Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cancer Medicine logoLink to Cancer Medicine
. 2019 Jul 11;8(11):5033–5046. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2407

Rational application of the first‐line chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: A meta‐analysis

Rui Cao 1, Jie‐Tao Ma 1, Shu‐Ling Zhang 1, Li Sun 1, Yang Liu 1, Xiang‐Yan Zhang 1, Wei Jing 1, Le‐Tian Huang 1, Cheng‐Bo Han 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6718602  PMID: 31297962

Abstract

Objective

To compare the relative efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or chemotherapy (CT) alone, or their combination modality in the first‐line treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

This meta‐analysis was performed on the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) after searching web databases and meeting abstracts. The main research endpoints were the comparisons of median overall survival (mOS), the OS rate of 6 months (OSR6m), 1 year (OSR1y) and 2 years (OSR2y), median progression‐free survival (mPFS), the PFS rate of 6 months (PFSR6m) and 1‐year (PFSR1y), objective response rates (ORR), and treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs).

Results

Eleven RCTs comprising 6278 cases were included. In the subgroup of programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) ≥50%, compared with chemotherapy, the ICIs showed similar OSR6m (P > 0.05), but significantly improved efficacy in mOS, OSR1y, OSR2y, and ORR (all P < 0.05), also had less grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. Compared with pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus CT in the subgroup of PD‐L1 ≥ 50% had similar mOS, OSR6m, OSR1y, and PFSR1y (all P > 0.05), but significantly improved mPFS, PFSR6m, and ORR (all P < 0.05 for interaction). Compared with the CT group, ICIs plus CT group with PD‐L1 ≥ 50% or <1% showed significant benefit in OS, PFS, and ORR (all P < 0.05). However, in the ICIs plus CT group with 1% ≤ PD‐L1 ≤ 49%, only PFS and ORR showed significant benefit compared with CT group (all P < 0.05), but not for results of OS.

Conclusions

The findings support the rationale for using pembrolizumab alone in the first‐line treatment of PD‐L1 ≥ 50% advanced NSCLC due to the similar OS and lower grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. However, the combination of ICIs and chemotherapy is strongly recommended in patients with PD‐L1 ≤ 49% for significant survival benefit.

Keywords: chemotherapy, immunotherapy, meta‐analysis, nonsmall cell lung cancer, programmed death‐ligand 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer‐related death worldwide,1 and nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80%–85% of lung cancer cases, two‐thirds of which are unresectable due to initial diagnosis of advanced disease.2 The development of target therapy has greatly improved the survival of the patients who have variations in targets such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK).3 Nevertheless, approximately one‐half patients of NSCLC have no specific driver gene mutations.4 Platinum‐based doublet chemotherapy is the standard first‐line therapy for these patients. However, it has limited curative effect and sometimes patients could not confront the side effects of chemotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) that can block immunosuppressive molecules such as programmed cell death‐protein 1 (PD‐1) or its ligand PD‐L1, and cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte associated protein 4 have been proven to be effective in treating various kinds of cancers by restoring antitumor immunity. ICIs that have been clinically applied to NSCLC include pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and ipilimumab.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Several prospective studies have demonstrated that both ICIs monotherapy and combination regimens showed encouraging efficacies in the treatment of NSCLC.11, 12 An early meta‐analysis conducted by Wang et al provided clinical evidence that either ICI monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy improved survival in patients with advanced NSCLC, and ICI group had fewer adverse events (AEs).13 However, the meta‐analysis included all lines of treatment, and was not focused on the first‐line treatment. In addition, several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported the latest results and showed more evidence of immunotherapy for the first‐line treatment of NSCLC. Nevertheless, there is still considerable controversy about how to choose the best first‐line treatment, that is, ICIs or chemotherapy alone or in combination. Currently, several studies have shown that PD‐L1 or tumor mutational burden (TMB) status can be applied to evaluate the efficacy and survival of immunotherapy, so it is promising to use these biomarkers to make therapeutic decisions.14, 15 Herein, a meta‐analysis was performed to make a contrast in terms of the efficacy and safety between ICIs in combination with chemotherapy and chemotherapy or ICIs alone in the first‐line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Search strategy

Two investigators independently made a comprehensive search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases with the following keywords: (atezolizumab OR durvalumab OR ipilimumab OR nivolumab OR pembrolizumab) AND (NSCLC OR lung cancer). The final literature search was performed on 15 December 2018. In addition to computer search, manual searches were conducted for the abstracts from conferences.

2.2. Study selection

Studies that met the following inclusion criteria were included. They are as follows: (a) Research type and eligible patients: phase II or III RCTs designed for patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV or recurrent metastatic NSCLC, who had chemotherapy‐naive, no sensitizing EGFR or ALK alteration. (b) Intervention measure: patients were randomly assigned to experimental group and control group. The experimental groups included ICIs (nivolumab or pembrolizumab or atezolizumab or durvalumab or ipilimumab) or ICIs in combination with chemotherapy or other ICIs. The control group was chemotherapy (platinum‐based chemotherapy or combined with antiangiogenic therapy). Only the drug of ICIs differed between the two groups. (c) Research outcome: the primary endpoints included one of the following: median progression‐free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), or objective response rate (ORR).

The exclusion criteria included non‐RCTs, systematic reviews, case reports, and repeated published studies.

2.3. Quality assessment and data extraction

The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines were used in evaluating the risk of bias. The characteristics of each trial were extracted, including pathological type, the status of PD‐L1 and TMB, etc The endpoints were also extracted, including the mPFS, mOS, ORR, and grade ≥ 3 treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs). The OS rate (OSR) of 6 months (OSR6m), and 1 year (OSR1y) and 2 years (OSR2y), and the PFS rate (PFSR) of 6 months (PFSR6m) and 1 year (PFSR1y) were extracted from Kaplan‐Meier curves using Engauge Digitizer v.10.8 software (produced by Mark Mitchell 2014; https://github.com/markummitchell/engauge-digitizer) to further analyze the impact on short‐term and long‐term survival.

2.4. Statistical analysis

This meta‐analysis was performed using Stata software version 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station). The ORR, OSR6m, OSR1y, OSR2y, PFSR 6m, PFSR1y, and the rate of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs were expressed as risk ratios (RRs), and the mPFS and mOS were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Meta regression with fixed effect models was employed to assess the potential effects of clinical variables on outcomes, unless I 2 was more than 50%, a random effect model was used in which case. We firstly evaluated the clinical efficacy and toxicity between ICIs and chemotherapy in selected cases (PD‐L1 ≥ 50% or high TMB) and between ICIs combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy in unselected cases, respectively. Then, the efficacy of ICIs in combination with chemotherapy vs chemotherapy was further analyzed according to the expression level of PD‐L1. The heterogeneity of efficacy was evaluated by an interaction test16 between ICIs alone and in combination with chemotherapy, between pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, and between nonsquamous and squamous cell carcinoma.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Characteristics of the studies included

The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 RCTs comprising 6,278 NSCLC patients were enrolled in this meta‐analysis (Figure 1). Four of these studies involved comparisons between ICIs and chemotherapy17, 18, 19, 20 and seven involved comparisons between ICIs combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ICIs were compared with standard chemotherapy in selected NSCLC (PD‐L1 > 50% or high TMB).

Table 1.

The characteristics of the studies included

Study Author/published year Histologies Status of PD‐L1 Randomized arms Case number Stratified by PD‐L1 Case number Status of TMB
KN‐024 Martin 2016 Nonsqu./Squ. ≥50% Pembrolizumab 154 TPS ≥ 50% 154  
Platinum‐based chemo. 151 TPS ≥ 50% 151
KN‐042 Gilberto 2018 Nonsqu./Squ. ≥1% Pembrolizumab 637 TPS ≥ 50% 299  
TPS 1%‐49% 338
Platinum‐based chemo. 637 TPS ≥ 50% 300
  TPS 1%‐49% 337
KN‐407 Luis 2018 Squ. Any Pembrolizumab, CBP, PTX or nab‐PTX 278 TC3 73  
TC1/TC2 103
TC0 95
Placebo, CBP, PTX or nab‐PTX 281 TC3 73  
TC1/TC2 104
TC0 99
KN‐021G Langer 2016 Nonsqu. Any Pembrolizumab, pemetrexed and CBP 60 NA NA  
Pemetrexed and CBP 63 NA NA
KN‐189 Leena 2018 Nonsqu. Any Pembrolizumab, pemetrexed and CBP 410 TC3 132  
TC1/TC2 128
TC0 127
Placebo, pemetrexed and CBP 206 TC3 70
TC1/TC2 58
TC0 63
CM‐026 Carbone 2017 Nonsqu./Squ. ≥5% Nivolumab 47 TPS ≥ 5% 47 ≥243 mut*
Platinum‐based chemo. 60 TPS ≥ 5% 60
CM‐227 Hellmann 2018 Nonsqu./Squ. Any Nivolumab and ipilimumab 139 NA NA ≥10 mut/Mb
Any Histology‐based chemo. 160 NA NA
<1% Nivolumab and histology‐based chemo. 177 TPS < 1% 177
<1% Histology‐based chemo. 186 TPS <1% 186
IMP‐150 Reck 2017 Nonsqu. Any Atezolizumab, CBP, PTX and BEV 356 TC3 or IC3 71  
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 121
TC0 and IC0 167
CBP, PTX and BEV 336 TC3 or IC3 65  
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 105
TC0 and IC0 172
IMP‐131 Robert 2018 Squ. Any Atezolizumab, CBP and nab‐PTX 343 TC3 or IC3 53  
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 129
TC0 and IC0 160
CBP and nab‐PTX 340 TC3 or IC3 48
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 121
TC0 and IC0 171
IMP‐132 Vassiliki 2018 Nonsqu. Any Atezolizumab, CBP or CDDP, and pemetrexed 292 TC3 or IC3 25  
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 63
TC0 and IC0 88
CBP or CDDP, and pemetrexed 286 TC3 or IC3 20
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 73
TC0 and IC0 75
IMP‐130 Federico 2018 Nonsqu. Any Atezolizumab and CBP and nab‐PTX 451 TC3 or IC3 88  
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 128
TC0 and IC0 235
CBP and nab‐PTX 228 TC3 or IC3 42
TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 65
TC0 and IC0 121
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: * mut, mutation via whole exome sequencing (WES); BEV, bevacizumab; CBP, carboplatin; CDDP, cisplatin; CM, CHECKMATE; IC0, PD‐L1 < 1% of tumor infiltrating immune cells; IC1/IC2, 1% ≤ PD‐L1 < 10% of tumor infiltrating immune cells; IC3, PD‐L1 ≥ 10% of tumor infiltrating immune cells; IMP, IMPOWER; KN, KEYNOTE; mut/Mb, mutation/megabase; NA, not available; nab‐PTX, nab‐paclitaxel; Nonsqu., nonsquamous carcinoma; PD‐L1, programmed death‐ligand 1; PTX, paclitaxel; Squ., squamous carcinoma; TC0, PD‐L1 < 1% of tumor cells; TC1/TC2, 1% ≤ PD‐L1 < 50% of tumor cells; TC3, PD‐L1 ≥ 50% of tumor cells; TMB, tumor mutational burden; TPS, tumor proportion score.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Overview of study search and selection

