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 We will also search the unpublished clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in esophageal cancer in preprint website (such as bioRXiv and medRxiv) up to July, 2021.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:Esophageal cancer (EC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, especially in China. Despite therapeutic advances, the 5-year survival rate of EC is still dismal. For patients with resectable disease, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in combination with esophagectomy is the mainstay of treatment. However, the pathological complete response (pCR) rate to nCRT of 29.2% to 43.2% is not satisfactory, and approximately half of the patients will develop either a locoregional recurrence or distant metastasis. It is, therefore, necessary to explore novel and effective treatment strategies to improve the clinical efficacy of treatment. Immunotherapy utilizing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has significantly changed the treatment paradigm for a wide variety of advanced cancers, including EC. More recently, increasing clinical evidence has demonstrated that neoadjuvant immunotherapy can potentially improve the survival of patients with resectable cancers. Furthermore, accumulating findings support the idea that chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy can activate the immune system through a variety of mechanisms, so a combination of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy with immunotherapy can have a synergistic antitumor effect. Therefore, it is reasonable to evaluate the role of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with surgically resectable EC. In this review, we discuss the rationale for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with EC, summarize the current results of utilizing this strategy, review the planned and ongoing studies, and highlight the challenges and future research needs.
| S-EPMC9773255 | biostudies-literature
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:Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy with or without radiotherapy [NIC(R)T] compared to traditional neoadjuvant therapies, without immunotherapy [NC(R)T]. Summary background data NCRT followed by surgical resection is recommended for patients with early-stage esophageal cancer. However, it is uncertain whether adding immunotherapy to preoperative neoadjuvant therapy would improve patient outcomes when radical surgery is performed following neoadjuvant therapy. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases, as well as international conference abstracts. Outcomes included R0, pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (mPR), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates. Results We included data from 5,034 patients from 86 studies published between 2019 and 2022. We found no significant differences between NICRT and NCRT in pCR or mPR rates. Both were better than NICT, with NCT showing the lowest response rate. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has a significant advantage over traditional neoadjuvant therapy in terms of 1-year OS and DFS, with NICT having better outcomes than any of the other three treatments. There were no significant differences among the four neoadjuvant treatments in terms of R0 rates. Conclusions Among the four neoadjuvant treatment modalities, NICRT and NCRT had the highest pCR and mPR rates. There were no significant differences in the R0 rates among the four treatments. Adding immunotherapy to neoadjuvant therapy improved 1-year OS and DFS, with NICT having the highest rates compared to the other three modalities. Systematic Review Registration https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-12-0060/, identifier INPLASY2022120060.
| S-EPMC10213267 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11231810 | biostudies-literature
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:ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical curative effects and toxicity of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable gastric cancer compared to those of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy were performed in patients with resectable gastric cancer.ResultsSeven RCTs were included (601 patients; 302 in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and 299 in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group). The neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group had an increased number of patients with a complete response [odds ratio (OR) = 3.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.68-8.54, p = 0.001] and improved objective response rate (OR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.69-4.57, p < 0.0001), 1-year (OR = 3.51, 95% CI: 1.40-8.81, p = 0.007) and 3-year (OR = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.30-3.50, p = 0.003) survival rates, R0 resection rate (OR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.39-3.50, p = 0.0008), and complete pathologic response (OR = 4.39, 95% CI: 1.59-12.14, p = 0.004). Regarding the incidence of adverse effects after neoadjuvant therapy, only the occurrence rate of gastrointestinal reaction in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group was higher than that in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.09-2.85, p = 0.02), and there was no significant difference in other adverse effects. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups.ConclusionNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable gastric cancer has several advantages in terms of efficacy and safety compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has great potential as an effective therapy for resectable gastric cancers.Systematic review registrationhttps://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-3-0164, registration number INPLASY202230164.
| S-EPMC9388908 | biostudies-literature