Efficacy and Safety of Ipilimumab plus Chemotherapy for Advanced Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
ABSTRACT: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with poor prognosis in advanced lung cancer patients. Platinum-based chemotherapy has always been a first-line treatment for the majority of advanced lung cancer patients, but its long-term survival benefit is limited. Ipilimumab is an immune drug that targets the CTLA-4 protein in T cells. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding ipilimumab to simple chemotherapy for patients with advanced lung cancer. We searched literatures in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and cliniclatrials.gov. The primary end points of this assessment were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and immune-related PFS(irPFS) of lung cancer patients. Other end points were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. The results of this study will be presented by the risk ratio (RR) of the endpoints and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the various effect sizes. And when the p value is less than 0.05, we think there is a statistical difference. Finally, 6 RCTs and 2,037 patients including 953 with advanced or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 1084 with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) were identified. Among them, 1089 received immunochemotherapy, and 948 patients received chemotherapy alone. Immunochemotherapy can't improve OS (6months: risk ratio (RR)=0.97 P=0.11; 1year: RR=1.05 P=0.36), ORR (RR=1.00 P=0.95) and DCR (RR=0.92, 95%CI 0.85-1.00, P=0.04) of patients with lung cancer compared to pure chemotherapy, but it can improve the PFS (6months: RR=1.16 P=0.02; 1year: RR=1.39 P=0.02) and 6months-irPFS(RR=1.60 P=0.004). However, due to the addition of ipilimumab, the immune-related toxicities are more apparent in immunochemotherapy group.
Project description:Background:This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare efficacy and safety of programmed death 1/ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitors in previous untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods:Eligible studies evaluating first-line anti-PD-1/L1 based regimens in advanced NSCLC patients were included. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), as well as treatment-related severe adverse events (tr-SAE) were synthesized within the Bayesian framework. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to PD-L1 expression. Results:Twelve studies including 7,490 patients and 9 treatment strategies were enrolled in this study. For the PD-L1 expression non-selective patients, all chemo-immunotherapies were significantly better than chemotherapy for prolonging OS and PFS, except for caremlizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.72) failed to show advantages for OS. In addition, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy showed better PFS than nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR =0.66). In PD-L1 ?50% patients, all immunotherapy was better than chemotherapy for OS, except for nivolumab (HR =0.83) and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR =0.70). For PFS, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.39), atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.47) and pembrolizumab (HR =0.67) were significantly better than chemotherapy. In PD-L1 1-49% patients, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.52) and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (HR =0.70) were better than chemotherapy for PFS. In the PD-L1 positive or negative group, all included corresponding regimens were equivalence according to OS and PFS. Conclusions:We conducted a systematic comparison of first line immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC. Chemo-immunotherapies were better than chemotherapy and mono-immunotherapies in most patients. Pembrolizumab might have better efficacy than other PD-1/L1 inhibitors.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N-I) or pembrolizumab (PEM) is associated with survival improvement as chemotherapy-free, first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and positive programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). However, no direct comparison data exist between these two regimens to inform clinical decisions. Therefore, we performed indirect comparison for N-I versus PEM using frequentist methods. RESULTS:Three randomized trials (KEYNOTE-024, KEYNOTE-042, and CheckMate 227) involving 2372 patients were included. For patients with tumor PD-L1 level of ?1%, pooled meta-analyses showed that both N-I and PEM improved overall survival (OS) relative to chemotherapy (N-I: hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97; PEM: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.93); whereas only N-I significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (N-I: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96; PEM: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94-1.21). Neither N-I nor PEM was associated with improved objective response rate (ORR) compared with chemotherapy (N-I: relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95% CI 0.98-1.46; PEM: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.23). Indirect comparisons showed that N-I was associated with longer PFS than PEM (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95). However, N-I was not superior to PEM in terms of OS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.24) and ORR (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.89-1.52). N-I showed a less favorable toxicity profile relative to PEM (all grade adverse events: RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.17-1.40). CONCLUSIONS:N-I and PEM provide comparable OS benefit for PD-L1-positive NSCLC. N-I further improves PFS relative to PEM but at meaningful cost of toxicities.
Project description:Background The prognosis of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is poor. Adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) to chemotherapy may exert a synergistic effect and improve survival outcomes. However, for treatment-naive extensive-stage SCLC patients, the efficacy of immunotherapy in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains controversial. Objective To evaluate the benefits and risks of the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy and to assess the comparative effectiveness of different first-line treatment strategies for extensive-stage SCLC. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials studying different immunotherapeutics for patients with previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC up to Feb 16, 2020. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events. Results We identified 141 published records, and 4 studies (comprising 2202 patients) were included in the analysis. Immunotherapy (including ipilimumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) plus chemotherapy was associated with better OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–0.93; risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81–1.00) and PFS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.88; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93–0.99) than placebo plus chemotherapy. The addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy showed similar improvement in ORR, DCR, and adverse events versus placebo plus chemotherapy. On the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) analysis, the anti-PD-L1 agent, atezolizumab, had the highest likelihood of achieving improved OS (93.4%) and PFS (95.0%). Conclusion In the first-line setting, combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy is better than standard chemotherapy in terms of OS and PFS. Across the eligible studies, PD-L1 inhibitors might be preferred. Further explorations of more ICIs in the first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC patients should be needed.
