scholarly journals Sex-Based Heterogeneity in Response to Lung Cancer Immunotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (8) ◽  
pp. 772-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Conforti ◽  
Laura Pala ◽  
Vincenzo Bagnardi ◽  
Giuseppe Viale ◽  
Tommaso De Pas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Advanced Lung Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Cell Death Protein

Abstract Background We previously showed that therapy with anti–checkpoints T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti–CTLA-4) or antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (anti–PD-1) agents was more effective for men as compared with women. However, because the sex-dimorphism of the immune system is complex, involving multiple elements of immune responses, it is possible that women could derive larger benefit than men from strategies other than therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone. Here we investigated whether women could derive larger benefit than men from the combination of chemotherapy and anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Methods We performed two meta-analyses. The first included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing anti-PD1 and anti–PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy to assess different efficacy between men and women. The second included all RCTs of first-line systemic treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer testing anti–PD-1/PD-L1 given either alone or combined with chemotherapy to assess the different efficacy of these two immunotherapeutic strategies according to patients’ sex. For each RCT included in the two meta-analyses, first, a trial-specific ratio of hazard ratios (HRs) was calculated from the ratio of the reported hazard ratios in men and in women; second, these trial-specific ratios of hazard ratios were combined across trials using a random-effects model to obtain a pooled hazard ratios ratio. A pooled HRs ratio estimate lower than 1 indicates a greater treatment effect in men, and higher than 1 a greater effect in women. Results Eight RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios (OS-HRs) comparing anti–PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.87) for men and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.67) for women. The pooled ratio of the overall survival hazard ratios reported in men vs women was 1.56 (95% CI = 1.21 to 2.01), indicating a statistically significant greater effect for women. Six RCTs were included in the second meta-analysis: three tested an anti-PD-1 alone, whereas three RCTs tested anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios were 0.78 (95% CI = 0.60 to 1.00) in men and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.79 to 1.19) in women for anti–PD-1 alone, compared with 0.76 (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.91) in men and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.76) in women for anti–PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled ratio of overall survival hazard ratios was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.65 to 1.06) for anti–PD-1 alone, indicating a greater effect in men, and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.16 to 2.49) for anti–PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy, indicating a greater effect in women. Conclusion Women with advanced lung cancer derived a statistically significantly larger benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 as compared with men.

scholarly journals Association of Brain Metastases With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Efficacy in Advanced Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanning Wang ◽  
Qianning Zhang ◽  
Chuansheng Chen ◽  
Yuxuan Hu ◽  
Liyun Miao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Advanced Lung Cancer ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Hazard Ratios

BackgroundIn pivotal immunotherapy trials, the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors as treatments for lung cancer patients with brain metastases remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the relative efficacy of immunotherapy versus standard systemic therapy in advanced lung cancer patients with and without brain metastases.MethodsSystematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, and conference proceedings up to Aug 6, 2020 without year and language restrictions. The main outcomes were the overall survival in patients with and without brain metastases measured by hazard ratios, and the difference in efficacy between patients with and without brain metastases was measured by ratio of hazard ratios.ResultsNine eligible randomized controlled trials involving 6241 patients (682 [11%] with brain metastases and 5559 [89%] without brain metastases) were included in the analysis. A survival benefit of immunotherapy was observed for both patients with brain metastases (HR, 0.75; 95%CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .026) and patients without brain metastases (HR, 0.75; 95%CI, 0.67-0.83; P <.001). However, patients without brain metastases benefit more from immunotherapy than patients with brain metastases (HR, 1.37; 95%CI, 1.15-1.63; P = .001). Additionally, subgroup analyses indicated that tumor type affect the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with brain metastases (HR, 1.04 vs 1.54; interaction, P = .041).ConclusionsImmunotherapy can significantly improve overall survival for advanced lung cancer patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, especially in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, but the magnitude of benefit is brain metastases dependent.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020206597.

scholarly journals Astragalus Polysaccharide Injection (PG2) Normalizes the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Receiving Immunotherapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 153473542199525
Author(s):  
Shih Ming Tsao ◽  
Tz Chin Wu ◽  
JiZhen Chen ◽  
Feichi Chang ◽  
Thomos Tsao
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Neutrophil To Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Advanced Lung Cancer ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Astragalus Polysaccharide

Objectives: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a prognostic marker in patients with cancer receiving immunotherapy. Recent studies have shown that a high NLR was associated with a poor response and decreased survival. However, there is no intervention to reverse abnormally high NLR and improve clinical outcomes. Astragalus polysaccharide injection (PG2) is an immunomodulatory therapy for cancer-related fatigue. This study aimed to examine whether PG2 might normalize the NLR and affect the overall survival of patients with lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively examined the medical records of patients with lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) between October 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019. All patients received ICI combination chemotherapies, and some similarly received PG2 (Control vs PG2). The NLR was assessed before treatment and 6 weeks after ICI initiation, and the survival data was collected at least 4 years after treatment initiation for the first enrolled patient. Results: Fifty-three patients were included. Six weeks after ICI initiation, 91.3% of the patients in the PG2 group exhibited a predefined “Decrease or no change” in the NLR, which was 28% higher than that in the Control group (63.3%) ( P = .028). The NLR significantly decreased by 31.60% from baseline in the PG2 group ( P = .012), whereas it increased by 5.80% in the Control group ( P = .572). Six weeks after ICI treatment initiation, both groups had a median NLR of 3.73, and the overall survival was also similar (PG2 vs Control, 26.1 months vs 25.4 months, respectively); however, the PG2 group had a higher median baseline NLR than the Control group (PG2 vs Control, 4.51 vs 2.81, respectively). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that PG2 could normalize the NLR in patients with lung cancer receiving ICI combination treatments.

