Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1615795

Systematic literature review of real-world evidence on overall survival in cancer patients before and after the approval of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy

Provisionally accepted
Dweeti  NayakDweeti Nayak1Katherine  AkersKatherine Akers1Andrew  FredericksonAndrew Frederickson1Yves P.V.  MbousYves P.V. Mbous2Raquel  Aguiar-IbanezRaquel Aguiar-Ibanez3*
  • 1Precision AQ, New York, United States
  • 2Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, United States
  • 3Merck Canada Inc., Kirkland, QC, Canada

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: The development and regulatory approval of anti-programmed death (ligand) 1 (anti-PD-(L)1) agents, based on positive clinical trial results, has dramatically changed clinical practice and treatment paths in oncology. However, the effectiveness of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in real-world settings is not well understood. Methods: A systematic literature review including observational studies worldwide reporting the OS of patients receiving conventional first-line pharmacological therapy for advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or melanoma in the anti-PD-(L)1 pre-approval era and similar patients receiving first-line anti-PD-(L)1 therapy in the post-approval era was conducted. For each tumor type, studies were selected from a pre-approval era, defined as a period beginning 5 years before the first approval of an anti-PD-(L)1 agent and ending the year before its approval for first-line therapy, and a post-approval era, defined as a period beginning the year that an anti-PD-(L)1 agent was approved for first-line therapy until 2023. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Median OS (mOS) was summarized within each tumor type and descriptively compared across the pre- and post-approval eras.Results: A total of 86, 44, and 35 studies evaluating first-line treatments for advanced/metastatic NSCLC, RCC, and melanoma, respectively, were included. Post-approval mOS in patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 therapy tended to be numerically longer than pre-approval mOS in patients treated with conventional therapy within certain patient and treatment categories. For example, pre-approval mOS ranged from 6.9 to 18.4 months (n=18 treatment groups), and post-approval mOS ranged from 10.6 to 46.2 months in NSCLC patients with PD-L1 tumor expression ≥50% who received anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy (n=33; with mOS not reached for n=3). In RCC patients classified as high-risk, pre-approval mOS ranged from 2 to 10.3 months (n=7), and post-approval mOS ranged from 7.8 to 24.3 months (n=4). Conclusion: A survival benefit in real-world practice was observed for patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, RCC, or melanoma receiving first-line anti-PD-(L)1 therapy after its regulatory approval when compared with patients treated with conventional care before anti-PD-(L)1 therapy approval. This supports the use of anti-PD-(L)1 therapy as a standard of care in many countries.

Keywords: anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, immune checkpoint inhibitors, Non-small cell lung cancer, Renal cell carcinoma, Melanoma, overall survival, Real-world evidence

Received: 21 Apr 2025; Accepted: 24 Jun 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Nayak, Akers, Frederickson, Mbous and Aguiar-Ibanez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Raquel Aguiar-Ibanez, Merck Canada Inc., Kirkland, QC, Canada

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.