Dataset Information

Addition of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors to Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to conventional chemotherapy (CT) as first-line treatment improves survival in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the relative efficacy of first-line ICIs compared with CT in patients with ES-SCLC.

Methods

Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data according to PRISMA guidelines and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models to calculate an average effect size for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety outcomes in the overall populations and clinically relevant subgroups.

Results

A literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed. Six randomized controlled clinical trials (IMpower133, CHECKMATE-451, CASPIAN, KEYNOTE-604, and phase II and III ipilimumab plus CT trials) with a total of 3757 patients were included. Compared with CT alone, ICIs plus CT showed a favourable effect on OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.79-0.96) and PFS (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.72-0.83) but a non-significant increase in the risk of experiencing any adverse event (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI 0.99-1.11). The estimated HR for OS favoured ICI combinations in all planned subgroups according to age (< 65 years/≥ 65 years), sex (men/women), and ECOG performance status (0/1). Analysis by specific ICI revealed significant improvements in OS only for atezolizumab + CT (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.09-1.69) and durvalumab + CT (HR 1.35; 95% CI 1.12-1.62) compared with CT alone.

Conclusion

Combining anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 antibodies with platinum/etoposide is a superior therapeutic approach compared to CT alone for the first-line treatment of patients with ES-SCLC.

SUBMITTER: Arriola E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9098752 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Addition of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors to Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Arriola Edurne E González-Cao María M Domine Manuel M De Castro Javier J Cobo Manuel M Bernabé Reyes R Navarro Alejandro A Sullivan Ivana I Trigo José Manuel JM Mosquera Joaquín J Crama Leonardo L Isla Dolores D

Oncology and therapy 20220115 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) to conventional chemotherapy (CT) as first-line treatment improves survival in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the relative efficacy of first-line ICIs compared with CT in patients with ES-SCLC.<h4>Methods</h4>Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data according to PRISMA guidelines and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-o ...[more]

PMID: 35032007

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of imported immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as atezolizumab and durvalumab, and domestic ICIs like serplulimab and adebrelimab, in combination with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China.MethodsUsing a 21-day cycle length and a 20-year time horizon, a Markov model was established to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of five first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, as well as against each other, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by combining the results of the CAPSTONE-1 trial and a published network meta-analysis. Cost and health state utilities were collected from multiple sources. Both cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The primary model output was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A series of sensitivity analyses were preformed to assess the robustness of the model.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, the addition of first-line ICIs to chemotherapy resulted in the ICERs ranged from $80,425.31/QALY to $812,415.46/QALY, which exceeded the willing-to-pay threshold set for the model. When comparing these first-line immunochemotherapy strategies, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had the highest QALYs of 1.51286 and the second lowest costs of $60,519.52, making it is the most cost-effective strategy. Our subgroup-level analysis yielded results that are consistent with the base-case analysis. The sensitivity analysis results confirmed the validity and reliability of the model.ConclusionIn China, the combination of fist-line ICIs plus chemotherapy were not considered cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy alone. However, when these fist-line immunochemotherapy strategies were compared with each other, first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy consistently demonstrated superiority in terms of cost-effectiveness. Reducing the cost of serplulimab per 4.5 mg/kg would be a realistic step towards making first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy more accessible and cost-effective.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China due to its high costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of the comparison between the regimens of ICIs plus chemotherapy were remained unclear yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICIs plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.MethodsA network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirect compare the clinical benefits between the ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens. A decision-analytic model was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness from the Chinese healthcare system, the clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from the clinical trials and the results of NMA. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously studies. Key outputs of the NMA were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes.ResultsFive clinical trials (IMpower133, CASPIAN, KEYNOTE-604, CA184-156, and EA5161) of 1,255 patients received first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy strategies were analyzed in the NMA. NMA showed that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher than other strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy achieved relatively higher health benefits and lower costs. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of ICIs had the substantial impact on model outcomes. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the probability of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be considered cost-effective was more than 50% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,313/QALY in China. In scenario analyses, when the price of nivolumab reduced 80%, the probability of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was more than 50%.ConclusionsThe NMA and cost-effectiveness revealed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is the most favorable first-line treatment for previously untreated ES-SCLC patients compared other ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens in China. The price reduction of nivolumab would make nivolumab plus chemotherapy be the most cost-effective option in future possible context.