3.2. Quality assessment and publication bias

Table 2 summarizes the quality assessment of the included trials. No substantial asymmetry was found in the visual inspection of the funnel plots (Figure S1). Consistently, the Egger linear regression test and Begg rank correlation test also found no evidence of publication bias.

Table 2.

The quality assessment of the randomized controlled trials included

Study Author/published year Random sequence generation (selection bias) Allocation concealment (selection bias) Blinding of participant and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Selective reporting (reporting bias) Other bias*
KN‐024 Martin 2016 Low risk Unclear risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
KN‐042 Gilberto 2018 Low risk Unclear risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
KN‐407 Luis 2018 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
KN‐021G Langer 2016 Low risk Low risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
KN‐189 Leena 2018 Low risk Unclear risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
CM‐026 Carbone 2017 Low risk Unclear risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
CM‐227 Hellmann 2018 Low risk Unclear risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
IMP‐150 Reck 2017 Low risk Unclear risk High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
IMP‐131 Robert 2018 Low risk Unclear risk High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
IMP‐132 Vassiliki 2018 Low risk Unclear risk High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
IMP‐130 Federico 2018 Low risk Unclear risk High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Open in a new tab

CM, CHECKMATE; IMP, IMPOWER; KN, KEYNOTE.

*Other bias refers to other issues that lead to high risk of bias.

3.3. Comparisons between ICIs and chemotherapy in selected NSCLC with PD‐L1 ≥ 50% or high TMB

Four RCTs compared the efficacy and safety between ICIs and chemotherapy, including 1310 patients with high PD‐L1 expression defined as tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%, who were treated with pembrolizumab, or with high TMB defined as TMB ≥ 10 mutation/megabase (mut/Mb) or TMB ≥ 243 mutations in whole exome sequencing, who were treated with nivolumab monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab.

3.3.1. PD‐L1 ≥ 50% for pembrolizumab

ICIs showed significantly benefit in mOS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56‐0.80), OSR1y (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72‐0.90), and OSR2y (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57‐0.79) compared with chemotherapy (all P < 0.001). The OSR6m showed no obvious difference between the two groups (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.83‐1.17, P = 0.877) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Comparisons of median overall survival (mOS) (A), the OS rates of 6 months (OSR6m) (B), 1 year (OSR1y) (C) and 2‐years (OSR2y) (D) between ICIs and chemotherapy in selected nonsmall cell lung cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1) ≥50% or high tumor mutational burden (TMB)

ICIs showed no obvious difference in mPFS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.40‐1.04, P = 0.069), PFSR6m (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.73‐1.25, P = 0.729), and PFSR1y (RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.22‐1.14, P = 0.098) compared with chemotherapy. However, ICIs showed significant benefit in ORR (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62‐0.89, P = 0.001) vs chemotherapy (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Comparisons of median progression‐free survival (mPFS) (A), the PFS rate of 6 months (PFSR6m) (B) and 1 year (PFSR1y) (C), objective response rates (ORR) (D) between ICIs and chemotherapy in selected NSCLC (PD‐L1 ≥ 50% or high TMB)

ICIs showed less toxicity in grade ≥ 3 TRAEs in comparison with chemotherapy (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.38‐0.53, P < 0.001) (Figure S2A).

