Dataset Information

The Association Between the Incidence Risk of Peripheral Neuropathy and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in the Treatment for Solid Tumor Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: We conducted this study to determine the relationship between PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and the incidence risk of peripheral neuropathy in patients with solid tumors. Method: The process of the meta-analysis was performed by us according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Incidence of all-grade and grade 3-5 treatment-related peripheral neuropathy in patients with solid tumors were taken into account. Results: After screening and eligibility assessment, a total of 17 clinical trials involving 10,500 patients were selected for the final meta-analysis. The incidence risk of peripheral neuropathy for all grade was significantly lower in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor group than that of the control group, either monotherapy (OR = 0.08, 95%CI:[0.03, 0.19]) or chemotherapy (OR = 0.05, 95%CI:[0.03, 0.11]). Similar incidence trend could also be seen for the incidence risk of grade 3-5 peripheral neuropathy. When PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were used in combination with chemotherapy, the incidence risk of peripheral neuropathy was higher than in the control chemotherapy group, whether it was all-grade (OR = 1.22, 95%CI:[1.00, 1.49]) or grade 3-5 degree (OR = 1.74, 95%CI:[1.03, 2.92]). Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy, incidence risk of peripheral neuropathy related to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was significantly lower than that of the chemotherapy group, while PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor increased the incidence risk of peripheral neuropathy when it was combined with chemotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Si Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6736994 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Association Between the Incidence Risk of Peripheral Neuropathy and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in the Treatment for Solid Tumor Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Si Zhihua Z Zhang Shuisheng S Yang Xiaowei X Ding Nan N Xiang Meiyi M Zhu Qingshan Q Mao Yantao Y Lv Yajuan Y Yu Lili L Shang Heli H Xie Jian J Tian Yuan Y

Frontiers in oncology 20190904

Purpose: We conducted this study to determine the relationship between PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and the incidence risk of peripheral neuropathy in patients with solid tumors. Method: The process of the meta-analysis was performed by us according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Incidence of all-grade and grade 3-5 treatment-related peripheral neuropathy in patients with solid tumors were taken into account. Results: ...[more]

PMID: 31552184

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of studies have examined the ability of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) to function as a marker for tumor prognosis. However, whether PD-L1 expression is a prognostic factor for the poor outcomes in many human cancers remains controversial. This study aims to investigate the prognostic role of PD-L1 expression through a meta-analysis update of 60 studies.MethodsThe studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, and were assessed by further quality evaluation. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for total and stratified analyses were calculated to investigate the association between the PD-L1 expression and the overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) or progression-free survivals (PFS) of cancer patients. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also investigated.ResultsThe results indicated that PD-L1 overexpression can predict a poor OS (HR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.38-1.81, P <.000) and DFS/PFS (HR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.26-2.33, P = .001). Subgroup analyses showed that PD-L1 overexpression was significantly related to the poor OS in patients with breast (HR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.15-3.41, P = .014), urothelial (HR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.61-3.12, P <.000), renal (HR = 3.30, 95% CI = 2.23-4.86, P <.000), and gastric cancers (HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.02-2.37, P = .040). Furthermore, PD-L1 overexpresion was significantly associated with poor DFS/PFS in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (HR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.21-2.46, P = .003), melanoma (HR = 3.39, 95% CI = 2.02-5.69, P <.000), and renal carcinoma, (HR = 5.04, 95% CI = 2.87-8.86, P <.000). The adverse prognostic impact of PD-L1 was observed in patients of different ethnicities.ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-analysis suggest the correlation of PD-L1 overexpression with worse OS in patients with solid tumors. However, the correlations differed according to tumor types.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors as neoadjuvant therapy for malignant solid tumors.MethodsThis study has been registered with the number CRD42023407275 on PROSPERO. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases until March 17, 2023. In addition, manual searches were performed. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the utilization of neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for patients with solid malignancies. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (ROB1) were used. Risk ratios (RRs), hazared ratios (HRs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Stata17.0 MP and Review Manager 5.4 software.ResultsA total of 2780 records were identified, and ultimately 10 studies involving 273 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that the addition of CTLA-4 inhibitors to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors did not demonstrate a significant effect on overall response rate, main pathological response, pathological complete response, surgical resection, radical resection, overall survival, progression-free survival, recurrence-free survival, grade 3-4 adverse events, all-cause mortality, and completed treatment (P > 0.05). However, further subgroup analysis indicated that the combination of PD-1 with CTLA-4 inhibitors significantly increased the occurrence of grade 3-4 adverse events in patients (P < 0.05).ConclusionsAs neoadjuvant therapy for malignant solid tumors, the addition of CTLA-4 inhibitors to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors does not appear to enhance efficacy.Moreover, there is a potential increase in the risk of grade 3-4 adverse events associated with this combination. However, it is important to note that the studies included in this analysis suffer from limitations such as small samples and single-center designs, which are inherent constrains with the available published literature. Further research involving large-sample and multicenter RCTs are warranted to obtain more reliable results.

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

The Association Between the Incidence Risk of Peripheral Neuropathy and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in the Treatment for Solid Tumor Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

The Association Between the Incidence Risk of Peripheral Neuropathy and PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in the Treatment for Solid Tumor Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets