Immunotherapy combinations and chemotherapy sparing schemes in first line non-small cell lung cancer

Efficacy and safety of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitor in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor with CTLA-4 inhibitor for advanced non-small cell lung cancer(NSCLC) is presently a significant area of research, however its clinical application remains contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitor (CP) in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Methods

A systemic search was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, and Web of Science) from their establishment until January 17, 2024, for randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of the first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus CTLA-4 inhibitor in patients with advanced NSCLC. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were subjected to meta-analyses.

Results

Totally 7 eligible randomized controlled trials including 4682 people were included. Two comparative analyses were performed: CP versus chemotherapy, CP versus PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor (P). Compared with the chemotherapy group, CP improved OS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.94, p<0.05) but not PFS (HR: 0.94, 95%CI: 0.73-1.20, p = 0.63) or ORR (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.79-1.71, p = 0.45). In terms of toxicity, CP had slightly fewer any AEs compared to chemotherapy (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97; p<0.05). Compared to the P group, there was no significant difference in OS (MD: -0,25, 95% CI: -2.47-1.98, p = 0.83), PFS (MD: -0.91, 95% CI: -3.19-1.36, p = 0.43), and ORR (OR:1.05, 95% CI. 0.80-1.36, p = 0.73). Subgroup analysis revealed that CP provided superior OS compared with P in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1%.

Conclusion

CP was a feasible and safe first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. Specifically, CP may function as a therapeutic alternative for individuals with low or negative PD-L1 expression, resulting in enhanced long-term outcomes compared to chemotherapy or P. Further randomized controlled trials with prolonged follow-up periods are necessary to validate these results, particularly focusing on efficacy in patients with differing PD-L1 expression levels, to improve the stratified implementation of immunotherapy.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024621116, identifier CRD42024621116.

Lung cancer screening use among screening-eligible adults with disabilities

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) use among adults with disabilities has not been well characterized. We estimated the prevalence of LCS use by disability types and counts and investigated the association between disability counts and LCS utilization among LCS-eligible adults.

METHODS

We used cross-sectional data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Lung Cancer Screening Module. Based on the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for LCS, the sample included 4407 LCS-eligible adults, aged 55-79 years, with current or former (quit smoking in the past 15 years) tobacco use history of at least 30 pack-years. Disability types included limitations in hearing, vision, cognition, mobility, self-care, and independent living. We also categorized respondents by number of disabilities (no disability, 1 disability, 2 disabilities, 3+ disabilities). We utilized descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analyses to determine the association between disability counts and the receipt of LCS (yes/no) in the past 12 months.

RESULTS

In 2019, 16.4% of LCS-eligible adults were screened for lung cancer. Overall, 49.6% of participants had no disability, and 14.5% had >3 disabilities. Mobility was the most prevalent disability type (35.4%), followed by cognitive impairment (18.2%) and hearing (16.6%). LCS was more prevalent in adults with disability in self-care versus no disability in self-care (24.0% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.01), disability in independent living versus no disability in independent living (22.2% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.02), and cognitive impairment disability versus no cognitive impairment (22.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.03). The prevalence rates of LCS among groups of LCS-eligible adults with different disability counts were not significant (p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of clinical guidelines on LCS among individuals with disabilities, some individuals with disabilities are being screened for lung cancer. Future research should address this knowledge gap to determine clinical benefit versus harm of LCS among those with disabilities.

Effects of psychological nursing care on anxiety and depression in perioperative patients with lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the effects of psychological nursing care (PNC) on anxiety relief in perioperative lung cancer (LC) patients.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, CBM, and Wangfang electronic databases from inception to May 1, 2022. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects and safety of PNC on anxiety relief in perioperative LC patients. Anxiety was the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcomes were depression, length of hospital stay, and the occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Six eligible RCTs with 494 patients were included in this study. Compared with routine nursing care, PNC showed better outcomes in terms of anxiety relief (mean difference [MD] = -13.24; random 95% confidence interval (CI), -18.28 to -8.20; P<.001), depression decrease (MD = -11.84; random 95% CI, -18.67 to -5.01; P < .001), and length of hospital stay (MD = -2.6; fixed 95% CI, -3.13 to -2.07; P < .001). No data on adverse events were pooled because only 1 trial reported this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that PNC may benefit more than routine nursing care for patients with LC in anxiety, depression, and length of hospital stay. High-quality RCTs are needed to validate the current findings in the future.