Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2021 Sep 3;100(35):e27121. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027121

Efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitor versus chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer

A meta-analysis

Pei-Pei Zhang a, Juan Wang a, Da-Zhi Ding b, Li Zhang a, Chun Cheng c, Da-Ke Chen a,∗
Editor: Supreet Agarwal
PMCID: PMC8416009  PMID: 34477154

Abstract

Background:

This meta-analysis was performed to compare efficacy and tolerability between antiprogrammed cell death (PD-1)/programmed cell death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) + anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) treatment and chemotherapy in advanced lung cancer.

Methods:

Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases were searched for potential articles. The fixed-effect model or random-effect model was adopted for pooled analysis based on the I2 and P-value.

Results:

Six articles with 1338 patients were identified and subjected to meta-analysis. Compared with chemotherapy, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 treatment could significantly improve the overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95%confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–0.84, P = .21) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.71–0.83, P = .30) of advanced lung cancer patients. Moreover, there was no obvious difference in the incidence of 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs) serious adverse reactions (HR = 1.35, 95%CI: 0.66–2.74, P < .00001) between the 2 treatment groups, but the incidence rates of AEs leading to discontinuation (HR = 2.56, 95%CI: 1.53–4.30, P < .00001) and AEs leading to death (HR = 2.10, 95%CI: 1.21–3.63, P = .20) were higher. Furthermore, no remarkable differences in objective response rate (HR = 1.31, 95%CI: 0.97–1.77, P = .02) were observed between the 2 groups.

Conclusion:

Our meta-analysis revealed that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus CTLA-4 inhibitor could markedly improve the endpoint outcomes of patients compared with chemotherapy alone, and did not significantly increase the serious adverse reactions. Thus, it can serve as a new treatment strategy for advanced lung cancer.

Keywords: advanced lung cancer, chemotherapy, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, programmed cell death/programmed cell death-ligand-1

1. Introduction

Lung cancer is one of the main causes of cancer mortality worldwide.[1] Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents about 85% of all lung cancers, while small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents 10% to 15% of all lung cancers.[2] SCLC remains a difficult disease to manage, and there are no significant advancements in the systemic treatment of this disease.[3] Although systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy have been the mainstay of treatment for advanced stage NSCLC, progress remains limited.[4] Thus, new lung cancer therapies are urgently required to improve the disease prognosis. A recent study has suggested that immunotherapies are effective against lung cancer, and can serve as a new treatment option with minimal toxicities.[5]

Immunotherapy strategies are designed to reverse tumor immune suppression and activate antitumor responses.[6] There are 2 most extensively studied immune-checkpoint pathways: cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) pathway and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1).[7] Through the inhibition of PD-1 and CTLA-4 binding with their ligands, T cells can be activated and proliferated, thus leading to T cell-mediated tumor infiltration, and ultimately tumor suppression.[8] Over the past few decades, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have made substantial breakthroughs in lung cancer treatment.[9] Nevertheless, the clinical efficacy of ICI monotherapy is limited and remains unsatisfactory.[10,11] Recently, some researches demonstrated that combination therapy could produce a higher tumor response rate in patients with NSCLC and SCLC.[12–15] In the tumor microenvironment, PD-1 modulates the functions of T cell effector; while in lymph nodes, CTLA-4 suppresses the early activation and differentiation of T cells.[16] Therefore, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 is considered a complementary treatment to trigger the inhibition of immune checkpoints.[11] Numerous clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of PD-1/PD-L1 combined with CTLA-4 blockade in lung cancer patients. A Phase III trial (ARCTIC) demonstrated that durvalumab plus tremelimumab did not remarkably improve overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) versus standard of care in advanced NSCLC patients.[17] However, another Phase III trial (Checkmate227) indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in a longer duration of OS versus chemotherapy in NSCLC patients.[18]

These clinical trials have shown opposite results. Hence, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate whether anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 can improve the OS, PFS and objective response rate (ORR) of advanced lung cancer patients compared to chemotherapy alone. In addition, the tolerability of multi-ICIs combination therapy was also compared with that of chemotherapy alone.

