Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Comparative efficacy and safety for different chemotherapy regimens used concurrently with thoracic radiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Contributed equally
Radiation Oncology201914:55

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1239-7

  • Received: 8 December 2018
  • Accepted: 14 February 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

It remains unknown which is the most preferable regimen used concurrently with thoracic radiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a network meta-analysis to address this important issue.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and major international scientific meetings were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Overall survival (OS) data was the primary outcome of interest, and progression-free survival (PFS), and serious adverse events (SAEs) were the secondary outcomes of interests, reported as hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

14 RCTs with a total of 2975 patients randomized to receive twelve categories of treatments were included in the meta-analysis. Direct comparison meta-analysis showed that etoposide-cisplatin (EP) was more effective than paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin (PC) in terms of OS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77–0.94) and PFS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47–0.95). In network meta-analysis, all regimen comparisons did not produce statistically significant differences in survival. Based on treatment ranking of OS and the benefit-risk ratio, S-1-cisplatin (SP) was likely to be the most preferable regimen for its best efficacy and low risk of causing SAEs. Uracil/tegafur-cisplatin (UP) and pemetrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin (PP) were ranked the second and third respectively. Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) and PC + Cetuximab (PC-Cet) appeared to be the worst and second-worst regimens for their poor efficacy and poor tolerability.

Conclusions

Based on efficacy and tolerability, SP is likely to be the most preferable regimen used concurrently with thoracic radiation for locally advanced NSCLC, followed by UP and PP. Further direct head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Keywords

  • Locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer
  • Concurrent chemoradiation
  • Network meta-analysis

Introduction

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-associated deaths globally. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancer cases [1] and about 30% of NSCLC patients have locally advanced diseases [2]. For unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC patients with good performance status, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) remains a standard of care. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomised trials [3] has shown that platin-based CCRT improved survival compared to RT alone. Currently, etoposide-cisplatin (EP) and paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin (PC) are two most common concurrent chemotherapy regimens [47]. However, the outcomes have remained unsatisfactory. Recently, a number of new generation chemotherapy agents such as vinorelbine [811], docetaxel [1214], gemcitabine [12], irinotecan [15], pemetrexed [9, 16, 17], and S-1 [10, 14] are increasingly being used concurrently with thoracic radiation for locally advanced NSCLC patients, and have shown good efficacy in clinical trials. However, direct comparison trials between these new options and conventional regimens like EP are still lacking, and therefore, there are still unresolved questions around which is the optimal chemotherapy regimen used concurrently with thoracic radiation.

Network meta-analysis is the best way to solve aforementioned questions, which enable indirect comparisons to account for missing head-to-head data and multiple regimen comparisons. The study aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to estimate the relative efficacy and tolerability of different agents based concurrent chemotherapy regimens, attempting to identify the most preferable regimen used concurrently with thoracic radiation for locally advanced NSCLC.

Materials and methods

Literature search strategy

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria [18]. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major international scientific meetings were searched for the available studies published before October 31, 2018, using the strategy as shown in Additional file 1: Table S1. The reference lists of retrieved studies were manually scanned for relevant additional studies missed by the electronic search.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) types of participants: participants with a histopathological diagnosis of locally advanced NSCLC; (3) types of interventions: one or more regimens for experimental arm, and the presence of a control for comparison; and (4) outcome: reported overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) data. Studies were excluded if any of the following criteria were applied: (1) letters, editorials, case reports, and reviews; and (2) survival data could not be extracted from the literature.

Data extraction

The data were extracted by two investigators independently. The following data were extracted from each study: first author, years of publication, duration of the study, country of origin, treatments, numbers of patients (experimental arm/control arm), data of OS, PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Quality assessment

The methodological quality of RCTs was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool [19], which consists of the following five domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete data, and selective reporting. A RCT was finally rated as “low risk of bias” (all key domains indicated as low risk), “high risk of bias” (one or more key domains indicated as high risk), and “unclear risk of bias”.

Statistical analysis

The primary outcome was OS, and the secondary outcomes were PFS, ORR, and SAEs. Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as summary statistics. For direct comparisons, standard pairwise meta-analysis (PWMA) was performed. A statistical test for heterogeneity was performed using the chi-square (χ2) and I-square (I2) tests with the significance set at I2 > 50% or P < 0.10.

The Bayesian network-meta analysis (NMA) was performed in a random-effect model using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods [20, 21] in JAGS and the GeMTC package in R (https://drugis.org/software/r-packages/gemtc). For each outcome measure, four independent Markov chains were simultaneously run for 20,000 burn-ins and 100,000 inference iterations per chain to obtain the posterior distribution. The traces plot and Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method were used to assess the convergence of model [22]. Treatment effects were estimated by HR/OR and corresponding 95% CI.

Network consistency was assessed with node-split models by statistically testing between direct and indirect estimates within treatment loop [23]. To rank probabilities of all available treatments, the surfaces under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRAs) were calculated [24]. SUCRA equals one if the treatment is certain to be the best and zero if it’s certain to be the worst [24]. To jointly compare the efficacy and tolerability of each treatment and to assess their benefit-risk ratios, we ranked them based simultaneously on the SUCRA value of OS and tolerability (1-SUCRASAEs) in the ranking plot. Lastly, comparison-adjusted funnel plot was used to detect the presence of small-study effects or publication bias [25].

Results

Literature search results and characteristics of included studies

The literature search results and study selection process are shown in Fig. 1. The initial search retrieved 5966 studies. After removing the duplicates, 1953 citations were identified, and 1889 of them were excluded through an abstract review. The remaining 64 studies were screened through a full-text review for further eligibility. Finally, 14 RCTs with 2975 patients randomized to receive the twelve categories of treatments were included in the meta-analysis. The twelve treatments were EP, PC, pemetrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin (PP), S-1-cisplatin (SP), uracil/tegafur (UFT)-cisplatin (UP), vinorelbine-cisplatin (NP), gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP), docetaxel-cisplatin (DP), irinotecan-carboplatin (IC), mitomycin-vindesine-cisplatin (MVP), PC + cetuximab (PC-Cet), and PP + cetuximab (PP-Cet), respectively. One trial comparing cisplatin-pemetrexed vs. carboplatin-pemetrexed [26] was excluded because the two regimens were regarded as the same category of treatment (PP) in this meta-analysis. Two trials comparing SP vs. cisplatin alone were excluded due to that cisplatin alone is not commonly used clinically. Of the 14 included trials, twelve were two-arm studies, and the rest two was three-arm studies [12, 15]. The study characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Literature search and selection. SP, S-1-cisplatin; PC, paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin

Table 1

Characteristics of included trials

Trial

Design

Time

Region

Primary

Treatment

Median follow-up

Sample

Median

Histology(%)

Consolidation

Radiotherapy

Radiotherapy

  

Range

 

Endpoint

 

(months)

Size

Age

(SCC/non-SCC)

Chemotherapy

Dose(Gy)

Technology

Liang/2017 [4]

III

2007–2011

China

OS

EP

73

95

59

68.4/31.6

50.5%

60–66

3D

    

PC

 

96

57

64.6/35.4

35.4%

  

Wang/2012 [5]

II

2004–2007

China

OS

EP

46

33

55.4

69.7/30.3

75.8%

60–66

3D

    

PC

 

32

60.9

62.5/37.5

59.4%

  

Shuayb/2018 [6]

II

NR

Bangladesh

NR

EP

NR

30

NR

NR

NR

45

NR

    

PC

 

30

NR

NR

NR

  

Bradley/2015 [7]

III

2007–2011

USA

OS

PC-Cet

21

237

64

43/57

67%

60–74

3D

    

PC

23

228

64

46/54

67%

  

Sugawara/2013 [8]

II

2006–2009

Japan

ORR

UP

20

35

62

42.9/57.1

60%

60

2D − +3D

    

NP

 

31

61

35.5/64.5

58.1%

  

Zhao/2016 [9]

III

2008–2012

China

OS

NP

29

48

57.4

67/33

88%

60.6–74.4

3D

    

PP

 

52

60.3

60/40

87%

  

Sasaki T/2018 [10]

II

2009–2012

Japan

OS

SP

NR

54

60

31.5/68.5

59.3%

60

3D

    

NP

 

54

62

31.5/68.5

44.4%

  

