Chee Khoon Lee1,2, Johnathan Man2, Sally Lord1,3, Wendy Cooper4,5,6, Matthew Links2, Val Gebski1, Roy S Herbst7,8, Richard J Gralla9,10, Tony Mok11, James Chih-Hsin Yang12,13. 1. National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Cancer Care Centre, St George Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. School of Medicine, The University of Norte Dame, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 8. Smilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. 9. Department of Medicine (Oncology), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York. 10. Hematology-Oncology Division, Jacobi Medical Center, New York, New York. 11. Hong Kong Cancer Institute, Department of Clinical Oncology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, China. 12. Graduate Institute of Oncology, National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan. 13. Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors have replaced docetaxel as the new standard second-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), but little is known about the potential predictive value of clinical and molecular characteristics. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy of checkpoint inhibitor vs docetaxel overall and in subgroups defined by clinicopathological characteristics. DATA SOURCES: This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials published in the English language between January 1, 1996, and January 30, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials that compared a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab) with docetaxel. For each trial included in this study, the trial name, year of publication or conference presentation, patients' clinicopathological characteristics, type of chemotherapy, and type of checkpoint inhibitor were extracted. Data collection for this study took place from February 1 to March 31, 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for the overall population and subgroups were extracted. Pooled treatment estimates were calculated using the inverse-variance-weighted method. RESULTS: In total, 5 trials involving 3025 patients with advanced NSCLC were included in this meta-analysis. These patients were randomized to receive a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, 427 [14.1%]; pembrolizumab, 691 [22.8%]; or atezolizumab, 569 [18.8%]) or docetaxel (1338 [44.2%]). Checkpoint inhibitors were associated with prolonged overall survival, compared with docetaxel (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75; P < .001). They prolonged overall survival in the EGFR wild-type subgroup (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75; P < .001), but not in the EGFR mutant subgroup (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.80-1.53; P = .54; interaction, P = .005), and they prolonged overall survival in the KRAS mutant subgroup (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97; P = .03) but not in the KRAS wild-type subgroup (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67-1.11; P = .24; interaction, P = .24). The relative treatment benefits were similar according to smoking status (never smokers [HR, 0.79] vs ever smokers [HR, 0.69]; interaction, P = .40), performance status (0 [HR, 0.69] vs 1 [HR, 0.68]; interaction, P = .85), age (<65 years [HR, 0.71] vs ≥65 years [HR, 0.69]; interaction, P = .74), histology (squamous [HR, 0.67] vs nonsquamous [HR, 0.70]; interaction, P = .71), or sex (male [HR, 0.69] vs female [HR, 0.70]; interaction, P = .82). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors, compared with docetaxel, are associated with significantly prolong overall survival in second-line therapy in NSCLC. The finding of no overall survival benefit for patients with EGFR mutant tumors suggests that checkpoint inhibitors should be considered only after other effective therapies have been exhausted. The findings of this meta-analysis could also assist in the design and interpretation of future trials and in economic analyses.
IMPORTANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors have replaced docetaxel as the new standard second-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), but little is known about the potential predictive value of clinical and molecular characteristics. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy of checkpoint inhibitor vs docetaxel overall and in subgroups defined by clinicopathological characteristics. DATA SOURCES: This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials published in the English language between January 1, 1996, and January 30, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials that compared a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab) with docetaxel. For each trial included in this study, the trial name, year of publication or conference presentation, patients' clinicopathological characteristics, type of chemotherapy, and type of checkpoint inhibitor were extracted. Data collection for this study took place from February 1 to March 31, 2017. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs for the overall population and subgroups were extracted. Pooled treatment estimates were calculated using the inverse-variance-weighted method. RESULTS: In total, 5 trials involving 3025 patients with advanced NSCLC were included in this meta-analysis. These patients were randomized to receive a checkpoint inhibitor (nivolumab, 427 [14.1%]; pembrolizumab, 691 [22.8%]; or atezolizumab, 569 [18.8%]) or docetaxel (1338 [44.2%]). Checkpoint inhibitors were associated with prolonged overall survival, compared with docetaxel (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75; P < .001). They prolonged overall survival in the EGFR wild-type subgroup (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75; P < .001), but not in the EGFR mutant subgroup (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.80-1.53; P = .54; interaction, P = .005), and they prolonged overall survival in the KRAS mutant subgroup (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97; P = .03) but not in the KRAS wild-type subgroup (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67-1.11; P = .24; interaction, P = .24). The relative treatment benefits were similar according to smoking status (never smokers [HR, 0.79] vs ever smokers [HR, 0.69]; interaction, P = .40), performance status (0 [HR, 0.69] vs 1 [HR, 0.68]; interaction, P = .85), age (<65 years [HR, 0.71] vs ≥65 years [HR, 0.69]; interaction, P = .74), histology (squamous [HR, 0.67] vs nonsquamous [HR, 0.70]; interaction, P = .71), or sex (male [HR, 0.69] vs female [HR, 0.70]; interaction, P = .82). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Checkpoint inhibitors, compared with docetaxel, are associated with significantly prolong overall survival in second-line therapy in NSCLC. The finding of no overall survival benefit for patients with EGFR mutant tumors suggests that checkpoint inhibitors should be considered only after other effective therapies have been exhausted. The findings of this meta-analysis could also assist in the design and interpretation of future trials and in economic analyses.