3.3.2. High TMB for nivolumab monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab

Compared with chemotherapy, nivolumab monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab showed no obvious difference in terms of mOS (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.64‐1.88; 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56‐1.10, respectively), OSR6m (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.85‐1.28; 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92‐1.12, respectively), OSR1y (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.70‐1.27; 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73‐1.04, respectively), and OSR2y (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66‐1.50; 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65‐1.07, respectively) (all P> 0.05) (Figure 2). While nivolumab combined with ipilimumab showed benefit in terms of mPFS (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41‐0.81), PFSR1y (RR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.20‐0.47) and ORR (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43‐0.81) (all P < 0.05), and a trend toward significance of PFSR6m (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66‐1.01) compared with chemotherapy (Figure 3).

Nivolumab monotherapy showed less toxicity in grade ≥ 3 TRAEs than chemotherapy (RR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.26‐0.46), while nivolumab combined with ipilimumab showed no obvious difference with chemotherapy (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73‐1.02) (Figure S2A).

3.4. Comparisons between combination of chemotherapy with ICIs and chemotherapy alone in unselected NSCLC

Seven RCTs including 3930 patients compared ICIs combined with chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with any expression of PD‐L1.

Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs combined with chemotherapy indicated significantly benefit in mOS (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62‐0.88), OSR6m (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90‐0.98), OSR1y (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79‐0.96), OSR2y (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68‐0.87) (all P < 0.01) (Figure 4), mPFS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.57‐0.66), PFSR6m (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68‐0.85), PFSR1y (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.44‐0.56), and ORR (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.54‐0.76) (Figure 5) (all P < 0.001).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Comparisons of mOS (A), OSR6m (B), OSR1y (C) and OSR2y (D) between combination of chemotherapy with ICIs and chemotherapy alone in unselected NSCLC

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Comparisons of mPFS (A), PFSR6m (B) and PFSR1y (C), ORR (D) between combination of chemotherapy with ICIs and chemotherapy alone in unselected NSCLC

ICIs combined with chemotherapy indicated more toxicity in terms of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs than chemotherapy (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.06‐1.26, P = 0.001) (Figure S2B).

3.5. Comparisons between pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in unselected NSCLC

Compared with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy showed significant benefit in mOS, mPFS, and ORR (P = 0.006, 0.029, and 0.022 for interaction, respectively).

3.6. Comparisons between nonsquamous and squamous cell carcinoma treated with ICIs and chemotherapy

Chemotherapy combined with either atezolizumab or pembrolizumab showed similar benefit in mOS (P = 0.115 and 0.163 for interaction, respectively) and mPFS (P = 0.191 and 0.619 for interaction, respectively) between nonsquamous and squamous cell carcinoma, while patients with nonsquamous cell carcinoma showed significantly increased ORR (P = 0.021 and 0.033 for interaction, respectively) compared with patients with squamous cell carcinoma (Figures S3A, S4A, S4D).

3.7. Comparisons between combination of chemotherapy with ICIs and chemotherapy alone in selected NSCLC

3.7.1. PD‐L1 ≥ 50% of tumor cells (TC3) or PD‐L1 ≥ 10% of tumor infiltrating immune cells (IC3)

Six RCTs including 760 patients compared ICIs combined with chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with TC3 for pembrolizumab or TC3/IC3 for atezolizumab.

ICIs combined with chemotherapy showed a significant benefit in mOS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49‐0.77), OSR6m (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82‐0.95), OSR1y (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68‐0.87) (all P < 0.001), and OSR2y (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57‐0.94, P = 0.014) compared with chemotherapy (Figure S5). Additionally, ICIs combined with chemotherapy showed benefit in terms of mPFS (HR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34‐0.49), PFSR6m (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.55‐0.86), PFSR1y (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.30‐0.53), and ORR (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42‐0.81) (all P < 0.001) (Figure S6).

3.7.2. 1% ≤ PD‐L1 < 50% of TC (TC1/TC2) or 1% ≤ PD‐L1 < 10% of IC (IC1/IC2)

A total of six RCTs comprising 1198 patients compared ICIs combined with chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with TC1/TC2 for pembrolizumab and TC1/TC2 or IC1/IC2 for atezolizumab.

Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs combined with chemotherapy showed no obvious difference in mOS (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55‐1.07), OSR6m (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93‐1.03), OSR1y (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74‐1.04), and OSR2y (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.69‐1.30) (all P> 0.05) (Figure S7). Sensitivity analyses showed that IMPOWER‐131 has a significant effect on the results. When removed, combination group showed significant benefit in terms of mOS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50‐0.79) and OSR1y (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72‐0.93), and trend toward significance of OSR6m (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.90‐1.01) and OSR2y (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64‐1.02).

Furthermore, combination therapy showed benefit in mPFS (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.55‐0.72), PFSR6m (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72‐0.88), PFSR1y (RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.40‐0.63) (all P < 0.001), and ORR (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57‐0.97, P = 0.032) (Figure S8).

3.7.3. PD‐L1 < 1% of TC (TC0) and IC (IC0)

Seven RCTs including 1936 patients compared ICIs combined with chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with TC0 for pembrolizumab and nivolumab, or TC0/IC0 for atezolizumab.

Except OSR6m, combination therapy showed significantly benefit in terms of mOS (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67‐0.90, P = 0.001), OSR1y (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76‐0.99, P = 0.040), and OSR2y (HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58‐0.85, P < 0.001) compared with chemotherapy. The OSR6m showed no obvious difference between two groups (RR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.91‐1.01, P = 0.105) (Figure S9).

Similarly, combination therapy showed benefit in mPFS (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.65‐0.80), PFSR6m (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80‐0.94), PFSR1y (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.50‐0.73) (all P < 0.001), and ORR (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56‐0.88, P = 0.002) (Figure S10).

3.8. Comparisons between pembrolizumab alone and in combination with chemotherapy in selected NSCLC with PD‐L1 ≥ 50% or 1% ≤ PD‐L1 ≤ 49%

3.8.1. PD‐L1 ≥ 50%

Compared with pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the subgroup of PD‐L1 ≥ 50% had the similar efficacies in mOS, OSR6m, OSR1y, and PFSR1y (P = 0.184, 0.117, 0.351, and 0.498 for interaction, respectively) (Figures S11, S12C), but had significant benefit in mPFS, PFSR6m, and ORR (P = 0.038, 0.002, and 0.009 for interaction, respectively) (Figure S12A‐B and D).

3.8.2. 1% ≤ PD‐L1 ≤ 49%

Pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the subgroup of 1% ≤ PD‐L1 ≤ 49% had significantly improved efficacies in mOS, OSR6m, and OSR1y compared with pembrolizumab alone (all P = 0.01 for interaction) (Figure S13).

4. DISCUSSION

This study enhances our understanding of the rational application of ICIs monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in the first‐line treatment of advanced NSCLC and thus answers several controversial questions.

One question is whether ICIs alone can improve median and long‐term overall survival (≥2 year) without increasing the risk of early death (≤6 months) in patients with high PD‐L1 expression (TPS ≥ 50%) compared with chemotherapy alone. In both KEYNOTE‐024 and KEYNOTE‐042 trials, pembrolizumab showed survival benefits in mOS and mPFS compared with chemotherapy for patients with high PD‐L1 expression. In KEYNOTE‐024, pembrolizumab also showed benefit in terms of PFSR6m (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68‐1.00, P = 0.047) and a trend toward significance in OSR6m (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.79‐1.02, P = 0.089) compared with chemotherapy, by contrast, in KEYNOTE‐042, pembrolizumab showed a trend to increased early mortality (RR for OSR6m = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.99‐1.16). Our meta‐analysis indicated that for patients with TPS ≥ 50%, when compared with chemotherapy, the ICI pembrolizumab showed similar OSR6m, mPFS, PFSR6m, and PFSR1y, but benefit in terms of mOS, OSR1y, OSR2y, and ORR, and lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs, suggesting ICIs alone obviously improved median and long‐term OS without increasing early risk of death.

The second question is whether ICIs in combination with chemotherapy can further improve survival, especially the early survival of patients with high PD‐L1 expression compared with chemotherapy or ICIs alone. Our meta‐analysis showed that in comparison with chemotherapy alone, ICIs combined with chemotherapy showed benefit in OS, PFS. and ORR for these patients with high PD‐L1 expression. Furthermore, interaction tests showed when compared with the ICI pembrolizumab alone, the ICI pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy had similar efficacies in terms of mOS, OSR6m, OSR1y, and PFSR1y (all P> 0.05 for interaction), but significantly improved efficacies in mPFS, PFSR6m, and ORR. The results suggested that combination therapy could neither improve OS nor reduce the risk of early death, so we suggest that the ICI pembrolizumab alone can be recommend as a preferred the first‐line treatment for patients with high PD‐L1 expression. This is consistent with what has been recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Nevertheless, we also observed that combination therapy significantly reduced the risk of early disease progression and increased the percentage responders who otherwise do not respond to pembrolizumab alone. Clinically, if patients with a good physical condition have extensive metastases or large tumor burdens before treatment, there is an urgent need for tumor remission to reduce the tumor size and improve the symptoms of the patient, then the combination therapy can be moderately recommended. It should be noted that the interactive comparison between ICIs monotherapy and ICIs in combination with chemotherapy was merely limited to pembrolizumab and might not be extended to other ICIs. Further direct comparisons through RCTs are warranted.

