Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer: A protocol of meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Esophageal cancer is a highly malignant cancer with a very poor prognosis. For resectable esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant treatment could improve the prognosis of esophageal cancer. However, current clinical neoadjuvant treatment options for esophageal cancer are still limited. The application of immunotherapy is a potentially beneficial new neoadjuvant treatment option for esophageal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer.Methods
We will search Wanfang Database, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Embase, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published before July, 2021. We will also search the unpublished clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in esophageal cancer in preprint website (such as bioRXiv and medRxiv) up to July, 2021. We will perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be included in this study. The risk of bias will be evaluated for each included study using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We will use RevMan 5.3 software for statistical analysis of the data.Results
The results of this study will provide evidence of immunotherapy using as neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. This meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal seeking for publication.Conclusion
The results of this study will provide a reliable basis for clinicians and patients to formulate the best pre-surgical treatment plan for resectable esophageal cancer.Systematic review registration
INPLASY202120026.
SUBMITTER: Yu G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177427 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The efficacy of surgery alone for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) is still unsatisfactory. Presently, induction therapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment. Preoperative chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiation (CRT) are proven effective induction therapies; however, few sample studies have addressed these treatments, thus, their superiority remains uncertain. We performed a systemic review and meta analysis to test the hypothesis that induction CRT prior to surgery could improve survival compared with induction CT alone.A comprehensive search of PubMed and the Ovid database for relevant studies comparing EC patients undergoing resection after treatment with induction CT alone or induction CRT was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were extracted from these studies to provide pooled estimates of the effect of induction therapy on overall survival.Five studies met the criteria for analysis. Statistical analysis demonstrated a survival benefit of induction CRT compared with induction CT alone (HR0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = 0.002). Further analysis showed that induction CRT perioperative mortality and complication rates were higher than for induction CT alone (HR 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.37; HR1.6, 95% CI 1.30-1.98; P = 0.01, respectively).Published evidence comparing the different efficacies of induction CT and induction CRT is sparse, with few samples of adenocarcinoma. This analysis supports the view that, compared with induction CT, induction CRT could achieve a long-term survival benefit in EC patients.
| S-EPMC4773296 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCarcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced.MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios.ResultsThirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate.- Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials).- Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials).- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery.- Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy.ConclusionFor adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.
| S-EPMC529457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeImmunotherapy has created a paradigm shift in the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), overcoming the therapeutic plateau previously achieved by systemic chemotherapy. There is growing interest in the utility of immunotherapy for patients with resectable NSCLC in the neoadjuvant setting. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide an overview of the existing evidence, with a focus on pathological and radiological response, perioperative clinical outcomes, and long-term survival.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using electronic databases from their dates of inception to August 2021. Pooled data on pathological response, radiological response, and perioperative outcomes were meta-analyzed where possible.ResultsEighteen publications from sixteen studies were identified, involving 548 enrolled patients who underwent neoadjuvant immunotherapy, of whom 507 underwent surgery. Pathologically, 52% achieved a major pathological response, 24% a complete pathological response, and 20% reported a complete pathological response of both the primary lesion as well as the sampled lymph nodes. Radiologically, 84% of patients had stable disease or partial response. Mortality within 30 days was 0.6%, and morbidities were reported according to grade and frequency.ConclusionThe present meta-analysis demonstrated that neoadjuvant immunotherapy was feasible and safe based on perioperative clinical data and completion rates of surgery within their intended timeframe. The pathological response after neoadjuvant immunotherapy was superior to historical data for patients who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, whilst surgical and treatment-related adverse events were comparable. The limitations of the study included the heterogenous treatment regimens, lack of long-term follow-up, variations in the reporting of potential prognostic factors, and potential publication bias.
| S-EPMC8628782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although the only curative strategy for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection, up to 85% of patients relapse after surgery. The efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) remains unclear and there is no systematic review focusing fully on this issue. Recently, two prospective trials of neoadjuvant treatment in RPC were terminated early because of slow recruiting and existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have too small sample sizes. Therefore, to overcome probable biases, it would be more reasonable to include both RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRSs) with selected criteria. This review aims to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) and chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in RPC using RCTs and specific NRSs. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:This systematic review will include conventional RCTs as group I, and quasi-randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies as group II. Two groups will be assessed and analysed separately. Comprehensive literature search will use Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Scopus databases. Additionally, we will search references from relevant studies and abstracts from major conferences. Two authors will independently identify, screen, include studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus with another author. An independent methodologist will categorise and assess NRSs to minimise heterogeneity. In each study group, meta-analysis will be conducted using a random-effect model and statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using I(2)-statistics. Publication bias will be visualised with contour-enhanced funnel plots and analysed with Egger's test. In group I, cumulative meta-analysis will be considered because the CTx regimen and CRT protocol have changed. The quality of evidence will be summarised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This review does not use primary data, and formal ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015023820.