Safety profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 315-315
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rizzo ◽  
Giorgio Frega ◽  
Angela Dalia Ricci ◽  
Andrea Palloni ◽  
Simona Tavolari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
First Line Treatment

315 Background: Systemic treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sorafenib represents the mainstay of advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, survival outcomes remain disappointing, mostly because of the onset of acquired resistance and a suboptimal safety profile, which frequently requires treatment modifications and early discontinuation of treatment – thus, interfering with compliance and long-term outcomes of patients. With immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly expanding as a novel therapeutic option in advanced HCC, the toxicity profiles of these agents should be kept in mind. We performed a meta-analysis with the aim to compare all-grade (G) adverse drug events (ADEs) of ICIs (alone or in combination with other anticancer agents) versus sorafenib monotherapy across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment for advanced HCC. Methods: Eligible studies included RCTs comparing ICIs versus sorafenib as first-line treatment in HCC. Safety profile from each selected study was investigated for all-G most common ADEs. Outcomes of interest were as follows: pruritus, diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increase, rash, hypertension and decreased appetite. Results were compared by calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); ORs were combined with Mantel-Haenszel method. All statistical analyses were performed using R studio software. Results: Two RCTs (CheckMate 459, IMbrave 150) involving 1,228 patients were included in the analysis. Patients treated with ICIs showed higher risk of pruritus (OR 1.99, 95% CI = 1.22-3.24) while sorafenib treatment was associated with higher risk of diarrhea (OR 0.26, 95% CI = 0.18-0.37) and HFSR (OR 0.01, 95% CI = 0-0.04). Conversely, no statistically significant differences were observed in terms of fatigue (OR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.45-1.58), AST increase (OR 1.21, 95% CI = 0.78-1.88), rash (OR 0.71, 95% CI = 0.46-1.11), hypertension (OR 0.28, 95% CI = 0.01-9.76) and decreased appetite (OR 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14-1.21) between the two groups. Conclusions: Although the substantial heterogeneities affecting our analyses, ICIs appear feasible in advanced HCC, being endowed with an acceptable safety profile. Beyond activity and efficacy, careful consideration should be given to toxicity while choosing the appropriate first-line treatment in advanced HCC.

scholarly journals Systematic review of first-line chemotherapy for chemo-naïve extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592096584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Chen ◽  
Nobuyuki Horita ◽  
Kentaro Ito ◽  
Hideyuki Nagakura ◽  
Yu Hara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Weighted Least Squares ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Background: Our goal was to organize the data from randomized controlled trials that evaluated first-line chemotherapy for chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Methods: The protocol following PRISMA methodology was submitted as PROSPERO 154049. We included individually randomized trials comparing two or more chemotherapy regimens as the first-line treatment for chemo-naïve ED-SCLC regardless of the age, sex, performance status, co-morbidities, and organ functions written in the English language since 2000. Molecular targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors were considered chemotherapy along with cytotoxic medications. We pooled the logarithm of hazard ratio (HR) and its standard error using the frequentist weighted least squares approach random-model network meta-analysis. Results: A total of 46 eligible trials that involved 11,987 patients were included. The primary endpoint, HR of overall survival (OS, HRos) of the selected comparisons was as follows: carboplatin+amrubicin (HRos 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–0.96), carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab (HRos 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.92), and carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.58–0.91) were compared with carboplatin+etoposide. The carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab regimen was compared with carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.97, 95% CI 0.68–1.37) and cisplatin+irinotecan regimen (HRos 0.87, 95% CI 0.58–1.31). “Selective carboplatin or cisplatin (CBDCA/CDDP)”+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.59–0.91). Platinum+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with platinum+irinotecan (HRos 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.15). Cumulative meta-analysis suggested that platinum+irinotecan was associated with better OS than platinum+etoposide as of 2010 through 40 out of 46 trials in our review that used platinum+etoposide as a reference regimen. Conclusion: Patients treated with carboplatin+amrubicin, carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab, CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide+durvalumab, and platinum+irinotecan showed better HRos than those treated with platinum+etoposide, one of the standard regimens.

Surrogate End Points for Median Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Literature-Based Analysis From 39 Randomized Controlled Trials of First-Line Chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (29) ◽  
pp. 4562-4568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Tang ◽  
Søren M. Bentzen ◽  
Eric X. Chen ◽  
Lillian L. Siu
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
End Points ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Purpose Our aims were to determine the correlations between progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and response rate (RR) with overall survival (OS) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), and to identify a potential surrogate for OS. Methods Randomized trials of first-line chemotherapy in MCRC were identified, and statistical analyses were undertaken to evaluate the correlations between the end points. Results Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials were identified containing a total of 87 treatment arms. Among trials, the nonparametric Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) between differences (Δ) in surrogate end points (ΔPFS, ΔTTP, and ΔRR) and ΔOS were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88), 0.52 (95% CI, 0.004 to 0.81), 0.39 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.63), respectively. The rs for ΔPFS was not significantly different from the rs ΔTTP (P = .28). Linear regression analysis was performed using hazard ratios for PFS and OS. There was a strong relationship between hazard ratios for PFS and OS; the slope of the regression line was 0.54 ± 0.10, indicating that a novel therapy producing a 10% risk reduction for PFS will yield an estimated 5.4% ± 1% risk reduction for OS. Conclusion In first-line chemotherapy trials for MCRC, improvements in PFS are strongly associated with improvements in OS. In this patient population, PFS may be an appropriate surrogate for OS. As a clinical end point, PFS offers increased statistical power at a given time of analysis and a significant lead time advantage compared with OS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document