Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial evaluating preoperative chemotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer

Comparative Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy versus Conventional Comparator Treatments in Resectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to estimate the relative efficacy of neoadjuvant nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy (neoNIVO + CT) compared to relevant treatments amongst resectable non-metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (rNSCLC) patients.

METHODS

Treatment comparisons were based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) using randomized clinical trial data identified via systematic literature review (SLR). The outcomes of interest were event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR). NeoNIVO + CT was compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neoCT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT), adjuvant chemotherapy (adjCT), and surgery alone (S). Due to the potential for effect modification by stage, all-stage and stage-specific networks were considered. Fixed-effect (FE) and random-effects Bayesian NMA models were run (EFS = hazard ratios [HR]; pCR = odds ratios [OR]; 95% credible intervals [CrI]).

RESULTS

Sixty-one RCTs were identified (base case = 9 RCTs [n = 1978 patients]). In the all-stages FE model, neoNIVO + CT had statistically significant EFS improvements relative to neoCT (HR = 0.68 [95% CrI: 0.49, 0.94]), S (0.59 [0.42, 0.82]), adjCT (0.66 [0.45, 0.96]), but not relative to neoCRT (HR = 0.77 [0.52, 1.16]). NeoNIVO + CT (5 RCTs) had statistically significant higher odds of pCR relative to neoCT (OR = 12.53 [5.60, 33.82]) and neoCRT (7.15 [2.31, 24.34]). Stage-specific model findings were consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA signals improved EFS and/or pCR of neoNIVO + CT relative to comparators among patients with rNSCLC.

Pathological response in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy are needed to provide earlier treatment outcome indicators and accelerate drug approval. This study's main objectives were to investigate the association among pathological complete response, major pathological response, event-free survival and overall survival and to determine whether treatment effects on pathological complete response and event-free survival correlate with treatment effects on overall survival.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify neoadjuvant studies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Analysis at the patient level using frequentist and Bayesian random effects (hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival or event-free survival by pathological complete response or major pathological response status, yes vs no) and at the trial level using weighted least squares regressions (hazard ratio for overall survival or event-free survival vs pathological complete response, by treatment arm) were performed.

RESULTS

In both meta-analyses, pathological complete response yielded favorable overall survival compared with no pathological complete response (frequentist, 20 studies and 6530 patients: HR = 0.49, 95% confidence interval = 0.42 to 0.57; Bayesian, 19 studies and 5988 patients: HR = 0.48, 95% probability interval = 0.43 to 0.55) and similarly for major pathological response (frequentist, 12 studies and 1193 patients: HR = 0.36, 95% confidence interval = 0.29 to 0.44; Bayesian, 11 studies and 1018 patients: HR = 0.33, 95% probability interval = 0.26 to 0.42). Across subgroups, estimates consistently showed better overall survival or event-free survival in pathological complete response or major pathological response compared with no pathological complete response or no major pathological response. Trial-level analyses showed a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival hazard ratios (R2 = 0.7159) but did not show a correlation between treatment effects on pathological complete response and overall survival or event-free survival.

CONCLUSION

There was a strong and consistent association between pathological response and survival and a moderate to strong correlation between event-free survival and overall survival following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

The beginning of a new era in induction treatment for operable non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review

Background and Objective

The survival benefit of induction therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. Recently, the outcomes of systemic therapy for NSCLC have dramatically changed with the advent of molecular target drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The present review was conducted to investigate the outcomes of induction therapy with reference to randomized control trials (RCTs).

Methods

We reviewed RCTs and ongoing clinical trials between 1990 and 2022 using relevant databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE database. We investigated the outcomes of induction therapy.

Key Content and Findings

Induction therapy was associated with longer overall survival in comparison to surgery alone in several RCTs for stage III disease. However, its benefit in early-stage (I-II) disease was unclear. Regarding induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, the safety and survival outcomes did not differ between the two arms. Epidermoid growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors as induction therapy in patients with proven EGFR mutations may be a sufficient choice for the improvement of overall survival. In ongoing single arm clinical trials and a randomized control study, the administration of ICIs as induction therapy was associated with a good pathological response and satisfactory safety, which will lead to a better survival outcome. Long-term observation is needed to evaluate the toxicity and survival impact of induction therapy with ICIs.