2. Methods

2.1. Article searching

Relevant clinical trials, which were published from January 2018 to December 2020, were searched through online databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed). Search terms included: “anti-PD-1”, “anti-PD-L1”, “anti-CTLA-4”, “immune checkpoint inhibitors”, “lung cancer”, “SCLC”, and “NSCLC”. The search was restricted to the articles published in English language. In cases of duplicate publications, more comprehensive studies were chosen for subsequent meta-analysis. All information was extracted by 2 authors independently, and any consensus was resolved through negotiation.

2.2. Inclusion criteria

We included all randomized controlled Phase III trials to compare the clinical efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 treatment versus chemotherapy in advanced lung cancer patients. The endpoint outcomes included at least 1 or more OS, PFS, ORR, and adverse events (AEs).

2.3. Exclusion criteria

The exclusion criteria included: review articles, nonclinical experimental research, repeated clinical research, incomplete data, and unable to extract the relevant data.

2.4. Data extraction

All information was independently extracted by 2 researchers through a standardized data extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with the 3rd researcher. The extracted data included the first author, study design, patient characteristics, treatment and measurement results of experimental group and control group.

2.5. Quality evaluation

Two researchers examined the methodological quality of trials that met the eligibility criteria for evaluation. Risk of bias was assessed in compliance with the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.[19]

2.6. Statistical analysis

Cochrane RevMan 5.3 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) was employed for the meta-analyses. Hazard ratio (HR) was used to compare dichotomous variables, and odds ratio (OR) was used to count variables. All results were given 95% confidence interval (CI). The I2 statistic was applied to determine the effects of statistical heterogeneity on meta-analysis findings. Based on the Cochrane evaluation criteria, the random-effect model was selected when I2 > 50% and P < .1 (severe heterogeneity); otherwise, the fixed-effect model was chosen when I2≤50% and P > .1. Subgroup analysis was performed to address obvious clinical heterogeneity. All tests were double-sided.

2.7. Ethics

The data we used are based on previously published researches, and these researches have been ethically approved. Therefore, ethical approval is not required.

3. Results

3.1. Article selection and study characteristics

There were 1338 documents searched from the databases. After reading the title and abstract of each article, 41 articles were screened out. The full texts of these articles were then assessed comprehensively. After excluding duplicate studies, nonrandomized control, and I or II phase trials, 6 articles[18,20–24] that meet the criteria were selected with a total of 3962 patients. At last, the 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were subjected to the meta-analysis. Figure 1 summarizes the detailed information about article selection. The 6 included studies were eligible for PFS, OS and adverse reaction data analysis, and of those, 5 were eligible for ORR data analysis. Based on a histological perspective, 4 of the included RCTs were NSCLC and the remaining 2 were SCLC. Table 1 lists the characteristics of the 6 RCTs. Table 2 displays the endpoint outcomes of the selected studies.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of literature screening process.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Study Phase Masking Histology Therapy line Number of patients (experimental/chemotherapy) Experimental arm Chemotherapy arm
D. Planchard 2020 III Open-label NSCLC 3+ 173/110 Durvalumab + tremelimumab (12 wk durvalumab 20 mg/kg + tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w then 34 wk durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w) standard of chemotherapy q3w
Hellmann 2019 III Open-label NSCLC 1 583/583 Nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg/kg of body weight every 2 wk) plus ipilimumab (at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) Platinumdoublet chemotherapy q3w
Martin Reck 2020 III Open-label NSCLC 1 361/358 Nivolumab 360 mg q3w + ipilimumab 1 mg/kg q6w + platinum-doublet chemotherapy (2 cycles) Platinum-doublet chemotherapy q3w
Naiyer A. Rizvi 2020 III Open-label NSCLC 1 372/372 Durvalumab (20 mg/kg every 4 wk) + tremelimumab (1 mg/kg every 4 weeks, up to 4 doses) Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy q3w
Luis G. Paz-Ares 2020 III Open-label ES-SCLC 1 268/269 Durvalumab1500 mg + tremelimumab75 mg + EP q3w EP q3w
Owonikoko 2019 III Open-label ED-SCLC Maintenance therapy after 1L 279/275 Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg q3w Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy q3w
Open in a new tab

ES-SCLC = extensive stage-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC = nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Table 2.

The methodological quality of included trials.

Study PD-L1 expression level ORR (experimental vs chemotherapy) Median OS HR (95%CI) Median PFS HR (95%CI) Treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (experimental vs chemotherapy) AEs leading to discontinuation (experimental vs chemotherapy) AEs leading to death (experimental vs chemotherapy)
D. Planchard 2020 <25% 14.9% vs 6.8% 0.8 (0.61–1.05) 0.77 (0.59–1.01) 22% vs 36.4% 18.5% vs 17.3% 0% vs 0%
Hellmann 2019 ≧0% 33.1% vs 27.8% 0.73 (0.64–0.84) 0.79 (0.69–0.91) 32.8% vs 36% 18.1% vs 9.1% 1.4% vs 1.1%
Martin Reck 2020 ≧0% 38% vs 25% 0.66 (0.55–0.8) 0.68 (0.57–0.82) 47% vs 38% 19% vs 7% 2% vs 2%
Naiyer A. Rizvi 2020 ≧25% 34.4% vs 37.7% 0.85 (0.61–1.17) 1.05 (0.72–1.53) 22.9% vs 33.8% 13.2% vs 9.4% 1.6% vs 0.9%
Luis G. Paz-Ares 2020 ≧0% 58.4% vs 58% 0.82 (0.68–1.0) 0.84 (0.7–1.01) 70.3% vs 62.8% 21.4% vs 9.4% 10.2% vs 5.6%
Owonikoko 2019 ≧0% - 0.92 (0.75–1.12) 0.72 (0.6–0.87) 52% vs 8% 31% vs 4% 2.5% vs <1%
Open in a new tab

AEs = adverse events, HR = hazard ratio, ORR = objective response rate, OS = overall survival, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PFS = progression-free survival.

3.2. Meta-analysis findings

3.2.1. Overall survival

The 6 RCTs were included to determine the OS of patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy or chemotherapy only. As shown in Figure 2, the fixed-effect model meta-analysis indicated that the pooled HR of OS was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.71–0.84, I2 = 30%, P = .21). The result showed that, compared to chemotherapy alone, the combination of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 with or without chemotherapy exhibited higher OS rate in advanced lung cancer patients. Subgroup analysis was stratified according to the histological type of this disease. The pooled HR values were 0.73 (95%CI: 0.66–0.81, I2 = 0%, P = .39) and 0.87 (95%CI: 0.75–1.00, I2 = 0%, P = .43) in advance NSCLC[18,21,23,24] and extensive stage-small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC)[20,22] patients, respectively (Fig. 3). Compared to the chemotherapy group, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy could exert superior OS in both advanced NSCLC and SCLC patients. The differences of all analyses were statistically significant.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of HRs for overall survival in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4±chemotherapy versus chemotherapy groups. CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analyses on overall survival according to histology. CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, NSCLC = nonsmall cell lung cancer, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1, SCLC = small-cell lung cancer.

3.2.2. Progression-free survival

All 6 RCTs reported PFS, and the pooled HR of PFS was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.71–0.83, I2 = 17%, P = .30; Fig. 4). HR of PFS was determined by the fixed-effect model. The result demonstrated that, compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy could enhance the PFS of advanced lung cancer patients. Subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy had a higher PFS than chemotherapy alone in both advance NSCLC (HR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.70–0.84, I2 = 35%, P = .20) and ES-SCLC (HR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.68–0.88, I2 = 27%, P = .24) patients (Fig. 5). The differences of all analyses was statistically significant.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of HRs for progression-free survival in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4±chemotherapy versus chemotherapy groups. CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, HR = hazard ratio, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analyses on progression-free survival according to histology. CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, NSCLC = nonsmall cell lung cancer, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1, SCLC = small-cell lung cancer.

3.2.3. Objective response rate

Five[18,20,21,23,24] of the 6 RCTs were included to assess the ORR of advanced lung cancer patients, and the pooled HR of ORR was 1.31 (95%CI: 0.97–1.77, I2 = 67%, P = .02; Fig. 6). The result indicated that no obvious difference in ORR was found between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy and chemotherapy only treatment groups. A random-effect model was used for the analysis of ORR.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of HRs for objective response rate in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4±chemotherapy versus chemotherapy groups. CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, HR = hazard ratio, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1.

3.2.4. Adverse events

Grade 3 to 4 AEs were reported in all 6 studies. Our meta-analyses revealed that the pooled HR of grade 3 to 4 AEs was 1.35 [95%CI:0.66–2.74, I2 = 96%, P < .00001; Fig. 7], the pooled HR of AEs leading to discontinuation was 2.56 [95%CI: 1.53–4.30, I2 = 85%, P < .00001; Fig. 8], and the pooled HR of AEs leading to death was 2.10 [95%CI: 1.21–3.63, I2 = 33%, P = .20; Fig. 9]. These findings implied that, compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy did not significantly increase the incidence rates of grade 3 to 4 AEs, but could increase the incidence rates of AEs leading to discontinuation and AEs leading to death. The differences of all analyses were statistically significant.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Comparison of 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse effects (AEs) between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy and chemotherapy only groups. CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Comparison of AEs leading to discontinuation between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy and chemotherapy only groups. AEs = adverse effects, CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1.

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Comparison of AEs leading to death between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 ± chemotherapy and chemotherapy only groups. AEs = adverse effects, CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1.

3.3. Publication bias

As demonstrated in Figure 10, no significant publication bias existed in the present meta-analysis.

Figure 10.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

Evaluation for the published segregation of funnel figure.

4. Discussion

Chemotherapy, cytotoxic drugs, and molecular targeted drugs have been commonly prescribed to treat advanced lung cancer, but their efficacy has reached a therapeutic plateau.[3,25] A number of studies have confirmed that immunotherapy as a new treatment strategy has achieved encouraging results in lung cancer.[7,26] Growing evidence has shown that anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 therapies may exhibit superior inhibitory activity in multiple tumors compared to anti-PD-1 or anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy.[27] However, the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced lung cancer remain largely unconfirmed. Six randomized clinical trials have publicly addressed the corresponding results of these drugs.[18,20–24] Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to provide valid and reliable conclusions.

Our study demonstrated that the combination of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 exerted a survival benefit (OS and PFS) in advanced lung cancer patients when compared to chemotherapy alone. This survival benefit had also been observed when meta-analysis was stratified for advanced NSCLC and ES-SCLC. However, we found that there was no obvious difference in ORR between PD-1/PD-L1 + CTLA-4 ICIs-treated and chemotherapy-treated patients. These findings showed that anti-PD-1/PD-L1 + anti-CTLA-4 therapy might not have obvious advantages in antitumor activity, but it could prolong the survival of advanced lung cancer patients. Besides, it has been reported that ipilimumab combined with nivolumab can improve the ORR of melanoma patients,[28] and such combination exhibits a high investigator-evaluated ORR in colorectal cancer patients.[29] However, in this study, ORR did not match with OS and PFS, which might be due to the small sample sizes of the included RCTs or a lack of original data, and we were unable to perform a hierarchical analysis of PD-L1 expression. Moreover, some randomized controlled studies about the efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 therapy are still ongoing, such as CheckMate 032,[30] kEYNOTE-598,[31] and EMPOWER-lung 4.[32] Therefore, more studies with larger sample are still warranted.

