Network meta-analysis of immune-oncology monotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with PD-L1 expression ⩾50%. (June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Freemantle, Nick; Xu, Yingxin; Wilson, Florence R.; Guyot, Patricia; Chen, Chieh-I; Keeping, Sam; Konidaris, Gerasimos; Chan, Keith; Kuznik, Andreas; Atsou, Kokuvi; Glowienka, Emily; Pouliot, Jean-Francois; Gullo, Giuseppe; Rietschel, Petra
• Is Part Of: Therapeutic advances in medical oncology. Volume 14(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-06
• Subjects: cemiplimab -- cemiplimab monotherapy -- IO monotherapy -- network meta-analysis -- non-small-cell lung cancer -- PD-L1 expression -- systematic literature review; Oncology -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.994005
• DOI: 10.1177/17588359221105024
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1758-8340

Abstract

Background: For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (⩾50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, effective first-line immune-oncology monotherapies with significant survival benefits are approved, cemiplimab being the most recent. In a phase III trial, cemiplimab demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to identify/compare the efficacy/safety of cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab or other immune-oncology monotherapies from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to November 2020. Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified by searching databases and conference proceedings as per ISPOR, NICE, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. NMA with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for OS and PFS. Analyses were conducted for objective response rate (ORR) and safety/tolerability. Fixed-effect models were used due to limited evidence. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the base case analyses. Results: The feasibility assessment determined that EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 trials were eligible. IMpower110 was excluded because an incompatible PD-L1 assay (SP142) was used for patient selection. For first-line advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS [HR (95% credible interval [CrI]): 0.65 (0.50–0.86), 1–12 months] and ORR [odds ratio (OR) (95% CrI): 1.64 (1.04–2.62)], and comparable OS [HR (95% CrI): 0.77 (0.54–1.10), 1–12 months] versus pembrolizumab. There was no evidence of differences between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab for Grade 3–5 adverse events (AEs) [OR (95% CrI): 1.47 (0.83–2.60)], immune-mediated AEs [1.75 (0.33–7.49)], and all-cause discontinuation due to AEs [1.21 (0.58–2.61)]. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of indirect treatment comparisons, in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab monotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR, comparable OS, and no evidence of differences in safety/tolerability versus pembrolizumab.