| Summary: | Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) === Purpose: The purpose was to comprehensively assess the impact of PD-L1 expression on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors on Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS).
Methods: A systematic literature search and review was conducted through June 2019. I searched all eligible randomized controlled trials comparing PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy to an active comparator in adult patients with advanced cancer across multiple tumor types. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess trial quality. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q statistic and I2 test. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of a funnel plot and Begg’s test.
Results: I identified and included 23 trials involving 14,434 participants. When stratifying PD-L1 positive (+) and negative (-) patients using varying thresholds of expression, a significant group difference was observed at PD-L1 >1% ( p=0.04; PD-L1(+): HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.79; PD-L1(-): HR,0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), at PD-L1 >10% (p=0.02; PD-L1(+): HR,0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.62; PD-L1 (-): HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.90) and at PD-L1>50% (p=0.01; PD-L1(+): HR,0.59; 95% CI, 0.51-0.68; PD-L1(-): HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.15). Across tumor types, both PD-L1(+) and PD-L1(-) patients treated with an immunotherapy had improved OS compared with patients receiving standard care therapies. A PFS benefit was observed and favored patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor versus standard of care. However, there was significant heterogeneity and the benefit on PFS was not statistically significant between PD-L1(+) and PD-L1(-) groups using varying cut-off levels of PD-L1 expression. No differences between sub-groups of interest including median follow-up time, type of inhibitor, and line of therapy for either PD-L1(+) or PD-L1(-) patients at 1% cut-off were identified.
Conclusion: This study supports the use of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker of improved response to immunotherapies. As thresholds increase and specifically above the 10% PD-L1 expression threshold, patients who were positive for PD-L1 appeared to have better OS compared to those who were negative for PD-L1. Further investigation is needed to assess the clinical usefulness of PD-L1 at various expression levels with improved technologies that have the potential to enhance assay accuracy and precision.
|
|---|