Curran Jr./2011 [11]

III

1994–1998

USA

OS

NP

132

195

60

38/62

NR

60

NR

    

EP

 

187

63

37/63

NR

  

Oh/2013 [12]

III

2005–2007

Korea

ORR

PC

Over 36

33

64

72.7/27.3

63.6%

60–66

3D

    

DP

 

29

61.5

69/31

65.5%

  
    

GP

 

31

64

64.5/35.5

64.5%

  

Segawa/2010 [13]

III

2000–2005

Japan

OS

MVP

NR

101

NR

52.5/37.5

NR

60

2D

    

DP

 

99

NR

44.4/55.6

NR

  

Takiguchi/2018 [14]

II

2011–2014

Japan

OS

SP

48

53

NR

26.4/73.6

NR

60

NR

    

DP

 

53

NR

20.8/79.2

NR

  

Yamamoto/2010 [15]

III

2001–2005

Japan

OS

MVP

NR

146

63

47.9/52.1

41%

60

2D

    

IC

 

147

62

42.2/57.8

29.3%

  
    

PC

 

147

63

48.3/51.7

49.7%

  

Senan/2016 [16]

III

2008–2012

USA

OS

PP

22

301

59.5

100

76%

60–66

3D

    

EP

23

297

58.7

100

74.3%

  

Govindan/2011 [17]

II

2005–2008

USA

OS

PP

32

48

65

35/65

69.8%

70

3D

    

PP-Cet

 

53

66

34/66

85.4%

  

Abbreviations:OS overall survival, ORR overall response rate, SP S-1-cisplatin, UP UFT-cisplatin, NP vinorelbine-cisplatin, EP etoposide-cisplatin, MVP mitomycin-vindesine-cisplatin, DP docetaxel-cisplatin, PC paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin, PP pemtrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin, IC irinotecan-carboplatin, GP gemcitabine-cisplatin, Cet cetuximab, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, 2D two-dimensional radiotherapy, 3D three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, NR not reported

Assessment of included trial

The risk of bias in included RCTs was summarized in Additional file 2: Figure S1. Seven trials [5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17] were judged to be unclear risk of bias, as they had more than three domains indicating as unclear risk. The remaining trials were rated with a low risk of bias. No trial was judged to be high risk of bias. Funnel plot analysis in term of OS did not indicate any evident risk of publication bias (Additional file 3: Figure S2).

Conventional pairwise meta-analysis

Results of single trial and direct comparison meta-analysis are shown in Table 2. Direct comparison meta-analysis was feasible only for EP vs. PC. EP was more effective than PC in terms of OS (HR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77–0.94) and PFS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47–0.95). No significant differences were observed in ORR and overall SAEs between the two arms. PC had a trend higher risk of causing grade3 radiation pneumonitis (RP) than EP (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.21–1.1; P = 0.08).
Table 2

Results of single trial and direct comparison meta-analysis

Treatment

Study

OS

PFS

ORR

Overall SAEs

RP

Heterogeneity I2(%)

  

HR(95%CI)

HR(95% CI)

OR(95% CI)

OR(95% CI)

OR(95% CI)

OS

PFS

ORR

SAE

RP

EP vs PC

[46]

0.85 (0.77–0.94)

0.66 (0.47–0.95)

1.0 (0.86–1.2)

1.2 (0.81–1.4)

0.48 (0.21–1.1)

0

0

59

0

27

PC-Cet vs PC

[7]

1.1 (0.84–1.4)

0.99 (0.8–1.2)

NR

1.2 (1.1–1.4)

0.56 (0.27–1.2)

     

UP vs NP

[8]

0.86 (0.35–2.1)

0.68 (0.35–1.3)

1.6 (0.53–5.1)

0.47 (0.29–0.76)

0.88 (0.12–6.6)

     

NP vs PP

[9]

1.7 (0.81–3.4)

1.6 (0.91–2.6)

1.4 (0.38–5.4)

1.9 (1.1–3.3)

5.7 (0.26–120.6)

     

SP vs NP

[10]

0.85 (0.49–1.5)

0.37 (0.15–0.94)

0.79 (0.31–2.0)

0.67 (0.50–0.88)

1.3 (0.32–5.0)

     

