抗程序性细胞死亡-1与抗程序性死亡配体1 (PD-L1)在PD-L1阴性晚期非小细胞肺癌中的对比:系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 2.1 Q3 ONCOLOGY
World Journal of Oncology Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-22 DOI:10.14740/wjon2520
Laith Al-Showbaki, Malak Al-Kasasbeh, Karem Jbarah, Jowan Al-Nusair, Saif Yamin, Husam Alqaisi, Kamal Alrabi, Eitan Amir
{"title":"抗程序性细胞死亡-1与抗程序性死亡配体1 (PD-L1)在PD-L1阴性晚期非小细胞肺癌中的对比:系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Laith Al-Showbaki, Malak Al-Kasasbeh, Karem Jbarah, Jowan Al-Nusair, Saif Yamin, Husam Alqaisi, Kamal Alrabi, Eitan Amir","doi":"10.14740/wjon2520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) which target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor or its ligand (PD-L1) are used extensively in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this article, we compared the relative efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE (host: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) for randomized trials for advanced NSCLC in which ICIs (anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) were used where outcome data were reported based on PD-L1 testing, including the subset of PD-L1-negative patients. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and related 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or P values for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the PD-L1-negative subgroup of each included trial. We then pooled data using a random effects meta-analysis and compared anti-PD-1 to anti-PD-L1 inhibitors. Variations in effect size were examined using subgroup analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three trials were included in the meta-analysis. PD-L1 testing was performed in all participants. A total of 4,548 PD-L1-negative patients were included in the analysis, representing 33% of all participants in the included clinical trials. Overall, the addition of anti-PD-1 was associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC patients (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.83, P < 0.01), while the addition of anti-PD-L1 inhibitors showed no improvement in OS (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.05, P = 0.18). Compared to anti-PD-L1 agents, anti-PD-1 resulted in better OS in PD-L1-negative patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.99, P = 0.01). The differential benefit of anti-PD-1 over anti-PD-L1 was of larger magnitude when checkpoint inhibitors were used in the first-line setting (pairwise comparison HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66 - 0.93, P = 0.01), while there was no difference for later lines of therapy (pairwise comparison 1.13; 95% CI: 0.82 - 1.55, P = 0.45). These differences in OS were not observed when pooling PFS data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-L1, those targeting PD-1 are associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC, a finding influenced by trials performed in the first-line sitting. These data should be validated using real-world studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":46797,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Oncology","volume":"16 3","pages":"299-310"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185128/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-Programmed Cell Death-1 Versus Anti-Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) in PD-L1-Negative Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Laith Al-Showbaki, Malak Al-Kasasbeh, Karem Jbarah, Jowan Al-Nusair, Saif Yamin, Husam Alqaisi, Kamal Alrabi, Eitan Amir\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/wjon2520\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) which target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor or its ligand (PD-L1) are used extensively in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this article, we compared the relative efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE (host: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) for randomized trials for advanced NSCLC in which ICIs (anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) were used where outcome data were reported based on PD-L1 testing, including the subset of PD-L1-negative patients. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and related 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or P values for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the PD-L1-negative subgroup of each included trial. We then pooled data using a random effects meta-analysis and compared anti-PD-1 to anti-PD-L1 inhibitors. Variations in effect size were examined using subgroup analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three trials were included in the meta-analysis. PD-L1 testing was performed in all participants. A total of 4,548 PD-L1-negative patients were included in the analysis, representing 33% of all participants in the included clinical trials. Overall, the addition of anti-PD-1 was associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC patients (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.83, P < 0.01), while the addition of anti-PD-L1 inhibitors showed no improvement in OS (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.05, P = 0.18). Compared to anti-PD-L1 agents, anti-PD-1 resulted in better OS in PD-L1-negative patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.99, P = 0.01). The differential benefit of anti-PD-1 over anti-PD-L1 was of larger magnitude when checkpoint inhibitors were used in the first-line setting (pairwise comparison HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66 - 0.93, P = 0.01), while there was no difference for later lines of therapy (pairwise comparison 1.13; 95% CI: 0.82 - 1.55, P = 0.45). These differences in OS were not observed when pooling PFS data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-L1, those targeting PD-1 are associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC, a finding influenced by trials performed in the first-line sitting. These data should be validated using real-world studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Oncology\",\"volume\":\"16 3\",\"pages\":\"299-310\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185128/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon2520\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon2520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:靶向程序性细胞死亡-1 (PD-1)受体或其配体(PD-L1)的免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)广泛应用于非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)。