Long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to other first-line therapies for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) relative to other immunotherapy (IO)-based regimens and chemotherapy in patients with first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). METHODS: Phase 3 randomized controlled-trials (RCTs) with minimum 3-year follow-up evaluating IO-based regimens approved for first-line aNSCLC were identified via systematic literature review. Analytic populations were defined by levels of PD-L1 expression and histology. Due to presence of proportional hazards violations, time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated via Bayesian fractional polynomial network meta-analysis. For safety endpoints, odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). RESULTS: CheckMate 227, KEYNOTE-189, KEYNOTE-407, KEYNOTE-024, KEYNOTE-042, and IMpower150 were included in the base case analysis. For OS and PFS, HRs of NIVO + IPI relative to other IO-based regimens trended downward over time across analytic populations. The 36-month OS HRs of NIVO + IPI versus comparators were: 0.69 (95 % credible interval: 0.47, 1.00) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and 0.65 (0.45, 0.93) versus atezolizumab + bevacizumab + chemotherapy in the non-squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; 0.73 (0.53, 1.02) versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous and PD-L1 all-comers population; and 1.05 (0.83, 1.32) versus pembrolizumab in the mixed histology and PD-L1 ≥ 50 % population. For PFS, 36-month HR point estimates ranged from 0.46 to 0.85 (only statistically significant versus pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in the squamous population; 0.46 [0.31, 0.69]). Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were not statistically significantly different between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, nor between NIVO + IPI and pembrolizumab monotherapy, although treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs were higher with NIVO + IPI than pembrolizumab monotherapy (OR = 2.21 [1.30, 3.75]). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates trends towards long-term benefit with NIVO + IPI compared with other IO-based combinations, with manageable toxicities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".