The third question is whether additional ICIs to the first‐line chemotherapy is necessary for patients with low or negative expression for PD‐L1. Previous studies have shown that the synergistic activity and acceptable safety profile could be observed by the combination of checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy in the first‐line treatment of advanced NSCLC.28, 29 With the inclusion of two recent studies, our study drew consistent conclusion that compared with standard chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy and ICIs, regardless of atezolizumab or pembrolizumab could acquire significant benefits in mOS, OSR1y, mPFS, PFSR6m, PFSR1y, and ORR for PD‐L1 unselected patients in spite of higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. When stratified by PD‐L1 expression, patients with negative PD‐L1 expression can further benefit from combination therapy in mOS, mPFS, and ORR, regardless of atezolizumab or pembrolizumab. However, patients with low PD‐L1 expression (1% ≤ PD‐L1 ≤ 49%) show benefits in mOS and OSR1y only from chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab instead of atezolizumab, in spite of a significant improved PFS. Interaction tests showed that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy significantly reduce the mortality rate vs ICIs alone for the patients with PD‐L1 low expression. In summary, ICIs combined with chemotherapy is a favorable treatment choice for advanced NSCLC with low or negative PD‐L1 expression due to significant survival benefit. Sensitivity analysis showed that IMPOWER‐131 had a significant impact on OS results in patients with PD‐L1 low expression. Although the possible influencing factors such as pathological types, inclusion criteria of patients, treatment crossover and other factors have been taken into account and in fact they were well‐balanced, it is hard to explain the reason of increased mortality in chemotherapy combined with ICIs group compared with chemotherapy alone group.

We should interpret carefully which ICIs would be better when used in combination with chemotherapy because of no RCTs designed for direct comparison. Interaction test showed that pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy brought more benefits vs atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy in mOS, mPFS, and ORR in PD‐L1 unselected patients. These results are consistent with previous study.30, 31 Possible explanation is that anti‐PD‐L1 antibody does not interfere the interaction between PD‐1 and PD‐L2.32, 33 Head‐to‐head clinical trials are needed for optimal drug selection.

Subgroup analysis based on histopathological type indicated that chemotherapy combined with ICIs, whatever atezolizumab or pembrolizumab, showed similar benefits in terms of mOS and mPFS between nonsquamous and squamous cell carcinoma in PD‐L1 unselected patients. In contrast, a better ORR was observed in nonsquamous cell carcinoma vs squamous cell carcinoma (all P < 0.05 for interaction).

Detection of PD‐L1 protein levels prior to treatment has been recommended by the NCCN guidelines for predicting the efficacy of pembrolizumab to make treatment choices. However, the current problem of detecting PD‐L1 involves lower sensitivity and specificity of efficacy prediction, and different IHC antibodies and test platforms, as well as inconsistent evaluation methods were used in different drug clinical studies.34 Recent studies demonstrated the percentage of PD‐L1‐stained tumor cells was highly comparable among 22C3, 28‐8, and SP263 PD‐L1 assays, while SP142 assay exhibited fewer stained tumor cells overall.35, 36 Considering that this might have an impact on the assessment of PD‐L1 levels, subgroup analysis for different ICIs was conducted when stratified by PD‐L1 level.

Previous studies have shown that the use of PD‐L1 expression status alone is insufficient to determine which patients should be offered PD‐1 or PD‐L1 blockade therapy37 and TMB might serve as a complementary diagnostic tool.38 High TMB is related with increased tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes, expression of proinflammatory cytokines and immune‐related genes, but the impact on clinical outcome has yet to be clarified.39 For the patients with high TMB, the nivolumab monotherapy or in combination with ipilimumab showed no obvious difference in terms of OS compared with chemotherapy alone, while the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab showed benefit in PFS and ORR. Many patients with a high TMB in the chemotherapy arm received subsequent nivolumab might influence the OS outcomes.40 However, the ability of TMB to predict the efficacy of ICIs may be insufficient and more clinical trials are needed to confirm it.

The test of TMB faces similar difficulties to PD‐L1 that methods for evaluating TMB in different laboratories have not yet been uniform, repeatability and optimal cutoff value have not yet determined. Different detection methods are needed to reach a unified standard and different standards for tissue biopsy samples and blood samples need to be further specified. Other biomarkers such as microsatellite instability‐high, mismatch repair‐deficient,41 and exosomal PD‐L142 might be of guiding significance to predict efficacy. Therefore, further research with more accurate biomarkers is needed to guide the treatment of ICIs.

