Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations for Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Liu L, Bai H, Wang C, Seery S, Wang Z, Duan J, Li S, Xue P et al.

Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2021

8,278 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated different first-line immunotherapy combinations, but the optimal combination strategy is yet to be established.

METHODS: We performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis by retrieving relevant literature from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and major international conferences. We included published and gray sources of randomized clinical trials comparing immunotherapy combinations with other treatments as first-line treatments for patients with advanced NSCLC. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020210501) to ensure transparency.

RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 16 studies involving 8278 patients and including 10 immunotherapy combinations. For patients without programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) selection, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was found to be comparable with sintilimab plus chemotherapy in providing the best overall survival (OS) benefit (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.29). Furthermore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy seemed to provide the best progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.36-0.55) and the best objective response rate (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.42). Subgroup analysis by PD-L1 suggested that nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy was associated with the best OS in patients with PD-L1 less than 1% and that pembrolizumab plus…

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: 8,278 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