At the same time, we found that compared to chemotherapy only, the PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 ICIs therapy did not result in an increased risk of grade 3 to 4 AEs, but caused higher risks of AEs leading to discontinuation and AEs leading to death. It is well known that immune-related AEs can be triggered by ICIs, such as ICI-related hypophysitis, thyroid dysfunction, bullous pemphigoid, diarrhoea, hepatitis, pneumonia, and so on. When PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors, these toxic effects were considerably more common.[10] However, only a few studies had proven that no additional immune-related AE was induced by the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 + CTLA-4 ICIs therapy.[33] Thus, we believed that these findings might explain the tolerability of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Nevertheless, there were also some limitations in this study, for example, all grade AEs had not been analyzed, and different types of AEs were not analyzed separately due to the lack of relevant data. Therefore, further meta-analysis is urgently needed to improve the results by including more RCTs with larger sample sizes.

In conclusion, PD-1/PD-L1 + CTLA-4 ICI therapies remarkably prolong OS and PFS, and have similar risk of 3-4 AEs compared to chemotherapy. Our work confirms that anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 therapy can be a novel treatment strategy for advanced lung cancer. It is worth noting that PD-1/PD-L1 + CTLA-4 ICI therapies can increase the risks of AEs leading to discontinuation and AEs leading to death. This finding may provide key information for clinicians regarding the selection of appropriate combination therapy and the health status of advanced lung cancer patients who are planned to be treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and/or anti-CTLA-4 treatment.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Li Zhang.

Data curation: Pei-Pei Zhang, Juan Wang, Da-Zhi Ding.

Funding acquisition: Juan Wang.

Methodology: Li Zhang.

Project administration: Juan Wang.

Resources: Juan Wang.

Software: Pei-Pei Zhang, Da-Zhi Ding.

Supervision: Li Zhang.

Validation: Li Zhang, Chun Cheng.

Visualization: Juan Wang.

Writing – original draft: Pei-Pei Zhang.

Writing – review & editing: Chun Cheng, Da-Ke Chen.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: AEs = adverse events, CI = confidence interval, CTLA-4 = cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4, ES-SCLC = extensive stage-small cell lung cancer, HR = hazard ratio, ICIs = immune checkpoint inhibitors, NSCLC = nonsmall cell lung cancer, OR = odds ratio, ORR = objective response rate, OS = overall survival, PD-1 = programmed cell death-1, PD-L1 = programmed cell death-ligand-1, PFS = progression-free survival, RCTs = randomized controlled trials, SCLC = small-cell lung cancer.

How to cite this article: Zhang PP, Wang J, Ding DZ, Zhang L, Cheng C, Chen DK. Efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitor versus chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2021;100:35(e27121).

PPZ and JW contributed equally to this work.

