A systematic review and meta-analysis on the optimal treatment duration of checkpoint inhibitoRS in solid tumors: The...

No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting the duration of ICIs (alone or in combination with standard of care (SoC)) across various solid tumors. Overall, we identified 28,417 records through database searching. Based on the eligibility criteria, 57 studies were identified for the quantitative synthesis, including 22,977 patients receiving ICIs (with or without SoC). Prolonged ICI correlated with better overall survival (OS) than 2yICI in patients with melanoma (HR:1.55; 95%CI: 1.22,1.98), while 2yICI-SoC led to better OS than prolonged ICI-SoC in patients with NSCLC (HR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.68,0.89). Prospective randomized trials are needed to assess the most appropriate duration of ICIs. OBJECTIVE: No clear evidence supports the advantage of fixed (up to two years (2yICI)) or continuous treatment (more than two years (prolonged ICI)) in cancer patients achieving stable disease or response on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here, we assessed the optimal treatment duration for ICIs in solid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged ICIs administration does not seem to improve the outcomes of patients with NSCLC an RCC.