Project description:We aimed to compare and rank the effects of 9 immune checkpoint inhibitor-related therapies for treating advanced melanoma.We searched Pubmed, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials of the immune checkpoint inhibitor-related treatments for advanced melanoma. Analysis was done on a Bayesian framework.Twelve trials including 5413 patients were identified. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab were significantly more efficacious for progression-free survival (PFS) than ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38, 0.50, and 0.58, respectively), ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (0.45, 0.60, and 0.70, respectively), or ipilimumab plus sargramostim (0.44, 0.57, and 0.67, respectively). Ipilimumab plus gp100 was significantly less efficacious for PFS than the remaining eight immune checkpoint inhibitor-related strategies. Pembrolizumab was significantly more efficacious than ipilimumab and ipilimumab plus gp100 (HR, 0.66, and 0.64, respectively) in improving overall survival (OS). Nivolumab significantly improved OS over tremelimumab (HR, 0.48). Ipilimumab plus sargramostim was ranked the second most effective strategy in terms of OS and well tolerated. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab showed the best profile of acceptability, with significantly less high-grade adverse events than ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR], 0.49 and 0.50, respectively), tremelimumab (0.21 and 0.21, respectively), ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (0.13 and 0.13, respectively), or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (0.15 and 0.15, respectively).Nivolumab, pembrolizumab and ipilimumab plus sargramostim might be optimum treatments for advanced melanoma because they have the most favorable balance between benefits and acceptability. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab is the most effective in prolonging PFS, but is far more toxic than nivolumab and pembrolizumab.
Project description:Pembrolizumab monotherapy has become the preferred treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and a programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 50%. However, little is known about the value of adding chemotherapy to pembrolizumab in this setting. Therefore, we performed an indirect comparison for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus pembrolizumab, using the frequentist methods. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Data were retrieved from randomized trials comparing pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy against chemotherapy. Five trials involving 1289 patients were included. Direct meta-analysis showed that both pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (ORR: relative risk (RR) 2.16; PFS: hazard ratio (HR) 0.36; OS: HR 0.51) and pembrolizumab alone (ORR: RR 1.33; PFS: HR, 0.65; OS: HR 0.67) improved clinical outcomes compared with chemotherapy. Indirect comparison showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was superior to pembrolizumab alone, in terms of ORR (RR 1.62, 1.18-2.23) and PFS (HR 0.55, 0.32-0.97). A trend towards improved OS was also observed (HR 0.76, 0.51-1.14). In conclusion, the addition of chemotherapy to pembrolizumab further improves the outcomes of patients with advanced NSCLC and a PD-L1 TPS of at least 50%.
Project description:Both chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) are widely applied for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the efficacy of these two treatments in combination is not yet clear. Thus, we sought to evaluate the efficacy of the intercalated combination of these two treatments in NSCLC. The PubMed database, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Chinese Biomedical Database were systematically searched by two researchers for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that examined the intercalated combination of chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs in NSCLC. Ten studies involving 1,660 patients were included in this systematic review. The statistical results showed that the intercalated combination of chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs significantly improved overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR)?=?0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-0.98), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR?=?0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.84), and the objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio (RR)?=?1.90, 95% CI: 1.22-2.98) compared to chemotherapy alone. Similarly, compared to EGFR TKIs monotherapy, the intercalated combination of chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs seemed superior to EGFR TKIs alone in terms of PFS, ORR and DCR (PFS: HR?=?0.75, 95% CI: 0.62-0.91, ORR: RR?=?1.49, 95% CI: 1.12-2.00 and DCR: RR?=?1.33, 95% CI: 1.15-1.54) in advanced NSCLC therapy.
