Cargando…
Differences in treatment effect size between progression-free survival and overall survival in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors-based trials in advanced NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: To investigate the differences in treatment effect sizes between progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) blockade-based treatments. METHODS: The differences...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8264319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34295662 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-21-199 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: To investigate the differences in treatment effect sizes between progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) blockade-based treatments. METHODS: The differences in treatment effect sizes between PFS and OS were assessed by using a ratio of hazard ratio (rHR): the HR for PFS to that for OS. A random effects meta-analysis across trials was conducted to generate the combined rHR. We also evaluated the feasibility of adopting PFS as the surrogate of OS by using Spearman correlation coefficient (R) between logHR(PFS) and logHR(OS). RESULTS: A total of 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 15,590 patients were included. Treatment effect sizes were comparable, on average, for OS than for PFS (pooled rHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.08). Subgroup analysis revealed that treatment effect sizes were greater for OS than for PFS for trials with immunotherapy as second or above line treatment (rHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.29), while the differences were greater for PFS than for OS for trials with immunotherapy as first-line setting (rHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99; P(interaction)<0.01). The coefficient of determination was 40% and R was 0.63 between logHR(PFS) and logHR(OS). Subgroup analysis showed that coefficient of determination and R were 62% and 0.79 in trials with immunotherapy as first-line setting, 22% and 0.47 in trials with immunotherapy as second or above line treatment, respectively. DISCUSSION: Treatment effect sizes between PFS and OS were roughly consistent in trials with different anti-PD-(L)1 inhibitor-based therapies. PFS could be a potential alternative endpoint for OS in trials with immunotherapy as first-line setting, but PFS should be cautiously interpreted without OS data for trials with immunotherapy as second or above line treatment. |
---|