Leyin Zhang1, Leitao Sun2, Yiwen Zhou3, Jieru Yu4, Yingying Lin1, Harpreet S Wasan5, Minhe Shen2, Shanming Ruan2. 1. The First Clinical Medical College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China. 3. The Second Clinical Medical College of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China. 4. College of Basic Medical Science, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China. 5. Department of Cancer Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer, with sustained high mortality, is a worldwide threat to public health. Despite the survival benefit over conventional therapies shown in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), only a minority of patients benefit from single ICI. But combination therapy holds the promise of achieving better efficacy over monotherapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of ICI-based combination therapy for cancer. METHODS: A search was conducted to retrieve relevant studies in electronic databases and major conferences. Two investigators independently performed data extraction, making a systematic data extraction, assembly, analysis and interpretation to compare the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), all and high grade immune related adverse events (IRAEs) between combination therapy and monotherapy. Therefore, only the studies satisfying the criteria were included. Finally, we performed subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analysis to examine the heterogeneity and bias of resources. RESULTS: A total of 2,532 patients from thirteen studies were enrolled. Compared to ICI alone, combination therapy, with a high risk and high grade IRAEs for the majority of all, offers a better survival benefit (OS: HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.98; PFS: HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.90) and objective response (ORR: RR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.60). CONCLUSIONS: ICI-based combination therapy was confirmed as the optimum treatment for cancer, especially when using specific dosage and regimen to treat certain tumor types with no absolute demand for the detection of PD-L1 expression. Meanwhile, attention should also be paid on potential toxicity, especially the IRAEs.
BACKGROUND: Cancer, with sustained high mortality, is a worldwide threat to public health. Despite the survival benefit over conventional therapies shown in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), only a minority of patients benefit from single ICI. But combination therapy holds the promise of achieving better efficacy over monotherapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of ICI-based combination therapy for cancer. METHODS: A search was conducted to retrieve relevant studies in electronic databases and major conferences. Two investigators independently performed data extraction, making a systematic data extraction, assembly, analysis and interpretation to compare the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), all and high grade immune related adverse events (IRAEs) between combination therapy and monotherapy. Therefore, only the studies satisfying the criteria were included. Finally, we performed subgroup, sensitivity, and publication bias analysis to examine the heterogeneity and bias of resources. RESULTS: A total of 2,532 patients from thirteen studies were enrolled. Compared to ICI alone, combination therapy, with a high risk and high grade IRAEs for the majority of all, offers a better survival benefit (OS: HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.98; PFS: HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.90) and objective response (ORR: RR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.60). CONCLUSIONS: ICI-based combination therapy was confirmed as the optimum treatment for cancer, especially when using specific dosage and regimen to treat certain tumor types with no absolute demand for the detection of PD-L1 expression. Meanwhile, attention should also be paid on potential toxicity, especially the IRAEs.
Authors: James Larkin; Vanna Chiarion-Sileni; Rene Gonzalez; Jean-Jacques Grob; Piotr Rutkowski; Christopher D Lao; C Lance Cowey; Dirk Schadendorf; John Wagstaff; Reinhard Dummer; Pier F Ferrucci; Michael Smylie; David Hogg; Andrew Hill; Ivan Márquez-Rodas; John Haanen; Massimo Guidoboni; Michele Maio; Patrick Schöffski; Matteo S Carlino; Céleste Lebbé; Grant McArthur; Paolo A Ascierto; Gregory A Daniels; Georgina V Long; Lars Bastholt; Jasmine I Rizzo; Agnes Balogh; Andriy Moshyk; F Stephen Hodi; Jedd D Wolchok Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dmitriy Zamarin; Robert A Burger; Michael W Sill; Daniel J Powell; Heather A Lankes; Michael D Feldman; Oliver Zivanovic; Camille Gunderson; Emily Ko; Cara Mathews; Sudarshan Sharma; Andrea R Hagemann; Samir Khleif; Carol Aghajanian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott J Antonia; José A López-Martin; Johanna Bendell; Patrick A Ott; Matthew Taylor; Joseph Paul Eder; Dirk Jäger; M Catherine Pietanza; Dung T Le; Filippo de Braud; Michael A Morse; Paolo A Ascierto; Leora Horn; Asim Amin; Rathi N Pillai; Jeffry Evans; Ian Chau; Petri Bono; Akin Atmaca; Padmanee Sharma; Christopher T Harbison; Chen-Sheng Lin; Olaf Christensen; Emiliano Calvo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-06-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ronan J Kelly; Jeeyun Lee; Yung-Jue Bang; Khaldoun Almhanna; Mariela Blum-Murphy; Daniel V T Catenacci; Hyun Cheol Chung; Zev A Wainberg; Michael K Gibson; Keun-Wook Lee; Johanna C Bendell; Crystal S Denlinger; Cheng Ean Chee; Takeshi Omori; Rom Leidner; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Yee Chao; Marlon C Rebelatto; Philip Z Brohawn; Peng He; Jennifer McDevitt; Siddharth Sheth; Judson M Englert; Geoffrey Y Ku Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hongpan Zhang; Meihan Liu; Guobo Du; Bin Yu; Xiaojie Ma; Yan Gui; Lu Cao; Xianfu Li; Bangxian Tan Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 4.553