Project description:Trials investigating the efficacy and safety of combining molecular targeted agent (MTA) with platinum-gemcitabine (PG) in first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have shown inconsistent findings. This meta-analysis aimed to explore whether the addition of MTAs to PG in NSCLC could provide a survival benefit with a tolerable toxicity.Web of knowledge, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies and extract data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and common grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of race and the type of MTA.Twelve trials with a total of 6143 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with PG chemotherapy, combination therapy of MTA with PG did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR]?=?0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.90-1.01) but improved PFS (HR?=?0.77, 95% CI?=?0.66-0.89) and ORR (risk ratio [RR]?=?1.33, 95% CI?=?1.11-1.60). Subanalysis indicated that there was more incidence of grade 3 or 4 rash (RR?=?11.20, 95% CI?=?6.07-20.68), anemia (RR?=?1.21, 95% CI?=?1.01-1.46), diarrhea (RR?=?2.62, 95% CI?=?1.21-5.65), and anorexia (RR?=?2.08, 95% CI?=?1.12-3.88) in combining epidermal growth factor receptor targeted therapy group compared to PG group. An increased risk of grade 3 or 4 rash (RR?=?5.08, 95% CI?=?1.53-16.79), thrombocytopenia (RR?=?1.50, 95% CI?=?1.03-2.18), and hypertension (RR?=?2.36, 95% CI?=?1.05-5.32) was observed in sorafenib combination group.The combination of PG plus MTA was superior to PG alone in terms of PFS and ORR but not in OS. The combination chemotherapy also showed a higher frequency of grade 3 or higher toxic effects in patients with advanced NSCLC than PG chemotherapy.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Immune-checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy are emerging as effective first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), but little is known about the magnitude of benefits and potential clinical predictors. METHODS:We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in first line of treatment for advanced NSCLC. The outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). A fixed-effect or random-effects model was adopted depending on between-study heterogeneity. RESULTS:Six trials involving 3144 patients were included. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy was significantly associated with improvement of PFS (hazards ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI 0.57-0.67; P?<?.001), OS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.87; P?=?.002) and ORR (relative ratio [RR], 1.56; 95% CI 1.29-1.89; P?<?.001), irrespective of PD-L1 expression level. The significant predictor(s) for treatment benefit with combination therapy versus chemotherapy alone were PD-L1 expression level for PFS (P?<?.001); types of checkpoint inhibitor for ORR (P?<?.001); histology (P?=?.025), age (P?=?.038), gender (P?<?.001), and types of checkpoint inhibitor (P?<?.001) for OS. In safety analyses, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy had significantly higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or higher (RR, 1.14; P?=?.007), AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (RR, 1.29; P?=?.022), serious AEs (RR 1.70; P?=?.006), immune mediated AEs of any grade (RR, 2.37; P?<?.001), and immune mediated AEs of grade 3 or higher (RR, 3.71; P?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS:PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy, compared with chemotherapy, is associated with significantly improved PFS, ORR, and OS in first-line therapy in NSCLC, at the expense of increased treatment-related AEs.
Project description:The combination of chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) currently has become the hotspot issue in the treatment of non-small lung cancer (NSCLC). This systematic review was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of the synchronous combination of these two treatments with EGFR TKIs or chemotherapy alone in advanced NSCLC.EMBASE, PubMed, the Central Registry of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Chinese biomedical literature database (CNKI) and meeting summaries were searched. The Phase II/III randomized controlled trials were selected by which patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive a combination of EGFR TKIs and chemotherapy by synchronous mode vs. EGFR TKIs or chemotherapy alone.A total of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 4675 patients were enrolled in the systematic review. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the synchronous combination group of chemotherapy and EGFR TKIs did not reach satisfactory results; there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR), compared with monotherapy (OS: HR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.98-1.12; TTP: HR = 0.94, 95%CI = 0.89-1.00; ORR: RR = 1.07, 95%CI = 0.98-1.17), and no significant difference in OS and progression-free survival (PFS), compared with EGFR TKIs alone (OS: HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.83-1.46; PFS: HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.67-1.10). The patients who received synchronous combined therapy presented with increased incidences of grade 3/4 anemia (RR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.10-1.79) and rash (RR = 7.43, 95% CI = 4.56-12.09), compared with chemotherapy, grade 3/4 anemia (RR = 6.71, 95% CI = 1.25-35.93) and fatigue (RR = 9.60, 95% CI = 2.28-40.86) compared with EGFR TKI monotherapy.The synchronous combination of chemotherapy and TKIs is not superior to chemotherapy or EGFR TKIs alone for the first-line treatment of NSCLC.
Project description:BACKGROUND:As an inhibitor of programmed death-1 (PD-1) protein, nivolumab has been shown to be effective in various cancers. We thus conducted this meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy of nivolumab vs docetaxel-based chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS:Relevant studies were identified through searches of databases and conference proceedings. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), drug responses, and adverse effects (AEs) were assessed as the primary endpoints. RESULTS:After screening, we included six studies (949 patients) in the final analysis. Nivolumab showed better efficacy in terms of the PFS (hazard ratios [HR]: 0.70, P = 0.03), OS (HR: 0.70, P < 0.00001), objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratios [RR]: 1.73, P = 0.0008), total AEs (RR: 0.77, P = 0.006), and grade 3-5 AEs (RR: 0.18, P < 0.00001) than docetaxel. The anti-tumor efficacy of nivolumab for NSCLC in terms of both PFS and OS was positively correlated with the level of PD-L1 expression. In the nivolumab treatment arm, the 10 most-reported AEs were fatigue (15.7%), nausea (10.8%), decreased appetite (10.3%), asthenia (9.8%), diarrhea (7.5%), rash (7.5%), arthralgia (5.4%), vomiting (4.4%), constipation (3.5%), and pyrexia (3.3%). CONCLUSIONS:For advanced NSCLC, nivolumab is a better therapy in terms of both anti-tumor efficacy and safety than docetaxel-based chemotherapy. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.