BACKGROUND: A multitude of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in both the initial and subsequent treatment settings for patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have provided clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of immunotherapy with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In light of these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of several ICIs in specific subpopulations of mCRC patients. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of direct comparative RCTs evaluating various treatment options. Consequently, the most effective ICI therapeutic strategy for microsatellite-stable (MSS) subgroup and microsatellite instability (MSI) subgroup in the first- and second-line therapies remains undefined. To address this gap, the present study employs a Bayesian network meta-analysis to ascertain the most effective first- and second-line ICI therapeutic strategies.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, with the retrieval date ranging from the databases' inception to August 20, 2024. A total of 875 studies were identified, and seven were ultimately included in the analysis after a screening process. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted on the basis of the search results.
RESULTS: This comprehensive analysis, comprising seven RCTs, evaluated first-line and second-line immunotherapy regimens in 1,358 patients diagnosed with mCRC. The treatments under investigation consisted of five initial treatments, including three focusing on MSS patients and two on MSI patients, as well as two secondary immunotherapy regimens, both focusing on MSS patients. A total of 1051 individuals underwent first-line treatment, while 307 received second-line treatment. The application of ICIs proved to offer varying degrees clinical benefits when compared to standard-of-care therapy alone, both in two subgroups of the first and the second treatment phases. Of particular note is the performance of Nivolumab combination with ipilimumab, which demonstrated superior efficacy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34),. Moreover, the treatment demonstrated an optimal safety profile, with a relatively low risk of adverse events (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.56), compared to other first-line treatment modalities for MSI subgroup. Regarding MSS subgroup, the improvement of PFS by Nivolumab plus standard-of-care (SOC) was relatively significant (HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.02). In the realm of second-line therapies for MSS subgroup, the administration of Atezolizumab plus SOC has proven to be an effective approach for prolonging PFS, exhibiting an HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.44-0.99). These findings underscore the clinical benefits and safety profiles of ICIs in the treatment of mCRC across various treatment lines.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical application of ICIs in both first- and second-line treatment strategies for patients with mCRC yields substantial therapeutic benefits. A detailed assessment in this study indicates that first-line treatment with Nivolumab combination with ipilimumab may represent an efficacious and well-tolerated therapeutic approach for MSI subgroup. In terms of MSS subgroup in first-line therapy, Nivolumab plus SOC may be a relative superior choice. In the context of second-line therapy for MSS subgroup, it is evident that a combination of Atezolizumab and SOC represents a preferable option for enhancing PFS. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that other ICIs treatment regimens also exhibit great value in various aspects, with the potential to inform the development of future clinical treatment guidelines and provide a stronger rationale for the selection of ICIs in both first- and second-line therapeutic strategies for mCRC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42024543400.