Aller au contenu principal
2026 review

Comparative analysis of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (chemoIO) versus PD-(L)1 monotherapy (mono) across PD-L1 expression strata in resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials.

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
5Institutions déclarées
2Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : us, ie. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

e20069 Background: Neoadjuvant chemoIO is a standard treatment for resectable NSCLC, and PD-L1 expression correlates with outcomes. However, cross-trial comparative activity versus PD-(L)1-mono across PD-L1 subgroups remains unclear and may help identify patients for chemotherapy-free approaches, as in the metastatic setting. Methods: MEDLINE and SCOPUS (1/2018 to 8/2025) identified prospective neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 mono or chemoIO trials reporting pCR or MPR (excluding observational reports, CTLA-4 or dual ICB, and RT). Random-effects meta-analyses of arm-level proportions used inverse-variance logit models to estimate pooled pCR/MPR by regimen and PD-L1 status, with meta-regression including regimen, PD-L1, and their interaction. Individual patient data (IPD) were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves for exploratory survival analyses using shared-frailty Cox models. Results: Thirty-four treatment arms comprising 2,640 patients were included. Pooled pCR/MPR increased from 6.4%/16.5% with PD-(L)1-mono to 19.7%/35.2% with chemoIO in PD-L1-negative tumors, and from 13.2%/25.8% to 36.1%/53.7% in PD-L1-positive tumors. In PD-L1 ≥50% disease, pooled MPR was 39.3% with PD-(L)1-mono versus 61.3% with chemoIO. Meta-regression estimated a 16.6% higher pCR with chemoIO (95% CI, 8.9 to 24.3) averaged across PD-L1 strata (Table), with a similar pattern for MPR. Exploratory KM-reconstructed IPD analyses, using a shared-frailty Cox model, suggested an apparent EFS signal favoring PD-(L)1-mono versus chemoIO in PD-L1-positive cohorts (HR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.98), noting cross-trial confounding. Conclusions: ChemoIO was associated with higher pCR/MPR than PD-(L)1-mono across PD-L1 strata. Exploratory EFS findings suggest some patients with PD-L1-positive disease may achieve favorable long-term outcomes with PD-(L)1-mono despite nominally lower pCR/MPR, supporting further prospective biomarker-directed studies to refine perioperative strategies. pCR by treatment regimen and PD-L1 status. Treatment regimen PD-L1 status No. of arms Meta-analysis pooled pCR rate % (95% CI) Meta-regression estimated pCR rate % (95% CI) Absolute difference from reference % (95% CI) P value PD-(L)1-mono PD-L1 negative 7 6.38 (2.66–14.54) 2.63 (-4.60–9.85) Reference — PD-(L)1-mono PD-L1 positive 7 13.20 (7.71–21.70) 16.40 (9.21–23.58) 13.77 (6.48–21.06) 0.0002 ChemoIO PD-L1 negative 13 19.69 (13.12–28.48) 19.24 (13.56–24.91) 16.61 (8.93–24.28) <0.0001 ChemoIO PD-L1 positive 13 36.07(28.83–44.00) 33.01 (27.10–38.91) 30.38 (19.64–41.11) <0.0001

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

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Comparative analysis of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (chemoIO) versus PD-(L)1 monotherapy (mono) across PD-L1 expression strata in resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials.
Date Crossref
01/06/2026
Éditeur
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.