occurred on January 7, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 1 of the following regimens intravenously on a 21-day cycle: tislelizumab (200 mg, day 1) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m2, day 1) and carboplatin (area under the concentration of 5, day 1) (arm A); tislelizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (100 mg/m2, days 1, 8, and 15) and carboplatin (arm B); and paclitaxel and carboplatin (arm C). Patients were stratified by disease stage and tumor programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (<1% vs 1%-49% vs ≥50%).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). Secondary end points included overall survival, investigator-assessed (INV) PFS, IRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR), and IRC-assessed duration of response, as well as the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs).ResultsOverall, 355 patients (median [range] age, 62 [34-74] years; 330 men [91.7%]) with sq-NSCLC received treatment. After a median study follow-up of 8.6 months (95% CI, 8.1-9.0 months), IRC-assessed PFS was significantly improved with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (arm A, 7.6 months; arm B, 7.6 months) vs chemotherapy alone (arm C, 5.5 months; hazard ratios were 0.524 (95% CI, 0.370-0.742; P < .001 [A vs C]) and 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.679; P < .001 [B vs C]). Higher IRC-assessed ORR and longer IRC-assessed duration of response were observed in arms A (72.5%; 8.2 months) and B (74.8%; 8.6 months) vs C (49.6%; 4.2 months). No association was observed between PD-L1 expression and IRC-assessed PFS or ORR. Discontinuation of any treatment because of AEs was reported in 15 (12.5%; arm A), 35 (29.7%; arm B), and 18 (15.4%; arm C) patients. In each arm, the most common grade of 3 or greater AE was decreased neutrophil levels, which aligned with known chemotherapy toxic effects. Six treatment-related AEs leading to death occurred; however, no deaths were solely attributed to tislelizumab.Conclusions and relevanceIn this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, adding tislelizumab to chemotherapy was associated with significantly prolonged IRC-assessed PFS, higher IRC-assessed ORRs, and a manageable safety/tolerability profile in patients with advanced sq-NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03594747.

Project description:BackgroundTo further characterize survival benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, we report updated data from the phase III CheckMate 9LA trial with a 2-year minimum follow-up.Patients and methodsAdult patients were treatment naïve, with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with two cycles of chemotherapy, or four cycles of chemotherapy. Updated efficacy and safety outcomes are reported, along with progression-free survival (PFS) after next line of treatment (PFS2), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) by treatment cycle, and efficacy outcomes in patients who discontinued all treatment components in the experimental arm due to TRAEs.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 30.7 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy. Median OS was 15.8 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.86)]; 2-year OS rate was 38% versus 26%. Two-year PFS rate was 20% versus 8%. ORR was 38% versus 25%, respectively; 34% versus 12% of all responses were ongoing at 2 years. Median PFS2 was 13.9 versus 8.7 months. Improved efficacy outcomes in the experimental versus control arm were observed across most subgroups, including by programmed death-ligand 1 and histology. No new safety signals were observed; onset of grade 3/4 TRAEs was mostly observed during the first two treatment cycles in the experimental arm. In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy treatment due to TRAEs (n = 61) median OS was 27.5 months; 56% of responders had an ongoing response ≥1 year after discontinuation.ConclusionsWith a 2-year minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided durable efficacy benefits over chemotherapy with a manageable safety profile and remains an efficacious first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.