ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the clinical efficacy of chemotherapy or endocrine therapy maintenance in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and propensity score matching of multicenter cohort study evaluated MBC patients who underwent first-line chemotherapy or endocrine therapy maintenance. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42017071858 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04258163. RESULTS: A total of 2,867 patients from 15 RCTs and 760 patients from multicenter cohort were included. The results from meta-analysis showed that chemotherapy maintenance improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.73; p < 0.001; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; p=0.016; high-quality evidence) than observation. In the cohort study, for hormone receptor-positive MBC patients, chemotherapy maintenance improved PFS (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.85; p < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; p < 0.001) compared with observation, and endocrine therapy maintenance also improved PFS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; p < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.69; p < 0.001). There were no differences between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy maintenance in PFS and OS (all p > 0.05). Regardless of the continuum or switch maintenance therapy, showed prolonged survival in MBC patients who were response to first-line treatment. CONCLUSION: This study provided evidences for survival benefits of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy maintenance in MBC patients, and there was no difference efficacy between chemotherapy and endocrine therapy maintenance for hormone receptor-positive patients.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols , Breast Neoplasms , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Progression-Free Survival , Propensity Score , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment over surgery alone and that of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) over neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in resectable esophageal carcinoma remains inconclusive. This study (NewEC) used global data to comprehensively evaluate these comparisons and to provide a preferable strategy for patient subsets. METHODS: This study included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from inception to May 2019 from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and congresses and a registry-based cohort study with patients from Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts, USA) and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangzhou, China) recruited from November 2000 and June 2017, to cross-validate the comparisons among NCRT versus NCT versus surgery. The GRADE approach was used to assessed quality of evidence in meta-analysis. Neural network machine learning propensity score-matched analysis was used to account for confounding by patient-level characteristics in the cohort study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The study was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017072242 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04027543. FINDINGS: Of 22,070 studies assessed, there were 38 (n = 6,993 patients) eligible RCTs. Additionally, 423 out of 467 screened patients were included in the cohort study. The results from trials showed that NCT had a better OS than surgery alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·79-0·98; high quality) and was only favorable for adenocarcinoma (HR 0·83, 95% CI 0·72-0·96; moderate quality). High-quality evidence showed a significantly better OS for NCRT than surgery alone (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·66-0·82) for both adenocarcinoma (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·62-0·86) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·65-0·83). The OS benefit of NCRT over NCT was seen in the pairwise (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62-0·99; high quality) and network (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·72-0·93; high quality) meta-analyses, with similar results before (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·40-0·91) and after (HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·25-0·77) matching in the cohort study, leading to a significantly increased 5-year OS rate in both adenocarcinoma and SCC before and after matching. The increased benefits from NCT or NCRT were not associated with the risk of 30-day or in-hospital mortality. INTERPRETATION: NewEC Study provided high-quality evidence supporting the survival benefits of NCRT or NCT over surgery alone, with NCRT presenting the greatest benefit for resectable esophageal carcinoma. FUNDING: National Science and Technology Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Guangzhou Science and Technology Major Program, the Medical artificial intelligence project of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, the Guangdong Science and Technology Department, the Guangdong Province Medical Scientific Research Foundation, and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital Intermural Program.
ABSTRACT
Importance: The beneficial role of immunotherapy and the clinical relevance of current biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remain inconclusive; thus, appropriate strategies and reliable predictors need further definition. Objectives: To evaluate the association of clinical outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors, tumor vaccines, and cellular immunotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and to explore appropriate strategies, candidates, and predictors. Data Sources: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 2018, using relevant search keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms, including tumor vaccine, cellular immunotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, programmed death-ligand 1, programmed death receptor 1, and non-small cell lung carcinoma. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, references, and conference proceedings were manually searched. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials with available data that measured overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or objective response rate comparing immune checkpoint inhibitors, tumor vaccines, or cellular immunotherapy with conventional therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC were included. Thirty-one immunotherapy randomized clinical trials were included, and multicohort data included next-generation sequencing data from patients with advanced NCSLC. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were pooled to estimate the survival increases in OS and PFS. Dichotomous data, such as object response rate data, were analyzed using the risk ratio. Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used. I2 was used to assess the heterogeneity between trials; an I2 value exceeding 50% indicated the existence of substantial heterogeneity. Analyses took place from February 1, 2018, to August 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were OS and PFS. Results: In total, 14â¯395 patients (9500 [66.0%] men) were included in the meta-analysis, and 1833 patients (mean [SD], 65.2 [9.9] years; 1063 [58.0%] men) were included in the individual patient-level study. Compared with conventional therapy, immunotherapy was associated with significantly longer OS (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82; P < .001) and PFS (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83; P < .001). The best checkpoint blockade strategy was first-line pembrolizumab with platinum-based chemotherapy. The combined predictive utility of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and tumor mutation burden (TMB) was associated with predictive prognosis (whole-exome sequencing: 1-year PFS area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.829; 3-year PFS AUC, 0.839; targeted next-generation sequencing: 1-year PFS AUC, 0.826; 3-year PFS AUC, 0.948). Moreover, the addition of CD8+ T-cell tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes was associated with improved prognosis predictions for OS (3-year OS AUC, 0.659; 5-year OS AUC, 0.665). RYR1 or MGAM mutations were significantly associated with concomitantly increased durable clinical benefits (RYR1: durable clinical benefit [DCB], 12 of 51 patients [24%]; no durable benefit [NDB], 2 of 55 patients [4%]; P < .001; MGAM: DCB, 12 of 51 patients [24%]; NDB, 0 patients; P < .001), a higher TMB (RYRI: high TMB, 12 of 53 patients [23%]; low TMB, 2 of 53 patients [38%]; P < .001; MGAM: high TMB, 9 of 53 patients [17%]; low TMB, 0 patients; P < .001), and higher PD-L1 expression (RYRI: high PD-L1 expression, 8 of 30 patients [27%]; low PD-L1 expression, 6 of 85 [7.1%]; P < .001; MGAM: high PD-L1 expression, 6 of 30 patients [20%]; low PD-L1 expression, 5 of 85 patients [6%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Immunotherapies showed promising clinical outcomes for patients with NSCLC. Pembrolizumab with platinum-based chemotherapy was found to be the most appropriate first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor regimen for advanced NSCLC, and the combined use of PD-L1 expression and TMB was found to be a promising biomarker to evaluate patients' survival and response to precision immunotherapy. The further combination of CD8+ T-cell tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, PD-L1 expression, and TMB was associated with reliable prognosis. The predictive value of that combination needs to be prospectively validated in large-scale studies.