Dataset Information

Comparison of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors between Older and Younger Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objectives:Despite the fact that it is widely acknowledged that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) rely on the presence of immune response to take their antitumor effect, little is known whether there is an influence exerted on the efficacy of ICIs based on patients' age. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of ICIs between younger and older patients. Materials and Methods:We searched online database and major conference proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published of ICIs and included RCTs that conducted subgroup comparisons of age with available combination of hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Subsequently, we figured out the pooled HR and 95%CI in younger and older patients with a random-effects model and evaluated the within-study heterogeneity by using subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analysis. Results and Conclusion:A total of 12 eligible RCTs included in our study, which reported OS according to patients' age. The overall estimated random-effects for HR was 0.75 with 95% CI of 0.65-0.87 in younger arm versus 0.81 with 95% CI of 0.72-0.92 in older arm. ICIs can improve OS for patients with advanced or metastatic lung cancer when compared to controls, especially for those patients with NSCLC, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, non-squamous, Pembrolizumab or Atezolizumab used as well as subsequent-line setting, and the magnitude of benefit in OS had comparable efficacy in both younger and older arms using a cut-off of 65?yr. Conversely, we also drew a statically significant conclusion that older patients failed to acquire benefit from ICIs when subdivided with a further cut-off of 75?yr.

SUBMITTER: Zhang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6535828 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors between Older and Younger Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zhang Leyin L Sun Leitao L Yu Jieru J Shan Feiyu F Zhang Kai K Pang Xi X Ma Chenghao C Zhang Yinan Y Shen Minhe M Ma Shenglin S Ruan Shanming S

BioMed research international 20190513

<h4>Objectives</h4>Despite the fact that it is widely acknowledged that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) rely on the presence of immune response to take their antitumor effect, little is known whether there is an influence exerted on the efficacy of ICIs based on patients' age. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of ICIs between younger and older patients.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We searched online database and major conference proceedings for rando ...[more]

PMID: 31214620

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the standard treatment options for advanced lung cancer. However, adverse events (AEs), particularly immune-related AEs (irAEs), caused by these drugs have aroused public attention. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the risk of AEs across different ICI-based regimens in patients with advanced lung cancer.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception to 19 April 2021) for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more treatments, with at least one ICI administered to patients with advanced lung cancer. The primary outcomes were treatment-related AEs and irAEs, including grade 1-5 and grade 3-5. The secondary outcomes were grade 1-5 and grade 3-5 irAEs in specific organs. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted for chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy, dual ICIs therapy, and dual ICIs + chemotherapy for all safety outcomes. Node-splitting analyses were performed to test inconsistencies in network. Sensitivity analyses were adopted by restricting phase III RCTs and studies that enrolled patients with non-small cell lung cancer.ResultsOverall, 38 RCTs involving 22,178 patients with advanced lung cancer were enrolled. Both pooled incidence and NMA indicated that treatments containing chemotherapy increased the risk of treatment-related AEs when compared with ICI-based regimens without chemotherapy. As for grade 1-5 irAEs, dual ICIs + chemotherapy was associated with the highest risk of irAEs (probability in ranking first: 50.5%), followed by dual-ICI therapy (probability in ranking second: 47.2%), ICI monotherapy (probability in ranking third: 80.0%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (probability in ranking fourth: 98.0%), and finally chemotherapy (probability in ranking fifth: 100.0%). In grade 3-5 irAEs, subtle differences were observed; when ranked from least safe to safest, the trend was dual ICIs therapy (60.4%), dual ICIs + chemotherapy (42.5%), ICI monotherapy (76.3%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (95.0%), and chemotherapy (100.0%). Furthermore, detailed comparisons between ICI-based options provided irAE profiles based on specific organ/system and severity.ConclusionsIn consideration of overall immune-related safety profiles, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy might be a better choice among ICI-based treatments for advanced lung cancer. The safety profiles of ICI-based treatments are various by specific irAEs and their severity.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42021268650.

Project description:BackgroundConventional cytotoxic chemotherapy offers minor benefit to patients with mucosal melanoma (MM). Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the preferred approach in patients with advanced or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the evidence of their clinical use for MM is still limited. This systematic review aims to summarize the efficacy and safety of ICIs in advanced or metastatic MM.MethodsWe searched electronic databases, conference abstracts, clinical trial registers and reference lists for relevant studies. The primary outcomes included the overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), one-year PFS rate, and one-year OS rate.ResultsThis review identified 13 studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy, 22 studies assessing anti-PD-1 monotherapy, two studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 combination therapy, one study assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with axitinib, and three studies assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy. For most patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy, the ORR ranged from 0% to 17%, the median PFS was less than 5 months, and the median OS was less than 10 months. For patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy, most studies showed an ORR of more than 15% and a median OS of more than 11 months. The combined administration of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 agents showed benefits over single-agent therapy with an ORR of more than 33.3%. In a phase Ib trial of toripalimab in combination with axitinib, approximately half of patients had complete or partial responses. Three retrospective studies that investigated anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy showed an ORR of more than 50%, which was higher than each single modality treatment.ConclusionsImmune checkpoint inhibitors, especially anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone and in combination with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies or other modalities, are promising treatment options for advanced or metastatic MM. However, high-level evidence is still needed to support the clinical application.

Project description:Few prognostic factors have been identified in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The Lung Immune Prognostic Index (LIPI) was associated with clinical outcomes for ICIs in several tumor types. We aim to assess the value of the LIPI in patients with mUC treated with ICIs. A retrospective ICI cohort and a validation cohort (SAUL cohort) included, respectively, patients with mUC treated with ICI in 8 European centers (any line) and patients treated with atezolizumab in a second or further line. A chemotherapy-only cohort was also analyzed. The LIPI score was based on 2 factors, derived neutrophils/(leukocytes minus neutrophils) ratio (dNLR) > 3 and lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal, and defined 3 prognostic groups. The association of LIPI with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed. In the ICI and SAUL cohorts, 137 and 541 patients were respectively analyzed. In the ICI cohort, mPFS and mOS were 3.6 mo (95% CI; 2.6-6.0) and 13.8 mo (95% CI; 11.5-23.2) whereas in the SAUL cohort the mPFS and mOS were 2.2 mo (95% CI; 2.1-2.3) and 8.7 mo (95% CI; 7.8-9.9) respectively. The LIPI classified the population of these cohorts in good (56%; 52%), intermediate (35%; 36%) and poor (9%; 12%) prognostic groups (values for the ICI and SAUL cohorts respectively). Poor LIPI was associated with a poorer OS in both cohorts: hazard ratio (HR) for the ICI cohort = 2.69 (95% CI; 1.24-5.84, p = 0.035); HR = 2. 89 for the SAUL cohort (CI 95%: 1.93-4.32, p < 0.0001). Similar results were found in the chemo cohort. The LIPI score allows to identify different subgroups in patients with good prognostis according to the Bellmunt score criteria, with a subset of patients with poorer outcomes having an mOS of 3.7 mo compared to the good and intermediate LIPI subgroups with mOS of 17.9 and 7.4 mo, respectively. The LIPI score was associated with survival in mUC patients treated by ICIs. Future prospective studies will be required to test the combination of Bellmunt score and the LIPI score as a more accurate prognosis tool.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors between Older and Younger Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparison of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors between Older and Younger Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets