Dataset Information

The landscape of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) therapy has resulted in significant survival benefits in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without increasing toxicity. However, the utilisation of immunotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains unclear, with a scarcity of systematic comparisons of therapeutic effects and safety of immunotherapy in these two major lung cancer subtypes. Herein, we aimed to provide a comprehensive landscape of immunotherapy and systematically review its specific efficacy and safety in advanced lung cancer, accounting for histological types.

Methods

We identified studies assessing immunotherapy for lung cancer with predefined endpoints, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAE), from PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane library. A random-effects or fixed-effect model was adopted according to different settings.

Results

Overall, 38 trials with 20,173 patients with lung cancer were included in this study. ICI therapy resulted in a significantly prolonged survival in both patients with NSCLC and SCLC when compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.79] and [HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90], respectively). The magnitude of disease control and survival benefits appeared superior with ICI plus standard of care (SOC) when compared with SOC alone. OS and PFS advantages were observed only when immunotherapy was employed as the first-line treatment in patients with SCLC.

Conclusion

ICI therapy is a promising therapeutic option in patients with NSCLC and SCLC. ICI plus SOC can be recommended as the optimal first-line treatment for patients with SCLC, and double-target ICIs combined with SOC are recommended in patients with NSCLC as both the first and subsequent lines of treatment. Additionally, non-first-line immunotherapy is not recommended in patients with SCLC.

SUBMITTER: Wang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8403352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have dramatically changed the first-line treatment pattern of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without driver gene alterations. However, the optimal choice for second-line treatment after initial treatment with ICIs is unclear. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of ICI rechallenge therapy in locally advanced and advanced NSCLC.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the histories of 224 patients with locally advanced or advanced NSCLC treated with programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy and/or antiangiogenic therapy in first-line treatment. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) was the time from the first defined progress disease (PD) to the second disease progression or death. Efficacy evaluation was performed directly in accordance with RECIST v1.1 criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were graded following the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. Survival data were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method or Cox survival regression model and compared using the log-rank test in overall cohort and other subgroups.ResultsThere were no significant differences in objective response rate (ORR) and median PFS2 (mPFS2) between the ICI rechallenge group and non-rechallenge group (ORR: 10.3% vs. 15.3%, P=0.308; mPFS2: 5.33 vs. 4.40 months, P=0.715). And the ICI rechallenge group showed no new safety signals compared with non-rechallenge group. In ICI rechallenge group, patients resistant to first-line immunotherapy had a lower ORR and shorter PFS2 compared with those who responded to initial ICIs treatment (ORR: 7.0% vs. 17.6%, P=0.038; mPFS2: 3.68 vs. 5.91 months, P=0.014). No significant difference in mPFS2 was observed among different second-line treatment groups (P=0.362). Radiotherapy in second-line treatment and ICI rechallenge therapy were not the main factors affecting PFS2.ConclusionsICI rechallenge therapy beyond disease progression did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with NSCLC, but no new safety signals emerged. However, patients with favorable response to initial ICIs treatment still showed significant efficacy of subsequent ICI rechallenge therapy.

Project description:ImportanceHigh body mass index (BMI) is independently associated with overall survival benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with melanoma, yet whether BMI is associated with outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab remains unknown.ObjectiveTo examine whether BMI is associated with survival outcomes and adverse events in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with atezolizumab.Design, setting, and participantsA pooled analysis of individual patient-level data from 4 international, multicenter clinical trials was performed. Two were single-arm phase 2 trials (BIRCH [data cutoff of May 28, 2015] and FIR [data cutoff of January 7, 2015]), and 2 were 2-arm randomized clinical trials (POPLAR [phase 2; data cutoff of May 8, 2015] and OAK [phase 3; data cutoff of July 7, 2016]). Patients with advanced NSCLC previously untreated or treated with at least 1 line of systemic therapy, with measurable disease and good organ function and without contraindications for chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, were included in these trials. Data analyses were performed from February 28, 2019, to September 30, 2019.InterventionsThe control group was treated with docetaxel once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred in POPLAR and OAK. The experimental group was treated with atezolizumab once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred in all available trials.Main outcomes and measuresAssociation between BMI and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related adverse events. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.ResultsAdequate data were available for 2110 patients from a total pool of 2261 across 4 trials. Of those 2110, 1434 patients (median age, 64 years [range, 57-70 years]; 890 men [62%]) received atezolizumab and 676 patients (median age, 63 years[range, 57-69 years]; 419 men [62%]) received docetaxel. There was a linear association between increasing BMI and OS in patients treated with atezolizumab. Obesity (BMI ≥30 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]) was associated with significantly improved OS in patients treated with atezolizumab, but not in those who received docetaxel after adjusting for confounding variables. The association between BMI and OS/PFS was the strongest in the high PD-L1 expression subgroup. Overall survival for patients with the highest category of PD-L1 expression (≥50% of tumor cells or ≥10% of tumor-infiltrating immune cells; n = 436) had hazard ratios of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.21-0.62) for the group with obesity and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.48-0.98) for the group with overweight. Patients with the highest category of PD-L1 expression had PFS hazard ratios of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.94) for the group with obesity and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.92) for the group with overweight. Treatment-related adverse events were not associated with BMI.Conclusions and relevanceHigh BMI appears to be independently associated with improved survival with atezolizumab in patients with NSCLC, raising the possibility that baseline BMI should be considered as a stratification factor in future immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy trials.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an unmet need to identify novel predictive biomarkers that enable more accurate identification of individuals who can benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. The US FDA recently approved tumor mutational burden (TMB) score of ≥ 10 mut/Mb as a threshold for pembrolizumab treatment of solid tumors. Our study aimed to test the hypothesis that specific gene mutation signature may predict the efficacy of ICI therapy more precisely than high TMB (≥ 10).MethodsWe selected 20 candidate genes that may predict for the efficacy of ICI therapy by the analysis of data from a published cohort of 350 advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Then, we compared the influences of various gene mutation signatures on the efficacy of ICI treatment. They were also compared with PD-L1 and TMB. The Kaplan-Meier method was utilized to evaluate the prognosis univariates, while selected univariates were adopted to develop a systematic nomogram.ResultsA high mutation signature, where three or more of the 20 selected genes were mutated, was associated with the significant benefits of ICI therapy. Specifically, patients with high mutation signature were confirmed to have better prognosis for ICI treatment, compared with those with wild type (the median PFS: 7.17 vs. 2.90 months, p = 0.0004, HR = 0.47 (95% [CI]:0.32-0.68); the median OS: unreached vs. 9 months, p = 1.8E-8, HR = 0.17 (95% [CI]:0.11-0.25)). Moreover, those patients with the high mutation signature achieved significant ICI treatment benefits, while there was no difference of OS and PFS between patients without the signature but TMB-H (≥ 10) and those without the signature and low TMB(< 10). Finally, we constructed a novel nomogram to evaluate the efficacy of ICI therapy.ConclusionA high mutational signature with 3 or more of the 20-gene panel could provide more accurate predictions for the outcomes of ICI therapy than TMB ≥ 10 in NSCLC patients.