Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients with Advanced Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Real-World: Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Simple Summary

The benefit of programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) immunotherapy, particularly of nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, in the second-line setting of patients with non-small cell lung cancer has been documented in randomized clinical trials, showing improvements in global survival and in the overall response rate. Nevertheless, patients enrolled in these studies met strict eligibility criteria, allowing for the treatment of patients that do not reflect the broader oncology patient population. Experiences from real-world data are useful in providing further evidence of the benefit of treatment in a wider range of patients, including those underrepresented in clinical trials. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated in everyday practice with these drugs as the second line, and more generally with immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), showing that the efficacy and safety were comparable to those in selected studies. Results may encourage to treat patients excluded from randomized studies.

Abstract

Immunotherapy based on anti PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors is the new standard of advanced non-small cell lung cancers. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab and atezolizumab are used in clinical practice. The strict eligibility criteria of clinical trials do not allow researchers to fully represent treatment effects in the patients that will ultimately use these drugs. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these drugs, and more generally of ICIs, as second-line therapy in NSCLC patients in real world practice. MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched to include original studies published between January 2015 and April 2020. A total of 32 studies was included in the meta-analysis. The overall radiological response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 21%, 52%, 3.35 months and 9.98 months, respectively. The results did not change when analysis was adjusted for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) and age. A unitary increase in the percent of patients with liver and CNS metastases reduced the occurrence of DCR by 7% (p < 0.001) and the median PFS by 2% (p = 0.010), respectively. The meta-analysis showed that the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy in everyday practice is comparable to that in clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Mencoboni M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8003199 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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

Effectiveness and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients with Advanced Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Real-World: Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Abstract

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets