Which Is More Suitable for First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, PD-L1 Inhibitors Versus PD-1 Inhibitors? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Wenjing Liu, Lulin Yu, Yuqian Feng, Siyu Huang, Yuxin Hua, Mingying Peng, Shanming Ruan, Kai Zhang
{"title":"Which Is More Suitable for First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer, PD-L1 Inhibitors Versus PD-1 Inhibitors? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis","authors":"Wenjing Liu,&nbsp;Lulin Yu,&nbsp;Yuqian Feng,&nbsp;Siyu Huang,&nbsp;Yuxin Hua,&nbsp;Mingying Peng,&nbsp;Shanming Ruan,&nbsp;Kai Zhang","doi":"10.1111/crj.13804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>In this network meta-analysis (NMA), the efficiency and safety of PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy were compared in the first-line therapy of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched research databases, conference abstracts, and trial registries and subsequently chose relevant studies and extracted dates. The NMA was conducted to estimate the efficiency and safety of the PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall remission rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Studies were assessed for quality. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate study heterogeneity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included six randomized trials with a total of 3163 patients. Direct comparisons showed that patients who received either PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57–0.87) or PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy (HR: 0.74, 0.61–0.89) demonstrated significantly longer OS than those who received placebo + chemotherapy. The results of the NMA showed that no significant differences in OS (HR 0.96 95% CI: 0.72–1.3), PFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.51–1.4), and ORR (OR 1.3 95% CI: 0.66–2.5) were observed for PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy compared with PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy, but the Bayesian ranking revealed that patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy tended to have longer OS, PFS benefit, and better treatment response than patients receiving PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy. In terms of safety, no significant difference was observed in their safety profiles.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In comparison to placebo + chemotherapy, PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy significantly improved survival for ES-SCLC. According to the available data, PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy had equivalent efficacy and safety; however, the level of evidence of this type of comparison is limited.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55247,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"18 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11284309/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crj.13804","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In this network meta-analysis (NMA), the efficiency and safety of PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy were compared in the first-line therapy of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Methods

We searched research databases, conference abstracts, and trial registries and subsequently chose relevant studies and extracted dates. The NMA was conducted to estimate the efficiency and safety of the PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall remission rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Studies were assessed for quality. Subgroup analyses were used to evaluate study heterogeneity.

Results

We included six randomized trials with a total of 3163 patients. Direct comparisons showed that patients who received either PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57–0.87) or PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy (HR: 0.74, 0.61–0.89) demonstrated significantly longer OS than those who received placebo + chemotherapy. The results of the NMA showed that no significant differences in OS (HR 0.96 95% CI: 0.72–1.3), PFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.51–1.4), and ORR (OR 1.3 95% CI: 0.66–2.5) were observed for PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy compared with PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy, but the Bayesian ranking revealed that patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy tended to have longer OS, PFS benefit, and better treatment response than patients receiving PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy. In terms of safety, no significant difference was observed in their safety profiles.

Conclusion

In comparison to placebo + chemotherapy, PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy significantly improved survival for ES-SCLC. According to the available data, PD-L1 inhibitors + chemotherapy and PD-1 inhibitors + chemotherapy had equivalent efficacy and safety; however, the level of evidence of this type of comparison is limited.

Abstract Image

PD-L1抑制剂与PD-1抑制剂哪个更适合广泛期小细胞肺癌的一线治疗?系统综述与网络荟萃分析》。
研究背景在这项网络荟萃分析(NMA)中,比较了PD-1抑制剂+化疗和PD-L1抑制剂+化疗在广泛期小细胞肺癌(ES-SCLC)患者一线治疗中的有效性和安全性:我们检索了研究数据库、会议摘要和试验登记,随后选择了相关研究并提取了日期。NMA旨在估算PD-1抑制剂+化疗和PD-L1抑制剂+化疗对总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)、总缓解率(ORR)和不良事件(AEs)的有效性和安全性。对研究进行了质量评估。亚组分析用于评估研究的异质性:我们纳入了六项随机试验,共3163名患者。直接比较显示,接受PD-1抑制剂+化疗(HR:0.71,95% CI:0.57-0.87)或PD-L1抑制剂+化疗(HR:0.74,0.61-0.89)的患者的OS明显长于接受安慰剂+化疗的患者。NMA结果显示,OS(HR 0.96 95% CI:0.72-1.3)、PFS(HR 0.83,95% CI:0.51-1.4)和ORR(OR 1.3 95% CI:0.66-2.5)与PD-1抑制剂+化疗(HR:0.74,95% CI:0.61-0.89)相比无明显差异。5),但贝叶斯排序显示,接受PD-1抑制剂+化疗的患者往往比接受PD-L1抑制剂+化疗的患者有更长的OS、PFS获益和更好的治疗反应。在安全性方面,两者的安全性无明显差异:结论:与安慰剂+化疗相比,PD-L1抑制剂+化疗和PD-1抑制剂+化疗能明显改善ES-SCLC的生存率。根据现有数据,PD-L1抑制剂+化疗和PD-1抑制剂+化疗具有同等的疗效和安全性;然而,这类比较的证据水平有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Respiratory Journal
Clinical Respiratory Journal 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Overview Effective with the 2016 volume, this journal will be published in an online-only format. Aims and Scope The Clinical Respiratory Journal (CRJ) provides a forum for clinical research in all areas of respiratory medicine from clinical lung disease to basic research relevant to the clinic. We publish original research, review articles, case studies, editorials and book reviews in all areas of clinical lung disease including: Asthma Allergy COPD Non-invasive ventilation Sleep related breathing disorders Interstitial lung diseases Lung cancer Clinical genetics Rhinitis Airway and lung infection Epidemiology Pediatrics CRJ provides a fast-track service for selected Phase II and Phase III trial studies. Keywords Clinical Respiratory Journal, respiratory, pulmonary, medicine, clinical, lung disease, Abstracting and Indexing Information Academic Search (EBSCO Publishing) Academic Search Alumni Edition (EBSCO Publishing) Embase (Elsevier) Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest) Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest) HEED: Health Economic Evaluations Database (Wiley-Blackwell) Hospital Premium Collection (ProQuest) Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics) MEDLINE/PubMed (NLM) ProQuest Central (ProQuest) Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate Analytics) SCOPUS (Elsevier)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信