There are several limitations in this study. Firstly, this meta‐analysis was based on study‐level evidence, although the conclusions derived from the pooled data of eleven RCTs, different inclusion and exclusion criteria and the heterogeneity between studies should be noticed. Additionally, the secondary analyses based on the status of PDL1 expression and TMB mostly belong to retrospective analyses, and there might exist unbalanced factors between the study arms and the control arms. Moreover, in the group of ICIs combined with chemotherapies, different chemotherapy regimens, and anti‐angiogenic drugs might have different effects on new antigens and immune microenvironment and the effects of different drugs need further exploration. Furthermore, the test of interaction is an indirect comparison analysis, which might compromise the evidence level.

5. CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated that ICIs in combination with chemotherapy significantly improve the disease control and reduce the risk of disease progression but have no statistically significant survival benefits compared with ICIs alone in the first‐line treatment of PD‐L1 high expression (TPS ≥ 50%) advanced NSCLC. The findings support the rationale for using pembrolizumab alone in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with PD‐L1 ≥ 50%. However, a significant survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone even in PD‐L1 low or negative expression advanced NSCLC was observed in combination therapy, but it was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

RC and SZ conceived and designed the study. RC, LS, and XZ took full responsibility for data collecting. RC, YL, WJ, and LH performed the meta‐analysis, systematic review, and drafted the manuscript. CH and JM helped revise the manuscript.

Supporting information

 

Click here for additional data file. (299.4KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (625.7KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (769.3KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (991.3KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (857.4KB, tif)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 81501990).

Cao R, Ma J‐T, Zhang S‐L, et al. Rational application of the first‐line chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: A meta‐analysis. Cancer Med. 2019;8:5033–5046. 10.1002/cam4.2407

