Dataset Information

The effect of smoking status on efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It remains uncertain whether smoking status can effect efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a meta-analysis to address this issue.

Patients and methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and international meetings were searched until April 1, 2021, for phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared ICIs with chemotherapy (CT) and reported overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) data according to smoking status. This meta-analysis was registered in INPLASY platform (#INPLASY202140025). The random-effect model was used for statistical analysis.

Findings

Twenty-eight articles from 24 RCTs including 13918 patients were eligible. ICIs significantly prolonged OS than CT in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.81), but not in never-smokers (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74-1.04); while there was no significant treatment-smoking interaction (P_interaction = 0.11). Significant heterogeneity was observed for both smokers (OS: I² = 60%, P = 0.0002; PFS: I² = 74%, P < 0.0001) and never smokers (PFS: I² = 69%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses revealed that ICIs monotherapy significantly improved OS in smokers (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.85) but not in never-smokers (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.77-1.12, P_interaction = 0.07), and treatment-smoking interaction was significant in patients with PD-L1 ≥50% (HR, 0.61 vs 1.18; P_interaction = 0.005). ICIs plus CT achieved better OS either in smokers or never-smokers (HR, 0.76 vs 0.61; P_interaction = 0.39), while dual ICIs combination prolonged OS only in smokers but never-smokers (HR, 0.68 vs 1.02; P_interaction = 0.02).

Interpretation

Either ICIs monotherapy or combination therapy was superior to CT in smokers. While ICIs monotherapy and dual ICIs combination were less effective in never-smokers, and ICIs plus CT might be the optimal selection. Nevertheless, given the limitation of the high heterogeneity of studies included, the findings need to be confirmed by future RCTs focusing on this subject.

Funding

None.

SUBMITTER: Dai L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413256 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Although smoking status has potential as a biomarker for immune checkpoint blockade in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), its clinical significance remains obscure. This meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of the smoking status on the efficacy of first-line immunotherapy and to find better treatment in never-smoker and ever-smoker patients. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database for trials comparing immunotherapy with conventional chemotherapy as front-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. Random-effects models were used to pool estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Predefined subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the difference in the efficacy between the single checkpoint blockade and checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy combination in the never-smokers and current/former smokers. Results: Twelve trials involving 6,446 patients were included in the analysis. A statistically significant overall survival benefit over conventional chemotherapy was found for both checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.85) and checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90) in the current/former smoker group. There was no subgroup difference between monotherapy and combination treatment (p=0.67). However, there was an inconsistent survival outcome in the never-smoker group; checkpoint blockade monotherapy did not show significantly better efficacy than chemotherapy alone (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.37), but combination treatment showed an overall survival benefit (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.94). A significant subgroup difference existed between monotherapy and combination therapy (p=0.04). Similarly, there was a significant difference in efficacy of monotherapy between the current/former smoker and never-smoker group (p=0.01), but the efficacy of the combination treatment was comparable between the two groups (p=0.45). Conclusion: Smoking status, which is easily available information, could be used as a guide in clinical practice to choose better treatment in the front-line setting for advanced NSCLC patients.

Project description:Background: Organ-specific response patterns reported in previous studies indicate different response toward immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with different metastatic sites. This study aims to compare the efficacy of ICIs with conventional therapy in NSCLC patients with bone, brain or liver metastases. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for studies comparing ICIs with conventional therapy in NSCLC patients with bone, brain or liver metastases. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among included studies was analyzed using the random effects model. Results: Eight studies consisting of 988 NSCLC patients were included, 259 with brain metastases and 729 with liver metastases. No available study with bone metastases information was identified. For patients with brain metastases, ICIs significantly improved their OS (HR, 0.57; P = 0.007). For patients with liver metastases, both OS (HR, 0.72; P = 0.006), and PFS (HR, 0.72; P = 0.004) improvements were observed in the ICI treatment arm. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on target of ICIs and treatment regimen. PD-1 inhibitors could benefit patients with liver or brain metastases on OS and PFS (brain metastases: OS, HR, 0.43; P < 0.001; liver metastases: PFS, HR, 0.52; P = 0.003; OS, HR, 0.66; P = 0.001), while PD-L1 inhibitors could not. Patients with brain metastases could only gain OS improvement from ICIs combined with chemotherapy (HR, 0.41; P = 0.001), but for patients with liver metastases, the benefit was detected using ICIs single agent (HR, 0.68; P = 0.012) or ICIs combined with chemotherapy plus anti-VEGF therapy (HR, 0.52; P = 0.005). Conclusion: ICIs could significantly improve OS in NSCLC patients with brain or liver metastases compared with conventional therapy. Patients with brain metastases could only gain OS benefit from ICIs combined with chemotherapy, while those with liver metastases obtained superior OS from ICIs single agent or ICIs combined with chemotherapy plus anti-VEGF therapy.