Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul;11(7):2899–2912. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.07.45

Table 2. Results of single trial and direct comparison meta-analysis.

Treatment Study OS PFS SAEs Heterogeneity I2 (%)
N (E/C) HR (95% CI) N (E/C) HR (95% CI) N (E/C) OR (95% CI) OS PFS SAEs
Ate + CT vs. CT (17-19) 1,086/854 0.86 (0.75–0.97) 1,086/854 0.65 (0.58–0.72) 1,098/840 1.77 (1.41–2.22) 0 0 0
Ipi + CT vs. CT (21-22) 409/376 0.74 (0.41–1.33) 409/376 0.85 (0.74–0.99) 388/361 2.01 (1.50–2.70)a 61 35
Pem + CT vs. CT (8-11) 748/550 0.56 (0.46–0.97) 748/550 0.54 (0.46–0.62) 742/544 1.13 (0.89–1.43) 0 0 0
Niv vs. CT (12-14) 271/270 1.07 (0.86–1.33)b 342/349 1.13 (0.94–1.36) 658/833 0.30 (0.15–0.57) 0 85
Pem vs. CT (5-7) 791/788 0.74 (0.59–0.94) 791/788 0.74 (0.35–1.56) 790/765 0.33 (0.26–0.41) 52 95 0
Ate + Bev + CT vs. Bev + CT (15,16) 359/337 0.78 (0.64–0.96) 359/337 0.59 (0.50–0.70) 393/394 1.43 (1.08–1.89)
Ate + CT vs. Bev + CT (15,16) 349/337 0.88 (0.72–1.08) 400/394 0.76 (0.58–1.01)
Ate + Bev + CT vs. Ate + CT (15,16) 359/349 0.90 (0.74–1.11) 393/394 1.82 (1.37–2.42)
Dur + Tre vs. CT (20) 163/162 0.85 (0.61–1.17) 163/162 1.05 (0.72–1.53) 163/162 0.55 (0.34–0.90)
Dur vs. CT (20) 163/162 0.76 (0.56–1.02) 163/162 0.34 (0.20–0.58)
Dur vs. Dur + Tre (20) 163/163 0.61 (0.34–1.08)
Niv + Ipi vs. Niv (13,14) 101/102 0.75 (0.53–1.07) 576/391 1.99 (1.47–2.70)
Niv + Ipi vs. CT (13,14) 583/583 0.83 (0.72–0.96) 576/570 0.81 (0.64–1.04)
Niv + CT vs. CT (13,14) 117/186 0.74 (0.58–0.94) 172/183 1.83 (1.12–3.00)

a, result of reference (22); b, result of reference (12). OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SAEs, serious adverse events; E/C, experimental/control; HR, hazard ratio; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ate, atezolizumab; Ipi, ipilimumab; Pem, pembrolizumab; Niv, nivolumab; Bev, bevacizumab; Dur, durvalumab; Tre, tremelimumab; CT, chemotherapy.