Conclusions

Induction chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs for stage IIIA NSCLC may contribute to the improvement of survival outcomes although the effect of systemic therapy on stage I-II remains controversial. ICIs may be considered as a valuable treatment option because of their feasibility and safety for induction therapy.

Short-term outcome of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Previously reported results have shown promising efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, no randomized control trials comparing neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy have yet been reported. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the superiority of neoadjuvant immunotherapy compared with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable NSCLC in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and surgical outcomes.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the ClinicalTrials.gov database, Web of Science, and abstracts derived from multiple major cancer meetings up to March 1, 2020. Short-term clinical outcomes (including objective response rate [ORR], major pathologic response, and pathologic complete response [pCR]) and surgical outcomes (including surgical resection rate and R0 resection rate) were reported. Data were summarized as the estimated pooled value of each evaluated index. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using standard methods.

Results

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 trials on neoadjuvant immunotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC included 1795 patients. Patients who received Programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors (NeoIO) alone (13.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.0%-19.3%) had the lowest ORR compared with those who received NeoIO plus chemotherapy (CT) (62.5%; 95% CI, 54.4%-70.0%) or CT alone (41.6%; 95% CI, 36.8%-46.7%) (NeoIO vs CT, P < .001; NeoIO + CT vs CT, P < .001). Receipt of NeoIO + CT (36.2%; 95% CI, 19.2%-57.6%) was associated with an elevated pCR rate compared with receipt of NeoIO alone (10.6%; 95% CI, 6.5%-16.9%; P < .001) or standard CT (7.5%; 95% CI, 5.7%-9.8%; P < .001). Neoadjuvant CT (87.2%; 95% CI, 74.9%-94.0%) was associated with a lower R0 resection rate compared with NeoIO alone (92.7%; 95% CI, 83.4%-97.0%; P = .360) or NeoIO + CT (91.6%; 95% CI, 84.3%-95.7%; P = .409). Meta-regression showed that a higher proportion of stage III patients was correlated with decreased surgical resection and R0 resection rates, whereas no impact was observed with neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Conclusions

Current data suggest that compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, immunotherapy-based regimens may provide superior pathological response along with a higher rate of complete resection. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a more favorable clinical option. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to provide long-term results of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for localized NSCLC and help guide clinical practice.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery in non-metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The favorable effect of postoperative chemotherapy on long-term survival has been well acknowledged in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains obscure. This meta-analysis enrolling high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at comparing NAC followed by surgery with upfront surgery (US) in efficacy and safety among non-metastatic NSCLC patients.

Materials and Methods

Relevant literatures were searched systematically from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. We also screened references of relevant publications and conference proceedings. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), 3-year and 5-year survival rates, mortality, and recurrence. Secondary outcomes included tumor-free (R0) resection rates, response rate, and postoperative complications. Subgroup analysis according to ethnicity was further conducted.

Results

A total of 11 eligible RCTs comparing NAC (n = 1624) with US (n = 1639) and published from 1998 to 2013 were included. Compared to US, NAC contributed to longer OS and DFS, higher 3-year and 5-year DFS rates, and lower incidences of total mortality, overall recurrence and metastasis, and tended to cause higher 5-year OS rates. NAC was associated with reduced risks in recurrence compared to US. Patients receiving NAC had lower surgery and resection rates, but higher R0 resection incidence among resected cases. NAC especially benefited occident patients. The overall NAC response rate was 52.1%, and NAC-related toxicity rate was 58.3%.

Conclusion

NAC may provide better survival, reduced recurrence, and improved R0 resection rates among NSCLC patients who had surgery, especially in occident patients. Further studies are needed to clarify the ethnic differences.