Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors in advanced urothelial malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/PDL-1) inhibitors are the newest class of approved drugs for advanced urothelial cancer (AdUC). This review aims to collate the evidence for their efficacy and safety in various treatment settings. Methods:Extensive search of databases was performed (updated May 2018) and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017081568). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. STATA (v 12) and Revman 5.3.5 were used for data analysis. Results:Ten nonrandomized, open-label clinical trials were included in this review. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were used as second-line, stand-alone in eight trials and as first-line in cisplatin-ineligible in two trials. Heterogeneity was observed for study design, PDL-1 testing methods, cutoff criterias used and translational markers evaluated. The pooled objective response rate (ORR) was 18.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.1-21.2, n = 1785) with PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors in second-line settings as compared to 12.6% (95% CI 10.3-14.9, n = 736) with second-line chemotherapy and 23.7% (95% CI 19.9-27.4, n = 489) with PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors as first-line therapy in cisplatin-ineligible patients. The median progression-free survival and overall survival was similar with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in both second- and first-line treatment settings (1.5-2.9 vs. 2.0-2.7 months and 7.9-18.2 vs. 15.9 months) and second-line chemotherapy (3.3-4.0 months and 7.4-8 months). Odds of achieving ORR was 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.31, n = 229) in the second-line, stand-alone setting with a combined positive score (CPS) cutoff of 25% and was 0.34 (95% CI 0.19-0.62, n = 265) with a CPS cut-off of 10% in first-line setting in the cisplatin-ineligible. Conclusions:PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors appear to be promising in the treatment of AdUC and CPS may be a potentially reliable biomarker for predicting response but needs validation. Caution needs to be exercised until more data are available on imAEs and further studies are required to prove their worth as the standard of care.

SUBMITTER: Pattanaik S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6458809 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors in advanced urothelial malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pattanaik Smita S Dey Sumit S Jaiswal Nishant N Rohilla Rachna R Singh Shrawan Kumar SK Mandal Arup Kumar AK Mavuduru Ravimohan Suryanarayan RS

Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India 20190401 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/PDL-1) inhibitors are the newest class of approved drugs for advanced urothelial cancer (AdUC). This review aims to collate the evidence for their efficacy and safety in various treatment settings.<h4>Methods</h4>Extensive search of databases was performed (updated May 2018) and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017081568). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemat ...[more]

PMID: 31000914

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInhibitors of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have represented a novel approach for the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this study, we aimed to estimate five anti-PD-1/L1 agents (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab) using network meta-analyses (NMAs) and the Bayesian method to provide suggestions for advanced NSCLC treatments.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Wiley Online Library for eligible studies published up to March 2020. Both pairwise analyses and NMAs were conducted with clinical outcomes, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and the incidences of adverse events. Results were presented in several patient populations according to treatment lines and PD-L1 status.ResultsNineteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 11,456 patients were included in our study. PD-1/L1 inhibitors showed significant benefits over chemotherapies in OS regardless of tumor PD-L1 status [first-line settings: OS =0.85, 95% CI (0.77, 0.94), I2=37%; second- or further-line settings: OS =0.77, 95% CI (0.71, 0.84), I2=37%]. The combined regimen of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy stood out to be the most effective and safest for patients in the first-line settings. Pembrolizumab monotherapy was showed to be the best especially for patients with PD-L1 ≥50%. In the subsequent-line settings, nivolumab ranked the best in improving the survival of patients, and durvalumab had the greatest effect in tumor shrinkage. Atezolizumab, followed by nivolumab, ranked the safest in reducing adverse events, whereas durvalumab was showed with the largest side effects among the five inhibitors.ConclusionsThe combination of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy is suitable for advanced NSCLC patients who have not received any systematic treatments before, and pembrolizumab monotherapy should also be considered, especially for patients with highly-expressed PD-L1 (≥50%). Nivolumab is the best option for patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumors have progressed following chemotherapies or combined modalities of treatments including chemotherapy. However, our results need to be further validated in future head-to-head clinical trials.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare clinical outcomes with programmed-death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) who have vs have not undergone radical surgery (RS) or radiation therapy (RT) prior to developing metastatic disease.Patients and methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study collecting clinicopathological, treatment and outcomes data for patients with aUC receiving ICIs across 25 institutions. We compared outcomes (observed response rate [ORR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]) between patients with vs without prior RS, and by type of prior locoregional treatment (RS vs RT vs no locoregional treatment). Patients with de novo advanced disease were excluded. Analysis was stratified by treatment line (first-line and second-line or greater [second-plus line]). Logistic regression was used to compare ORR, while Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression were used for PFS and OS. Multivariable models were adjusted for known prognostic factors.ResultsWe included 562 patients (first-line: 342 and second-plus line: 220). There was no difference in outcomes based on prior locoregional treatment among those treated with first-line ICIs. In the second-plus-line setting, prior RS was associated with higher ORR (adjusted odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19-5.74]), longer OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88) and PFS (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89) vs no prior RS. This association remained significant when type of prior locoregional treatment (RS and RT) was modelled separately.ConclusionPrior RS before developing advanced disease was associated with better outcomes in patients with aUC treated with ICIs in the second-plus-line but not in the first-line setting. While further validation is needed, our findings could have implications for prognostic estimates in clinical discussions and benchmarking for clinical trials. Limitations include the study's retrospective nature, lack of randomization, and possible selection and confounding biases.

Project description:Background An influx of systematic reviews (SRs) of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment with or without meta-analysis and with different methodological quality and inconsistent results have been published, confusing clinical decision making. The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of PD-(L)1 inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. Methods A comprehensive search of SRs, which included meta-analyses of PD-(L)1 inhibitors on cancer, was performed on eight databases with a cutoff date of 1 January 2022. Two authors independently identified SRs, extracted data, assessed the report quality according to the guidance of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, evaluated the methodological quality by the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and appraised the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results A total of 172 SRs with meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria. The report quality of included SRs was quite good, with 128 (74.42%) SRs of high quality and 44 (25.58%) of moderate quality. The methodological quality was alarming, as only one (0.58%) SR had high quality, five (2.91%) SRs had low quality, and the other 166 (96.51%) SRs had critically low quality. For GRADE, 38 (3.77%) outcomes had high-quality evidence, 288 (28.57%) moderate, 545 (54.07%) low, and 137 (13.59%) critically low-quality evidence. Current evidence indicated that treatment with PD-(L)1 inhibitors were significantly effective in non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, malignant melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma, breast cancer, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma with PD-L1 expression level≥1%, whereas the evidence in gastroesophageal and colorectal tumors is still controversial. Monotherapy with PD-(L)1 inhibitors was associated with a lower frequency of any grade and high-grade adverse events (AEs). The incidence of any grade and high-grade AEs caused by PD-(L)1 inhibitors in combination with other therapies was no lower than the controls. However, PD-(L)1 inhibitors were associated with a higher frequency of any grade and high-grade immune-related AEs. Conclusions PD-(L)1 inhibitors appeared to be effective and safe for cancer treatment, except for gastrointestinal tumors; however, the quality of the evidence is not convincing. Future studies should improve methodological quality and focus on the sequential trial analysis of subgroups and safety. Systematic Review Registration http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020194260.

Project description:BackgroundThis meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsAuthors conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Medline for randomized controlled trials comparing the prognosis and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 inhibitors with other therapies for advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect sizes. The primary outcomes of this study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival.ResultsA total of 4943 patients diagnosed with stage III/IV advanced or metastatic NSCLC were included in the analysis of the 6 randomized controlled trials. The results showed that patients receiving dual immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 inhibitors had a longer survival time compared with the control group (HR = 0.88, P = 0.044). However, no statistically significant difference was observed in progression-free survival (HR = 0.95, P = 0.579). Subgroup analysis revealed better OS in the interventional group for patients aged >65 years (HR = 0.88, P = 0.076), smokers (HR = 0.81, P = 0.036), and those with a tumor mutational burden (TMB) ≥20 mut/Mb (HR = 0.66, P < 0.001). Conversely, the control group demonstrated superior OS in patients with TMB <20 mut/Mb (HR = 1.14, P = 0.048). In addition, the statistical results indicated a lower incidence rate of any-grade anemia in the dual immunotherapy group compared with the control group (RR = 0.32, P = 0.04).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of dual immunotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 inhibitors for treating advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Its efficacy is influenced by certain clinical and pathological factors, such as age, smoking status, and TMB.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors in advanced urothelial malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors in advanced urothelial malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets