Dataset Information

The Predictive Value of Clinical and Molecular Characteristics or Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with different clinical and molecular characteristics such as age, sex, histological type, performance status (PS), smoking status, driver mutations, metastatic site, region and number of prior systemic regimens.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases to identify qualified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

A total of 19 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. ICI-based therapy significantly improved OS compared with non-ICI therapy in patients aged <65 years (HR, 0.74; P<0.00001), 65-74 years (HR, 0.73; P<0.00001), receiving first-line (HR, 0.75; P<0.00001) or second-line (HR, 0.72; P<0.00001) treatment, current or previous smokers (HR, 0.76; P<0.00001), and EGFR wild-type patients (HR, 0.76; P<0.00001), but not in patients aged ≥75 years (HR, 0.91; P=0.50), receiving third-line treatment (HR, 0.93; P=0.55), never smokers (HR, 0.84; P=0.10), or EGFR mutant patients (HR, 0.99; P=0.92). No statistical OS improvement was observed in KRAS mutant (HR, 0.68; P=0.05) or KRAS wild-type (HR, 0.95; P=0.65) patients. Immunotherapy improved OS in NSCLC patients, regardless of sex (male or female), histological type (squamous or non-squamous NSCLC), PS (0 or 1), metastatic site (brain or liver metastases), and region (East Asia or America/Europe) (all P<0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit of ICIs in patients with brain metastases was observed in first-line combination therapy (P<0.05), but not in second or more line monotherapy (P>0.05). Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors significantly prolonged OS in patients with liver metastases compared with non-ICI therapy (P=0.0007), but PD-L1 inhibitors did not (P=0.35). Similar results were observed in the combined analysis of PFS.

Conclusions

Age, smoking status, EGFR mutation status, and number of prior systemic regimens predicted the efficacy of immunotherapy. While sex, histological type, PS 0 or 1, KRAS mutation status and region were not associated with the efficacy of ICIs. Patients with liver metastases benefited from anti-PD-1-based therapy, and those with brain metastases benefited from first-line ICI-based combination therapy.

Systematic review registration

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020206062.

SUBMITTER: Xu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8453160 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, we have observed the pivotal role of immunotherapy in improving survival for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the effectiveness of immunotherapy in the perioperative (neoadjuvant + adjuvant) treatment of resectable NSCLC remains uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of its antitumor efficacy and adverse effects (AEs) by pooling data from the KEYNOTE-671, NADIM II, and AEGEAN clinical trials.MethodsFor eligible studies, we searched seven databases. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) pertaining to the comparative analysis of combination neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative immunotherapy (PIO) versus perioperative placebo (PP) were included. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Secondary endpoints encompassed drug responses, AEs, and surgical outcomes.ResultsThree RCTs (KEYNOTE-671, NADIM II, and AEGEAN) were included in the final analysis. PIO group (neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative immunotherapy) exhibited superior efficacy in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.63 [0.49-0.81]), EFS (HR: 0.61 [0.52, 0.72]), objective response rate (risk ratio [RR]: 2.21 [1.91, 2.54]), pathological complete response (RR: 4.36 [3.04, 6.25]), major pathological response (RR: 2.79 [2.25, 3.46]), R0 resection rate (RR: 1.13 [1.00, 1.26]) and rate of adjuvant treatment (RR: 1.08 [1.01, 1.15]) compared with PP group (neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus perioperative placebo). In the subgroup analysis, EFS tended to favor the PIO group in almost all subgroups. BMI (>25), T stage (IV), N stage (N1-N2) and pathological response (with pathological complete response) were favorable factors in the PIO group. In the safety assessment, the PIO group exhibited higher rates of serious AEs (28.96% vs. 23.51%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (12.84% vs. 5.81%). Meanwhile, although total adverse events, grade 3-5 adverse events, and fatal adverse events tended to favor the PP group, the differences were not statistically significant.ConclusionPIO appears to be superior to PP for resectable stage II-III NSCLC, demonstrating enhanced survival and pathological responses. However, its elevated adverse event (AE) rate warrants careful consideration.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42023487475.

Project description:A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the therapeutic value of yoga interventions. This bibliometric analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the characteristics of the totality of available randomized yoga trials.All RCTs of yoga were eligible. Medline/PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, IndMED, and the tables of content of yoga specialty journals not listed in medical databases were screened through February 2014. Bibliometric data, data on participants, and intervention were extracted and analyzed descriptively.Published between 1975 and 2014, a total of 366 papers were included, reporting 312 RCTs from 23 different countries with 22,548 participants. The median study sample size was 59 (range 8-410, interquartile range?=?31, 93). Two hundred sixty-four RCTs (84.6%) were conducted with adults, 105 (33.7%) with older adults and 31 (9.9%) with children. Eighty-four RCTs (26.9%) were conducted with healthy participants. Other trials enrolled patients with one of 63 varied medical conditions; the most common being breast cancer (17 RCTs, 5.4%), depression (14 RCTs, 4.5%), asthma (14 RCTs, 4.5%) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (13 RCTs, 4.2%). Whilst 119 RCTs (38.1%) did not define the style of yoga used, 35 RCTs (11.2%) used Hatha yoga and 30 RCTs (9.6%) yoga breathing. The remaining 128 RCTs (41.0%) used 46 varied yoga styles, with a median intervention length of 9 weeks (range 1 day to 1 year; interquartile range?=?5, 12). Two hundred and forty-four RCTs (78.2%) used yoga postures, 232 RCTs (74.4%) used breath control, 153 RCTs (49.0%) used meditation and 32 RCTs (10.3%) used philosophy lectures. One hundred and seventy-four RCTs (55.6%) compared yoga with no specific treatment; 21 varied control interventions were used in the remaining RCTs.This bibliometric analysis presents the most complete up-to-date overview on published randomized yoga trials. While the available research evidence is sparse for most conditions, there was a marked increase in published RCTs in recent years.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of angiogenesis inhibitors for the treatment of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) via meta-analysis.MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to look for eligible studies through February 1, 2016. RCTs comprising angiogenesis inhibitors and nonangiogenesis inhibitors for SCLC patients were investigated. The extracted data including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were summarized. In addition, the common adverse events (AEs) were also explored.ResultsThere were 7 phase II/III RCTs, encompassing 1322 SCLC patients eligible for meta-analysis. In comparison to nonangiogenesis inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors treatment was not associated with improvement of PFS [HR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.74-1.02), P = 0.09), OS [HR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.88-1.12), P = 0.91], or ORR [OR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.85-1.47), P = 0.41). Also, there was no improvement in 1-year survival rate [OR = 0.96, 95% CI (0.74-1.19), P = 0.63)], 2-year survival rate [OR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.66-1.51), P = 1.00)] or 1-year progression-free survival rates [OR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.69-1.31), P = 0.76)]. However, from subgroup analyses, it was observed that angiogenesis inhibitors improved ORR [HR = 1.66 (95% CI 1.02-2.71), P = 0.04] in phase II studies and bevacizumab improved PFS [HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.42-0.97), P = 0.04]. It is important to note that angiogenesis inhibitors reduced emesis [OR = 0.38, 95% CI (0.17-0.85), P = 0.02], but increased incidence of constipation [OR = 4.02, 95% CI (2.14-7.55), P < 0.0001) and embolism [OR = 2.24, 95% CI (1.45-3.47), P = 0.0003).ConclusionAdding angiogenesis inhibitors to chemotherapy did not improve PFS, OS, ORR, 1-year survival rate, 2-year survival rate or 1-year progression-free survival rate for SCLC. However, subgroup analysis revealed that bevacizumab enhanced PFS. Angiogenesis inhibitors also had a high incidence of constipation and embolism.