This work was supported by grants from the Project of Nantong Science and Technology Bureau (MSZ20213). The authors would like to express their gratitude to EditSprings (https://www.editsprings.com/) for the expert linguistic services provided.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  • [1].Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:115–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Cecilia Z, Mousa SA. Non-small cell lung cancer: current treatment and future advances. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2016;5:288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Waqar SN, Morgensztern D. Treatment advances in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Pharmacol Ther 2017;180:16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Steven A, Fisher SA, Robinson BW. Immunotherapy for lung cancer. Respirology 2016;21:821–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Castellanos EH, Horn L. Immunotherapy in lung cancer. Cancer Treat Res 2016;170:203–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Yan Y, Zhang L, Zuo Y, Qian H, Liu C. Immune checkpoint blockade in cancer immunotherapy: mechanisms, clinical outcomes, and safety profiles of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2020;68:36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Calles A, Aguado G, Sandoval C, Álvarez R. The role of immunotherapy in small cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2019;21:961–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Sgambato A, Casaluce F, Sacco PC, et al. Anti PD-1 and PDL-1 immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a review on toxicity profile and its management. Curr Drug Saf 2015;11:62–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].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. Int J Cancer 2018;142:2344–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Ott PA, Hodi FS, Kaufman HL, Wigginton JM, Wolchok JD. Combination immunotherapy: a road map. J Immunother Cancer 2017;5:16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Hayashi H, Nakagawa K. Combination therapy with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors for cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2019;25:01–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Tanvetyanon T, Gray JE, Antonia SJ. PD-1 checkpoint blockade alone or combined PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade as immunotherapy for lung cancer? Expert Opin Biol Ther 2017;17:305–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Huang W, Chen JJ, Xing R, Zeng YC. Combination therapy: future directions of immunotherapy in small cell lung cancer. Transl Oncol 2021;14:100889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Rocco D, Della GL, Battiloro C, Gridelli C. The role of combination chemo-immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2019;19:561–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Takamori S, Toyokawa G, Takada K, Shoji F, Okamoto T, Maehara Y. Combination therapy of radiotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment in non–small-cell lung cancer: a mini-review. Clin Lung Cancer 2018;19:12–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Galon J, Bruni D. Approaches to treat immune hot, altered and cold tumours with combination immunotherapies. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019;18:197–218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Kowalski D, ReinmuthF N, OrlovF SV, et al. ARCTIC: durvalumab + tremelimumab and durvalumab monotherapy vs SoC in≥ 3L advanced NSCLC treatment. Ann Oncol 2018;29:viii493–4. [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Hellmann MD, Paz-Ares L, Caro RB, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2020–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Higgins J., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Paz-Ares LG, Dvorkin M, Chen Y, et al. Durvalumab ± tremelimumab + platinum-etoposide in first-line extensive-stage SCLC (ES-SCLC): updated results from the phase III CASPIAN study. Am Soc Clin Oncol J 2020;38:9002. [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Reck M, Ciuleanu TE, Dols MC, et al. Nivolumab (NIVO)+ ipilimumab (IPI)+ 2 cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (chemo) vs 4 cycles chemo as first-line (1L) treatment (tx) for stage IV/recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): CheckMate 9LA. Am Soc Clin Oncol J 2020;38:9501. [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Owonikoko T, Kim HR, Govindhan R, et al. Nivolumab (nivo) plus ipilimumab (ipi), nivo, or placebo (pbo) as maintenance therapy in patients (pts) with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) after first-line (1L) platinum-based chemotherapy (chemo): results from the double-blind, randomized phase III CheckMate 451 study. Ann Oncol 2019;30:ii77. [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Planchard D, Reinmuth N, Orlov S, et al. ARCTIC: durvalumab with or without tremelimumab as third-line or later treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2020;31:609–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Rizvi NA, Cho BC, Reinmuth N, et al. Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab vs standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic non–small cell lung cancer: the MYSTIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2020;6:661–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Stinchcombe TE, Socinski MA. Treatment paradigms for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer in the era of multiple lines of therapy. J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:243–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Kim HC, Choi C-M. Current status of immunotherapy for lung cancer and future perspectives. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul) 2020;83:14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Chae YK, Arya A, Iams W, Cruz MR, Chandra S, Giles F. Current landscape and future of dual anti-CTLA4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade immunotherapy in cancer; lessons learned from clinical trials with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Immunother Cancer 2018;6:01–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28]. Schreiber, R.D., L.J. Old, and M.J. Smyth, Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma — NEJM Cancer Lett. 2013;369:122–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KYM, et al. Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Atmaca A, Hellmann MD, Ott PA, et al. Evaluation of nivolumab (nivo) alone and in combination with ipilimumab (ipi) in patients (pts) with advanced (adv) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC): first report of a randomized expansion cohort from the CheckMate 032 trial. Oncol Res Treat 2017;40:219. [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Boyer M, Mclean J, Xu L, Samkari A, Carbone D, et al. P1.01-09 pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab or placebo in 1L metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50%: KEYNOTE-598. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:S462. [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Shim BY, Lee S, de Castro Carpeño J, et al. EMPOWER-lung 4: Phase II, randomized, open-label high dose or standard dose cemiplimab alone/plus ipilimumab in the secondline treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 2020. Annals of Oncology 2020;31:S820. [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Ramos-Casals M, Brahmer JR, Callahan MK, et al. Immune-related adverse events of checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2020;6:01–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES