Effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

• Published in: Heliyon Vol. 9; no. 4; p. e14794
• Main Authors: Du, Jincheng, Wang, Xinyu, Fan, Liwen, Shan, Xinyuan, Li, Muyao, Liu, Linlin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.04.2023; Elsevier
• Subjects: Effectiveness; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Network meta-analysis; Safety; Small cell lung carcinoma; Network meta-analysis; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Effectiveness; Safety; Small cell lung carcinoma
• ISSN: 2405-8440; 2405-8440
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14794

In recent years, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC), but the optimal combination of ICI and standard chemotherapy strategy is yet to be established. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to identify which first-line combination strategy is optimal for patients with ES-SCLC. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the proceedings of international conferences, including American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 31, 2022. The collected primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Our NMA study included six phase 3 and three phase 2 RCTs including 4037 patients and 10 first-line regimens. Regarding effectiveness, the addition of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors to standard chemotherapy provided greater efficacy than chemotherapy alone. However, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 inhibitors were not associated with satisfactory prognoses. Serplulimab plus carboplatin–etoposide (vs. standard chemotherapy, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.49–0.82) and nivolumab plus platinum–etoposide (HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46–0.91) displayed the greatest benefit regarding OS. In terms of PFS, serplulimab plus carboplatin–etoposide yielded the best benefit of all treatments (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.39–0.6). The combination of ICIs and chemotherapy caused more toxicity in general, but durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide (odds ratio [OR] = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.68–1.4), atezolizumab plus carboplatin–etoposide (OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.68–1.6), and adebrelimab plus platinum–etoposide (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.52–2) displayed similar safety as standard chemotherapy. Subgroup analysis by race illustrated that serplulimab plus carboplatin–etoposide was associated with the best OS in Asian patients. And in non-Asian patients, the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (pembrolizumab plus platinum–etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum–etoposide, and durvalumab and tremelimumab plus platinum–etoposide) displayed superiority to standard chemotherapy. The results of our NMA study suggested that serplulimab plus carboplatin–etoposide and nivolumab plus platinum–etoposide are associated with the best OS as first-line treatments for patients with ES-SCLC. Serplulimab plus carboplatin–etoposide was associated with the best PFS. In Asian patients, serplulimab plus carboplatin–etoposide had the best OS. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022345850. [Display omitted]