| S-EPMC4809107 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant combination immunotherapy is changing the treatment landscape for patients with cancer. Exploring the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in relation to this novel approach may provide valuable insights for future clinical investigations.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) websites were searched for all relevant literature from their inception to November 24, 2023. We then extracted the required data from the included studies and used the R software to analyze the pooled incidence of irAEs. Subgroup analyses examined the pooled incidence of irAEs according to cancer and combination types using a random-effects model.ResultsSixteen studies involving 501 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Considering the heterogeneity of the study design, we analyzed the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and the single-arm studies separately. In RCTs, the incidence of any-grade irAEs was 95.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87.3-99.3) and that of grade ≥3 irAEs was 24.0% (95% CI 13.7-36.0). In single-arm studies, the incidence of any-grade irAEs was 89.4% (95% CI 75.0-98.0) and grade ≥3 irAEs was 20.3% (95% CI 8.7-35.2). In both RCTs and single arms, the most common any- grade irAEs were rash and fatigue, while the most common grade ≥3 irAEs was abnormal liver function and colitis. Due to irAEs, 9.4% of patients in RCTs and 6.9% of patients in single-arm studies did not complete the prescribed neoadjuvant treatment cycle.ConclusionThis study comprehensively summarized the incidence of irAEs in neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy. The occurrence of irAEs varies depending on the cancer and combination types. Our meta-analysis provides clinicians with essential guidance for the management of patients with cancer.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023387969.
| S-EPMC10796654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt remains uncertain whether neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor (nICI) is superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. In addition, there are outstanding questions for nICI such as the ideal treatment mode and predictors.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and scientific meetings were searched for eligible single-arm or multi-arm trials until 31 December 2021. The primary outcomes of interest were major pathological response (MPR) and pathological complete response (pCR). The random-effect model was used for statistical analysis.ResultsTwenty-four trials of nICI (n = 1,043) and 29 trials of nCT (n = 2,337) were identified. nICI combination therapy was associated with higher MPR (63.2%, 95% CI: 54.2%-72.1%) and pCR (35.3%, 95% CI: 27.4%-43.3%) rates compared to nCT (16.2%, 95% CI: 7.5%-25.0%, P < 0.001 and 5.5%, 95% CI: 3.5%-7.5%, P < 0.001) and nICI monotherapy (23.3%, 95% CI: 12.7%-33.8%, P < 0.001, and 6.5%, 95% CI: 1.7%-11.2%, P < 0.001). As for safety, nICI monotherapy had the best tolerability; nICI combination showed a similar surgical resection rate and higher R0 resection rate compared to nCT. PD-1 inhibitor and high PD-L1 expression (≥1% or ≥50%) were correlated with higher MPR and pCR rates compared to PD-L1 inhibitor and PD-L1 expression <1%.ConclusionsnICI combination therapy is associated with higher MPR and pCR rates compared to nCT and nICI monotherapy. PD-1 inhibitor seems to be superior to PD-L1 inhibitor. PD-L1 status appears to be predictive of MPR and pCR for patients receiving nICI.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=278661, CRD42021278661.
| S-EPMC9533019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Different neoadjuvant therapy regimens are available for rectal cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. The aim of the present network meta-analysis (NMA) was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies for resectable rectal cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for publications dated from 1946 up to June 2018. The present study included randomized clinical trials that compared treatments for resected rectal cancer: Surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Direct pairwise comparisons and NMA were conducted. A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. RT had an overall survival (OS) benefit when compared with surgery alone [HR (hazard ratio), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.97; quality of evidence, high]. All three neoadjuvant regimens were associated with lower local recurrence (LR) when compared with surgery alone [RT: odds ratio (OR), 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.65; quality of evidence, high; CRT: OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.56; quality of evidence, low and CT: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-1.00; quality of evidence, low]. There were no significant differences in OS and LR between CRT and RT (OS: OR, 1.10); 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; LR: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.10). Ranking probabilities indicated that CRT was the best strategy for local control, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of 78.78%. Patients treated with RT had improved disease-free survival compared with those treated with surgery alone (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; quality of evidence, low). Neoadjuvant RT or CRT did not significantly improve distant metastases compared with surgery alone (RT: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.10 and CRT: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.47-1.10). CRT had an improved pathological complete response rate compared with RT (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 21.80-17.00; quality of evidence, low). No significant difference for the risk of anastomotic leak between each treatment was observed in the NMA. In conclusion, RT decreased the LR and improved OS compared with surgery alone for resected rectal cancer. CRT was the best neoadjuvant therapy analyzed and CT was likely the second best for all outcomes based on SUCRA. However, these findings were limited by overall low quality of evidence.
