Comparative Efficacy of Second- and Subsequent-line Treatments for Metastatic NSCLC: A Fractional Polynomials Network Meta-analysis of Cancer Immunotherapies

Comparative effectiveness and safety of tislelizumab versus other anti-PD-(L)1 agents in first- and subsequent lines in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative efficacy and safety of tislelizumab with or without chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in first-line (1L) squamous, 1L non-squamous with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 50 %, and second- and subsequent lines (2L + ) settings via indirect treatment comparisons, following a systematic literature review (SLR) of studies investigating existing anti-programmed cell death protein-(ligand)1 (PD-[L]1) therapies.

METHODS

The SLR was originally conducted in 2022 and updated in 2023. A feasibility assessment (FA) was undertaken to assess the assumptions required for network meta-analysis (NMA) among therapies approved in the UK and European Union aligning with tislelizumab's license. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Analyses were conducted in the hazard ratio scale for OS and PFS and in the odds ratio scale for TRAEs. Uncertainty was expressed in 95 % credible intervals.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 277 total studies in 1L and 176 in 2L + NSCLC, with 23 and eight carried forward to their respective FAs. After the FA stage, 20 and eight studies qualified for the 1L and 2L + NMAs, respectively. Tislelizumab with or without chemotherapy was statistically significantly more favorable than most comparator treatments and ranked as best or second-best treatment overall for the following: PFS in 1L squamous NSCLC, OS/PFS in 1L non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 50 %, and OS/PFS/TRAEs in 2L + NSCLC of any histology. For the remaining analyses (i.e. OS/TRAEs in 1L squamous NSCLC), tislelizumab with or without chemotherapy was comparable to other anti-PD-(L)1 therapies and combination therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Tislelizumab with or without chemotherapy appears to be comparable to or more favorable than other regimens of anti-PD-(L)1 therapies or combination therapies in OS/PFS/TRAEs across patients with 1L squamous NSCLC, 1L non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 50 %, and 2L + NSCLC of any histology.

Feasibility and Tolerability of Anlotinib Plus PD-1 Inhibitors for Previously-Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Exploratory Study

Objective

Anlotinib demonstrated encouraging therapeutic activity as third-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors also exhibited promising and durable response against previously-treated advanced NSCLC. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of anlotinib plus PD-1 inhibitors for previously-treated NSCLC in clinical practice.

Methods

This retrospective study included 56 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with systemic treatment previously. Patients included were treated with anlotinib plus PD-1 inhibitors in clinical practice. Therapeutic outcomes of the patients were evaluated radiologically using target lesions, and the prognostic outcomes were generated by follow-up. Adverse reactions experienced throughout the treatment were documented and analyzed.

Results

Between August 2018 and November 2022, 56 patients with advanced NSCLC were eligible to participate in this study consecutively. Therapeutic outcomes resulted in an overall response rate of 28.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 17.3%-42.2%] and a disease control rate of 91.1% (95% CI: 80.4%-97.0%). Furthermore, this combination regimen among the 56 patients yielded a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.5 months (95% CI: 4.81-8.19) and a median overall survival (OS) of 15.8 months (95% CI: 10.23-21.37), respectively. And the median duration of response (DoR) among patients who responded was 8.3 months (95% CI: 4.38-12.22). Additionally, adverse reactions of all grades throughout the treatment were observed in 50 patients (89.3%), and adverse reactions of grade ≥3 were detected in 23 patients (41.1%). Fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were the most common adverse reactions. Association analysis between PFS and baseline characteristic subgroups indicated that ECOG score and number of metastatic lesions might be potential predictors of PFS in the exploratory analysis.

Conclusion

Anlotinib plus PD-1 inhibitors demonstrated a tolerable safety profile and encouraging therapeutic activity as subsequent-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. This conclusion should be confirmed in prospective large-scale clinical trials subsequently.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy in advanced biliary tract cancer

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatments for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC).Methods: This pharmacoeconomic evaluation employed the fractional polynomial network meta-analysis and partitioned survival model. Costs and utilities were collected from the literature and databases. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainties.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line treatment strategies were $761,371.37 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $206,222.53/QALY in the US and $354,678.79 /QALY or $213,874.22/QALY in China, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were largely consistent with the base case.Conclusion: From the US and Chinese payer perspectives, adding durvalumab or pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost effective in the first-line setting for advanced BTC.