NP vs EP

[11]

0.93 (0.75–1.1)

NR

1.3 (0.82–1.9)

0.91 (0.81–1.0)

0.86 (0.50–1.5)

     

PC vs DP

[12]

1.0 (0.33–3.3)

1.1 (0.48–2.3)

0.67 (0.23–2.0)

0.67 (0.39–1.2)

4.7 (0.22–101.6)

     

PC vs GP

[12]

0.77 (0.34–1.8)

0.67 (0.3–1.5)

1.1 (0.40–3.0)

0.80 (0.45–1.4)

1.9 (0.17–22.5)

     

DP vs GP

[12]

0.65 (0.28–1.5)

0.72 (0.36–1.5)

1.7 (0.56–4.9)

1.2 (0.70–2.0)

0.34 (0.01–8.8)

     

MVP vs DP

[13]

1.2 (0.8–1.7)

1.2 (0.89–1.7)

0.64 (0.33–1.2)

1.8 (1.5–2.0)

0.67 (0.24–1.8)

     

SP vs DP

[14]

0.81 (0.39–1.7)

1.1 (0.63–1.9)

1.2 (0.52–2.8)

0.49 (0.35–0.68)

0.10 (0.31–3.2)

     

MVP vs IC

[15]

0.98 (0.74–1.3)

0.89 (0.69–1.1)

1.5 (0.95–2.5)

1.8 (1.5–2.0)

0.33 (0.06–1.6)

     

MVP vs PC

[15]

0.95 (0.72–1.3)

1.1 (0.82–1.4)

1.2 (0.71–1.9)

2.1 (1.8–2.4)

0.33 (0.06–1.6)

     

IC vs PC

[15]

1.1 (0.79–1.4)

1.1 (0.86–1.5)

0.75 (0.47–1.2)

1.2 (1.0–1.4)

1.0 (0.31–3.2)

     

PP vs EP

[16]

0.98 (0.79–1.2)

0.86 (0.71–1.0)

1.1 (0.81–1.6)

0.96 (0.85, 1.1)

0.68 (0.21–2.2)

     

PP vs PP-Cet

[17]

1.1 (0.58–2.0)

1.1 (0.62–1.8)

1.3 (0.54–3.3)

0.99 (0.74–1.3)

1.1 (0.32–3.6)

     

Abbreviations: OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, ORR objective response rate, SAEs serious adverse events, RP radiation pneumonitis, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, EP etoposide-cisplatin, PC paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin, UP uracil/tegafur(UFT)-cisplatin, NP vinorelbine-cisplatin, PP pemetrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin, SP S-1-cisplatin, DP docetaxel-cisplatin, GP gemcitabine-cisplatin, MVP mitomycin-vindesine-cisplatin, IC irinotecan-carboplatin, Cet cetuximab, NR not reported

Network meta-analysis

The network plot established for NMA is shown in Fig. 2. Results of the NMA were presented in Additional file 4: Table S2. In term of OS, EP showed a trend significant advantage over PC (HR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65–1.0; P = 0.05). Other regimen comparisons did not produce statistically significant differences. With regard to PFS and ORR, no significant differences were observed for all regimen comparisons. As for overall SAEs and RP, MVP showed significantly higher risk of SAEs in comparison to each regimen except GP and PC-Cet. DP was more likely to cause SAEs than SP (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30–0.86) and UP (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15–0.96). NP resulted in a higher and a trend higher risk of SAEs than UP (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.24–0.94) and SP (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.38–1.0; P = 0.05), respectively. PC had a trend higher risk of grade3 RP than PP (OR = 0.053, 95% CI: 0.00064–1.0; P = 0.05) and EP (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.016–1.1; P = 0.06).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Network of eligible comparisons for the Bayesian network meta-analysis. The size of the nodes is proportional to the number of patients (in parentheses) randomized to receive the treatment. The width of the lines is proportional to the number of trials (beside the line) comparing the connected treatments. EP, etoposide-cisplatin; PC, paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin; SP, S-1-cisplatin; UP, uracil/tegafur (UFT)-cisplatin; PP, pemtrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin; NP, vinorelbine-cisplatin; DP, docetaxel-cisplatin; IC, irinotecan-carboplatin; GP, gemcitabine-cisplatin; MVP, mitomycin-vindesine-cisplatin; Cet, cetuximab

Inconsistency assessment and treatment ranking

There were three independent closed loops in the network for OS, ORR, overall SAEs: EP-NP-PP, PC-DP-MVP, and PC-DP-SP-NP-EP; two independent closed loops for PFS: PC-DP-MVP; and PC-DP-SP-NP-EP. Analysis of inconsistency showed that the NMA results were similar to the PWMA results for the four outcomes, which suggested the consistency between the direct and indirect evidence (Additional file 5: Figure S3).