Authors: Scott N Gettinger; Leora Horn; Leena Gandhi; David R Spigel; Scott J Antonia; Naiyer A Rizvi; John D Powderly; Rebecca S Heist; Richard D Carvajal; David M Jackman; Lecia V Sequist; David C Smith; Philip Leming; David P Carbone; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Suzanne L Topalian; F Stephen Hodi; Jeffrey A Sosman; Mario Sznol; David F McDermott; Drew M Pardoll; Vindira Sankar; Christoph M Ahlers; Mark Salvati; Jon M Wigginton; Matthew D Hellmann; Georgia D Kollia; Ashok K Gupta; Julie R Brahmer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Jean-Charles Soria; Marcin Kowanetz; Gregg D Fine; Omid Hamid; Michael S Gordon; Jeffery A Sosman; David F McDermott; John D Powderly; Scott N Gettinger; Holbrook E K Kohrt; Leora Horn; Donald P Lawrence; Sandra Rost; Maya Leabman; Yuanyuan Xiao; Ahmad Mokatrin; Hartmut Koeppen; Priti S Hegde; Ira Mellman; Daniel S Chen; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Fred R Hirsch; Abigail McElhinny; Dave Stanforth; James Ranger-Moore; Malinka Jansson; Karina Kulangara; William Richardson; Penny Towne; Debra Hanks; Bharathi Vennapusa; Amita Mistry; Rasika Kalamegham; Steve Averbuch; James Novotny; Eric Rubin; Kenneth Emancipator; Ian McCaffery; J Andrew Williams; Jill Walker; John Longshore; Ming Sound Tsao; Keith M Kerr Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Naiyer A Rizvi; Matthew D Hellmann; Alexandra Snyder; Pia Kvistborg; Vladimir Makarov; Jonathan J Havel; William Lee; Jianda Yuan; Phillip Wong; Teresa S Ho; Martin L Miller; Natasha Rekhtman; Andre L Moreira; Fawzia Ibrahim; Cameron Bruggeman; Billel Gasmi; Roberta Zappasodi; Yuka Maeda; Chris Sander; Edward B Garon; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Ton N Schumacher; Timothy A Chan Journal: Science Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Azuma; K Ota; A Kawahara; S Hattori; E Iwama; T Harada; K Matsumoto; K Takayama; S Takamori; M Kage; T Hoshino; Y Nakanishi; I Okamoto Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Sarah B Goldberg; Scott N Gettinger; Amit Mahajan; Anne C Chiang; Roy S Herbst; Mario Sznol; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Justine Cohen; Alexander Vortmeyer; Lucia Jilaveanu; James Yu; Upendra Hegde; Stephanie Speaker; Matthew Madura; Amanda Ralabate; Angel Rivera; Elin Rowen; Heather Gerrish; Xiaopan Yao; Veronica Chiang; Harriet M Kluger Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Justin F Gainor; Alice T Shaw; Lecia V Sequist; Xiujun Fu; Christopher G Azzoli; Zofia Piotrowska; Tiffany G Huynh; Ling Zhao; Linnea Fulton; Katherine R Schultz; Emily Howe; Anna F Farago; Ryan J Sullivan; James R Stone; Subba Digumarthy; Teresa Moran; Aaron N Hata; Yukako Yagi; Beow Y Yeap; Jeffrey A Engelman; Mari Mino-Kenudson Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M B Schabath; E A Welsh; W J Fulp; L Chen; J K Teer; Z J Thompson; B E Engel; M Xie; A E Berglund; B C Creelan; S J Antonia; J E Gray; S A Eschrich; D-T Chen; W D Cress; E B Haura; A A Beg Journal: Oncogene Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Francesco Passiglia; Giuseppe Bronte; Viviana Bazan; Clara Natoli; Sergio Rizzo; Antonio Galvano; Angela Listì; Giuseppe Cicero; Christian Rolfo; Daniele Santini; Antonio Russo Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-04-12
Authors: Dan Zhao; Isa Mambetsariev; Haiqing Li; Chen Chen; Jeremy Fricke; Patricia Fann; Prakash Kulkarni; Yan Xing; Peter P Lee; Andrea Bild; Erminia Massarelli; Marianna Koczywas; Karen Reckamp; Ravi Salgia Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2020-05-24 Impact factor: 5.705