The efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors versus chemotherapy in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for non-small cell lung cancer is widely used in clinical practice. However, there has not been a systematic statistical proof of the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in patients with advanced cancer. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate its efficacy and related influencing factors, so as to provide a basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of programmed death-1 (PD-1)/PD ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line or late-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) via a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases. RevMan 5.3.5 was used to analyze the data extracted from all eligible studies.

RESULTS

All 4122 eligible patients from 8 RCTs were included in this study. The meta-analysis showed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors could significantly improve overall survival (hazards ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.77, P < .001), progression-free survival (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.81-0.94, P = .01), and objective response rate (HR 2.03, 95%CI 1.66-2.49, P < .001) compared with chemotherapy drugs. The incidence of side effects of any grade (HR 0.34, 95%CI 0.29-0.39, P < .001) or grades 3 to 5 (HR 0.15, 95%CI 0.10-0.23, P < .001) consistently showed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were safer than chemotherapy. Furthermore, subgroup analysis based on tumor proportion score or pathology classification revealed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

As a second-line or late-line treatment, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are safer and more effective than chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens and compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC, through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of concurrent or non-concurrent observational cohort studies, to guide authorities and the judiciary.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures included OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies.

CONCLUSION

The results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation, that need to be considered.