Alessandro Di Federico, Samuele Compagno, Francesco Mantuano, Sara Stumpo, Andrea De Giglio, Federica Pecci, Joao V Alessi, Xinan Wang, Francesca Sperandi, Barbara Melotti, Francesco Gelsomino, Maria A Pantaleo, Andrea Arfè, Hossein Borghaei, Marina C Garassino, Federico Cappuzzo, Andrea Ardizzoni, Mark M Awad, Biagio Ricciuti
{"title":"PD-(L)1 Inhibitor Monotherapy vs Chemoimmunotherapy for Advanced NSCLC With High PD-L1 Expression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Alessandro Di Federico, Samuele Compagno, Francesco Mantuano, Sara Stumpo, Andrea De Giglio, Federica Pecci, Joao V Alessi, Xinan Wang, Francesca Sperandi, Barbara Melotti, Francesco Gelsomino, Maria A Pantaleo, Andrea Arfè, Hossein Borghaei, Marina C Garassino, Federico Cappuzzo, Andrea Ardizzoni, Mark M Awad, Biagio Ricciuti","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>For patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 50% or higher, programmed cell death 1 protein or PD-L1 (PD-[L]1) inhibitor monotherapy is commonly used as first-line therapy; however, whether adding chemotherapy improves outcomes in this population remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) associated with PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy vs chemoimmunotherapy in treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and major oncology conference proceedings were searched for phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published before August 3, 2025.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Eligible studies were phase 3 RCTs that enrolled patients with untreated advanced NSCLC, evaluated PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy vs chemotherapy alone, and reported outcomes in patients with high PD-L1 expression.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS were extracted from published studies and synthesized using inverse variance methods. Additional analyses included meta-regression, network meta-analysis, and reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Primary outcome was OS; secondary outcome was PFS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 24 trials including 5546 patients with PD-L1-high NSCLC, 16 evaluated chemoimmunotherapy and 8 PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, survival was improved by both chemoimmunotherapy (OS: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.56-0.72]; P < .001; PFS: HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.39-0.49]; P < .001) and PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (OS: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.69-0.80]; P < .001; PFS: HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.65-0.76]; P < .001). Tests for subgroup differences suggested improved benefit with chemoimmunotherapy compared to PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (OS: χ21 = 4.1; P = .04; I2 = 75.8%; PFS: χ21 = 48.1; P < .001; I2 = 97.9%), consistent with meta-regression analyses (OS: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.72-1.00]; P = .048; PFS: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50-0.75]; P < .001) and network meta-analyses (OS: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]; PFS: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50-0.75]). In the reconstructed individual patient data analysis, median OS was longer with chemoimmunotherapy (n = 704 patients) compared to PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (n = 1706 patients) (29.2 months [95% CI, 25.2-35.4] vs 19.8 months [95% CI, 18.3-21.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.66-0.82]; P < .001). Similarly, median PFS was significantly longer with chemoimmunotherapy (n = 701 patients) compared to PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (n = 1706 patients) (11.3 months [95% CI, 10.3-13.5] vs 6.8 months [95% CI, 6.2-7.1]; HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.60-0.75]; P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this meta-analysis of phase 3 RCTs, chemoimmunotherapy was associated with significantly improved OS and PFS compared with PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression. Prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48661,"journal":{"name":"Jama Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"753-761"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13237700/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jama Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.1548","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Importance: For patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 50% or higher, programmed cell death 1 protein or PD-L1 (PD-[L]1) inhibitor monotherapy is commonly used as first-line therapy; however, whether adding chemotherapy improves outcomes in this population remains unknown.
Objective: To compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) associated with PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy vs chemoimmunotherapy in treatment-naive patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression.
Data sources: PubMed, Embase, and major oncology conference proceedings were searched for phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published before August 3, 2025.
Study selection: Eligible studies were phase 3 RCTs that enrolled patients with untreated advanced NSCLC, evaluated PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy vs chemotherapy alone, and reported outcomes in patients with high PD-L1 expression.
Data extraction and synthesis: Hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS were extracted from published studies and synthesized using inverse variance methods. Additional analyses included meta-regression, network meta-analysis, and reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves.
Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcome was OS; secondary outcome was PFS.
Results: Among 24 trials including 5546 patients with PD-L1-high NSCLC, 16 evaluated chemoimmunotherapy and 8 PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, survival was improved by both chemoimmunotherapy (OS: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.56-0.72]; P < .001; PFS: HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.39-0.49]; P < .001) and PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (OS: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.69-0.80]; P < .001; PFS: HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.65-0.76]; P < .001). Tests for subgroup differences suggested improved benefit with chemoimmunotherapy compared to PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (OS: χ21 = 4.1; P = .04; I2 = 75.8%; PFS: χ21 = 48.1; P < .001; I2 = 97.9%), consistent with meta-regression analyses (OS: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.72-1.00]; P = .048; PFS: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50-0.75]; P < .001) and network meta-analyses (OS: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]; PFS: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50-0.75]). In the reconstructed individual patient data analysis, median OS was longer with chemoimmunotherapy (n = 704 patients) compared to PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (n = 1706 patients) (29.2 months [95% CI, 25.2-35.4] vs 19.8 months [95% CI, 18.3-21.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.66-0.82]; P < .001). Similarly, median PFS was significantly longer with chemoimmunotherapy (n = 701 patients) compared to PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy (n = 1706 patients) (11.3 months [95% CI, 10.3-13.5] vs 6.8 months [95% CI, 6.2-7.1]; HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.60-0.75]; P < .001).
Conclusions and relevance: In this meta-analysis of phase 3 RCTs, chemoimmunotherapy was associated with significantly improved OS and PFS compared with PD-(L)1 inhibitor monotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and high PD-L1 expression. Prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.
期刊介绍:
At JAMA Oncology, our primary goal is to contribute to the advancement of oncology research and enhance patient care. As a leading journal in the field, we strive to publish influential original research, opinions, and reviews that push the boundaries of oncology science.
Our mission is to serve as the definitive resource for scientists, clinicians, and trainees in oncology globally. Through our innovative and timely scientific and educational content, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of cancer pathogenesis and the latest treatment advancements to our readers.
We are dedicated to effectively disseminating the findings of significant clinical research, major scientific breakthroughs, actionable discoveries, and state-of-the-art treatment pathways to the oncology community. Our ultimate objective is to facilitate the translation of new knowledge into tangible clinical benefits for individuals living with and surviving cancer.