REFERENCES

  • 1. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration ;Fitzmaurice C, Akinyemiju TF, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability‐adjusted life‐years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2016. JAMA Oncol. 1990;2018:1553‐1568. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Kawabata S, Chiang C‐T, Tsurutani J, et al. Rapamycin downregulates thymidylate synthase and potentiates the activity of pemetrexed in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2014;5:1062‐1070. 10.18632/oncotarget.1760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Nagano T, Tachihara M, Nishimura Y. Molecular mechanisms and targeted therapies including immunotherapy for non‐small cell lung cancer. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2018;19 10.2174/1568009619666181210114559. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Shea M, Costa DB, Rangachari D. Management of advanced non‐small cell lung cancers with known mutations or rearrangements: latest evidence and treatment approaches. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2016;10:113‐129. 10.1177/1753465815617871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim D‐W, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD‐L1‐positive, advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE‐010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1540‐1550. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01281-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Chen R, Tao Y, Xu X, et al. The efficacy and safety of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab in treatment of advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. Discov Med. 2018;26:155‐166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Muñoz‐Unceta N, Burgueño I, Jiménez E, Paz‐Ares L. Durvalumab in NSCLC: latest evidence and clinical potential. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018;10:1758835918804151 10.1177/1758835918804151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Zhang H, Shen J, Yi L, Zhang W, Luo P, Zhang J. Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab plus chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Cancer. 2018;9:4556‐4567. 10.7150/jca.27368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. von Pawel J, Bordoni R, Satouchi M, et al. Long‐term survival in patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab versus docetaxel: results from the randomised phase III OAK study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;107:124‐132. 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Merino Almazán M, Duarte Pérez JM, Marín Pozo JF, et al. A multicentre observational study of the effectiveness, safety and economic impact of nivolumab on non‐small‐cell lung cancer in real clinical practice. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019;41:272‐279. 10.1007/s11096-018-0772-z [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Vokes EE, Ready N, Felip E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057): 3‐year update and outcomes in patients with liver metastases. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:959‐965. 10.1093/annonc/mdy041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Gadgeel SM, Stevenson JP, Langer CJ, et al. Pembrolizumab and platinum‐based chemotherapy as first‐line therapy for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer: phase 1 cohorts from the KEYNOTE‐021 study. Lung Cancer. 2018;125:273‐281. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.08.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wang S, Hao J, Wang H, Fang Y, Tan L. Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in non‐small cell lung cancer. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7:e1457600 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1457600. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Gibney GT, Weiner LM, Atkins MB. Predictive biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor‐based immunotherapy. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e542‐e551. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30406-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Hendriks LE, Rouleau E, Besse B. Clinical utility of tumor mutational burden in patients with non‐small cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapy. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7:647‐660. 10.21037/tlcr.2018.09.22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ. 2003;326:219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Reck M, Rodríguez‐Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD‐L1‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1823‐1833. 10.1056/NEJMoa1606774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz‐Ares L, et al. First‐line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2415‐2426. 10.1056/NEJMoa1613493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu T‐E, Pluzanski A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2093‐2104. 10.1056/NEJMoa1801946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Lopes G, Yi‐Long WU, Kudaba I, et al. Pembrolizumab (pembro) versus platinum‐based chemotherapy (chemo) as first‐line therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC with a PD‐L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥1%: open‐label, phase 3 KEYNOTE‐042 study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(18_suppl):LBA4 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.18. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Paz‐Ares L, Luft A, Vicente D, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2040‐2051. 10.1056/NEJMoa1810865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H, et al. Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non‐squamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open‐label KEYNOTE‐021 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1497‐1508. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30498-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Gandhi L, Rodríguez‐Abreu D, Gadgeel S, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2078‐2092. 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Socinski MA, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, et al. Atezolizumab for first‐line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:2288‐2301. 10.1056/NEJMoa1716948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, Vynnychenko I, et al. Primary PFS and safety analysis of a randomized phase III study of atezolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel or nab‐paclitaxel vs carboplatin + nab‐paclitaxel as 1L therapy in advanced squamous NSCLC. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(18_suppl):LBA9000 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.18. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Papadimitrakopoulou V, Cobo M, Bordoni R, et al. PFS and safety results with 1L atezolizumab + carboplatin/cisplatin + pemetrexed in stage IV non‐squamous NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:S332‐S333. 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.08.262. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Cappuzzo F, McCleod M, Hussein M, et al.IMpower130: progression‐free survival (PFS) and safety analysis from a randomised phase 3 study of carboplatin + nab‐paclitaxel (CnP) with or without atezolizumab (atezo) as first‐line (1L) therapy in advanced non‐squamous NSCLC. Presented at: 2018 ESMO Congress; October 19–23, 2018; Munich, Germany. Abstract LBA53.
  • 28. Zhou Y, Chen C, Zhang X, et al. Immune‐checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy for first‐line treatment in advanced non‐small cell lung carcinoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:155 10.1186/s40425-018-0477-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Xu X, Huang Z, Zheng L, Fan Y. The efficacy and safety of anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 antibodies combined with chemotherapy or CTLA4 antibody as a first‐line treatment for advanced lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2018;142:2344‐2354. 10.1002/ijc.31252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. You W, Liu M, Miao J‐D, et al. A network meta‐analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of anti‐PD‐1 with anti‐PD‐L1 in non‐small cell lung cancer. J Cancer. 2018;9:1200‐1206. 10.7150/jca.22361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Zhang Y, Zhou H, Zhang L. Which is the optimal immunotherapy for advanced squamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer in combination with chemotherapy: anti‐PD‐1 or anti‐PD‐L1? J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:135 10.1186/s40425-018-0427-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Zou W, Wolchok JD, Chen L. (B7–H1) and PD‐1 pathway blockade for cancer therapy: mechanisms, response biomarkers, and combinations. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(328):328rv4 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad7118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Chen L, Han X. Anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 therapy of human cancer: past, present, and future. J Clin Invest. 2015;125:3384‐3391. 10.1172/JCI80011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Waqar SN, Morgensztern D. Immunotherapy for non‐small cell lung cancer: are we on the cusp of a new era? Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2015;11:871‐873. 10.1586/1744666X.2015.1054374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Hirsch FR, McElhinny A, Stanforth D, et al. PD‐L1 immunohistochemistry assays for lung cancer: results from phase 1 of the blueprint PD‐L1 IHC assay comparison project. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12:208‐222. 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.11.2228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Tsao MS, Kerr KM, Kockx M, et al. PD‐L1 immunohistochemistry comparability study in real‐life clinical samples: results of blueprint phase 2 project. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:1302‐1311. 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.05.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Shen X, Zhao B. Efficacy of PD‐1 or PD‐L1 inhibitors and PD‐L1 expression status in cancer: meta‐analysis. BMJ. 2018;362:k3529 10.1136/bmj.k3529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Heeke S, Hofman P. Tumor mutational burden assessment as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy in lung cancer patients: getting ready for prime‐time or not? Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7:631‐638. 10.21037/tlcr.2018.08.04. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Prelaj A, Tay R, Ferrara R, Chaput N, Besse B, Califano R. Predictive biomarkers of response for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2019;106:144‐159. 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Greillier L, Tomasini P, Barlesi F. The clinical utility of tumor mutational burden in non‐small cell lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7:639‐646. 10.21037/tlcr.2018.10.08. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Chang L, Chang M, Chang HM, Chang F. Microsatellite instability: a predictive biomarker for cancer immunotherapy. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2018;26:e15‐e21. 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Chen G, Huang AC, Zhang W, et al. Exosomal PD‐L1 contributes to immunosuppression and is associated with anti‐PD‐1 response. Nature. 2018;560:382‐386. 10.1038/s41586-018-0392-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

 

Click here for additional data file. (299.4KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (625.7KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.3MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (1.2MB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (769.3KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (991.3KB, tif)

 

Click here for additional data file. (857.4KB, tif)

Articles from Cancer Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES