Open AccessEfficacy and safety of pembrolizumab/carrelizumab, alone or in combination with chemotherapy in treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer
Author(s) -
Xiaofei Zhang,
Hui Qian,
Xiangkun Qu,
Yalin Jiang
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.59
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1536-5964
pISSN - 0025-7974
DOI - 10.1097/md.0000000000026672
Subject(s) - pembrolizumab , medicine , lung cancer , adverse effect , oncology , meta analysis , randomized controlled trial , informed consent , cancer , intensive care medicine , immunotherapy , alternative medicine , pathology
Background: To date, there have been no reported trials that directly compare pembrolizumab/carrelizumab monotherapy versus pembrolizumab/carrelizumab and chemotherapy in the first-line treatment setting of advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab/carrelizumab versus pembrolizumab/carrelizumab and chemotherapy in previously treated patients with NSCLC. Methods: The following search terms would be used in PUBMED, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases on July 20, 2021, as the search algorithm: (pembrolizumab) OR (carrelizumab) OR (programmed death-1) AND (non-small cell lung cancer) OR (NSCLC). All RCTs that reported the outcomes of pembrolizumab/carrelizumab with or without chemotherapy compared with those of pembrolizumab/carrelizumab alone for patients with NSCLC were considered eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for complete and partial responses, and treatment-related adverse events including immune-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate, and treatment-related adverse events for the FDA-approved doses. Conclusions: The results of our review will be reported strictly following the PRISMA criteria and the review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings. Ethical approval: As this study is on the basis of published or registered previous studies, ethical approval and informed consent of patients are not required.