| S-EPMC7086160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung cancer is the malignant tumor with the highest morbidity and mortality in the world. In recent ten years, with the emergence of new drugs and the optimization of treatment mode, the treatment of lung cancer is entering an era of precision and individualization. Neoadjuvant therapy can reduce tumor size, degrade tumor stage, kill circulating tumor cells and micrometastases in the body, afford operation possibility, and benefit the long-term survival of patients. However, the traditional neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with surgical treatment seems to have entered the bottleneck period of efficacy and is difficult to achieve breakthrough progress. At the same time, the amazing efficacy of immunotherapy is gradually innovating the treatment mode of lung cancer. In recent years, the research data of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) shows an explosive growth. Immunotherapy has been applied to the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Therefore, some clinical trials have applied immunotherapy to neoadjuvant treatment of resectable NSCLC patients. In this paper, the efficacy, possible mechanisms, potential risks and existing problems of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable NSCLC patients are reviewed, and the future development direction of neoadjuvant immunotherapy is discussed.
| S-EPMC8263648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) versus surgery first (SF) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A random-effects meta-analysis of only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NT versus SF for potentially resectable (PR) or borderline resectable (BR) PDAC was performed. Among six RCTs including 850 patients, 411 (48.3%) received NT and 439 (51.6%) SF. In all included trials, NT was gemcitabine-based: four using chemoradiation and two chemotherapy alone. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, NT resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared to SF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.86). This effect was independent of anatomic classification (PR: hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91; BR: HR 0.51 95% CI 0.28-0.93) or NT type (chemoradiation: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.98; chemotherapy alone: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.87). Overall resection rate was similar (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.82-1.04, I2 = 39.0%) but NT increased the likelihood of a margin-negative (R0) resection (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.18-1.93, I2 = 0%) and having negative lymph nodes (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.47-2.91, I2 = 12.3%). In this meta-analysis of prospective RCTs, NT significantly improved OS in an intention-to-treat fashion, compared with SF for localized PDAC. Randomized controlled trials using contemporary multi-agent chemotherapy will be needed to confirm these findings and to define the optimal NT regimen.
| S-EPMC7231310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) remains controversial in the treatment of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) carcinomas. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of Neoadjuvant CRT plus surgery comparing with neoadjuvant CT plus surgery or surgery alone. Feasible studies were searched from electronic databases. The outcomes of survival, R0 resection rate and adverse effects were analyzed. The outcomes were measured with relative risk (RR) and odds ratio(OR). Results: Seventeen records including 4095 patients were included. Neoadjuvant CRT improved 1-,2-,3-and 5-year survival. The relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI),P value] was respectively 1.08(1.03-1.14,0.002), 1.21(1.12-1.32,<0.00001),1.31(1.09-1.58,0.004),1.38(1.17-1.62, <0.001).In subgroup analysis, patients with squamous cell carcinoma benefited more survival advantage from neoadjuvant CRT than those with adenocarcinoma[1.23(1.15-1.33)vs1.11 (1.03-1.19)]. A significant advantage was observed in analysis of neoadjuvant CRT for PFS [1.32 (1.22-1.44),<0.00001]. Tests for DFS between neoadjuvant CRT and neoadjuvant CT or surgery alone were not statistically significant[1.06 (0.97-1.17,0.19)]. Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with higher R0 resection [2.58(1.75-3.82),<0.00001] and pCR rate [4.37(2.68-7.13),<0.00001]. Neoadjuvant CRT lowered the local recurrence rate [0.52(0.39-0.69),<0.00001] and didn't control distant metastasis rate[0.85(0.67-1.08),0.19].There was no evidence that neoadjuvant CRT increased the treatment-related mortality[1.27(0.95-1.71),0.11]. Neoadjuvant CRT plus surgery did not increase the risk of adverse events morbidity[1.14(0.99-1.32),0.08]. Conclusion: Patients with oesophagus or GOJ carcinomas can obtain a survival advantage from neoadjuvant CRT. The addition of radiation was efficacy and safe in range. However, these results need further high-quality prospective RCTs confirmation.
| S-EPMC6329872 | biostudies-other