Immunotherapy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors

null

Basel Abdelazeem

McLaren Flint Michigan State University, Flint, MI

Basel Abdelazeem , Kirellos Said Abbas , Fatma Labieb , Abdul Karim Arida , Nahla Ahmed El-Shahat , Joseph Shehata , Emad Kandah , Bilal Malik , Maxwell Oluwole Akanbi , Abdul Rafae , Nayha Tahir , Ahsan Wahab , Hamid Ehsan

Organizations

McLaren Flint Michigan State University, Flint, MI, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt, Faculty of Medicine, Beni Suef University, Beni Suef, Egypt, McLaren Health Care, Flint, MI, Faculty of Medicine for Girls, Al-Azher University, Cairo, Egypt, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Northwestern Hospital McHenry, Chicago, IL, Baptist Medical Center South/Prattville Baptist Hospital, Montgomery, AL, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC

Research Funding

No funding received

Background: There is an emerging role of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy (ICC) in the front-line setting for the treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) with reported improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). In this review, we highlighted the efficacy and safety of combination regimens as a first-line therapy for NSCLC. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was done on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, WOS, and Scopus until Dec-2021. The outcomes included progression free survival (PFS) and/or overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The inverse variance method was used to generate hazard ratios (HR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the OS and PFS. Meanwhile, Mantle-Hazard variance was used to create risk ratios for TRAEs. Results: The total eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 6,386 patients (pts) were included. 3,850 pts received ICC while 2536 pts received chemotherapy., Four studies each used atezolizumab and pembrolizumab while one study each used nivolumab, tislelizumab, and camrelizumab. The ICC group showed a significant improvement in both PFS (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.54-0.66; p = < 0.00001) and OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87; p = < 0.0001). Atezolizumab combinations have better PFS and OS compared to the other combinations; HR 0.65 (0.59-0.71) and 0.82 (0.74-0.90), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the ICC and control groups regarding TRAEs (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.99-1.16; p = 0.09). Further subgroup analysis is mentioned in the table. Conclusions: The ICC seems to be a promising front-line therapy for NSCLC with superior PFS and OS compared to chemotherapy alone and without significant increase in TRAES.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of ICC compared to chemotherapy alone for NSCLC.

HR for PFS*
0.60 (0.54-0.66)
Subgroup Analysis
Pembrolizumab*
0.49 (0.38-0.61)
Atezolizumab*
0.65 (0.59-0.71)
PD-L1 < 50%*
0.64 (0.55-0.74)
PDL1 ≥50%*
0.40 (0.32-0.50)
HR for OS*
0.77 (0.68-0.87)
Subgroup Analysis
Pembrolizumab*

Atezolizumab*

PD-L1 < 50%

PDL1 ≥50%*
0.76 (0.55-1.06)

0.83 (0.74-0.90)

0.78 (0.58-1.05)

0.64 (0.52-0.79)
RR for TRAEs
1.07 (0.99-1.16)

* p = < 0.00001

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Lung Cancer—Non-Small Cell Metastatic

Track

Lung Cancer

Sub Track

Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr e21092)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.e21092

Abstract #

e21092

Abstract Disclosures