scholarly journals Rational application of the first‐line chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: A meta‐analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 5033-5046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Cao ◽  
Jie‐Tao Ma ◽  
Shu‐Ling Zhang ◽  
Li Sun ◽  
Yang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Rational Application ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

scholarly journals The Predictive Efficacy of Tumor Mutation Burden (TMB) on Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Treated by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Zhang Nan ◽  
Wang Guoqing ◽  
Yu Xiaoxu ◽  
Mi Yin ◽  
He Xin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Tumor Mutation Burden ◽  
Mutation Burden ◽  
Nsclc Patients

Background. Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer, and the majority of NSCLC patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage. Chemotherapy is still the main treatment at present, and the overall prognosis is poor. In recent years, immunotherapy has developed rapidly. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as the representative have been extensively applied for treating various types of cancers. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) as a potential biomarker is used to screen appropriate patients for treatment of ICIs. To verify the predictive efficacy of TMB, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to explore the association between TMB and ICIs. Method. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and son on were systematically searched from inception to April 2020. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated. Results. A total of 11 studies consisting of 1525 nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were included. Comparison of high and low TMB: pooled HRs for OS, 0.57 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.99; P = 0.046 ); PFS, 0.48 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.69; P < 0.001 ); ORR, 3.15 (95% CI 2.29 to 4.33; P < 0.001 ). Subgroup analysis values: pooled HRs for OS, 0.75 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.92, P = 0.548 ) for blood TMB (bTMB), 0.44 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, P = 0.003 ) for tissue TMB (tTMB); for PFS, 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, P = 0.044 ) and 0.43 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.71, P = 0.001 ), respectively. Conclusions. These findings imply that NSCLC patients with high TMB possess significant clinical benefits from ICIs compared to those with low TMB. As opposed to bTMB, tTMB was thought more appropriate for stratifying NSCLC patients for ICI treatment.

scholarly journals Systematic review of first-line chemotherapy for chemo-naïve extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592096584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Chen ◽  
Nobuyuki Horita ◽  
Kentaro Ito ◽  
Hideyuki Nagakura ◽  
Yu Hara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Weighted Least Squares ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Background: Our goal was to organize the data from randomized controlled trials that evaluated first-line chemotherapy for chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Methods: The protocol following PRISMA methodology was submitted as PROSPERO 154049. We included individually randomized trials comparing two or more chemotherapy regimens as the first-line treatment for chemo-naïve ED-SCLC regardless of the age, sex, performance status, co-morbidities, and organ functions written in the English language since 2000. Molecular targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors were considered chemotherapy along with cytotoxic medications. We pooled the logarithm of hazard ratio (HR) and its standard error using the frequentist weighted least squares approach random-model network meta-analysis. Results: A total of 46 eligible trials that involved 11,987 patients were included. The primary endpoint, HR of overall survival (OS, HRos) of the selected comparisons was as follows: carboplatin+amrubicin (HRos 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–0.96), carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab (HRos 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.92), and carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.58–0.91) were compared with carboplatin+etoposide. The carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab regimen was compared with carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.97, 95% CI 0.68–1.37) and cisplatin+irinotecan regimen (HRos 0.87, 95% CI 0.58–1.31). “Selective carboplatin or cisplatin (CBDCA/CDDP)”+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.59–0.91). Platinum+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with platinum+irinotecan (HRos 0.88, 95% CI 0.67–1.15). Cumulative meta-analysis suggested that platinum+irinotecan was associated with better OS than platinum+etoposide as of 2010 through 40 out of 46 trials in our review that used platinum+etoposide as a reference regimen. Conclusion: Patients treated with carboplatin+amrubicin, carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab, CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide+durvalumab, and platinum+irinotecan showed better HRos than those treated with platinum+etoposide, one of the standard regimens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document