Project description:Patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) have a very short survival time even if they receive standard cytotoxic chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum (EP). Several randomized controlled trials have shown that patients with ED-SCLC who received a combination of EP plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) had superior survival compared with those who received EP alone. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide a ranking of ICIs for our primary endpoints in terms of overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR), as well as our secondary endpoint in terms of adverse events. The fractional polynomial model was used to evaluate the adjusted hazard ratios for the survival indicators (OS and PFS). Treatment rank was estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), as well as the probability of being best (Prbest) reference. EP plus nivolumab, atezolizumab or durvalumab had significant benefits compared with EP alone in terms of OS (Hazard Ratio HR = 0.67, 95% Confidence Interval CI = 0.46-0.98 for nivolumab, HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54-0.91 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59-0.90 for durvalumab) but no significant differences were observed for pembrolizumab or ipilimumab. The probability of nivolumab being ranked first among all treatment arms was highest (SCURA = 78.7%, Prbest = 46.7%). All EP plus ICI combinations had a longer PFS compared with EP alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46-0.92 for nivolumab, HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.61-0.96 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65-0.94 for durvalumab, HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.92 for pembrolizumab), and nivolumab was ranked first in terms of PFS (SCURA = 85.0%, Prbest = 66.8%). In addition, nivolumab had the highest probability of grade 3-4 adverse events (SUCRA = 84.8%) in our study. We found that nivolumab had the best PFS and OS in all combinations of ICIs and EP, but nivolumab also had the highest probability of grade 3-4 adverse events in our network meta-analysis. Further head-to head large-scale phase III randomized controlled studies are needed to verify our conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundExtensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) is a highly invasive and fatal disease with limited therapeutic options and poor prognosis. Our study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with chemotherapy (ICIs+ChT) vs. chemotherapy alone (ChT) in the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC.MethodsA literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to "ICIs+ChT" vs. "ChT" in the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and other databases. RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform meta-analyses with hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR). SAS 9.4 software was applied to conduct a mixed-effect model meta-analysis of the survival outcomes and draw survival curves.ResultsA total of 2,638 patients with ES-SCLC from 6 RCTs were included, of which 1,341 patients received "ICIs+ChT" and 1,297 received ChT. Based on the meta-analysis results provided by the mixed-effect model, patients receiving the "ICIs+ChT" regimen had a significantly longer overall survival (OS, HR = 0.800, 95% CI = 0.731-0.876, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (PFS, HR = 0.815, 95% CI = 0.757-0.878, P <0.001) in comparison to those receiving ChT only. Compared with ChT, "ICIs+ChT" did neither improve the objective response rate (ORR, RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12, P = 0.06) nor did it improve the disease control rate (DCR, RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.92-1.03, P = 0.35). Although the incidence of grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) in the "ICIs+ChT" subgroup did not increase (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.97-1.39, P = 0.11), the incidence of grade 3 to 5 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) increased significantly (RR = 4.29, 95% CI = 1.73-10.61, P < 0.00001).ConclusionICIs+ChT regimen could significantly prolong OS and PFS in patients with ES-SCLC compared with ChT alone. Although the incidence of irAEs in "ICIs+ChT" is higher than that in the "ChT" subgroup, the incidence of trAEs is similar within the two subgroups. ICIs combined with chemotherapy demonstrated a good choice as first-line treatment for ES-SCLC.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier: CRD42022348496.

Dataset Information

Addition of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors to Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Addition of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors to Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets