Identifying optimal PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in first-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China: Updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Programmed Cell Death Protein 1/Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Antibodies Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for NSCLC in the People's Republic of China: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

The available approved anticancer drugs for Chinese patients are relatively limited because of China's low participation rate in international clinical trials. Therefore, a focus on approved anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) drugs in China is needed. This study aims to assess the heterogeneity of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies manufactured in China (domestic PD-1/PD-L1) and overseas (imported PD-1/PD-L1) when combined with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of NSCLC.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library of publications up to July 13, 2023. Meta-analysis was applied to compare the efficacy and safety profile between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies plus chemotherapy (PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo) and chemotherapy alone using STATA software. Pooled hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival, odds ratios for objective response rate, and incidence rate of grade greater than or equal to three treatment-related adverse events with 95% confidence intervals were calculated in the domestic group and imported group by a random-effects model, and the heterogeneity between the two estimates was assessed.

Results

There were 14 eligible clinical studies with a total of 3951 patients involved in this analysis, including eight studies of domestic PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo and six studies of imported PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo. The study revealed that there was no significant difference between domestic and imported PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo in overall survival (p = 0.80), progression-free survival (p = 0.53), and incidence rate of grade greater than or equal to three treatment-related adverse events (p = 0.10). Nevertheless, the objective response rate of imported PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo was significantly higher than that of domestic PD-1/PD-L1+Chemo (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Domestic anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies plus chemotherapy were found to have comparable efficacy and safety to those combined with imported anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies based on current evidence.

From standard therapies to monoclonal antibodies and immune checkpoint inhibitors - an update for reconstructive surgeons on common oncological cases

Malignancies represent a persisting worldwide health burden. Tumor treatment is commonly based on surgical and/or non-surgical therapies. In the recent decade, novel non-surgical treatment strategies involving monoclonal antibodies (mAB) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been successfully incorporated into standard treatment algorithms. Such emerging therapy concepts have demonstrated improved complete remission rates and prolonged progression-free survival compared to conventional chemotherapies. However, the in-toto surgical tumor resection followed by reconstructive surgery oftentimes remains the only curative therapy. Breast cancer (BC), skin cancer (SC), head and neck cancer (HNC), and sarcoma amongst other cancer entities commonly require reconstructive surgery to restore form, aesthetics, and functionality. Understanding the basic principles, strengths, and limitations of mAB and ICI as (neo-) adjuvant therapies and treatment alternatives for resectable or unresectable tumors is paramount for optimized surgical therapy planning. Yet, there is a scarcity of studies that condense the current body of literature on mAB and ICI for BC, SC, HNC, and sarcoma. This knowledge gap may result in suboptimal treatment planning, ultimately impairing patient outcomes. Herein, we aim to summarize the current translational endeavors focusing on mAB and ICI. This line of research may serve as an evidence-based fundament to guide targeted therapy and optimize interdisciplinary anti-cancer strategies.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapy in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to an increase in randomized controlled trials exploring various first-line combination treatment regimens. With the introduction of new PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, there are now more clinical options available. For the first time, the AK105 monoclonal antibody Penpulimab, developed in China, was included. The AK105-302 Phase III trial studied the efficacy and safety of Penpulimab combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. To determine the optimal treatment options, we conducted an updated network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of these regimens.

METHODS

The system retrieves data from Chinese and English electronic databases, Clinical Trials, and the gov Clinical Trial Registration website up to September 6, 2023. The study indirectly compared the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 combination regimens, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), all-grade adverse events, and above-grade III adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) level, histological type, ECOG score, sex, and smoking history.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTS were included, with a total of ten thousand eight hundred patients. Penpulimab plus chemotherapy (Pen + CT) provided the best OS (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81) for PD-L1 patients with non-selective advanced NSCLC. Except Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab (Niv + Ipi), other PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapies significantly extended PFS compared with CT, and Nivolumab plus Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy (Niv + Bev + CT) (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.74) provided the best PFS benefit and was comparable to Pen + CT (HR = 1.0) for PFS prolongation. For ORR, except Niv + Ipi, all the other regimens significantly improved ORR compared with CT. In terms of safety, except Tor + CT, the incidence of any-grade AEs or grade ≥ 3 adverse events may be higher than those of chemotherapy. The subgroup analysis revealed that for patients with PD-L1 levels below 1%, treatment with Tor + CT resulted in the best progression-free survival (HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.86). For patients with PD-L1 levels of 1% or higher, Sintilimab plus chemotherapy (Sin + CT) (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-0.99) and Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (Cam + CT) (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.64) were associated with the best overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. For patients with SqNSCLC, combined immunotherapy may provide greater survival benefits. For patients with Non-sqNSCLC, Niv + Bev + CT and Tor + CT were associated with optimal PFS and OS, respectively. Cam + CT provided the best PFS in male patients with a history of smoking and an ECOG score of 0. In both female and non-smoking patient subgroups, Pem + CT was associated with the best PFS and OS benefits.

