Patients With Resectable NSCLC Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy: To Adjuvant or Not to Adjuvant?

Marinelli D., Nuccio A., Di Federico A., Ambrosi F., Bertoglio P., Faccioli E., Ferrara R., Ferro A., Giusti R., Guerrera F., Mammana M., Pittaro A., Sepulcri M., Viscardi G., Gallina F.T.

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy has reshaped the treatment landscape for resectable NSCLC, yet the prognostic significance of pathologic response remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of achieving pCR or MPR on EFS and assessed the influence of adjuvant immunotherapy.

Zhou Y., Li A., Yu H., Wang Y., Zhang X., Qiu H., Du W., Luo L., Fu S., Zhang L., Hong S.

ImportanceNeoadjuvant therapy combining programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy has demonstrated significant improvement in pathologic response and survival rates among patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it remains controversial whether PD-1 blockade therapy given before and after surgery (neoadjuvant-adjuvant treatment) is associated with better outcomes than when given only before surgery (neoadjuvant-only treatment).ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety associated with neoadjuvant-adjuvant anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 therapy with neoadjuvant-only anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 therapy for patients with resectable NSCLC.Data SourcesA systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, as well as major oncology conferences, through July 31, 2023.Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials comparing neoadjuvant-adjuvant or neoadjuvant-only PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitor therapy vs chemotherapy alone for patients with resectable NSCLC were selected.Data Extraction and SynthesisFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, 2 authors independently extracted data. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted and then pooled through the generic inverse-variance methods. Relative risks (RRs) for treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were derived via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Using chemotherapy as a common comparator, indirect comparisons between neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and neoadjuvant-only immunotherapy were conducted using frequentist methods. A random or fixed model was used based on intertrial heterogeneity identified through the Cochran Q test.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was EFS, with secondary outcomes including OS and TRAEs.ResultsThe study encompassed 4 trials of neoadjuvant-adjuvant immunotherapy and 1 trial of neoadjuvant-only immunotherapy, involving 2385 patients. Direct meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in EFS for both neoadjuvant-adjuvant and neoadjuvant-only immunotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. In indirect meta-analysis, the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy to neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not associated with improved EFS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.30; P = .59) or OS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.73-1.90; P = .51) compared with neoadjuvant-only immunotherapy. Moreover, the incidence of any grade of TRAEs significantly increased with the addition of adjuvant immunotherapy (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.17; P = .04).Conclusions and RelevanceThis meta-analysis suggests that adding PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors in the adjuvant phase to neoadjuvant treatment with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy may not improve survival outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC and may be associated with increased adverse events. Future validation of these findings is warranted through head-to-head randomized clinical trials.

Yap D.W., Leone A.G., Wong N.Z., Zhao J.J., Tey J.C., Sundar R., Pietrantonio F.

ImportanceImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival outcomes of patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in both first- and second-line settings. However, the benefit of ICIs in patients with low programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression remains unclear.ObjectiveTo derive survival data for patient subgroups with low PD-L1 expression from clinical trials comparing ICIs with chemotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and to perform a pooled analysis.Data SourcesKaplan-Meier curves from the randomized clinical trials were extracted after a systematic search of Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception until October 1, 2021.Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials that investigated the effectiveness of anti–PD-1–based regimens for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and that reported overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, or duration of response were included in this meta-analysis.Data Extraction and SynthesisKaplan-Meier curves of all-comer populations, subgroups with high PD-L1, and those with low PD-L1 (when available) were extracted from published articles. A graphic reconstructive algorithm was used to calculate time-to-event outcomes from these curves. In studies with unreported curves for subgroups with low PD-L1 expression, KMSubtraction was used to impute survival data. KMSubtraction is a workflow to derive unreported subgroup survival data with from subgroups. An individual patient data pooled analysis including previously reported and newly imputed subgroups was conducted for trials with the same treatment line and PD-L1 scoring system. Data analysis was conducted from January 1, 2022, to June 30, 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcomes included Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios (HRs) for OS for subgroups with low PD-L1 expression. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and duration of response.ResultsThe randomized clinical trials CheckMate-648, ESCORT-1st, KEYNOTE-590, ORIENT-15, KEYNOTE-181, ESCORT, RATIONALE-302, ATTRACTION-3, and ORIENT-2 were included, totaling 4752 patients. In the pooled analysis of first-line trials that evaluated a tumor proportion score (CheckMate-648 and ESCORT-1st), no significant benefit in OS was observed with immunochemotherapy compared with chemotherapy in the subgroup of patients who had a tumor proportion score lower than 1% (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.12; P = .38) compared with chemotherapy. In the pooled analysis of first-line trials that evaluated combined positive score (KEYNOTE-590 and ORIENT-15), there was a significant but modest OS benefit for immunochemotherapy compared with chemotherapy in the subgroup with a combined positive score lower than 10 (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .01).Conclusions and RelevanceFindings suggest a lack of survival benefit of ICI-based regimens in the first-line setting compared with chemotherapy alone in the subgroup with a tumor proportion score lower than 1%.