Long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to other first-line therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) relative to other immunotherapy (IO)-based regimens and chemotherapy in patients with first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

METHODS

Phase 3 randomized controlled-trials (RCTs) with minimum 3-year follow-up evaluating IO-based regimens approved for first-line aNSCLC were identified via systematic literature review. Analytic populations were defined by levels of PD-L1 expression and histology. Due to presence of proportional hazards violations, time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated via Bayesian fractional polynomial network meta-analysis. For safety endpoints, odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs).

RESULTS

CheckMate 227, KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407, KEYNOTE-024, KEYNOTE-042, and IMpower150 were included in the base case analysis. For OS and PFS, HRs of NIVO + IPI relative to other IO-based regimens trended downward over time across analytic populations. The 36-month OS HRs of NIVO + IPI versus comparators were: 0.69 (95 % credible interval: 0.47, 1.00) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and 0.65 (0.45, 0.93) versus atezolizumab + bevacizumab + chemotherapy in the non-squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; 0.73 (0.53, 1.02) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; and 1.05 (0.83, 1.32) versus pembrolizumab in the mixed histology and PD-L1 ≥ 50 % population. For PFS, 36-month HR point estimates ranged from 0.46 to 0.85 (only statistically significant versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous population; 0.46 [0.31, 0.69]). Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were not statistically significantly different between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, nor between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab monotherapy, although treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs were higher with NIVO + IPI than pembrolizumab monotherapy (OR = 2.21 [1.30, 3.75]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates trends towards long-term benefit with NIVO + IPI compared with other IO-based combinations, with manageable toxicities.

Combining PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy is a good strategy for the treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer: A retrospective analysis of clinical studies

Objectives

To provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy and safety of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Clinicaltrials and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to extract RCTs concerning the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of ES-SCLC from the time of database inception to October 31, 2022. The literature was independently selected, information was extracted and the risk of bias of the RCTs was evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Stata14.0 was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Six studies involving 2,600 patients were included in the analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors significantly improved the OS (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.66-0.80; P<0.0001), prolonged PFS (HR: 0.66,95% CI: 0.55-0.79; P<0.0001) and did not increase overall incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97-1.09; P=0.330) in ES-SCLC patients compared with chemotherapy alone. The subgroup analysis found that patients with negative PD-L1 expression (< 1%) benefited in OS, whereas patients with positive PD-L1 expression (≥1%) had no statistically significant difference in OS. There was a statistically significant difference in PFS between PD-L1-negative (< 1%) and PD-L1-positive (≥1%) patients. The addition of a PD-1 inhibitor or PD-L1 inhibitor to the chemotherapy regimen can improve OS and prolong PFS in patients with ES-SCLC.

Conclusions

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combination chemotherapy significantly improves PFS and OS in ES-SCLC patients without increasing the overall incidence of TRAEs.

Efficacy and Safety of Anlotinib Monotherapy as Third-Line Therapy for Elderly Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Real-World Exploratory Study

Purpose

The present study was to investigate the real-world efficacy and safety of anlotinib monotherapy as third-line therapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

A total of 83 elderly patients (>65 years) with NSCLC who were progressed at least two lines of previous systemic therapy were recruited retrospectively. Patients were treated with anlotinib monotherapy (12 mg or 10 mg). Efficacy of anlotinib was assessed and all the patients were followed up regularly. Adverse reactions were collected during anlotinib administration. Univariate analysis was performed using Log rank test and multivariate analysis was adjusted by Cox regression analysis. Additionally, prognostic analysis according to common adverse reactions was implemented to identify the potential clinical significance.

Results

The best overall response of the 83 elderly patients during anlotinib monotherapy indicated that partial response (PR) was observed in six patients, stable disease (SD) was noted in 59 patients, and progressive disease (PD) was reported in 18 patients. Consequently, the objective response rate (ORR) was 7.2% (95% CI=2.7–15.1%) and the disease control rate (DCR) was 78.3% (95% CI=67.9–86.6%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) of the 83 elderly patients with NSCLC was 4.2 months (95% CI=3.51–4.89). Furthermore, the median overall survival (OS) of the 83 patients was 9.6 months (95% CI=6.65–12.55). The safety profile suggested that the relatively common adverse reactions of the elderly patients with ES-SCLC receiving anlotinib therapy were hypertension (49.4%), fatigue (45.8%), and hand–foot syndrome (39.8%). Interestingly, association analysis exhibited that the median PFS of patients with hypertension and non-hypertension was 4.5 and 3.0 months, respectively (χ²=6.306, P=0.012).

