Dataset Information

Precise medicine of programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 inhibitor immunotherapy combined radiotherapy for inoperable advanced lung cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors are a group of immune checkpoint inhibitors immunotherapy for cancer treatment. These immune checkpoint inhibitors are becoming first-line treatments for several types of cancer. Radiotherapy for cancer is a traditional treatment and the therapeutic effect is not satisfactory due to the side effect of chemotherapeutic drugs. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy combined chemotherapy for inoperable advanced lung cancer.

Methods

We will utilize PubMed, PubMed Central, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, WAN FANG Database, and Web of Science to screen eligible studies published from January 1, 2015 to December 30, 2020. Two reviewers will extract data and evaluate the risk of bias independently. The quality of the included studies will be evaluated using the RevMan 5.3 software for data analysis.

Results

This review will summarize high-quality evidence of trials to evaluate the precise medicine efficacy and safety of PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor combined radiotherapy for inoperable advanced lung cancer.

Conclusions

The findings of the systematic review will provide scientific evidence of the efficacy and safety of PD1/PD-L1 inhibitor combined radiotherapy for inoperable advanced lung cancer to guide the clinician's drug use.

Ethics and dissemination

Not applicable.

Inplasy registration number

INPLASY202140123.

SUBMITTER: Liu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8213331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe clinical successes seen with anti-programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-[L]1) agents have galvanized the field of immuno-oncology. We evaluated the landscape and trends in immunotherapy trials involving the PD-(L)1 axis in intrathoracic tumors.MethodsWe identified clinical trials involving anti-PD-(L)1 agents on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry through November 13, 2020 for NSCLC, SCLC, mesothelioma, and thymic epithelial tumor. Clinical trials were indexed according to monotherapy versus combination approaches, PD-(L)1 agents under investigation, clinical settings, trial start date, and partner drug(s). We assessed redundancy among the clinical trials.ResultsWe found 686 clinical trials investigating anti-PD-(L)1 agents for intrathoracic tumors (540 trials in NSCLC, 96 in SCLC, 38 in mesothelioma, and 12 in thymic epithelial tumor). A total of 23 PD-(L)1 inhibitors are undergoing clinical development. A total of 81% of trials assess combination treatment. The number of clinical trials has been growing exponentially in the past decade. PD-(L)1 blockade was frequently combined with chemotherapy or immunomodulatory therapy. Various strategies are in development to overcome resistance to PD-(L)1 blockade in metastatic NSCLC. PD-(L)1 blockade is also increasingly evaluated in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of an anti-PD-(L)1 agent for a specific indication, 14 trials were launched thereafter, which continued to randomize patients to treatments that were inferior to the best available therapy.ConclusionsThe number of clinical trials investigating anti-PD-(L)1 agents in intrathoracic tumors has experienced a steep increase over the past decade with a notable upward trend for combination trials. To reduce duplicative research efforts and accelerate the development of effective immunotherapeutics, improved coordination among key stakeholders and the adoption of innovative trial designs will be vital.

Project description:ImportanceImmune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1) have led to a paradigm shift in cancer treatment. Understanding the clinical efficacy and safety profile of these drugs is necessary for treatment strategy in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo assess the differences between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 regarding efficacy and safety shown in randomized clinical trials across various tumor types.Data sourcesSystematic searches of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase were conducted from January 1, 2000, to March 1, 2019. In addition, abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings were reviewed.Study selectionAll randomized clinical trials that compared anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 with standard treatment in patients with cancer were selected as candidates. Retrospective studies, single-arm phase 1/2 studies, and trials comparing anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 with other immunotherapies were excluded. Studies of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapy were screened and paired by the matching of clinical characteristics as mirror groups.Data extraction and synthesisThree investigators independently extracted data from each study following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guideline. Trial names, first author, year of publication, study design, National Clinical Trial identifier number, blinding status, study phase, pathologic characteristics, number of patients, patients' age and sex distribution, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, lines of treatment, study drugs, biomarker status, follow-up time, incidence of adverse events, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for overall survival and progression-free survival were extracted. A random-effects model was applied for data analysis.Main outcomes and measuresDifferences in OS between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 across different cancer types were assessed. An effect size was derived from each mirror group and then pooled across all groups using a random-effects model.ResultsNineteen randomized clinical trials involving 11 379 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, anti-PD-1 exhibited superior overall survival (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86; P < .001) and progression-free survival (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96; P = .02) compared with anti-PD-L1. No significant difference was observed in their safety profiles. Sensitivity analysis presented consistency in the overall estimates across these analyses. Consistent results were observed through frequentist and bayesian approaches with the same studies.Conclusions and relevanceComprehensive analysis suggests that anti-PD-1 exhibited favorable survival outcomes and a safety profile comparable to that of anti-PD-L1, which may provide a useful guide for clinicians.

Project description:IntroductionProgrammed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) signaling blockade is the most effective strategy for the treatment of immune evading hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While immune checkpoint inhibitor has revolutionized the concept of cancer treatment, it has also led to unexpected tumor growth. Regulatory T cells express PD-1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) receptors, which are proliferated and activated by antibody binding, and their ratio to CD8+ T cells is altered, which is one of the causes for hyper progressive disease (HPD). We examined the frequency of HPD in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and combination therapy with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies.MethodsThis was a prospective and retrospective cohort study which enrolled 198 patients with unresectable HCC from January 2015 to December 2021 at the Kindai University Hospital. Fifty-eight patients received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, 119 patients combination with VEGF antibody, and 21 patients combination with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. We defined HPD as tumor growth rate (TGR) ratio ≥4, ΔTGR ≥40%, and tumor growth kinetics ratio ≥4.ResultsThe HPD rate was 10.3% (6/58) in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, 1.7% (2/119) in combination with VEGF antibody, and 4.8% (1/21) in combination with anti-CTLA-4 antibody (p = 0.034). The odds ratio for HPD in the combined anti-CTLA-4 antibody group was 0.433 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-3.83) when compared to the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy group and 2.93 (95% CI: 0.25-33.79) when compared to the combined VEGF antibody group.ConclusionThe frequency of HPD in unresectable HCC compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was decreased with the combination with anti-VEGF antibody and not increased with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 antibody is now available in real-world and needs to be further validated with accumulated clinical practice.