Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for individuals with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer who progressed on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis

Yi Zhao, Ying He, Wei Wang, Qi Cai, Fan Ge, Zisheng Chen, Jianqi Zheng, Yuan Zhang et al.

The Lancet Oncology, 2024

2,886 participants · 60 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments in treating individuals with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) remain controversial. We aimed to review the literature to comprehensively investigate the individual and comparative clinical outcomes of various ICI-based treatment strategies in this population.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we used single-arm, pairwise, and network meta-analytical approaches. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and relevant international conference proceedings from database inception to Jan 31, 2024, without language restrictions, to identify eligible clinical trials that assessed ICI-based treatments for individuals with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC who progressed on EGFR-TKIs. Studies considered eligible were published and unpublished phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical trials enrolling participants with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had progressed after at least one EGFR-TKI treatment, and that evaluated ICI-based treatment strategies on at least one of the clinical outcomes of interest. The primary outcome analysed was progression-free survival. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021292626.

FINDINGS

17 single-arm trials and 15 randomised controlled trials, involving 2886 participants and seven ICI-based…

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: 2,886 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