Effects of glucocorticoid use on survival of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Abstract

Abstract Background: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide, with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for the majority of cases. Patients with NSCLC have achieved great survival benefits from immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoints. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are frequently used for palliation of cancer-associated symptoms, as supportive care for non-cancer-associated symptoms, and for management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The aim of this study was to clarify the safety and prognostic significance of glucocorticoid use in advanced patients with NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods: The study searched publications from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database up to March 1st, 2022, and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effects of glucocorticoid use on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs through the available data. The study calculated the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: This study included data from 25 literatures that were mainly retrospective, with 8713 patients included. Patients taking GCs had a higher risk for tumor progression and death compared with those not taking GCs (PFS: HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.33–1.86, P <0.001; OS: HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.41–1.88, P <0.001). GCs used for cancer-associated symptoms caused an obviously negative effect on both PFS and OS (PFS: HR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.32–2.29, P <0.001; OS: HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.52–2.04, P <0.001). However, GCs used for irAEs management did not negatively affect prognosis (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46–1.00, P = 0.050; OS: HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34–0.83, P = 0.005), and GCs used for non-cancer-associated indications had no effect on prognosis (PFS: HR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.63–1.32, P = 0.640; OS: HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.59–1.41, P = 0.680). Conclusions: In advanced NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, the use of GCs for palliation of cancer-associated symptoms may result in a worse PFS and OS, indicating that they increase the risk of tumor progression and death. But, in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, the use of GCs for the management of irAEs may be safe, and the use of GCs for the treatment of non-cancer-associated symptoms may not affect the ICIs’ survival benefits. Therefore, it is necessary to be careful and evaluate indications rationally before administering GCs in individualized clinical management.