Dataset Information

Efficacy of melanoma patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: Protocol for an overview, and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Melanoma is a malignant tumor of melanocytes that produces pigments and can occur in the whole body. It is characterized by strong invasiveness, high metastasis rate and poor prognosis, and brings heavy burden to patients and society. In order to find the most effective and safe treatment measures, in this study, a network meta-analysis (NMA) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced melanoma treated with PD-1 inhibitors will be conducted based on the existing systematic reviews (SRs) of PD-1 inhibitor in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched on December 18, 2018 to obtain systematic reviews of PD-1 inhibitor in the treatment of advanced melanoma. Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) will be used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be applied to evaluate the evidence quality of outcome measures, and the Cochrane's risk of bias tool will be utilized to appraise risks of bias of each embedded RCTs. And the outcomes are overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to synthesize dichotomous outcomes, while the mean difference (MD) for the continuous variables. R3.5.1 will be used to create a network evidence map for direct and indirect comparative analysis.

Results

This study will provide a comprehensive summary of the current evidences related to the efficacy and safety of PD-1 inhibitor in advanced melanoma.

Conclusion

Our findings will be useful to assist clinicians make reasonable decisions to the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Ethics and communication

It is unnecessary for this NMA to acquire an ethical approval, because it is based on published researches.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019120017.

SUBMITTER: Li J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6635302 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of melanoma patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: Protocol for an overview, and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Li Jing J Shi Shu-Zhen SZ Wang Jian-Shu JS Liu Zhao Z Xue Jin-Xu JX Wang Jian-Cheng JC Jia Jun-Hai JH

Medicine 20190701 27

<h4>Background</h4>Melanoma is a malignant tumor of melanocytes that produces pigments and can occur in the whole body. It is characterized by strong invasiveness, high metastasis rate and poor prognosis, and brings heavy burden to patients and society. In order to find the most effective and safe treatment measures, in this study, a network meta-analysis (NMA) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced melanoma treated with PD-1 inhibitors will be conducted based on the existing system ...[more]

PMID: 31277189

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTriple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is a lethal subtype of breast cancer with limited treatment options. The purpose of this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy and safety of inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in treating TNBC.MethodsOur search strategy was used in six databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature database, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up to November 2nd, 2022, as well as a thorough search in the most used trial registries. We included phase II and III randomized controlled trials that looked at the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of TNBC and reported either Overall Survival (OS), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), or pathological Complete Response (pCR). The risk of bias was assessed utilizing Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool, and the statistical analysis was performed using a frequentist contrast-based method for NMA by employing standard pairwise meta-analysis applying random effects model.Results12 trials (5324 patients) were included in our NMA including seven phase III trials. Pembrolizumab in a neoadjuvant setting achieved a pooled OS of 0.82 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.03), a PFS of 0.82 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.94) and a pCR 2.79 (95% CI 1.07 to 7.24) compared to Atezolizumab's OS of 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.15), PFS of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.97), and pCR of 1.94 (95% CI 0.86 to 4.37). Atezolizumab had less grade ≥ 3 adverse events (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.42) than Pembrolizumab (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.33) in the neoadjuvant setting.ConclusionsPD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibited varying efficacy in terms of OS, PFS, and pCR. They were associated with an increase in immune-related adverse effects. When used early in the course of TNBC, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exert their maximum benefit. Durvalumab as a maintenance treatment instead of chemotherapy has shown promising outcomes. Future studies should focus on PD-L1 expression status and TNBC subtypes, since these factors may contribute to the design of individualized TNBC therapy regimens. Systematic review registration PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022380712.

