Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies for treatment of advanced or refractory cancers: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To systematically evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of current anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies for treatment of patients with advanced or refractory cancer.

Results

Fifty-one trials including 6,800 patients were included. The overall response rates for melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were 29% (95% CI: 1.53-2.41), 21% (95% CI: 17%-25%) and 21% (95% CI: 16%-27%) respectively. While the overall adverse effects rate for melanoma, NSCLC, RCC were 16% (95% CI: 6%-28%), 11% (95% CI: 8%-14%) and 20% (95% CI: 11%-32%) respectively. Tumor PD-L1 expression and patient smoking status might serve as biomarkers to predict response of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody treatment. Compared to tumors with negative PD-L1 expression, tumors with positive PD-L1 expression had a significantly higher clinical response rate (41.4% versus 26.5%) with RR = 1.92 (95% CI: 1.53-2.41, P < 0.001). Smoker patients also showed a significantly higher response rate (33.7%) than patients who never smoked (4.2%) with RR = 6.02 (95% CI: 1.22-29.75, P = 0.028). Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab were associated with significantly increased response rate (RR = 2.89, 95% CI: 2.46-3.40, P < 0.001), reduced death risk (HR= 0.53; 95% CI: 0.48-0.57; P < 0.001), and decreased adverse effect rate (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.30-0.80, P = 0.004) compared with other therapies.

Experimental design

Clinical trials reporting response or safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies for advanced or refractory cancer patients published before January 31th 2016 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE database. Meta-analyses using random effects models were used to calculate the overall estimate.

Conclusions

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have high response rates and low adverse effect rates for advanced or refractory cancers.

SUBMITTER: Zhang T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5341964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Multiple anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have been approved, and in some diseases, there is a choice of more than one. Comparative efficacy, safety and tolerability are unknown. Methods: Randomized trials (RCTs) supporting the registration of single agent anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 inhibitors between 2015-2019 were identified. We extracted the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and calculated the odds ratio (OR) for commonly reported safety and tolerability outcomes. We then performed a network meta-analysis, reporting multiple pair-wise comparisons between different anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies. Results: Sixteen RCTs comprising 10673 patients were included; 10 in non-small-cell lung cancer, 2 in melanoma, 2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and 2 in urothelial cancer. Compared to pembrolizumab, efficacy was similar for nivolumab (HR: 1.02 95% CI: 0.91-1.14) and for atezolizumab (HR: 0.97 95% CI: 0.85-1.10), however, avelumab appeared inferior (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.06-1.56). Pembrolizumab showed similar odds of serious adverse events (SAEs) as nivolumab (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.56-2.27) and atezolizumab (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.55-2.04). Compared to nivolumab, atezolizumab was associated with more SAEs (OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.47-3.12). Avelumab had the lowest odds of grade 3-4 adverse events compared to pembrolizumab (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.74), nivolumab (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.24-0.62) and atezolizumab (OR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.14-0.33). The odds of treatment discontinuation without progression were similar between nivolumab and atezolizumab (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.73-2.00), and between pembrolizumab and nivolumab (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.83-2.17), but was higher with atezolizumab compared to nivolumab (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.29-5.00). Pembrolizumab was associated with higher OR of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) compared to nivolumab (OR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.49-3.03) and atezolizumab (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.09-2.43). Conclusions: Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab have similar efficacy. Avelumab appears less efficacious. Safety and tolerability seem better with avelumab, but worse with atezolizumab and pembrolizumab.

Project description:Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition therapy with monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), including nivolumab and pembrolizumab, has demonstrated powerful clinical efficacy in the treatment of advanced cancers. However, there is no evidence-based systematic review on the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 antibody in treating lymphoma. Methods: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab/pembrolizumab, we analyzed clinical trials from PUBMED, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. For safety analysis, the incidence and exhibition of any grade and grade ?3 adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Overall response rate (ORR), 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) and 6-month overall survival (OS) were calculated for efficacy analysis. Results: Overall ten studies and 718 patients (114 non-Hodgkin lymphomas, 604 Hodgkin lymphomas) were enrolled, including 4 phase I studies and 6 phase II studies. The pooled incidences of any grade and grade ?3 adverse events (AEs) were 74 and 24%, respectively. Drug-related deaths occurred in two patients. The most common any grade AEs were fatigue (14.91%), rash (14.8%), hypothyroidism (13.77%), platelet count decreased (13.54%), pyrexia (13%). The most common grade ?3 AEs were neutropenia (4.79%), pneumonitis (3.58%), rash (3.38%), and leukopenia (3.31%). Fatigue (p = 0.0072) and rash (p = 0.0078) in any grade AEs were less observed in patients treated with pembrolizumab than nivolumab. The pooled ORR, PFS rate and OS rate were 58, 73, and 96%, respectively. The ORR in patients with Hodgkin lymphomas (HL) was higher than patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) (69.08 vs. 30.77%, p < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference of efficacy between nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Conclusions: Nivolumab and pembrolizumab have promising outcomes with tolerable AEs and drug-related deaths in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma. Pembrolizumab caused less any grade AEs like fatigue and rash than nivolumab. Patients with HL got better response than NHL.

Project description:BackgroundThe rechallenge of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is now an optional strategy for patients who discontinued ICI due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or disease progression. However, little data is available for the prognosis and prognostic factors of patients receiving ICI rechallenge treatment in advanced lung cancer patients. Our study aimed to explore the efficacy, prognosis and safety of patients who received anti-programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitor rechallenge.MethodsIn our retrospective cohort study, data of advanced lung cancer patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and discontinued due to irAEs or disease progression were collected from December 2016 to August 2021. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups: rechallenge group (R group) and non-rechallenge group (NR group). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and safety data were analyzed. Cox model and subgroup analysis were analyzed according to baseline characteristics, ICI type, the reason for discontinuing ICI, etc. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), evaluation was performed routinely every 6-8 weeks after initiating treatment with the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor. The last follow-up in the study was on September 20, 2021.ResultsEighty-one patients who met our inclusion criteria were enrolled. In the whole cohort, the R group achieved better OS than the NR group [hazard ratio (HR) =0.176; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.065-0.477; P=0.001). In the irAEs group, the survival analyses showed a trend toward improved OS in the rechallenge subgroup (HR =0.287; 95% CI: 0.081-1.025; P=0.055), and a promising DCR of 75% after an ICI rechallenge. Additionally, the exploration of safety outcomes indicated an acceptable recurrence rate (22.5%) of irAEs and an early onset of irAEs after an ICI rechallenge. In the disease progression group, the rechallenge subgroup did not improve OS (HR =0.214; 95% CI: 0.027-1.695; P=0.144), and the DCR of the rechallenge subgroup was 40% after ICI rechallenge.ConclusionsICI rechallenge might be an attractive option for patients who discontinue treatment due to irAEs. For patients with disease progression, further research should be conducted. The recurrence of irAEs and their early onset during the second round of ICI should be considered.