Dataset Information

PD-1 Antibody Monotherapy for Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Antibodies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) help prevent tumor cells from escaping immune-mediated destruction. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to gain insight into the efficacy of PD-1 antibodies for the treatment of melanoma. Five trials involving 2,828 adult patients were included in this meta-analysis. In patients with previously untreated or refractory melanoma, treatment with PD-1 antibodies significantly improved the six-month progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.50-0.60, P<0.00001) and the overall response rate (OR 3.89, 95% CI 3.12-4.83, P<0.00001). This meta-analysis indicated that anti-PD-1 treatment might provide a significant survival benefit in patients with melanoma. In addition, we found that patients treated with nivolumab reported significantly fewer treatment-related adverse events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.97, P = 0.03) than those treated with other agents, but there was a dose-dependent increase in the frequency of adverse events in patients treated with pembrolizumab.

SUBMITTER: Lin Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4970765 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

PD-1 Antibody Monotherapy for Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lin Zhijuan Z Chen Xing X Li Zhifeng Z Luo Yiming Y Fang Zhihong Z Xu Bing B Han Mingzhe M

PloS one 20160802 8

Antibodies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) help prevent tumor cells from escaping immune-mediated destruction. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to gain insight into the efficacy of PD-1 antibodies for the treatment of melanoma. Five trials involving 2,828 adult patients were included in this meta-analysis. In patients with previously untreated or refractory melanoma, treatment with PD-1 antibodies significantly improved the six-month progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0 ...[more]

PMID: 27483468

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rates of malignant melanoma are continuing to increase, and until recently effective treatments were lacking. However, since 2011 three immunotherapeutic agents, known as checkpoint inhibitors, have been approved. This review aims to establish whether these three drugs - ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab - offer greater efficacy and tolerability compared to control interventions (placebo, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy) in patients with stage III or IV unresectable cutaneous melanoma.A search on four major medical and scientific databases yielded 7,553 records, of which seven met the inclusion criteria, with a total study population of 3,628. Only prospective Phase II or III randomized controlled trials on checkpoint inhibitors for patients with unresectable cutaneous melanoma that reported data on survival (overall or progression-free), tumor response, or adverse events were included. Three meta-analyses were carried out.The hazard ratio for progression or death was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), and the odds ratio for best overall response rate was 4.48 (95% CI: 2.77-7.24), both in favor of checkpoint inhibitors. However, control treatments were associated with an insignificantly lower rate of discontinuation of treatment due to adverse effects or treatment-related adverse events (odds ratio =1.63 [95% CI: 0.55-4.88]).This study finds that checkpoint inhibitors are more effective than control interventions, both in terms of survival and tumor response, and yet no less tolerable. PD1 therapies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) appear to offer greater efficacy than CTLA4 therapy (ipilimumab). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab was, however, the most effective, but significantly less tolerable than monotherapy. The lack of published clinical data does, however, limit this study. Further research is needed in two areas in particular: 1) to determine the optimal use of checkpoint inhibitors, specifically in terms of combination therapy, and 2) to identify reliable biomarkers to predictive responders and guide treatment assignment.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials testing memantine monotherapy for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsThe meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of memantine monotherapy for AD, omitting those in which patients were also administered a cholinesterase inhibitor. Cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioral disturbances, global function, stage of dementia, drug discontinuation rate, and individual side effects were compared between memantine monotherapy and placebo groups. The primary outcomes were cognitive function and behavioral disturbances; the others were secondary outcomes.ResultsNine studies including 2433 patients that met the study's inclusion criteria were identified. Memantine monotherapy significantly improved cognitive function [standardized mean difference (SMD)=-0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.39 to -0.14, p=0.0001], behavioral disturbances (SMD=-0.12, 95% CI=-0.22 to -0.01, p=0.03), activities of daily living (SMD=-0.09, 95% CI=-0.19 to -0.00, p=0.05), global function assessment (SMD=-0.18, 95% CI=-0.27 to -0.09, p=0.0001), and stage of dementia (SMD=-0.23, 95% CI=-0.33 to -0.12, p=0.0001) scores. Memantine was superior to placebo in terms of discontinuation because of inefficacy [risk ratio (RR)=0.36, 95% CI=0.17¬ to 0.74, p=0.006, number needed to harm (NNH)=non significant]. Moreover, memantine was associated with less agitation compared with placebo (RR=0.68, 95% CI=0.49 to 0.94, p=0.02, NNH=non significant). There were no significant differences in the rate of discontinuation because of all causes, all adverse events, and individual side effects other than agitation between the memantine monotherapy and placebo groups.ConclusionsMemantine monotherapy improved cognition, behavior, activities of daily living, global function, and stage of dementia and was well-tolerated by AD patients. However, the effect size in terms of efficacy outcomes was small and thus there is limited evidence of clinical benefit.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Spinal fractures are a common source of morbidity in cancer patients. Balloon Kyphoplasty (BKP) is a minimally invasive procedure designed to stabilize fractures and correct vertebral deformities. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of BKP for spinal fractures in cancer patients. METHODS: We searched several electronic databases up to September 2008 and the reference lists of relevant publications for studies reporting on BKP in patients with spinal fractures secondary to osteolytic metastasis and multiple myeloma. Outcomes sought included pain relief, functional capacity, quality of life, vertebral height, kyphotic angle and adverse events. Studies were assessed for methodological bias, and estimates of effect were calculated using a random-effects model. Potential reasons for heterogeneity were explored. RESULTS: The literature search revealed seven relevant studies published from 2003 to 2008, none of which were randomized trials. Analysis of those studies indicated that BKP resulted in less pain and better functional outcomes, and that these effects were maintained up to 2 years post-procedure. While BKP also improved early vertebral height loss and spinal deformity, these effects were not long-term. No serious procedure-related complications were described. Clinically asymptomatic cement leakage occurred in 6% of all treated levels, and new vertebral fractures in 10% of patients. While there is a lack of studies comparing BKP to other interventions, some data suggested that BKP provided similar pain relief as vertebroplasty and a lower cement leakage rate. CONCLUSION: It appears that there is level III evidence showing BKP is a well-tolerated, relatively safe and effective technique that provides early pain relief and improved functional outcomes in patients with painful neoplastic spinal fractures. BKP also provided long-term benefits in terms of pain and disability. However, the methodological quality of the original studies prevents definitive conclusions being drawn. Further investigation into the use of BKP for spinal fractures in cancer patients is warranted.

