Efficacy and safety of perioperative, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant immunotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-10-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17588359241284929
Yunchang Meng, Qingfeng Zhang, Ranpu Wu, Huijuan Li, Zhaofeng Wang, Yang Yao, Xinjing Li, Zhangxuan Chen, Yanzhuo Gong, Hongbing Liu
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of perioperative, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant immunotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Yunchang Meng, Qingfeng Zhang, Ranpu Wu, Huijuan Li, Zhaofeng Wang, Yang Yao, Xinjing Li, Zhangxuan Chen, Yanzhuo Gong, Hongbing Liu","doi":"10.1177/17588359241284929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neoadjuvant (NE), adjuvant (AD), and perioperative (PE) immunotherapies have gained validation in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials. However, a comprehensive assessment of their comparative efficacy and safety is lacking.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of NE, AD, and PE immunotherapies in early-stage NSCLC.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework.</p><p><strong>Data sources and methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy (CT) for early-stage NSCLC. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 10 RCTs involving 5569 NSCLC patients, categorized as NE, PE, or AD immunotherapy. Indirect comparisons highlighted differences in efficacy between PE and AD immunotherapy, specifically in event-free survival (EFS)/disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53-0.96). NE/PE immunotherapies improved pathologic complete response (pCR) (OR = 7.56, 95% CI: 5.24-10.92), major pathologic response (MPR) (OR = 5.46, 95% CI: 3.97-7.51), and EFS (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.52-0.65), while AD immunotherapy enhanced DFS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.69-0.90). Overall survival (OS) benefits were seen only with PE immunotherapy (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55-0.81). PE treatment improved EFS across various subgroups (PD-L1 < 1%, IIIB, squamous, female, without MPR/pCR, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant-negative), except EGFR mutant-positive NSCLC (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.21-1.43). AD (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20-2.73) and PE (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.10-1.50) immunotherapies were associated with higher grade ⩾3 adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the three treatment modalities, PE immunotherapy appears to be more effective than AD immunotherapy, with PE showing significant advantages in certain subgroups that NE does not. NE and PE immunotherapy significantly improved pCR, MPR, and EFS, while AD immunotherapy significantly improved DFS in NSCLC patients compared to the control group. However, only PE immunotherapy significantly improved OS. Differences in efficacy between NE and PE across the entire population of resectable NSCLC remain to be explored in additional studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":23053,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","volume":"16 ","pages":"17588359241284929"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11457281/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241284929","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neoadjuvant (NE), adjuvant (AD), and perioperative (PE) immunotherapies have gained validation in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials. However, a comprehensive assessment of their comparative efficacy and safety is lacking.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of NE, AD, and PE immunotherapies in early-stage NSCLC.

Design: A systematic review and network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework.

Data sources and methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy (CT) for early-stage NSCLC. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results: We included 10 RCTs involving 5569 NSCLC patients, categorized as NE, PE, or AD immunotherapy. Indirect comparisons highlighted differences in efficacy between PE and AD immunotherapy, specifically in event-free survival (EFS)/disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53-0.96). NE/PE immunotherapies improved pathologic complete response (pCR) (OR = 7.56, 95% CI: 5.24-10.92), major pathologic response (MPR) (OR = 5.46, 95% CI: 3.97-7.51), and EFS (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.52-0.65), while AD immunotherapy enhanced DFS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.69-0.90). Overall survival (OS) benefits were seen only with PE immunotherapy (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.55-0.81). PE treatment improved EFS across various subgroups (PD-L1 < 1%, IIIB, squamous, female, without MPR/pCR, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant-negative), except EGFR mutant-positive NSCLC (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.21-1.43). AD (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20-2.73) and PE (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.10-1.50) immunotherapies were associated with higher grade ⩾3 adverse events.

Conclusion: In the three treatment modalities, PE immunotherapy appears to be more effective than AD immunotherapy, with PE showing significant advantages in certain subgroups that NE does not. NE and PE immunotherapy significantly improved pCR, MPR, and EFS, while AD immunotherapy significantly improved DFS in NSCLC patients compared to the control group. However, only PE immunotherapy significantly improved OS. Differences in efficacy between NE and PE across the entire population of resectable NSCLC remain to be explored in additional studies.

早期非小细胞肺癌围手术期、新辅助或辅助免疫疗法单独或联合化疗的疗效和安全性:随机临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:新辅助(NE)、辅助(AD)和围手术期(PE)免疫疗法已在早期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)试验中得到验证。然而,目前还缺乏对其疗效和安全性的全面评估:比较NE、AD和PE免疫疗法在早期NSCLC中的疗效和安全性:设计:采用贝叶斯框架进行系统综述和网络荟萃分析:我们在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库中检索了免疫检查点抑制剂加化疗(CT)治疗早期NSCLC的随机对照试验(RCT)。计算了二元终点的危险比(HRs)和几率比(ORs)以及95%置信区间(CIs):我们纳入了10项研究,涉及5569名NSCLC患者,分为NE、PE或AD免疫疗法。间接比较强调了PE和AD免疫疗法的疗效差异,特别是在无事件生存期(EFS)/无疾病生存期(DFS)方面(HR = 0.72,95% CI:0.53-0.96)。NE/PE免疫疗法可改善病理完全应答(pCR)(OR = 7.56,95% CI:5.24-10.92)、主要病理应答(MPR)(OR = 5.46,95% CI:3.97-7.51)和无事件生存期(EFS)(HR = 0.58,95% CI:0.52-0.65),而AD免疫疗法可提高无疾病生存期(DFS)(HR = 0.78,95% CI:0.69-0.90)。只有PE免疫疗法(HR=0.66,95% CI:0.55-0.81)能提高总生存期(OS)。PE治疗改善了不同亚组的EFS(PD-L1结论:PD-L1治疗改善了患者的EFS,而PD-L2治疗改善了患者的EFS):在三种治疗模式中,PE免疫疗法似乎比AD免疫疗法更有效,PE在某些亚组中显示出明显优势,而NE则没有。与对照组相比,NE和PE免疫疗法明显改善了NSCLC患者的pCR、MPR和EFS,而AD免疫疗法则明显改善了DFS。然而,只有 PE 免疫疗法能明显改善 OS。在所有可切除的 NSCLC 患者中,NE 和 PE 的疗效差异还有待更多的研究来探讨。
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
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of cancer. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in medical oncology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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