Liu N., Zhou Y., Lee J.J.

When applying secondary analysis on published survival data, it is critical to obtain each patient’s raw data, because the individual patient data (IPD) approach has been considered as the gold standard of data analysis. However, researchers often lack access to IPD. We aim to propose a straightforward and robust approach to obtain IPD from published survival curves with a user-friendly software platform. Improving upon existing methods, we propose an easy-to-use, two-stage approach to reconstruct IPD from published Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves. Stage 1 extracts raw data coordinates and Stage 2 reconstructs IPD using the proposed method. To facilitate the use of the proposed method, we developed the R package IPDfromKM and an accompanying web-based Shiny application. Both the R package and Shiny application have an “all-in-one” feature such that users can use them to extract raw data coordinates from published K-M curves, reconstruct IPD from the extracted data coordinates, visualize the reconstructed IPD, assess the accuracy of the reconstruction, and perform secondary analysis on the basis of the reconstructed IPD. We illustrate the use of the R package and the Shiny application with K-M curves from published studies. Extensive simulations and real-world data applications demonstrate that the proposed method has high accuracy and great reliability in estimating the number of events, number of patients at risk, survival probabilities, median survival times, and hazard ratios. IPDfromKM has great flexibility and accuracy to reconstruct IPD from published K-M curves with different shapes. We believe that the R package and the Shiny application will greatly facilitate the potential use of quality IPD and advance the use of secondary data to facilitate informed decision making in medical research.

Pak K., Uno H., Kim D.H., Tian L., Kane R.C., Takeuchi M., Fu H., Claggett B., Wei L.

In a comparative clinical study with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) as the end point, the hazard ratio (HR) is routinely used to design the study and to estimate the treatment effect at the end of the study. The clinical interpretation of the HR may not be straightforward, especially when the underlying model assumption is not valid. A robust procedure for study design and analysis that enables clinically meaningful interpretation of trial results is warranted.To discuss issues of conventional trial design and analysis and to present alternatives to the HR using a recent immunotherapy study as an illustrative example.By comparing 2 groups in a survival analysis, we discuss issues of using the HR and present the restricted mean survival time (RMST) as a summary measure of patients’ survival profile over time. We show how to use the difference or ratio in RMST between 2 groups as an alternative for designing and analyzing a clinical study with an immunotherapy study as an illustrative example.Overall survival or PFS. Group contrast measures included HR, RMST difference or ratio, and the event rate difference.For the illustrative example, the HR procedure indicates that nivolumab significantly prolonged patient OS and was numerically better than docetaxel for PFS. However, the median PFS time of docetaxel was significantly better than that of nivolumab. Therefore, it may be difficult to use median OS and/or PFS to interpret of the HR value clinically. On the other hand, using RMST difference, nivolumab was significantly better than docetaxel for both OS and PFS. We also provide details regarding design of a future study with RMST-based measures.The design and analysis of a conventional cancer clinical trial can be improved by adopting a robust statistical procedure that enables clinically meaningful interpretations of the treatment effect. The RMST-based quantitative method may be used as a primary tool for future cancer trials or to help us to better understand the clinical interpretation of the HR even when its model assumption is plausible.

Marinelli D., Gallina F.T.