Project description:Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved as cancer immunotherapeutic agents for advanced malignant melanoma (MM) in recent years, and nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used ICIs either alone or in combination. However, their efficacy and safety between single and combined ICIs are not clear. This meta-analysis (MA) is aimed to update the efficacy and safety of ICIs by comparing monotherapy and combination therapy in the treatment of advanced MM. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, EbscoHost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy and safety of ICIs between a single ICI and combined ICIs. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). A fixed-effect or random-effects model was adopted depending on the study heterogeneity. Results: A total of nine RCTs were included in this MA. Regarding the efficacy, combined nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy showed statistically significant prolonged OS and PFS with HR 0.65, 95% CI [0.53, 0.79], p <0.0001 and HR 0.48, 95% CI [0.38, 0.60], p<0.0001 respectively. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab also showed statistically significant longer ORR than monotherapy; with RR 2.15, 95% CI [1.63, 2.84], p <0.00001. In terms of safety, the incidence of all AEs which include any AEs, high-grade, haematological, gastrointestinal, dermatological, pulmonary, liver and endocrine AEs were significantly lower with monotherapy (either nivolumab or ipilimumab) of ICI compared to combination ICI therapy with a p-value <0.00001 to 0.03. Conclusion: Efficacy of the combined nivolumab and ipilimumab was better than a single ICI, especially in the treatment of advanced MM. Although combination therapy showed better efficacy than monotherapy, monotherapy (either nivolumab or ipilimumab) was safer than combination therapy as it tended to decrease the incidence of most of the treatment-related AEs.

Dataset Information

PD-1 Antibody Monotherapy for Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

PD-1 Antibody Monotherapy for Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets