Treatment Options for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Failure of Previous Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Chemotherapy: Meta-Analysis of Five Randomized Controlled Trials.
Andrea Messori, Andrea Ossato, Lorenzo Gasperoni, Luna Del Bono, Alessandro Inno, Vera Damuzzo
{"title":"Treatment Options for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Failure of Previous Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Chemotherapy: Meta-Analysis of Five Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Andrea Messori, Andrea Ossato, Lorenzo Gasperoni, Luna Del Bono, Alessandro Inno, Vera Damuzzo","doi":"10.3390/curroncol32010046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), either alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, are effective in the first-line treatment of metastatic, non-oncogene-addicted, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, when NSCLC patients progress, the efficacy of available treatment options is limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a meta-analysis that compared combination regimens with the current standard of care. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (endpoint, overall survival [OS]). Our analysis used an artificial intelligence software program that reconstructs individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was the main parameter. Heterogeneity was based on Wald's test and likelihood ratio test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs were included, whose experimental arms included five different combinations. In our analysis, these combination regimes showed no OS benefit compared to chemotherapy (HR = 1.066, 95%CI, 0.9311 to 1.221; <i>p</i> = 0.35). Among the five control arms, cross-trial heterogeneity was remarkably low (likelihood ratio test = 3.76 on 4 df, <i>p</i> = 0.40; Wald test = 3.83 on 4 df, <i>p</i> = 0.40.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In conclusion, five new second-line combination treatments for patients with NSCLC were not found to determine any benefit in terms of OS in comparison with the current standard of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11763427/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32010046","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), either alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, are effective in the first-line treatment of metastatic, non-oncogene-addicted, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, when NSCLC patients progress, the efficacy of available treatment options is limited.
Methods: We undertook a meta-analysis that compared combination regimens with the current standard of care. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (endpoint, overall survival [OS]). Our analysis used an artificial intelligence software program that reconstructs individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier curves. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was the main parameter. Heterogeneity was based on Wald's test and likelihood ratio test.
Results: Five RCTs were included, whose experimental arms included five different combinations. In our analysis, these combination regimes showed no OS benefit compared to chemotherapy (HR = 1.066, 95%CI, 0.9311 to 1.221; p = 0.35). Among the five control arms, cross-trial heterogeneity was remarkably low (likelihood ratio test = 3.76 on 4 df, p = 0.40; Wald test = 3.83 on 4 df, p = 0.40.
Discussion: In conclusion, five new second-line combination treatments for patients with NSCLC were not found to determine any benefit in terms of OS in comparison with the current standard of care.
期刊介绍:
Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease.
We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.