University of Warwick, Warwick Medical School, Division of Health Sciences, Coventry, England.
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Canada.
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 25;13(7):e0199575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199575. eCollection 2018.
PURPOSE: This systematic review with network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of currently licensed second-line treatments in patients with late stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with advanced/metastatic NSCLC receiving second/third line treatments were screened. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; Web of Science) from January, 2000 to July, 2017. Two reviewers screened bibliographic records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and drug-related grade 3-5 adverse-events (AEs). We pooled study-specific hazard ratios (HR; for OS and PFS) and risk ratios (RR; for AEs) using conventional and network-meta-analyses, and ranked interventions by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. FINDINGS: We included 11 RCTs (7,581 participants) comparing nine drugs. All drugs except for erlotinib significantly improved OS compared to docetaxel. Nivolumab was the highest ranking drug followed by atezolizumab and pembrolizumab. There was no significant difference in OS across these three drugs (HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79, 1.21 for nivolumab vs atezolizumab; HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.77, 1.25 for nivolumab vs pembrolizumab). For PFS, ramucirumab + docetaxel and nivolumab were the drugs with the highest ranking. All interventions except ramucirumab + docetaxel had a reduced risk for severe drug-related AEs vs. docetaxel. Of the drugs with the highest ranking on AEs, nivolumab was significantly safer compared to atezolizumab (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38, 0.79) or pembrolizumab (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.81). IMPLICATIONS: Nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab exhibited superior benefit/risk balance compared to other licensed drugs used late stage NSCLC. Our results indicate that the use of immunotherapies in people diagnosed with non-specific late stage NSCLC should be promoted. The use of docetaxel may now be judged irrelevant as a comparator intervention for approval of new drugs for second line treatment of NSCLC. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017065928.
目的:本系统评价通过网络荟萃分析比较了晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者二线治疗的疗效和安全性。
方法:筛选了接受二线/三线治疗的晚期/转移性 NSCLC 患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们检索了电子数据库(MEDLINE;EMBASE;Web of Science)从 2000 年 1 月到 2017 年 7 月。两位审查员筛选文献记录、提取数据,并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。主要结局为总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)和药物相关 3-5 级不良事件(AE)。我们使用常规和网络荟萃分析对研究特定的风险比(HR;用于 OS 和 PFS)和风险比(RR;用于 AE)进行了汇总,并通过累积排序曲线下的面积对干预措施进行了排名。
结果:我们纳入了 11 项 RCT(7581 名参与者),比较了 9 种药物。除厄洛替尼外,所有药物均显著提高了 OS 与多西他赛相比。纳武单抗是排名最高的药物,其次是阿特珠单抗和派姆单抗。这三种药物的 OS 无显著差异(HR=0.98,95%CI0.79,1.21 纳武单抗与阿特珠单抗相比;HR=0.98,95%CI0.77,1.25 纳武单抗与派姆单抗相比)。对于 PFS,雷莫芦单抗+多西他赛和纳武单抗是排名最高的药物。与多西他赛相比,所有干预措施均降低了严重药物相关 AE 的风险,除了雷莫芦单抗+多西他赛。在 AE 方面排名最高的药物中,与阿特珠单抗(RR=0.55,95%CI0.38,0.79)或派姆单抗(RR=0.52,95%CI0.34,0.81)相比,纳武单抗的安全性显著更高。
结论:纳武单抗、派姆单抗和阿特珠单抗与其他晚期 NSCLC 二线治疗中使用的已上市药物相比具有更好的获益/风险平衡。我们的结果表明,应该推广免疫疗法在诊断为非特异性晚期 NSCLC 人群中的应用。现在可能认为多西他赛作为新批准的二线治疗 NSCLC 药物的比较干预措施已不相关。
研究注册号:PROSPERO CRD42017065928。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-5-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-5-4
J Cancer Sci Clin Ther. 2022
Biologics. 2021-10-8
Curr Oncol. 2020-4
N Engl J Med. 2016-10-8
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016-6