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recommended as first-line treatment for late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. However, efficacy and safety comparisons between ICIs as monotherapy and ICIs with chemotherapy are lacking. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published before February 29th, 2020, with the search terms "immunotherapy" and "chemotherapy". 10 eligible trials were identified with a total of 5,956 patients. Of these patients, 3,204 received immune therapy and 2,752 received chemotherapy. PD-1 inhibitors with chemotherapy improved OS (HR 0.84, 0.77-0.92), PFS (HR 0.80, 0.75-0.85), and objective response rate (ORR) (odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 1.20-5.28) compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In contrast, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant differences in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitors as monotherapy. When patients were stratified according to PD-L1 expression level, patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%) receiving PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy had improved PFS, but not other outcomes, compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In these patients, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant difference in survival compared with PD-L1 inhibitors. In the low PD-L1 expression group (1%-49%), PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy improved OS and PFS, but no advantage was observed in PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy. When comparing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy, no significant differences were observed in the rate of immune-related adverse events (AEs). In summary, for treating patients with late-stage NSCLC, PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have improved efficacy compared with PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy, but PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have similar efficacy as PD-L1 monotherapy. Survival benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy were particularly significant in patients with low PD-L1 expression levels.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42020166678 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=166678).

Project description:Purpose: The clinical use of immunotherapies targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is rapid expanding, but the equivalency of these inhibitors remains unclear. We aimed to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Knowledge, related reviews and abstracts for randomized controlled trials of five PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for patients with solid tumors before November 30th, 2018. We estimated summary hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (ORs) for grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TrAEs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random-effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42018116624). Results: Totally, 43 reports of 35 trials comprising 21261 patients were eligible for the analysis. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and durvalumab were more effective than control treatment, and no significant differences were identified in OS and PFS between any two inhibitors. Avelumab was associated with significantly inferior OS to nivolumab (HR 1.37, 95%CrI 1.05-1.78) and pembrolizumab (HR 1.33, 95%CrI 1.02-1.73), and with inferior PFS to nivolumab (HR 1.60, 95%CrI 1.03-2.51). Compared with placebo, nivolumab had increased risk of grade 3-5 TrAEs (OR 2.35, 95%CrI 1.35-4.17). Compared with standard-of-care, nivolumab (OR 0.39, 95%CrI 0.28-0.54), pembrolizumab (OR 0.43, 95%CrI 0.30-0.60), atezolizumab (OR 0.37, 95%CrI 0.21-0.64) and avelumab (OR 0.24, 95%CrI 0.12-0.48) significantly reduced grade 3-5 TrAEs. There were not significant differences in grade 3-5 TrAEs between any two inhibitors. Conclusion: This Bayesian network meta-analysis revealed that nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and durvalumab yielded equivalent survival, while avelumab was associated with unfavorable survival. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were comparable in the risk of TrAEs, and safer than conventional therapies.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the relative efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus conventional drugs in patients with cancer that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. DESIGN:Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, and conference abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology up to March 2018. REVIEW METHODS:Studies of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) that had available hazard ratios for death based on PD-L1 positivity or negativity were included. The threshold for PD-L1 positivity or negativity was that PD-L1 stained cell accounted for 1% of tumour cells, or tumour and immune cells, assayed by immunohistochemistry staining methods. RESULTS:4174 patients with advanced or metastatic cancers from eight randomised controlled trials were included in this study. Compared with conventional agents, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with significantly prolonged overall survival in both patients that were PD-L1 positive (n=2254, hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.74) and PD-L1 negative (1920, 0.80, 0.71 to 0.90). However, the efficacies of PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade treatment in patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative were significantly different (P=0.02 for interaction). Additionally, in both patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative, the long term clinical benefits from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade were observed consistently across interventional agent, cancer histotype, method of randomisation stratification, type of immunohistochemical scoring system, drug target, type of control group, and median follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS:PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy is a preferable treatment option over conventional therapy for both patients that are PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. This finding suggests that PD-L1 expression status alone is insufficient in determining which patients should be offered PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of melanoma patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: Protocol for an overview, and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Ethics and communication

Prospero registration number

Publications

Efficacy of melanoma patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors: Protocol for an overview, and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets