Dataset Information

Pembrolizumab monotherapy versus pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicenter retrospective trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy is a standard treatment for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. However, no study has compared the efficacies of these two regimens. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of pembrolizumab alone and in combination with chemotherapy in NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter retrospective trial involving patients with diagnosed unresectable or recurrent NSCLCs who had received pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy in the first-line setting. Patients were divided into monotherapy and combination therapy groups. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were analyzed and compared between the groups. Clinical characteristics of patients were analyzed to assess their possible relationship with treatment outcomes.

Results

We enrolled 96 patients from five hospitals. Of these, 47 and 49 patients received monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. The median PFS was 343 and 328 days in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.003, p = 0.99). No statistically significant differences were observed in the OS and RR between the two groups. However, in patients with metastases to the liver, lung, adrenal glands, bone, or lymph nodes, the PFS was longer in the monotherapy group than in the combination therapy group.

Conclusion

Although the PFS, OS, and RR were not significantly different between patients treated with pembrolizumab alone and or with pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy, patients with NSCLC having metastases to specific sites may benefit more from monotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Matsumoto H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8758435 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (Pembro+Chemo) versus pembrolizumab monotherapy (Pembro) as the first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1expression ≥50%, respectively, from a US health care perspective. Material and Methods A comprehensive Makrov model were designed to compare the health costs and outcomes associated with first-line Pembro+Chemo and first-line Pembro over a 20-years time horizon. Health states consisted of three main states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death, among which the PFS health state was divided into two substates: PFS while receiving first-line therapy and PFS with discontinued first-line therapy. Two scenario analyses were performed to explore satisfactory long-term survival modeling. Results In base case analysis, for non-squamous NSCLC patients, Pembro+Chemo was associated with a significantly longer life expectancy [3.24 vs 2.16 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and a substantially greater healthcare cost ($341,237 vs $159,055) compared with Pembro, resulting in an ICER of $169,335/QALY; for squamous NSCLC patients, Pembro+Chemo was associated with a slightly extended life expectancy of 0.22 QALYs and a marginal incremental cost of $3,449 compared with Pembro, resulting in an ICER of $15,613/QALY. Our results were particularly sensitive to parameters that determine QALYs. The first scenario analysis yielded lower ICERs than our base case results. The second scenario analysis founded Pembro+Chemo was dominated by Pembro. Conclusion For metastatic non-squamous NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, first-line Pembro+Chemo was not cost-effective when compared with first-line Pembro. In contrast, for the squamous NSCLC patient population, our results supported the first-line Pembro+Chemo as a cost-effective treatment. Although there are multiple approaches that are used for extrapolating long-term survival, the optimal method has yet to be determined.