Dataset Information

Comparative beneficiary effects of immunotherapy against chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC: Meta-analysis and systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men and it is the third ranked in women. There are two major types of lung cancer, namely, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), which accounts for ~20% of the cases, and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which is the most common. Chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy have been used as the first-line therapies but suffer from lack of efficacy and also of several toxic adverse effects. Immunotherapeutic approaches including tumor antigen vaccination, monoclonal antibodies targeting checkpoint pathways and also activated immune cells are being developed and have been shown to be effective in treating NSCLC. Despite their promise, efficacy of several immunotherapies has not been consistent. We undertook this meta-analysis study to analyze results from clinical trials that compared efficacy and safety of immunotherapies with placebo or chemotherapy/radiotherapy in improving overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of NSCLC patients. Various databases were searched to identify randomized clinical studies examining the efficacy and safety of antibody- and vaccine-based immunotherapies in NSCLC patients in comparison to chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or placebo. Effects on OS and PFS and also adverse events have been compared. In accordance with the selection criteria, a total of 13 studies with 3,513 patients in immunotherapy and 3,072 patients in chemotherapy/placebo, were selected. PFS (odds ratio 1.81, 95% CI 1.36, 2.42; P<0.0001) and OS (P<0.0001) are found to be greatly improved by immunotherapies. Immunotherapy of NSCLC patients was also found to prevent several adverse effects and to improve daily living ability of the patients. The present meta-analysis strongly suggests that immunotherapy improves OS and PFS of patients with NSCLC.

SUBMITTER: Yu DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5529907 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Numerous studies have indicated that some Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) might have a beneficial treatment effect when used in combination with chemotherapy. However, the results of these studies have been inconsistent. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of different CHIs combined with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) regimen chemotherapy with that of GP regimen chemotherapy alone in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Eight databases were systematically searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from the date of inception of the database to August 11, 2021. The primary outcome measures were the objective response rate (ORR) and adverse reactions (including nausea and vomiting, and leukopenia). The secondary outcome measures were median survival time (MST) and quality of life (QOL). The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Standard pair-wise and Bayesian NMAs were carried out to compare the effectiveness and safety of different CHIs combined with GP regimen chemotherapy using WinBUGS 14 and Stata 15.1 software. Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test were also performed to check robust. Results: A total of 92 eligible RCTs involving 7,728 patients and 10 CHIs were included. The results showed that Kangai injection (KAI), Kanglaite injection (KLT), Aidi injection and Compound Kushen (CKSI) injection displayed obvious advantages in both efficacy and safety. Aidi+GP (79.0%) showed great advantages of ORR, and KAI+GP and KLT+GP had the lowest probability in terms of leukopenia (4.4%) and nausea and vomiting (24.2%). Besides, KLT+GP was shown to positively affect MST. According to the subgroup analyses, CHIs might have a limited effect in reducing adverse reactions, and have a similar effect in squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: KAI+GP of adjuvant drugs, Aidi+GP and CKSI+GP of anticancer drugs appeared to be the advantageous treatment options for patients with advanced NSCLC, owing to its superior therapeutic performance and reduced adverse reactions. KLT+GP might prolong survival. Nevertheless, additional results from multicenter trials and high-quality studies will be pivotal in supporting our findings.

Project description:BackgroundBoth intermittent intravenous (IIV) infusion and continuous intravenous (CIV) infusion of Endostar are widely used for NSCLC in China. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CIV of Endostar versus IIV in combination with first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsRCTs, NRCTs and cohort studies which compared CIV of Endostar with IIV in advanced NSCLC patients and reported efficacy or safety outcomes were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis for short-term efficacy and safety outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes.ResultsFinally nine studies involving 597 patients were included, containing two RCTs, three NRCTs and four cohort studies. For short-term efficacy, moderate quality of evidence showed that there were no significant differences between CIV of Endostar and IIV in objective response rate (ORR; RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91-1.98, P = 0.14) and disease control rate (DCR; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.94-1.30, P = 0.21). Very low quality of evidence indicated that CIV of Endostar significantly improved both overall survival (OS; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.99, P = 0.046) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.93, P = 0.01) compared with IIV. As for safety outcomes, moderate quality of evidence found that CIV of Endostar significantly reduced the risk of myelosuppression (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96, P = 0.03) and cardiovascular toxicity (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.78, P = 0.02) compared with IIV.ConclusionsIn advanced NSCLC, compared with IIV, CIV of Endostar had similar short-term efficacy, and substantially lower risk of myelosuppression and cardiovascular toxicity. Although very low quality of evidence supported the survival benefit of CIV compared with IIV, large RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate survival benefits. Caution should be given for off-label use of CIV of Endostar.

Project description:BackgroundAdvanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.ResultsThe search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.ConclusionsIn the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required.

Dataset Information

Comparative beneficiary effects of immunotherapy against chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC: Meta-analysis and systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets