Searching the Resource Information Network

Our searching services are busy right now. Please try again later

  • Register
X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

X

Leaving Community

Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.

No
Yes

A Network Meta-analysis Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Anti-PD-1 with Anti-PD-L1 in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Wei You | Mei Liu | Ji-Dong Miao | Yu-Qian Liao | Yi-Bing Song | Dian-Kun Cai | Yang Gao | Hao Peng
Journal of Cancer | 2018

Background: This network meta-analysis aimed at comparing anti-programmed death 1 (anti-PD-1) with anti-programmed death ligand 1(anti-PD-L1) immunotherapy in patients with metastatic, previously treated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who failed first-line treatment. Methods: We searched electronic databases to identify all eligible clinical trials. End-points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response. Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. Network meta-analysis was performed using the frequentist approach for multiple treatment comparisons. Results: In total, 3024 patients were randomly assigned: 1117 received anti-PD-1 therapy (nivolumab + pembrolizumab), 569 received anti-PD-L1 (atezolizumab) and 1338 received docetaxel. Anti-PD-1 (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.48-0.66) and anti-PD-L1 (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) achieved better OS than docetaxel, and anti-PD-1 was superior to docetaxel in terms of PFS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89). Moreover, anti-PD-1 achieved the highest effect on OS and PFS, with a P-score of 91.2% and 95.5%, respectively. With regard to tumor response, anti-PD-1 group had a higher rate of responders than that in anti-PD-L1 (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19-0.65) and docetaxel (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.52) groups. Undoubtedly, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 obtained less toxicity profile than docetaxel, and no significant difference was observed between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 groups. Conclusions: Anti-PD-1 may be a better choice for patients with metastatic and previously treated NSCLC who failed first-line treatment in terms of the treatment ranking.

Pubmed ID: 29675101

Research resources used in this publication

None found

Additional research tools detected in this publication

Antibodies used in this publication

None found

Associated grants

None

Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.

This is a list of tools and resources that we have found mentioned in this publication.


PubMed (tool)

RRID:SCR_004846

Public bibliographic database that provides access to citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites. PubMed citations and abstracts include fields of biomedicine and health, covering portions of life sciences, behavioral sciences, chemical sciences, and bioengineering. Provides access to additional relevant web sites and links to other NCBI molecular biology resources. Publishers of journals can submit their citations to NCBI and then provide access to full-text of articles at journal web sites using LinkOut.

View all literature mentions

Cochrane Library (tool)

RRID:SCR_013000

Contains data to inform healthcare decision-making from Cochrane and other systematic reviews, clinical trials, and more. Cochrane reviews bring you the combined results of the worlds best medical research studies, and are recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based health care. Consists of a regularly updated collection of evidence-based medicine databases, including The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This database includes systematic reviews of healthcare interventions that are produced and disseminated by The Cochrane Collaboration. It is published on a monthly basis and made available both on CD-ROM and the Internet. The review abstracts are available to browse and search free of charge on this website. The Cochrane Library Users'' Group (CLUG) provides a forum for discussion of usability, readability, searchability, and formatting issues related to the use of The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit and independent organization, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of healthcare readily available worldwide. Funded by John Wiley and Sons Limited. The individual entities of The Cochrane Collaboration are funded by a large variety of governmental, institutional and private funding sources, and are bound by organisation-wide policy limiting uses of funds from corporate sponsors.

View all literature mentions