Sintilimab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: network meta-analysis.
Immunotherapy
This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum versus US FDA-approved/National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies for untreated advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without / aberrations. Bayesian network meta-analysis was the base-case analysis and included assessment of fixed and random effects, and independent and simultaneous models, adjusting for baseline risk (placebo response). Chemotherapy was the common comparator. Sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than atezolizumab + platinum + nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.40-0.82) and nivolumab + ipilimumab + pemetrexed + platinum (HR: 0.66; 95% CrI: 0.48-0.92). Sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum and pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed comparable progression-free survival (HR: 0.96; 95% CrI: 0.71-1.30). There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR range: 0.61-0.81) or overall response rates (odds ratio [OR] range: 0.29-0.75) between sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum and the other ICI combinations. The incidence of high-grade adverse events was higher with sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum than with nivolumab + ipilimumab (OR: 0.46; 95% CrI: 0.33-0.64) or without chemotherapy (OR: 0.25; 95% CrI: 0.19-0.34), with no significant difference between sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum and the other ICI combinations. Sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum showed comparable efficacy and safety versus US standard-of-care first-line ICI combinations for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.
10.2217/imt-2022-0252
Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab versus sintilimab treatment in patients with advanced squamous lung cancer: A real-world study in China.
Frontiers in oncology
Importance:Both pembrolizumab and sintilimab have been approved by the Chinese State Drug Administration (NMPA) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous lung cancer. The differences of the two drugs in efficacy and safety are unclear. Objectives:To compare the real-world efficacy and safety of first-line treatments in patients with advanced squamous lung cancer. Materials and methods:This was a retrospective review of patients with advanced squamous carcinoma who received sintilimab or pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy between June 2018 and April 2022 in the Chinese PLA Hospital. The primary objective was to compare the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups. Secondary objectives were to compare the disease control rate (DCR) and to analyze adverse events (AEs) between the two groups. Results:A total of 164 patients were enrolled, including 63 patients (38.4%) in the sintilimab-combined chemotherapy group and 101 patients (61.6%) in the pembrolizumab-combined chemotherapy group. The ORR was 65.10% in the sintilimab group and 61.40% in the pembrolizumab group (P=0.634). The DCR was 92.10% and 92.10% in the sintilimab and pembrolizumab groups, respectively (P=0.991). The median PFS was 22.2 months for patients treated with sintilimab group compared with 16.5 months for patients treated with pembrolizumab group[hazard ratio (HR) = 0.743; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.479-1.152; P = 0.599]. Patients treated with pembrolizumab did not achieve a median OS, and patients treated with sintilimab had a median OS of 30.7 months. In the sintilimab group, the incidence of all treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 92.1% (58/63), and the incidence of grade 3-4 TRAEs of 42.9% (27/63). In the pembrolizumab group, the incidence of all TRAEs was 90.1% (91/101), and the incidence of grade 3-4 TRAEs was 37.6% (38/101). Conclusion:In the clinical treatment of Chinese patients with advanced squamous lung cancer, first-line treatment with sintilimab in combination with chemotherapy provided similar efficacy to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy, and the treatment-related adverse effect profiles were comparable between the two groups, including similar rates of grade 3-4 and all adverse events.
10.3389/fonc.2023.1147903
PD-L1 expression guidance on sintilimab versus pembrolizumab with or without platinum-doublet chemotherapy in untreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (CTONG1901): A phase 2, randomized, controlled trial.
Science bulletin
No direct comparison has been performed between different programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors for first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The feasibility of using PD-L1-expression-guided immunotherapy remains unknown. In this open-label, phase 2 study (NCT04252365), patients with advanced NSCLC without EGFR or ALK alterations were randomized (1:1) to receive sintilimab or pembrolizumab monotherapy (PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%), or sintilimab or pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (PD-L1 expression < 50%). The sample size was calculated by optimal two-stage design. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). The study included 71 patients (sintilimab arms, n = 35; pembrolizumab arms, n = 36) and met its primary endpoint, with a confirmed ORR of 51.4% (18/35) in the sintilimab arms. The confirmed ORR (95% confidence interval) was 46.2% (19.2%, 74.9%) and 42.9% (17.7%, 71.1%) for patients treated with sintilimab and pembrolizumab monotherapy; and 54.5% (32.2%, 75.6%) and 45.4% (24.4%, 67.8%) for those treated with sintilimab- and pembrolizumab-based combination therapies. The median progression-free survival was 6.9 versus 8.1 months for all sintilimab-treated versus all pembrolizumab-treated patients, respectively, in which it was 7.6 versus 11.0 months in monotherapy and 7.4 versus 7.1 months in combination therapies. The median overall survival was 14.9 versus 21.3 months for all sintilimab-treated versus all pembrolizumab-treated patients, respectively, in which it was 14.9 versus 22.6 months in monotherapy and 14.7 versus 17.3 months in combination therapies. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with safety outcomes of monotherapy and combination therapy in previous phase III studies. However, the incidence of rash was higher with sintilimab than pembrolizumab monotherapy. This is the first prospective phase 2 study to directly compare two anti-PD-1 antibodies as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC. Sintilimab was efficacious and well-tolerated irrespective of PD-L1 expression level in patients with advanced NSCLC and had similar efficacy and safety to pembrolizumab.
10.1016/j.scib.2023.12.046
Respiratory adverse effects in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Radiation oncology (London, England)
BACKGROUND:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of respiratory adverse effects in patients with solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1, PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors) in combination with radiation therapy. METHODS:We selected eligible studies through the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ). The data was analyzed by using Rstudio. RESULTS:Among 3737 studies, 26 clinical trials, including 2670 patients, were qualified for the meta-analysis. We evaluated the incidence rates of adverse respiratory events, including cough, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infections, and others: grades 1-5 cough, 0.176 (95%CI: 0.113-0.274, I2 = 92.36%); grades 1-5 pneumonitis, 0.118 (95%CI: 0.067-0.198, I2 = 88.64%); grades 1-5 upper respiratory tract infection, 0.064 (95%CI: 0.049-0.080, I2 = 0.98%); grades 3-5 cough, 0.050 (95%CI: 0.012-0.204, I2 = 8.90%); grades 3-5 pneumonitis, 0.052 (95%CI: 0.031-0.078, I2 = 83.86%); grades 3-5 upper respiratory tract infection, 0.040 (95%CI: 0.007-0.249, I2 = 45.31%). CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis demonstrated that ICI combined with radiotherapy for solid tumors can produce respiratory adverse effects. ICIs combination treatment, a tumor located in the chest, is more likely to cause adverse reactions, and SBRT treatment and synchronous treatment will bring less incidence of adverse reactions. This study provide insights for clinicians to balance the risks of radiotherapy in the course of treating oncology patients.
10.1186/s13014-024-02489-4
Reflecting on the cardiac toxicity in non-small cell lung cancer in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy combined with thoracic radiotherapy.
Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer
In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a widely used treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the combination with traditional radiotherapy (RT) has shown significant potential in prolonging patient survival. However, both thoracic RT and ICIs can lead to cardiac toxicity, including radiation-induced heart damage (RIHD) and immunotherapy-related heart damage (IRHD). It still remains uncertain whether the combination of thoracic RT and immunotherapy will exacerbate acute or late cardiovascular (CV) toxicity and incidence. In this review, we summarize safety data from relevant clinical studies regarding CV toxicity for the combination therapy in NSCLC patients, explore the underlying synergetic mechanisms and common risk factors, and proposed treatment and management strategies. We hope to increase emphasis on the long-term assessment of CV toxicity risks associated with the combination therapy, and reduce the incidence of CV deaths resulting from such regimens.
10.1016/j.bbcan.2023.189008
Cardiotoxicity risk factors with immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Brumberger Zachary L,Branch Mary E,Klein Max W,Seals Austin,Shapiro Michael D,Vasu Sujethra
Cardio-oncology (London, England)
BACKGROUND:Checkpoint-inhibitor immunotherapies have had a profound effect in the treatment of cancer by inhibiting down-regulation of T-cell response to malignancy. The cardiotoxic potential of these agents was first described in murine models and, more recently, in numerous clinical case reports of pericarditis, myocarditis, pericardial effusion, cardiomyopathy, and new arrhythmias. The objective of our study was to determine the frequency of and associated risk factors for cardiotoxic events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS:Medical records of patients who underwent immunotherapy with durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab at Wake Forest Baptist Health were reviewed. We collected retrospective data regarding sex, cancer type, age, and cardiovascular disease risk factors and medications. We aimed to identify new diagnoses of heart failure, atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia, myocarditis, and pericarditis after therapy onset. To assess the relationship between CVD risk factors and the number of cardiac events, a multivariate model was applied using generalized linear regression. Incidence rate ratios were calculated for every covariate along with the adjusted P-value. We applied a multivariate model using logistic regression to assess the relationship between CVD risk factors and mortality. Odds ratios were calculated for every covariate along with the adjusted P-value. Adjusted P-values were calculated using multivariable regression adjusting for other covariates. RESULTS:Review of 538 medical records revealed the following events: 3 ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia, 12 pericarditis, 11 atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate, 0 myocarditis, 8 heart failure. Significant risk factors included female gender, African American race, and tobacco use with IRR 3.34 (95% CI 1.421, 7.849; P = 0.006), IRR 3.39 (95% CI 1.141, 10.055; P = 0.028), and IRR 4.21 (95% CI 1.289, 13.763; P = 0.017) respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Our study revealed 34 significant events, most frequent being pericarditis (2.2%) and atrial fibrillation (2.0%) with strongest risk factors being female gender, African American race, and tobacco use. Patients who meet this demographic, particularly those with planned pembrolizumab treatment, may benefit from early referral to a cardio-oncologist. Further investigation is warranted on the relationship between CTLA-4 and PD-L1 expression and cardiac adverse events with ICIs, particularly for these subpopulations.
10.1186/s40959-022-00130-5
Adverse cardiac effects of cancer therapies: cardiotoxicity and arrhythmia.
Nature reviews. Cardiology
Remarkable progress has been made in the development of new therapies for cancer, dramatically changing the landscape of treatment approaches for several malignancies and continuing to increase patient survival. Accordingly, adverse effects of cancer therapies that interfere with the continuation of best-possible care, induce life-threatening risks or lead to long-term morbidity are gaining increasing importance. Cardiovascular toxic effects of cancer therapeutics and radiation therapy are the epitome of such concerns, and proper knowledge, interpretation and management are needed and have to be placed within the context of the overall care of individual patients with cancer. Furthermore, the cardiotoxicity spectrum has broadened to include myocarditis with immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiac dysfunction in the setting of cytokine release syndrome with chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy. An increase in the incidence of arrhythmias related to inflammation such as atrial fibrillation can also be expected, in addition to the broadening set of cancer therapeutics that can induce prolongation of the corrected QT interval. Therefore, cardiologists of today have to be familiar not only with the cardiotoxicity associated with traditional cancer therapies, such as anthracycline, trastuzumab or radiation therapy, but even more so with an ever-increasing repertoire of therapeutics. This Review provides this information, summarizing the latest developments at the juncture of cardiology, oncology and haematology.
10.1038/s41569-020-0348-1