The treatment rankings based on SUCRA are shown in Table 3. In terms of OS, SP was the most effective treatment (0.80), followed by PP (0.70), PP-Cet (0.68), UP (0.68), NP (0.65), EP (0.60), and DP (0.60). With regard to PFS, PP was the most effective treatment (0.89), followed by PP-Cet (0.86), EP (0.75), and UP (0.74). As for overall SAEs, UP was ranked as the least toxic regimen (0.03), followed by SP (0.11) and PP (0.33); MVP (1.0) was ranked as the highest toxic regimen. In term of RP, PC-Cet (0.83), PC (0.69) were ranked the highest and second-highest risk of causing grade3 RP respectively.
Table 3

SUCRA values for four outcomes

OS

PFS

SAEs

RP

Treatment

SUCRA

Treatment

SUCRA

Treatment

SUCRA

Treatment

SUCRA

SP

0.80

PP

0.89

UP

0.03

MVP

0.32

PP

0.70

PP-Cet

0.86

SP

0.11

PP

0.36

PP-Cet

0.68

EP

0.75

PP

0.33

PP-Cet

0.37

UP

0.68

UP

0.74

PP-Cet

0.38

NP

0.41

NP

0.65

DP

0.55

PC

0.41

UP

0.42

EP

0.60

SP

0.48

NP

0.50

DP

0.46

DP

0.60

NP

0.41

EP

0.50

EP

0.47

MVP

0.35

PC-Cet

0.36

GP

0.60

GP

0.47

PC

0.29

PC

0.35

PC-Cet

0.69

SP

0.50

IC

0.28

MVP

0.28

IC

0.7

IC

0.69

PC-Cet

0.22

IC

0.17

DP

0.75

PC

0.69

GP

0.15

GP

0.15

MVP

1.0

PC-Cet

0.83

Abbreviations: OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, SAE serious adverse events, RP radiation pneumonitis, SUCRA surface under the cumulative ranking curve, EP etoposide-cisplatin, PC paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin, UP uracil/tegafur(UFT)-cisplatin, NP vinorelbine-cisplatin, PP pemetrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin, SP S-1-cisplatin, DP docetaxel-cisplatin, GP gemcitabine-cisplatin, MVP mitomycin-vindesine-cisplatin, IC irinotecan-carboplatin, Cet cetuximab

To further assess the benefit-risk ratios of the twelve treatments simultaneously, we ranked them based on the SUCRA values of OS and tolerability (1-SUCRA SAE) in the ranking plot (Fig. 3). SP was likely to be the optimal because it had the most efficacy with low risk of causing SAEs. UP, PP, and PP-Cet were ranked the second, third, and fourth respectively. EP and NP also had good efficacy with moderate risk of causing SAEs, and were ranked the fifth and sixth respectively. DP had similar efficacy to EP but with higher risk of causing SAEs. GP and PC-Cet appeared to be the worst and second worst for their poor efficacy and poor tolerability.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Ranking plot based simultaneously on efficacy (x-axis: SUCRA value of overall survival) and tolerability (y-axis: 1-SUCRA value of serious adverse events). SUCRA, surface under the cumulative ranking curves; SP, S-1-cisplatin; UP, uracil/tegafur (UFT)-cisplatin; PP, pemtrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin; EP, etoposide-cisplatin; PC, paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin; NP, vinorelbine-cisplatin; DP, docetaxel-cisplatin; IC, irinotecan-carboplatin; GP, gemcitabine-cisplatin; MVP, mitomycin-vindesine-cisplatin; Cet, cetuximab

