Immune checkpoint inhibitors as neoadjuvant therapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Riona Aburaki,Yu Fujiwara,Saya Haketa,Nobuyuki Horita
{"title":"Immune checkpoint inhibitors as neoadjuvant therapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Riona Aburaki,Yu Fujiwara,Saya Haketa,Nobuyuki Horita","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has improved survival outcomes in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recent clinical trials have evaluated several ICI strategies including neoadjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy, neoadjuvant-adjuvant (perioperative) chemoimmunotherapy, adjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy, and ICI single- and dual-therapy. However, the optimal perioperative approach remains unclear.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nAs a systematic review, databases were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating perioperative treatment incorporating at least one ICI as perioperative therapy for resectable NSCLC. A random model network meta-analysis was performed. All statistical tests were two-sided.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nEleven RCTs with 4,532 patients were included in the analysis. Seven perioperative strategies were compared; however, some were not comparable due to the presence of independent loops. The addition of adjuvant ICI therapy to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy was not associated with improved event-free survival (EFS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.67-1.41, p = .87) or overall survival (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.59-2.31, p = .65). When comparing adjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy to neoadjuvant-only and perioperative chemoimmunotherapy, both neoadjuvant-only and perioperative strategies showed numerically longer OS compared to adjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy, although the differences were not statistically significant. Regarding safety, the addition of ICI treatment to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy did not significantly increase the incidence of any-grade, grade 3-5, or grade 5 TRAEs.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nNo clear benefit was observed for adding adjuvant ICI therapy to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. Further research is needed to directly compare neoadjuvant-only vs perioperative chemoimmunotherapy, and to determine the optimal number of cycles and duration of ICI treatment for patients with resectable NSCLC.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"115 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) has improved survival outcomes in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recent clinical trials have evaluated several ICI strategies including neoadjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy, neoadjuvant-adjuvant (perioperative) chemoimmunotherapy, adjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy, and ICI single- and dual-therapy. However, the optimal perioperative approach remains unclear. METHODS As a systematic review, databases were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating perioperative treatment incorporating at least one ICI as perioperative therapy for resectable NSCLC. A random model network meta-analysis was performed. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Eleven RCTs with 4,532 patients were included in the analysis. Seven perioperative strategies were compared; however, some were not comparable due to the presence of independent loops. The addition of adjuvant ICI therapy to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy was not associated with improved event-free survival (EFS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.67-1.41, p = .87) or overall survival (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.59-2.31, p = .65). When comparing adjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy to neoadjuvant-only and perioperative chemoimmunotherapy, both neoadjuvant-only and perioperative strategies showed numerically longer OS compared to adjuvant-only chemoimmunotherapy, although the differences were not statistically significant. Regarding safety, the addition of ICI treatment to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy did not significantly increase the incidence of any-grade, grade 3-5, or grade 5 TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS No clear benefit was observed for adding adjuvant ICI therapy to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. Further research is needed to directly compare neoadjuvant-only vs perioperative chemoimmunotherapy, and to determine the optimal number of cycles and duration of ICI treatment for patients with resectable NSCLC.
免疫检查点抑制剂作为可切除非小细胞肺癌的新辅助治疗:一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)改善了可切除的非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者的生存结果。最近的临床试验评估了几种ICI策略,包括仅新辅助化疗免疫治疗、新辅助辅助(围手术期)化疗免疫治疗、仅辅助化疗免疫治疗以及ICI单药和双药治疗。然而,最佳围手术期入路尚不清楚。方法通过系统回顾,检索数据库,以确定符合条件的随机对照试验(rct),评估可切除的非小细胞肺癌围手术期治疗纳入至少一种ICI的围手术期治疗。随机模型网络元分析。所有统计检验均为双侧检验。结果共纳入6项随机对照试验,共4532例患者。比较7种围手术期策略;然而,由于存在独立循环,有些不具有可比性。在新辅助化疗免疫治疗的基础上增加辅助ICI治疗与改善无事件生存期(EFS)(风险比[HR] 0.97, 95%可信区间[95% CI] 0.67-1.41, p = 0.87)或总生存期(风险比[HR] 1.17, 95% CI 0.59-2.31, p = 0.65)无关。当比较单纯辅助化疗与单纯新辅助化疗和围手术期化疗时,单纯新辅助化疗和围手术期化疗的OS都比单纯辅助化疗的OS长,尽管差异没有统计学意义。在安全性方面,在新辅助化疗免疫治疗的基础上增加ICI治疗并没有显著增加任何级别、3-5级或5级TRAEs的发生率。结论在新辅助化疗免疫治疗的基础上加入ICI治疗并没有明显的疗效。需要进一步的研究来直接比较单纯新佐剂与围手术期化疗免疫治疗,并确定可切除的非小细胞肺癌患者ICI治疗的最佳周期数和持续时间。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信