Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jiacheng Yao, Si-Han Li, Lu Bai, Jun Chen, C. Ren, Ting-Ting Liu, Jing-Ping Qiu, Jun Dang

EClinicalMedicine, 2025

37,111 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

Summary Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the preferred treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without targetable oncogene alterations. However, evidence in the elderly population (aged ≥ 65 years) remains limited. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for eligible publications until September 30, 2024. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival (OS). A random-effects model was used for the statistical analysis. Findings A total of 35 phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9788 patients and 64 real-world studies involving 37,111 patients were included. Results from phase 3 RCTs revealed that ICIs significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74–0.82) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60–0.75) compared to chemotherapy. The association between ICIs and improved OS was independent of patient characteristics (race and histological type) or treatment-related factors (ICI drug type, treatment mode, and treatment line). However, significantly prolonged OS was not observed in subgroups of aged ≥ 75 years and PD-L1 < 1%. In real-world studies, the pooled median OS of ICIs were 11.8 months (95% CI: 11.2–12.4); Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (EOCG) score, histological type, PD-L1 status, with immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and treatment mode were predictive for OS; rates of irAEs and discontinuation…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 37,111 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free