Conclusion

Anlotinib monotherapy demonstrated a satisfactory efficacy and tolerable safety profile in third-line settings for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients who experienced a hypertension adverse reaction induced by anlotinib therapy might confer superior PFS. The conclusion should be validated in prospective clinical trials subsequently.

Association of PD-1/PD-L1 Co-location with Immunotherapy Outcomes in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Programmed cell death protein 1(PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) interaction suppresses local T cell responses and promotes peripheral tolerance. In the present study, we focus on PD-1/PD-L1 co-location as a surrogate for this interaction and assess its association with immunotherapy outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Pre-treatment biopsies from a retrospective cohort of 154 immunotherapy-treated patients with advanced NSCLC were analysed. Expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 was assessed by multiplexed quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF) and PD-1 expression in the same pixels as PD-L1 (called a co-location score) was measured using an algorithm to define overlapping expression areas. Co-location scores were correlated with immunotherapy outcomes and PD-L1 tumor proportion score.

RESULTS

PD-1/PD-L1 co-location score was associated with best overall response (p=0.0012), progression free survival (p=0.0341) and overall survival after immunotherapy (p=0.0249). The association was driven by patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors in the second or subsequent line of treatment. PD-L1 TPS by IHC was also correlated with best overall response and progression-free survival. PD-L1 measured within the tumor compartment by QIF did not show any significant association with either best overall response or overall survival. Finally, co-location score was not associated with PD-L1 expression by either method.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, co-location score shows promise as a biomarker associated with outcome after immunotherapy. With further validation, it could have value as a predictive biomarker for the selection of NSCLC patients receiving treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib, for patients diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Two Bayesian NMAs were performed independently, by using the polynomial fraction method to fit Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty.

RESULTS

The ICER was calculated for the four first-line treatments by comparing them with gefitinib, and the ratios obtained were as follows: €166,416/QALY for osimertinib, €183,682/QALY for dacomitinib, €167,554/QALY for afatinib, €36,196/QALY for erlotinib. It was seen that patients who received osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.49), followed by dacomitinib (0.33), afatinib (0.32), erlotinib (0.31), and gefitinib (0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Gefitinib is the most cost-effective treatment. In terms of QALYs gained, Osimertinib was more effective than all other TKIs. Nevertheless, with a Spanish threshold of €24,000/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 70%, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative.

Immunotherapy as a second-line or later treatment modality for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A review of safety and efficacy

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80-85% of these cases. Surgical resection is the most common conventional treatment of lung cancer. For patients with advanced NSCLC, platinum-based chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment. Although platinum-based chemotherapy demonstrated improved outcomes, the need for the second-line/later therapies is evident. A review was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of immunotherapies as the second-line/later therapy of advanced NSCLC. Clinical trial data was collected via PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov. Recent studies were selected based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data on the safety and efficacy of the immunotherapy was subsequently compiled from relevant trials. Monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1/PD-L1 showed the most promising results as the second-line/later treatment modalities. Immunizations did not produce as robust of an immune response in participants; however, they warrant further research to determine their place in therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer as a second line in France

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as a second-line treatment, in a French setting.Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, death) based on the phase IIIOAK trial on a 10-year time horizon. The comparison between nivolumab and atezolizumab came from a network meta-analysis. Utilities were estimated from the OAK trial EQ-5D applying the French utility tariffs. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment duration were estimated using parametric models selected using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. Extrapolation beyond the trial duration followed NICE DSU TSD 14. Economic perspective was the one of all payers, discount rate fixed at 4% on benefits and costs. This analysis was aligned with French Haute Autorité de Santé recommendations. Results were expressed in total cost (2019) and €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Model robustness was checked through sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.Results: In comparison to docetaxel, atezolizumab costs 49,429€ more and increased life expectancy by 8 months, generating 0.47 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 104,835€/QALY. When comparing nivolumab to atezolizumab, a cost minimization analysis was conducted since no clear evidence supporting a difference in terms of survival benefit was reported. Using list price, and the Market Access Authorization regimens, atezolizumab saved approximately 6,000€, 9.5% of its total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.Conclusion: Atezolizumab is more efficient and more costly than docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC of stage IIIB or IV, in France, with results consistent to previous French authorities' evaluation of immunotherapies in similar indication. Lastly, atezolizumab is a cost saving alternative to nivolumab, based on list price.