在本文中,我们比较了PD-1抑制剂和PD-L1抑制剂在PD-L1阴性晚期NSCLC中的相对疗效。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE(宿主:PubMed、Scopus和谷歌Scholar)中针对晚期非小细胞肺癌的随机试验,其中使用ICIs(抗pd -1或抗PD-L1),结果数据报告基于PD-L1检测,包括PD-L1阴性患者的亚群。我们提取了每个纳入试验的pd - l1阴性亚组的无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)的风险比(hr)和相关95%置信区间(CIs)和/或P值。然后,我们使用随机效应荟萃分析合并数据,比较抗pd -1和抗pd - l1抑制剂。使用亚组分析检查效应大小的变化。结果:23项试验被纳入meta分析。所有参与者均进行PD-L1检测。共有4548例pd - l1阴性患者纳入分析,占纳入临床试验所有参与者的33%。总的来说,在pd - l1阴性的晚期NSCLC患者中,添加抗pd -1与更好的OS相关(HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.83, P < 0.01),而添加抗pd - l1抑制剂对OS没有改善(HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.05, P = 0.18)。与抗pd - l1药物相比,抗pd -1药物在pd - l1阴性患者中具有更好的OS (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 0.99, P = 0.01)。当在一线使用检查点抑制剂时,抗pd -1优于抗pd - l1的差异获益更大(两两比较HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66 - 0.93, P = 0.01),而在后期的治疗中没有差异(两两比较1.13;95% ci: 0.82 - 1.55, p = 0.45)。当合并PFS数据时,未观察到OS的这些差异。结论:与靶向PD-L1的检查点抑制剂相比,靶向PD-1的检查点抑制剂在PD-L1阴性的晚期NSCLC中具有更好的OS,这一发现受到一线临床试验的影响。这些数据应该用真实世界的研究来验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anti-Programmed Cell Death-1 Versus Anti-Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) in PD-L1-Negative Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) which target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor or its ligand (PD-L1) are used extensively in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this article, we compared the relative efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE (host: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) for randomized trials for advanced NSCLC in which ICIs (anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) were used where outcome data were reported based on PD-L1 testing, including the subset of PD-L1-negative patients. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and related 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or P values for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the PD-L1-negative subgroup of each included trial. We then pooled data using a random effects meta-analysis and compared anti-PD-1 to anti-PD-L1 inhibitors. Variations in effect size were examined using subgroup analyses.

Results: Twenty-three trials were included in the meta-analysis. PD-L1 testing was performed in all participants. A total of 4,548 PD-L1-negative patients were included in the analysis, representing 33% of all participants in the included clinical trials. Overall, the addition of anti-PD-1 was associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC patients (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.83, P < 0.01), while the addition of anti-PD-L1 inhibitors showed no improvement in OS (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.78 - 1.05, P = 0.18). Compared to anti-PD-L1 agents, anti-PD-1 resulted in better OS in PD-L1-negative patients (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.99, P = 0.01). The differential benefit of anti-PD-1 over anti-PD-L1 was of larger magnitude when checkpoint inhibitors were used in the first-line setting (pairwise comparison HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66 - 0.93, P = 0.01), while there was no difference for later lines of therapy (pairwise comparison 1.13; 95% CI: 0.82 - 1.55, P = 0.45). These differences in OS were not observed when pooling PFS data.

Conclusions: Compared to checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-L1, those targeting PD-1 are associated with better OS in PD-L1-negative advanced NSCLC, a finding influenced by trials performed in the first-line sitting. These data should be validated using real-world studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
15.40%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: World Journal of Oncology, bimonthly, publishes original contributions describing basic research and clinical investigation of cancer, on the cellular, molecular, prevention, diagnosis, therapy and prognosis aspects. The submissions can be basic research or clinical investigation oriented. This journal welcomes those submissions focused on the clinical trials of new treatment modalities for cancer, and those submissions focused on molecular or cellular research of the oncology pathogenesis. Case reports submitted for consideration of publication should explore either a novel genomic event/description or a new safety signal from an oncolytic agent. The areas of interested manuscripts are these disciplines: tumor immunology and immunotherapy; cancer molecular pharmacology and chemotherapy; drug sensitivity and resistance; cancer epidemiology; clinical trials; cancer pathology; radiobiology and radiation oncology; solid tumor oncology; hematological malignancies; surgical oncology; pediatric oncology; molecular oncology and cancer genes; gene therapy; cancer endocrinology; cancer metastasis; prevention and diagnosis of cancer; other cancer related subjects. The types of manuscripts accepted are original article, review, editorial, short communication, case report, letter to the editor, book review.
×
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