Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 31;15(3):1186-1195.
doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-1169. Epub 2023 Mar 15.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Kanghao Zhu #  1 , Hui Chen #  2 , Congcong Xu  2 , Dong Chen  2 , Zixian Jin  2 , Sijia Ren  1 , Pasan Witharana  3 , Baofu Chen #  1 , Jianfei Shen #  1
Affiliations

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Kanghao Zhu et al. J Thorac Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Esophageal cancer (EC) is the seventh most common cancer in the world, with 604,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) including programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors have demonstrated a considerable survival advantage over chemotherapy in numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In this analysis, we aimed to demonstrate that ICIs are more safe and effective than chemotherapy when used as a second-line treatment for advanced ESCC.

Methods: Publications on the safety and efficiency of ICIs in advanced ESCC that were available prior to February 2022 were searched in the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases. Studies with missing data were eliminated, and studies that compared the treatments between the immunotherapy group and chemotherapy group were included. Statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3, and risk and quality were evaluated with relevant evaluation tools.

Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria were selected, involving 1,970 patients with advanced ESCC. We compared chemotherapy and immunotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced ESCC. ICIs considerably enhanced both the objective response rate (P=0.007) and overall survival (OS; P=0.001). However, the effect of ICIs on progression-free survival (PFS) was not significant (P=0.43). ICIs presented fewer grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and there was also a suggested linkage between both PD-L1 expression and the effectiveness of the therapeutic intervention.

Conclusions: For patients with advanced ESCC, ICIs are more effective and safer than chemotherapy, and thus have a higher treatment value.

Keywords: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC); immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); meta-analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-22-1169/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram: selection process for the studies. ASCO, American Society of Clinical Oncology; ESMO, European Society of Medical Oncology; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots in patients treated with ICIs versus chemotherapy. (A) OS. (B) PFS. (C) ORR. OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; ORR, objective response rate; CI, confidence interval; ICIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots in patients treated with ICIs versus chemotherapy. (A) TPS <1%. (B) TPS ≥1%. (C) TPS <10%. (D) TPS ≥10%. OS, overall survival; TPS, tumor proportion score; CI, confidence interval; ICIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots in patients treated with ICIs versus chemotherapy. (A) CPS <10. (B) CPS ≥10. OS, overall survival; CPS, combined positive score; CI, confidence interval; ICIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plots in patients treated with ICIs versus chemotherapy. (A) Any grade TRAEs. (B) Grade 3–5 TRAEs. CI, confidence interval; TRAEs, treatment-related adverse events; ICIs, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-49. 10.3322/caac.21660 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rogers JE, Sewastjanow-Silva M, Waters RE, et al. Esophageal cancer: emerging therapeutics. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2022;26:107-17. 10.1080/14728222.2022.2036718 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abnet CC, Arnold M, Wei WQ. Epidemiology of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2018;154:360-73. 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.08.023 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Muro K, Lordick F, Tsushima T, et al. Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic oesophageal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KSMO, MOS, SSO and TOS. Ann Oncol 2019;30:34-43. 10.1093/annonc/mdy498 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shen L, Kato K, Kim SB, et al. Tislelizumab Versus Chemotherapy as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (RATIONALE-302): A Randomized Phase III Study. J Clin Oncol 2022;40:3065-76. 10.1200/JCO.21.01926 - DOI - PMC - PubMed