A meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of datopotamab deruxtecan and sacituzumab govitecan for second line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

O Omar Shukri Yaghi (George Washington University, Department of Medicine, Washington, DC) M Matthew Seebald (GW University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC) L Laura Abate (Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library at George Washington University, Washington, DC) E Esin Christine Namoglu (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) R Ruxandra Nicolae (GW University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC) J Javier Vera (GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC) E Evan Cain (GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC) B Brendan James Lohmar (GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC) S Shawn Reginauld (The George Washington University, Washington, DC) S Sora Ely (George Washington University, Washington, DC) P Prashanth Ashok Kumar (1SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, United States)

Abstract

8575 Background: Subsequent line treatment options for metastatic NSCLC remain limited. We sought to analyze the efficacy and safety of two Anti-TROP-2/topoisomerase inhibitor antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), sacituzumab govitecan (SG) and datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), for NSCLC treatment via a meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane identified 2348 studies. After excluding duplicates (1263) and screening abstracts (1085), 25 studies underwent full-text review, and 5 RCTs (3 Dato-DXd, 2 SG) were included. All included studies involved patients with advanced NSCLC that progressed on first-line treatment. Binary random effects and pooled proportions were calculated separately for Dato-DXd and SG using OpenMeta. The Mantel-Haenszel method with random effects estimated risk ratios and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for ADCs vs. docetaxel. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Results: 616 Dato-DXd and 353 SG patients were included. Pooled proportions (PP) for grade 3 adverse events were 34.0% (Dato-DXd) and 75.4% (SG) while drug discontinuation rates were 7.1% (Dato-DXd) and 7.0% (SG), respectively. Efficacy outcomes included event rate, disease control rate, and overall response rate. For Dato-DXd, these pooled proportions were 52.0%, 76.5%, and 29.4%; for SG, they were 44.8%, 67.6%, and 14.3%. PPs and relevant statistics are included in table 1. When compared to docetaxel, combined ADCs showed no significant risk reduction in progression [RR: 0.96 (0.89 – 1.05), p=0.40, I²=7%] or mortality [RR: 0.90 (0.58 – 1.38), p=0.63, I²=43%]. Odds ratios for disease control rate [1.39 (0.76 – 2.54), p=0.29, I²=83%] and overall response rate [1.33 (0.40 – 4.42), p=0.64, I²=94%] were also insignificant. Conclusions: Direct comparisons between ADC (Dato-Dxd and SG) and docetaxel did not show a significant difference in disease progression or death rate. This study was limited by the small number of participants and heterogeneity of published literature as many clinical trials are still ongoing. Despite this, SG and Dato-DXd had a promising overall response rate of 67.6% and 76.5%, respectively. Pooled proportions of Dato-Dxd and SG to docetaxel. Datopotamab Deruxtecan Sacituzumab Govitecan Value 95% CI P-Value I² Value 95% CI P-Value I² Event Rate 0.520 (0.258, 0.782) <0.001 97% 0.448 (0.211, 0.686) <0.001 90.8% DCR 0.765 (0.727, 0.803) <0.001 0% 0.676 (0.627, 0.726) <0.001 0% ORR 0.294 (0.230, 0.358) <0.001 49.6% 0.143 (0.106, 0.180) <0.001 0% G3AER 0.340 (0.215, 0.465) <0.001 86% 0.754 (0.572, 0.937) <0.001 91.1% DDR 0.071 (0.026, 0.116) 0.002 69.1% 0.070 (0.011, 0.130) 0.20 74.2% Abbreviations: DCR, disease control rate; ORR, overall response rate; G3AER, grade 3 adverse events rate; DDR, drug discontinuation rate.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 8575-8575
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (11)

O

Omar Shukri Yaghi

George Washington University, Department of Medicine, Washington, DC

M

Matthew Seebald

GW University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC

L

Laura Abate

Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library at George Washington University, Washington, DC

E

Esin Christine Namoglu

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

R

Ruxandra Nicolae

GW University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC

J

Javier Vera

GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC

E

Evan Cain

GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC

B

Brendan James Lohmar

GW School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC

S

Shawn Reginauld

The George Washington University, Washington, DC

S

Sora Ely

George Washington University, Washington, DC

P

Prashanth Ashok Kumar

1SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, United States