BACKGROUND: We previously showed that therapy with anti-checkpoints T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) or antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) agents was more effective for men as compared with women. However, because the sex-dimorphism of the immune system is complex, involving multiple elements of immune responses, it is possible that women could derive larger benefit than men from strategies other than therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone. Here we investigated whether women could derive larger benefit than men from the combination of chemotherapy and anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. METHODS: We performed two meta-analyses. The first included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy to assess different efficacy between men and women. The second included all RCTs of first-line systemic treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer testing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 given either alone or combined with chemotherapy to assess the different efficacy of these two immunotherapeutic strategies according to patients' sex. For each RCT included in the two meta-analyses, first, a trial-specific ratio of hazard ratios (HRs) was calculated from the ratio of the reported hazard ratios in men and in women; second, these trial-specific ratios of hazard ratios were combined across trials using a random-effects model to obtain a pooled hazard ratios ratio. A pooled HRs ratio estimate lower than 1 indicates a greater treatment effect in men, and higher than 1 a greater effect in women. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios (OS-HRs) comparing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.87) for men and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.67) for women. The pooled ratio of the overall survival hazard ratios reported in men vs women was 1.56 (95% CI = 1.21 to 2.01), indicating a statistically significant greater effect for women. Six RCTs were included in the second meta-analysis: three tested an anti-PD-1 alone, whereas three RCTs tested anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios were 0.78 (95% CI = 0.60 to 1.00) in men and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.79 to 1.19) in women for anti-PD-1 alone, compared with 0.76 (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.91) in men and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.76) in women for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled ratio of overall survival hazard ratios was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.65 to 1.06) for anti-PD-1 alone, indicating a greater effect in men, and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.16 to 2.49) for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy, indicating a greater effect in women. CONCLUSION: Women with advanced lung cancer derived a statistically significantly larger benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 as compared with men.
BACKGROUND: We previously showed that therapy with anti-checkpoints T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) or antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) agents was more effective for men as compared with women. However, because the sex-dimorphism of the immune system is complex, involving multiple elements of immune responses, it is possible that women could derive larger benefit than men from strategies other than therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone. Here we investigated whether women could derive larger benefit than men from the combination of chemotherapy and anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. METHODS: We performed two meta-analyses. The first included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing anti-PD1 and anti-PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy to assess different efficacy between men and women. The second included all RCTs of first-line systemic treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer testing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 given either alone or combined with chemotherapy to assess the different efficacy of these two immunotherapeutic strategies according to patients' sex. For each RCT included in the two meta-analyses, first, a trial-specific ratio of hazard ratios (HRs) was calculated from the ratio of the reported hazard ratios in men and in women; second, these trial-specific ratios of hazard ratios were combined across trials using a random-effects model to obtain a pooled hazard ratios ratio. A pooled HRs ratio estimate lower than 1 indicates a greater treatment effect in men, and higher than 1 a greater effect in women. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in the first meta-analysis. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios (OS-HRs) comparing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.87) for men and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.67) for women. The pooled ratio of the overall survival hazard ratios reported in men vs women was 1.56 (95% CI = 1.21 to 2.01), indicating a statistically significant greater effect for women. Six RCTs were included in the second meta-analysis: three tested an anti-PD-1 alone, whereas three RCTs tested anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled overall survival hazard ratios were 0.78 (95% CI = 0.60 to 1.00) in men and 0.97 (95% CI = 0.79 to 1.19) in women for anti-PD-1 alone, compared with 0.76 (95% CI = 0.64 to 0.91) in men and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.76) in women for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy. The pooled ratio of overall survival hazard ratios was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.65 to 1.06) for anti-PD-1 alone, indicating a greater effect in men, and 1.70 (95% CI = 1.16 to 2.49) for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus chemotherapy, indicating a greater effect in women. CONCLUSION:Women with advanced lung cancer derived a statistically significantly larger benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 as compared with men.
Authors: Leena Gandhi; Delvys Rodríguez-Abreu; Shirish Gadgeel; Emilio Esteban; Enriqueta Felip; Flávia De Angelis; Manuel Domine; Philip Clingan; Maximilian J Hochmair; Steven F Powell; Susanna Y-S Cheng; Helge G Bischoff; Nir Peled; Francesco Grossi; Ross R Jennens; Martin Reck; Rina Hui; Edward B Garon; Michael Boyer; Belén Rubio-Viqueira; Silvia Novello; Takayasu Kurata; Jhanelle E Gray; John Vida; Ziwen Wei; Jing Yang; Harry Raftopoulos; M Catherine Pietanza; Marina C Garassino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Conforti; L Pala; V Bagnardi; G Viale; T De Pas; E Pagan; R D Gelber; A Goldhirsch Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Martin Reck; Delvys Rodríguez-Abreu; Andrew G Robinson; Rina Hui; Tibor Csőszi; Andrea Fülöp; Maya Gottfried; Nir Peled; Ali Tafreshi; Sinead Cuffe; Mary O'Brien; Suman Rao; Katsuyuki Hotta; Melanie A Leiby; Gregory M Lubiniecki; Yue Shentu; Reshma Rangwala; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Leora Horn; Aaron S Mansfield; Aleksandra Szczęsna; Libor Havel; Maciej Krzakowski; Maximilian J Hochmair; Florian Huemer; György Losonczy; Melissa L Johnson; Makoto Nishio; Martin Reck; Tony Mok; Sivuonthanh Lam; David S Shames; Juan Liu; Beiying Ding; Ariel Lopez-Chavez; Fairooz Kabbinavar; Wei Lin; Alan Sandler; Stephen V Liu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carlos W Wanderley; David F Colón; João Paulo M Luiz; Francisco F Oliveira; Paula R Viacava; Caio A Leite; Janaina A Pereira; Camila M Silva; Cassia R Silva; Rangel L Silva; Cesar A Speck-Hernandez; José M Mota; José C Alves-Filho; Roberto C Lima-Junior; Thiago M Cunha; Fernando Q Cunha Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Zachary R Chalmers; Caitlin F Connelly; David Fabrizio; Laurie Gay; Siraj M Ali; Riley Ennis; Alexa Schrock; Brittany Campbell; Adam Shlien; Juliann Chmielecki; Franklin Huang; Yuting He; James Sun; Uri Tabori; Mark Kennedy; Daniel S Lieber; Steven Roels; Jared White; Geoffrey A Otto; Jeffrey S Ross; Levi Garraway; Vincent A Miller; Phillip J Stephens; Garrett M Frampton Journal: Genome Med Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Shanshan Deng; Marco Ramos-Castaneda; Walter V Velasco; Michael J Clowers; Berenice A Gutierrez; Oscar Noble; Yiping Dong; Melody Zarghooni; Lucero Alvarado; Mauricio S Caetano; Shuanying Yang; Edwin J Ostrin; Carmen Behrens; Ignacio I Wistuba; Laura P Stabile; Humam Kadara; Stephanie S Watowich; Seyed Javad Moghaddam Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Brian D Gonzalez; Sarah L Eisel; Kristina E Bowles; Aasha I Hoogland; Brian W James; Brent J Small; Susan Sharpe; Kelly A Hyland; Hailey W Bulls; Shannon M Christy; Jori Mansfield; Ashley M Nelson; Raviteja Alla; Kelly Maharaj; Brittany Kennedy; Elizabeth Lafranchise; Noelle L Williams; Sarah Jennewein; Laura B Oswald; Michael A Postow; Adam P Dicker; Heather S L Jim Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 11.816