scholarly journals Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors as the First Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (25) ◽  
pp. 6261-6268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuqiao Chen ◽  
Yuan Zhou ◽  
Lu Tang ◽  
Xiong Peng ◽  
Hong Jiang ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 315-315
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rizzo ◽  
Giorgio Frega ◽  
Angela Dalia Ricci ◽  
Andrea Palloni ◽  
Simona Tavolari ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21731-e21731
Author(s):  
Roberto Jorge Bitton ◽  
Natalia Jacob ◽  
Juan Manuel Carrera ◽  
Ezequiel Cayetano Perez

e21731 Background: Over the last decade six different immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have obtained approval in 42 tumor types, several of them are indeed competing for the same indication and there is a lack of direct comparative data to guide the medical oncologist. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a technique developed as an extension of pairwise meta-analysis to allow comparisons of multiple treatments, using both direct and indirect evidence. This NMA evaluates the effectiveness of several ICIs, either in combination or as single agents, as frontline therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) through Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central register of Controlled trial databases, Clinicaltrial.gov database and ASCO abstracts (up to June 2019), to identify phase III RCTs on advanced non-squamous NSCLC in the first-line setting. Both the search and study screening were performed for two independent reviewers. NMA of survival outcomes in different subsets of PD-L1 expression groups was performed and ICIs indirect comparisons were performed. Results: 6 RCTs with 5860 patients were included for the NMA. ICIs were evaluated in combination with several chemotherapy regimens and in the case of Nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Atezolizumab was evaluated in one of the RCTs in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Both Pembrolizumab and Nivolumab were evaluated as monotherapy, either in a separate treatment arms within a trial or in a separate trial. Overall ICI in combination improved survival across PD-L1 expression level subgroups compared with chemotherapy (platinum doublets +/- bevacizumab). Indirect comparisons of ICIs in combination therapy for first-line treatment in advanced non-squamous NSCLC showed little evidence of differences between pembrolizumab or atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and nivolumab/ipilimumab. Evaluated as monotherapy pembrolizumab seems to have more evidence of effectiveness than nivolumab. Conclusions: ICIs in combination therapy improve survival in previously untreated advanced NSCLC across PD-L1 expression levels compared with standard first line chemotherapy regimens. There is little evidence of survival difference between pembrolizumab and atezolizumab in combination, and nivolumab requires a combination with ipilimumab to reach similar levels of effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document