Cadre Medical Department, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, China
Copyright © 2022 by the Korean Cancer Association
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the analysis: Yin Q, Dai L, Jiang B.
Collected the data: Yin Q, Dai L, Sun R.
Contributed data or analysis tools: Yin Q, Dai L, Sun R, Ke P, Liu L.
Performed the analysis: Yin Q, Dai L, Ke P, Liu L, Jiang B.
Wrote the paper: Yin Q, Dai L, Jiang B.
Author | Trial name | Phase | Histology (SQ or no-SQ) | No. of baseline liver metastases | Treatment arm (n) | Control arm (n) | Therapy line | OS (mo); HR (95% CI) | PFS (mo); HR (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vokes et al. [30] | Checkmate 017 and Checkmate 057 | III | Both | 185 | Nivolumab (92) | Chemotherapy (93) | ≥ 2 | 6.8 vs. 5.9; 0.68 (0.50–0.91) | - |
Jotte et al. [28] | IMpower131 | III | SQ | 139 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (70) | Chemotherapy (69) | 1 | 9.7 vs. 10.1; 1.09 (0.76–1.58) | 5.5 vs. 4.2; 0.77 (0.54–1.10) |
Nishio et al. [22] | IMpower132 | III | No-SQ | 73 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (37) | Chemotherapy (36) | 1 | 10.1 vs. 6.9; 0.99 (0.57–1.70) | 4.4 vs. 4.0; 0.77 (0.47–1.25) |
West et al. [21] | IMpower130 | III | No-SQ | 100 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (69) | Chemotherapy (31) | 1 | 10.0 vs. 8.8; 1.04 (0.63–1.72) | 4.2 vs. 4.4; 0.93 (0.59–1.47) |
Reck et al. [23] | IMpower150 | III | No-SQ | 110 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (53) | Bevacizumab+ Chemotherapy (57) | 1 | 8.9 vs. 9.4; 0.87 (0.57–1.32) | 5.4 vs. 5.4; 0.81 (0.55–1.21) |
Gadgeel et al. [29] | KEYNOTE-189 | III | No-SQ | 115 | Pembrolizumab+ Chemotherapy (66) | Chemotherapy (49) | 1 | 12.6 vs. 6.6; 0.62 (0.39–0.98) | 6.1 vs. 3.4; 0.52 (0.34–0.81) |
Hellmann et al. [32] | CheckMate 227 | III | Both | 156 | Nivolumab+Ipilimumab | Chemotherapy | 1 | 9.5 vs. 11.9; 1.05 (0.74–1.49) | - |
Paz-Ares [31] | CheckMate 9LA | III | Both | 154 | Nivolumab+ Ipilimumab (68) | Chemotherapy (86) | 1 | 10.2 vs. 8.1; 0.83 (0.57–1.20) | - |
Reck et al. [23] | IMpower150 | III | No-SQ | 109 | Atezolizumab+Bevacizumab +Chemotherapy (52) | Bevacizumab+ Chemotherapy (57) | 1 | 13.3 vs. 9.4; 0.52 (0.33–0.82) | 8.2 vs. 5.4; 0.41 (0.26–0.62) |
SUCRA=1 indicates the best treatment, SUCRA=0 indicates the worst treatment. Cells correspond to the relative effect of the column treatment versus row treatment. A hazard ratio of < 1.0 indicates benefit in favor of the column treatment. Atezo+Beva+Chemo, atezolizumab+bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Atezo+Chemo, atezolizumab+chemotherapy; Beva+Chemo, bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; Nivo, nivolumab; Nivo+Ipi, nivolumab+ipilimumab; OS, overall survival; Pembro+Chemo, pembrolizumab+chemotherapy; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
SUCRA=1 indicates the best treatment, SUCRA=0 indicates the worst treatment. Cells correspond to the relative effect of the column treatment versus row treatment. A hazard ratio of < 1.0 indicates benefit in favor of the column treatment. Atezo+Beva+Chemo, atezolizumab+bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Atezo+Chemo, atezolizumab+chemotherapy; Beva+Chemo, bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; Pembro+Chemo, pembrolizumab+chemotherapy; PFS, progression-free survival; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
Characteristics of studies included in this network meta-analysis
Author | Trial name | Phase | Histology (SQ or no-SQ) | No. of baseline liver metastases | Treatment arm (n) | Control arm (n) | Therapy line | OS (mo); HR (95% CI) | PFS (mo); HR (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vokes et al. [ |
Checkmate 017 and Checkmate 057 | III | Both | 185 | Nivolumab (92) | Chemotherapy (93) | ≥ 2 | 6.8 vs. 5.9; 0.68 (0.50–0.91) | - |
Jotte et al. [ |
IMpower131 | III | SQ | 139 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (70) | Chemotherapy (69) | 1 | 9.7 vs. 10.1; 1.09 (0.76–1.58) | 5.5 vs. 4.2; 0.77 (0.54–1.10) |
Nishio et al. [ |
IMpower132 | III | No-SQ | 73 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (37) | Chemotherapy (36) | 1 | 10.1 vs. 6.9; 0.99 (0.57–1.70) | 4.4 vs. 4.0; 0.77 (0.47–1.25) |
West et al. [ |
IMpower130 | III | No-SQ | 100 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (69) | Chemotherapy (31) | 1 | 10.0 vs. 8.8; 1.04 (0.63–1.72) | 4.2 vs. 4.4; 0.93 (0.59–1.47) |
Reck et al. [ |
IMpower150 | III | No-SQ | 110 | Atezolizumab+ Chemotherapy (53) | Bevacizumab+ Chemotherapy (57) | 1 | 8.9 vs. 9.4; 0.87 (0.57–1.32) | 5.4 vs. 5.4; 0.81 (0.55–1.21) |
Gadgeel et al. [ |
KEYNOTE-189 | III | No-SQ | 115 | Pembrolizumab+ Chemotherapy (66) | Chemotherapy (49) | 1 | 12.6 vs. 6.6; 0.62 (0.39–0.98) | 6.1 vs. 3.4; 0.52 (0.34–0.81) |
Hellmann et al. [ |
CheckMate 227 | III | Both | 156 | Nivolumab+Ipilimumab | Chemotherapy | 1 | 9.5 vs. 11.9; 1.05 (0.74–1.49) | - |
Paz-Ares [ |
CheckMate 9LA | III | Both | 154 | Nivolumab+ Ipilimumab (68) | Chemotherapy (86) | 1 | 10.2 vs. 8.1; 0.83 (0.57–1.20) | - |
Reck et al. [ |
IMpower150 | III | No-SQ | 109 | Atezolizumab+Bevacizumab +Chemotherapy (52) | Bevacizumab+ Chemotherapy (57) | 1 | 13.3 vs. 9.4; 0.52 (0.33–0.82) | 8.2 vs. 5.4; 0.41 (0.26–0.62) |
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; No-SQ, nonsquamous; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SQ, squamous.
