Is there a benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients over 75 years of age with advanced cancer in first and second line setting: A meta-analysis.

Le résumé fourni par la source

12031 Background: The impact of aging on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) effectiveness is controversial. Currently, data from clinical studies do not show any difference between patients over 65 years and those under 65 years. We propose to compare the clinical benefit of ICIs in those over 75 and in those under 75. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of published randomized control trials (RCTs) concerning ICIs versus standard therapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. Overall Survival (OS) among the older (≥75 years) was compared with that of younger patients ( < 75 years) in first and second line setting. Hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) were collected from the studies and pooled. Results: Fifteen phase III studies evaluating anti-PD-1 (nivolumab or pembrolizumab), anti-PD-L1 (atezolizumab or avelumab) or anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) were included. Patients were enrolled for Non-Small-Cell-Lung-Cancer, Renal-Cell-Carcinoma, Melanoma, Head-and-Neck-Squamous-Cell-Carcinoma or Gastric-Cancer. Eight studies assessed treatment in first line setting and seven in second line. The median age was 64 years, with 906 patients over 75 years of age and 5233 younger. In first line setting, HRs for death were 0.78 (95% CI: 0.61-0.99) in patients ≥75 years versus 0.84 (95% CI: 0.71-1.00) in younger. In second line setting, HRs for death were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.77-1.36) in patients ≥75 years versus 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61-0.75) in younger with a statistically significant difference observed between subgroups (p interaction = 0.009). Conclusions: ICIs appears to be effective in patients over 75 years of age. However, the survival benefit comes mainly from the first line of treatment. This result encourages the use of ICIs early in the therapeutic management of patients over 75 years of age.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.