Dataset Information

Best regimens for treating chemo-naive incurable squamous non-small cell lung cancer with a programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of 1%-49%: A network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. It is advisable to select the appropriate treatment based on characteristics of the cancer such as pathology, mutations, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels. In this study, by remarking squamous NSCLC with low PD-L1 expression without mutations, we investigated the efficacy and safety of regimens that included molecularly targeted drugs such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) through a network meta-analysis.

Methods

Databases were searched systematically to identify appropriate articles, in which randomized trials with incurable squamous NSCLC were described. Suitable studies were manually checked by two reviewers. A random model network meta-analysis was conducted, in which the primary outcome was the overall survival rate.

Results

We identified 48 studies, which included 16 391 patients. When a platinum + third-generation cytotoxic agent regimen (platinum regimen) was a reference, the platinum regimen + pembrolizumab (Pemb) yielded the best results in regard to the overall survival rate when compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36-0.90, p = 0.016) followed by the platinum regimen + nivolumab (Niv) + ipilimumab (Ipi) (HR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.44-0.84, p = 0.003). However, the efficacy of ICI monotherapy was not statistically different from that of the platinum regimen.

Conclusions

The combination therapies, which were the platinum regimen + Pemb and the platinum regimen + Niv + Ipi, rather than ICI monotherapy were effective first-line agents for treating squamous NSCLC with low PD-L1 levels.

SUBMITTER: Fukuda N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8720615 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although combination therapy using clarithromycin, rifampicin, and ethambutol is recommended for patients with pulmonary Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) disease, some patients do not tolerate it because of adverse effects or underlying diseases. The efficacy and safety of fluoroquinolone-containing combination regimens as an alternative remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of fluoroquinolone-containing regimens with those of the standard regimens for treating pulmonary MAC disease. METHODS:We retrospectively included consecutive MAC patients who were treated in our hospital between January 2011 and May 2019. Patients treated with fluoroquinolone-containing regimens who had relapsed after treatment with standard regimens were excluded. A propensity score analysis was conducted to reduce selection bias, and the proportions of clinical improvement, defined by chest imaging findings and sputum conversion, were compared between the fluoroquinolone-containing regimen and standard regimen groups. RESULTS:We analyzed 28 patients who received fluoroquinolone-containing regimens and 46 who received the standard regimen. Fluoroquinolone-containing regimens were more likely selected for patients with cavitary lesions, diabetes mellitus, culture negativity, a low daily physical activity level, a decreased lymphocyte count and an increased CRP level. The propensity score was calculated using these variables (C-statistic of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the propensity score: 0.807, p < 0.0001). The fluoroquinolone-containing regimens were significantly inferior to the standard regimen in clinical improvements (p = 0.002, Log-rank test) in the univariate analysis, but the significance was lost after adjusting for the propensity score (HR 0.553, 95% CI 0.285-1.074, p = 0.080). Six (21%) patients in the fluoroquinolone-containing regimen group and ten (22%) patients in the standard regimen group experienced low-grade adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS:There was no significant difference in clinical improvement between these regimens after propensity score adjustment. A large-scale prospective study is required to validate these results.