CONCLUSION

For patients with advanced non-selective PD-L1 NSCLC, two effective regimens are Pen + CT and Niv + Bev + CT, which rank first in OS and PFS among all patients. Cam + CT and Tor + CT have advantages for OS in patients with SqNSCLC and Non-sqNSCLC, respectively. Niv + Ipi + CT provided the best OS benefit for patients with an ECOG score of 0, while Pem + CT may be the most effective treatment for patients with an ECOG score of 1. Pem + CT has a better effect on female patients and non-smokers. Sin + CT was found to be the most effective treatment for male patients and the smoking subgroup, while Cam + CT was found to be the most effective for PFS. In addition, Tor + CT was associated with the best PFS for patients with negative PD-L1 expression. Pem + CT was found to significantly improve both PFS and OS compared to CT alone. For patients with positive PD-L1 expression, Sin + CT and Cam + CT were found to be optimal for OS and PFS, respectively. It is important to note that, with the exception of Tor + CT, the toxicity of the other combinations was higher than that of CT alone.

Identifying optimal ALK inhibitors in first- and second-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and effects on quality of life of different ALK-inhibitors for global and Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The included RCTs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and major cancer conferences. The assessment of progression-free survival (PFS), intracranial PFS, overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was carried out using restricted mean survival time (RMST) model, fractional polynomial model and Royston-Parmar model. Time-invariant hazard ratio (HR) models were also used to validate and supplement the primary analysis. Objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events with any grade, grade 3-5 were assessed through a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary measures for OS, PFS, and PROs were HR and RMST. The odds ratio was the metric for evaluating safety, ORR, 12-month PFS rate, 24-month OS rate, and the 12-month non-deterioration rate of PROs. Subgroup analyses based on patient characteristics were performed.

RESULTS

A total of fourteen studies (ten for first-line, four for second-line) consisting of nine treatments (chemotherapy, crizotinib, alectinib [600mg BID], low-dose alectinib [300mg BID], brigatinib, ceritinib, ensartinib, envonalkib, and lorlatinib) were included. In the first-line setting, alectinib showed a significant advantage over crizotinib and had the longest OS among all ALK-inhibitors. Compared to crizotinib, lorlatinib had the best efficacy regarding PFS for global patients, followed closely by alectinib and brigatinib. For Asian patients, alectinib significantly improved PFS compared to other treatments. In second-line, alectinib had the highest PFS for patients pretreated with crizotinib, followed by brigatinib, ceritinib and chemotherapy. Alectinib, irrespective of the dose, was the safest first-line option, whereas lorlatinib, brigatinib, and ceritinib showed poorer safety profiles. Alectinib was also the safest ALK-inhibitor for crizotinib-resistant patients. Brigatinib had the best performance in terms of PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering both efficacy and safety, alectinib appears to be the preferable treatment in first-line and second-line, particularly for Asian patients.

A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety for first-line and second/further-line therapies in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR + /HER2 -) advanced breast cancer is a prevalent subtype among postmenopausal women. Despite the growing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring this topic, the efficacy and safety of first-line and second/further-line treatments remain uncertain. Accordingly, our aim was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of these therapies through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

RCTs were identified by searching Pubmed, Embase, and major cancer conferences. The efficacy of interventions was assessed using the hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while safety was indicated by the incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs), grade 3-5 AEs, AEs leading to treatment discontinuation, and AEs leading to death. Both time-variant HRs fractional polynomial models and time-invariant HRs Cox-proportional hazards models were considered for handling time-to-event data. Safety indicators were analyzed using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted based on patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 41 RCTs (first-line 17, second/further-lines 27) were included in the analysis. For first-line treatment, the addition of Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors to endocrine therapy significantly improved therapeutic efficacy in terms of both PFS and OS, demonstrating the best performance across all mechanisms. Specifically, the combination of Abemaciclib and Letrozole demonstrated the most favorable performance in terms of PFS, while Ribociclib plus Fulvestrant yielded the best outcomes in OS. Incorporating the immune checkpoint inhibitor Avelumab into the regimen with CDK4/6 inhibitors and selective estrogen receptor degraders significantly enhanced both PFS and OS in second-line or later treatments. Regarding safety, endocrine monotherapy performed well. Regarding safety, endocrine monotherapy performed well. There is mounting evidence suggesting that most CDK4/6 inhibitors may demonstrate poorer performance with respect to hematologic AEs. However, additional evidence is required to further substantiate these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

CDK4/6 inhibitors, combined with endocrine therapy, are pivotal in first-line treatment due to their superior efficacy and manageable AEs. For second/further-line treatment, adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy may produce promising results. However, to reduce the results' uncertainty, further trials comparing these novel treatments are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42022377431).