Pathologic response in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival (OS) in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving neoadjuvant therapy are needed to provide earlier treatment outcomes indicators and accelerate drug approval. This study's main objectives were to investigate the association between pathologic complete response (pCR), major pathologic response (MPR), event-free survival (EFS) and OS, and to determine whether treatment effects on pCR and EFS correlate with treatment effects on OS.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify neoadjuvant studies in resectable NSCLC. Analysis at patient-level using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects (HR for OS/EFS by pCR/MPR status, yes vs no) and at trial-level using weighted least-squares regressions (HR for OS/EFS vs pCR by treatment arm) were performed.

RESULTS

In both meta-analyses, pCR yielded favorable OS compared to no-pCR (frequentist, 20 studies and 6,530 patients: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.57; Bayesian, 19 studies and 5,988 patients: 0.48, 95% PI: 0.43, 0.55) and similarly for MPR (frequentist, 12 studies and 1,193 patients: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.44; Bayesian, 11 studies and 1,018 patients: 0.33, 95% PI: 0.26, 0.42). Across subgroups, estimates consistently showed better OS/EFS in pCR/MPR compared to no-pCR/no-MPR. Trial-level analyses showed a moderate to strong correlation between EFS and OS hazard ratios (R2 = 0.7159), but did not show a correlation between treatment effects on pCR and OS/EFS.

CONCLUSION

There was a strong and consistent association between pathologic response and survival and moderate to strong correlation between EFS and OS following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable NSCLC.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with basal insulins for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Since 2005, several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been approved to treat people with type 2 diabetes. These agents are considered for use at the same point in the treatment paradigm as basal insulins. A comprehensive comparison of these drug classes, therefore, can help inform treatment decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs compared with basal insulins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed databases were searched. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ≥16 weeks' duration comparing GLP-1 RAs vs basal insulins in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs were included. Data on the change from baseline to 26 weeks (±10 weeks) of treatment in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight, as well as the proportion of patients experiencing hypoglycaemia, were extracted. Fixed-effect pairwise meta-analyses were conducted where data were available from ≥2 studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs were identified and 11 were meta-analysed. The once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, exenatide long acting release (LAR) and dulaglutide, led to greater, statistically significant mean HbA1c reductions vs basal insulins (exenatide: -0.31% [95% confidence interval -0.42, -0.19], dulaglutide: -0.39% [-0.49, -0.29]) whilst once-daily liraglutide and twice-daily exenatide did not (liraglutide: 0.06% [-0.06, 0.18], exenatide: 0.01% [-0.11, 0.13]). Mean weight reduction was seen with all GLP-1 RAs while mean weight gain was seen with basal insulins. Interpretation of the analysis of hypoglycaemia was limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Because of the limited number of available studies sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity could not be conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Although weight reduction is seen with all GLP-1 RA's, only the once-weekly agents, exenatide LAR and dulaglutide, demonstrate significant HbA1c reductions when compared to basal insulins.