Ranking and comparative efficacy of treatments in terms of the OS rate in the network meta-analysis
Treatment | SUCRA | Pembro+Chemo | Atezo+Beva+Chemo | Nivo | Nivo+Ipi | Chemo | Atezo+Chemo | Beva+Chemo |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pembro+Chemo | 0.794 | 0.98 (0.43–2.22) | 0.91 (0.52–1.57) | 0.65 (0.38–1.11) | 0.62 (0.39–0.98) | 0.58 (0.34–0.99) | 0.51 (0.26–1.00) | |
Atezo+Beva+Chemo | 0.765 | 0.92 (0.44–1.93) | 0.66 (0.32–1.37) | 0.62 (0.32–1.23) | 0.59 (0.32–1.11) | 0.52 (0.32–0.81) | ||
Nivo | 0.748 | 0.72 (0.48–1.07) | 0.68 (0.50–0.91) | 0.64 (0.43–0.96) | 0.56 (0.31–1.00) | |||
Nivo+Ipi | 0.421 | 0.94 (0.72–1.21) | 0.89 (0.62–1.28) | 0.77 (0.44–1.35) | ||||
Chemo | 0.329 | 0.94 (0.73–1.23) | 0.82 (0.50–1.35) | |||||
Atezo+Chemo | 0.276 | 0.87 (0.57–1.32) | ||||||
Beva+Chemo | 0.169 |
SUCRA=1 indicates the best treatment, SUCRA=0 indicates the worst treatment. Cells correspond to the relative effect of the column treatment versus row treatment. A hazard ratio of < 1.0 indicates benefit in favor of the column treatment. Atezo+Beva+Chemo, atezolizumab+bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Atezo+Chemo, atezolizumab+chemotherapy; Beva+Chemo, bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; Nivo, nivolumab; Nivo+Ipi, nivolumab+ipilimumab; OS, overall survival; Pembro+Chemo, pembrolizumab+chemotherapy; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
Ranking and comparative efficacy of treatments in terms of the PFS rate in the network meta-analysis
Treatment | SUCRA | Atezo+Beva+Chemo | Pembro+Chemo | Atezo+Chemo | Beva+Chemo | Chemo |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Atezo+Beva+Chemo | 0.875 | 0.79 (0.36–1.70) | 0.50 (0.28–0.91) | 0.41 (0.26–0.63) | 0.41 (0.21–0.77) | |
Pembro+Chemo | 0.767 | 0.64 (0.38–1.05) | 0.51 (0.27–0.97) | 0.52 (0.33–0.80) | ||
Atezo+Chemo | 0.457 | 0.81 (0.54–1.20) | 0.81 (0.63–1.03) | |||
Beva+Chemo | 0.211 | 1.00 (0.63–1.59) | ||||
Chemo | 0.189 |
SUCRA=1 indicates the best treatment, SUCRA=0 indicates the worst treatment. Cells correspond to the relative effect of the column treatment versus row treatment. A hazard ratio of < 1.0 indicates benefit in favor of the column treatment. Atezo+Beva+Chemo, atezolizumab+bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Atezo+Chemo, atezolizumab+chemotherapy; Beva+Chemo, bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; Pembro+Chemo, pembrolizumab+chemotherapy; PFS, progression-free survival; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; No-SQ, nonsquamous; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; SQ, squamous.
SUCRA=1 indicates the best treatment, SUCRA=0 indicates the worst treatment. Cells correspond to the relative effect of the column treatment versus row treatment. A hazard ratio of < 1.0 indicates benefit in favor of the column treatment. Atezo+Beva+Chemo, atezolizumab+bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Atezo+Chemo, atezolizumab+chemotherapy; Beva+Chemo, bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; Nivo, nivolumab; Nivo+Ipi, nivolumab+ipilimumab; OS, overall survival; Pembro+Chemo, pembrolizumab+chemotherapy; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.
SUCRA=1 indicates the best treatment, SUCRA=0 indicates the worst treatment. Cells correspond to the relative effect of the column treatment versus row treatment. A hazard ratio of < 1.0 indicates benefit in favor of the column treatment. Atezo+Beva+Chemo, atezolizumab+bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Atezo+Chemo, atezolizumab+chemotherapy; Beva+Chemo, bevacizumab+chemotherapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; Pembro+Chemo, pembrolizumab+chemotherapy; PFS, progression-free survival; SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curve.