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first network meta-analysis assessing the comparative efficacy and tolerability of all major chemotherapy regimens used concurrently with thoracic radiation for patients with locally advanced NSCLC. It showed that SP was likely to be the most preferable regimen based on the benefit-risk ratio. S-1 is a new oral fluoropyrimidine formulation that comprises tegafur, 5-chloro-2, 4-dihydroxypyridine, and potassium oxonate. Data from several single-arm phase II trials [2729] have consistently shown that SP with concurrent thoracic radiation is a promising treatment for patients with locally advanced NSCLC, with OS rate of 51–70% at 2 years and 43–52.9% at 5 years, which appear to be superior to other concurrent chemotherapy regimens employed in other clinical trials. In a more recent randomized phase II trial, SP provided higher 2 years OS rate (75.6% vs. 68.5%) and longer PFS (14.8 months vs. 12.3 months) than NP [10]. Although there was no statistically significant difference, the PFS curve showed more favourable results for the SP arm over the long term, and tolerability was better. Similarly, SP resulted in a superior 2, 5-years OS with less toxicity compared with DP in another recent randomized phase II trial of SP or DP with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for inoperable stage III NSCLC [14]. However, to date SP has not been compared directly with other established regimens. In our NMA, SP had the highest probability (80%) of being the most effective treatment in improving OS and with a low risk of causing SAEs, suggesting it to be a promising candidate as a standard regimen for locally advanced NSCLC. Besides, UFT (another oral fluoropyrimidine formulation) plus cisplatin (UP) also showed a good efficacy with better tolerability in the present NMA. Nevertheless, S-1 is not approved by the FDA. While data from 2 randomized phase II trials are promising regarding the use or S-1-cisplatin for CCRT in locally advanced NSCLC, a phase III trial is warranted before any recommendations regarding its use in this setting can be made.

PP has been the standard first-line treatment option in patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. However, no clear survival advantages are reported for locally advanced case. A phase III trial (PROCLAIM) compared concurrent chemoradiation using PP vs. EP in stage III non-squamous NSCLC [16]. No statistically significant difference in OS was observed. Median PFS were 11.4 and 9.8 respectively, trended in favor of PP. However, PP had significantly lower Grade 3 or higher SAEs compared to EP (P = 0.01). In our NMA, PP was ranked third-best regimen in term of the benefit-risk ratio. The addition of Cetuximab did not demonstrate a survival advantage compared with PP alone. It should be noted that all included patients (except PROCLAIM trial) were with mixed histological types. In a phase III trial comparing PP and GP in patients with advanced NSCLC, PP resulted in a superior OS in non-squamous patients but did a worse survival for patients with squamous histology tumors compared with GP [30]. Further head-to-head comparisons, for locally advanced disease, with other concurrent regimens according to histological type are also needed.

EP and PC, two most common regimens administered currently with radiation to date, have recently been compared directly in several clinic trials. In a most recent multicenter randomized phase III trial [4] comparing EP and PC with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in unresectable stage III NSCLC, the 3-year OS was significantly higher in the EP arm than in the PC arm. Similar survival advantage in EP arm was also found in two phase II trials [5, 6]. In our NMA, EP failed to show survival advantage compared with any other regimens though with PC. Based on the benefit-risk ratio, EP showed better efficacy but with moderate risk of causing SAEs, and were ranked sixth-best after SP, UP, PP, and NP.

RP remains one of the most common side effects for patients treated with chemotherapy concurrently with thoracic radiation, and different chemotherapy regimens have been reported to be related to the differences in RP risk [5, 31]. In a phase II trial of concurrent EP or PC and thoracic radiotherapy for stage III NSCLC [5], the rate of grade ≥ 2 RP was 25% in the PE arm and 48.5% in the PC arm (P = 0.09). Data from a large meta-analysis of predictors of RP showed that concurrent PC resulted in five times the risk of grade ≥ 2 RP compared with EP [31]. In our NMA, PP and PC were ranked the lowest and highest risk of causing grade ≥ 3 RP, respectively. Other regimens such as NP, UP, DP, EP, GP, and SP, were with similarly moderate risk of causing grade ≥ 3 RP.

Molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy have a defined role for metastatic NSCLC. The efficacy of these new classes of agents for locally advanced disease is undergoing investigation. In the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Yu et al. reported a multicenter phase II trial of erlotinib vs. EP with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for stage III NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor activating mutation [32]. Comparing with EP, median PFS of erlotinib arm was significantly improved (27.86 vs. 6.41 months, P < 0.001). However, the sample size is relatively small (21 in EP arm and 20 in erlotinib arm). These findings need a large sample size of phase III study to confirm. Morever, a recent phase III trial (PACIFIC) [33] compared PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab with placebo in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC, not progressing after chemoradiotherapy. The main chemotherapy regimens used for CCRT were cisplatin or carboplatin based regimens; in addition, 25.8% of the patients in the durvalumab group and 28.7% of those in the placebo group had received induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiotherapy. Patients receiving durvalumab had a three-fold increase in median PFS, and with a reduction in the risk of progression of 48%. Although the PACIFIC trial has demonstrated the obvious advantage of consolidation durvalumab after chemoradiation, identification of patients who really benefit from the addition of durvalumab and the optimal concurrent chemotherapy regimen in combine with consolidation immune checkpoint inhibitor are warranted.

This network meta-analysis has a number of limitations. Firstly, in common with other meta-analyses, data were collected and analyzed basis of results reported from trials, instead of individual patient data. Secondly, all studies except PROCLAIM trial included patients with mixed histological types. Thus, we could not assess survival differences between regimens according to histological types. Thirdly, different toxicity criteria were used, and radiotherapy features (such as counturing, planning and delivery) were inconsistent in individual RCTs. Moreover, chemotherapy regimens used in different countries were studied togheter in the meta-analysis. These might lead to heterogeneity and inconsistency. Finally, some HRs of OS or PFS were calculated from the Kaplan–Meier curve due to that they were not directly reported in the articles. This may result in bias.

Conclusions

Based on efficacy and tolerability, SP is likely to be the most preferable regimen used concurrently with thoracic radiation for locally advanced NSCLC, followed by UP and PP. GP and PC-Cet appeared to be the worst and second-worst regimens for this population. Further direct head-to-head, well-designed, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Notes

Abbreviations

CCRT: 

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy

CI: 

Confidence interval

DP: 

Docetaxel-cisplatin

EP: 

Etoposide-cisplatin

GP: 

Gemcitabine-cisplatin

HR: 

Hazard ratio

IC: 

Irinotecan-carboplatin

MVP: 

Mitomycin-vindesine-cisplatin

NMA: 

Network-meta analysis

NP: 

Vinorelbine-cisplatin

NSCLC: 

Non-small cell lung cancer

OR: 

Odds ratio

ORR: 

Objective response rate

OS: 

Overall survival

PC: 

Paclitaxel-cisplatin/carboplatin

PC-Cet: 

PC + cetuximab

PFS: 

Progression-free survival

PP: 

Pemetrexed-cisplatin/carboplatin

PP-Cet: 

PP + cetuximab

PWMA: 

Pairwise meta-analysis

RCT: 

Randomized controlled trial

RP: 

Radiation pneumonitis

SAE: 

Serious adverse event

SP: 

S-1-cisplatin

SUCRA: 

Surfaces under the cumulative ranking curve

UFT: 

Uracil/tegafur

UP: 

Uracil/tegafur-cisplatin

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Present study did not receive any funding.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

JD had full access to all the data and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: JD, TL, ZH. Acquisition of data: TL, ZH. Analysis and interpretation of data: TL, ZH. Drafting of the manuscript: TL, ZH, GL. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: JD. Statistical analysis: TL, ZH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

There was no ethics approval necessary because in this meta-analysis we were pulling numbers from the published manuscripts and pooling results.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, 155 Nanjing Road, Heping District, Shenyang, 110001, China

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Yang P, Allen MS, Aubry MC, et al. Clinical features of 5,628 primary lung cancer patients: experience at Mayo Clinic from 1997 to 2003. Chest. 2005;128:452–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Aupérin A, Le Péchoux C, Pignon JP, et al. Concomitant radio-chemotherapy based on platin compounds in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a meta-analysis of individual data from 1764 patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:473–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Liang J, Bi N, Wu S, et al. Etoposide and cisplatin versus paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter randomized phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:777–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wang L, Wu S, Ou G, et al. Randomized phase II study of concurrent cisplatin/etoposide or paclitaxel/carboplatin and thoracic radiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2012;77:89–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Shuayb M, Shahi MSJR, Hossen MM. Cisplatin/etoposide or paclitaxel/carboplatin with concurrent radiation therapy in stage IIIB non-small cell lung cancer: A one-year phase II trial at a low resource setting. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:4 Supplement 1 (S66).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley JD, Paulus R, Komaki R, et al. Standard-dose versus high-dose conformal radiotherapy with concurrent and consolidation carboplatin plus paclitaxel with or without cetuximab for patients with stage IIIA or IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (RTOG 0617): a randomised, two-by-two factorial phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:187–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Sugawara S, Maemondo M, Tachihara M, et al. Randomized phase II trial of uracil/tegafur and cisplatin versus vinorelbine and cisplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: NJLCG 0601. Lung Cancer. 2013;81:91–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Zhao Q, Wang Z, Huang W, et al. Phase III study of cisplatin with pemtrexed or vinorelbine plus concurrent late course accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:8422–31.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Sasaki T, Seto T, Yamanaka T, et al. A randomised phase II trial of S-1 plus cisplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for unresectable, locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: WJOG5008L. Br J Cancer. 2018;119:675–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Curran WJ Jr, Paulus R, Langer CJ, et al. Sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: randomized phase III trial RTOG 9410. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1452–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Oh IJ, Kim KS, Kim YC, et al. A phase III concurrent chemoradiotherapy trial with cisplatin and paclitaxel or docetaxel or gemcitabine in unresectable non-small cell lung cancer: KASLC 0401. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;72:1247–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Segawa Y, Kiura K, Takigawa N, et al. Phase III trial comparing docetaxel and cisplatin combination chemotherapy with mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin combination chemotherapy with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: OLCSG 0007. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3299–306.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Takiguchi Y, Yamada K, Tanaka H, Kubota K, et al. Survival update in randomized phase II trial of S-1/cisplatin (SP) or docetaxel/cisplatin (DP) with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-TORG1018. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:suppl_8 1 October 2018, mdy291.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Yamamoto N, Nakagawa K, Nishimura Y, et al. Phase III study comparing second- and third-generation regimens with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: West Japan thoracic oncology group WJTOG0105. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3739–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Senan S, Brade A, Wang LH, et al. PROCLAIM: randomized phase III trial of Pemetrexed-cisplatin or etoposide-cisplatin plus thoracic radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:953–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Govindan R, Bogart J, Stinchcombe T, et al. Randomized phase II study of pemetrexed, carboplatin, and thoracic radiation with or without cetuximab in patients with locally advanced unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 30407. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3120–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Gelman A, Rubin D. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci. 1992;7:457–511.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Neupane B, Richer D, Bonner AJ, et al. Network meta-analysis using R: a review of currently available automated packages. PLoS One. 2014;9:e115065.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Brooks S, Gelman A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comput Graph Stat. 1998;7:434–55.Google Scholar
  23. van Valkenhoef G, Dias S, Ades AE, et al. Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7:80–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, et al. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Choy H, Schwartzberg LS, Dakhil SR, et al. Phase 2 study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin, or pemetrexed plus cisplatin with concurrent radiation therapy followed by pemetrexed consolidation in patients with favorable-prognosis inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8:1308–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaira K, Tomizawa Y, Yoshino R, et al. Phase II study of oral S-1 and cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2013;82:449–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Taira T, Yoh K, Nagase S, et al. Long-term results of S-1 plus cisplatin with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018;81:565–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Ichinose Y, Seto T, Sasaki T, et al. S-1 plus cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a multi-institutional phase II trial (West Japan thoracic oncology group 3706). J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:2069–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3543–451.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Palma DA, Senan S, Tsujino K, et al. Predicting radiation pneumonitis after chemoradiation therapy for lung cancer: an international individual patient data meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:444–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Xing L, Wu G, Wang L, et al. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial of erlotinib versus etoposide plus cisplatin with concurrent radiotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activating mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:15 Supplement 1.Google Scholar
  33. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1919–29.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement