Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Blockades in the Treatment of Ocular Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint blockade for the treatment of ocular melanoma.Methods
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2021. Effect sizes (ESs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare the outcomes. Efficacy outcomes included complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse event (SAEs).Results
A total of 16 eligible articles with 848 ocular melanoma patients were included. ICB treatment significantly improved CR (ES=0.02, 95%CI: 0.00-0.03, P=0.023), PR (ES=0.07, 95%CI: 0.05-0.09, P=0.000), SD (ES=0.31, 95%CI: 0.17-0.46, P=0.000), PD (ES=0.69, 95%CI: 0.61-0.77, P=0.000), ORR (ES=0.10, 95%CI: 0.04-0.15, P=0.000), OS (ES=9.68, 95%CI: 7.28-12.07, P=0.000) and PFS (ES=2.88, 95%CI: 2.69-3.07, P=0.000) in patients with ocular melanoma. Moreover, ICB therapies were associated with reduced AEs (ES=0.48, 95%CI: 0.30-0.67, P=0.000) and SAEs (ES=0.31, 95%CI: 0.18-0.45, P=0.000).Conclusions
ICB therapy showed good efficacy and safety in treating patients with ocular melanoma.
SUBMITTER: Zhao L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685375 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Currently, nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used immune checkpoint inhibitors. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy in cancer treatment. METHODS:We examined data from PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library. Eleven articles fulfilled our criteria, which we divided into 3 groups: nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3?mg/kg), nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab (the dose used for monotherapy is 3?mg/kg), and nivolumab 1?mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3?mg/kg (N1I3) versus nivolumab 3?mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1?mg/kg (N3I1). We measured the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR), and TRAEs in any grade and grade 3 or higher. RESULTS:The overall effect estimate favored the combined immunotherapy group in terms of the ORR (RR: 1.40, p < 0.001) and PR (RR: 1.50, p < 0.001) than nivolumab alone. Compared with ipilimumab alone, the combined immunotherapy group had better CR (RR: 4.89, p < 0.001), PR (RR: 2.75, p < 0.001), and ORR (RR: 3.31, p < 0.001). Finally, N1I3 showed better PR (RR: 1.35, p = 0.006) and ORR (RR: 1.21, p = 0.03) than N3I1. The incidence of any TRAEs was similar between both groups (RR: 1.05, p = 0.06). However, the incidence of serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) was lower in group N3I1 than group N1I3 (RR: 1.51, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis showed that the curative effect of nivolumab plus ipilimumab was better than that of nivolumab or ipilimumab monotherapy. In the combined immunotherapy group, N1I3 was more effective than N3I1. Although the side effects were slightly increased in N1I3 group, overall safety was acceptable.
| S-EPMC7334852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment paradigm of many cancers, however, its effectiveness in prostate cancer patients is still under question. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought for assessing the efficacy and safety of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with prostate cancer. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched on Aguste 19, 2022. Thirty five studies met the eligibility criteria. The median overall survival (mOS) of all treatments was 14.1 months, with the longest and shortest mOS was seen among patients who received anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1+anti-CTLA-4 regimen at 24.9 and 9.2 months, respectively. Noteworthy, all types of adverse events had the lowest incidence in the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy group. Considering the ICI monotherapy regimens, we found that fatigue, diarrhea, and infusion reaction had the highest incidence rates. Future studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of novel combination therapies with ICIs are warranted.
| S-EPMC10644317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immune checkpoint blockades including monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), programmed death-1 (PD-1), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have been emerged as a promising anticancer therapy. Several immune checkpoint blockades have been approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and have shown notable success in clinical trials for patients with advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer. Radiotherapy is a promising combination partner of immune checkpoint blockades due to its potent pro-immune effect. This review will cover the current issue and the future perspectives for combined with radiotherapy and immune checkpoint blockades based upon the available preclinical and clinical data.
| S-EPMC5207372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The value of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapy for patients with lung cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis using PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that might provide a reference for clinical practice. The selection criteria were defined according to the population, intervention, comparison, outcome and study design (PICOS) framework. In all, 12 RCTs with 5,989 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Our results showed that ICI combination therapy was significantly associated with the improvement of overall response rate (ORR) (RR =1.44 [95% CI 1.19, 1.74], P=0.0002), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR =0.67 [95% CI 0.59, 0.77], P<0.00001), and OS (HR =0.81 [95% CI 0.70, 0.95], P=0.008) in lung cancer. In subgroup analyses, combination ICI therapy significantly prolonged OS in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (HR =0.80 [95% CI 0.73, 0.88], P<0.00001) but not in SCLC (HR =0.94 [95% CI 0.82, 1.08], P=0.40) patients. Data suggested that PD-1 inhibitors had higher efficacy and safety profiles than PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors in combination ICI therapy for lung cancer patients. Furthermore, tolerability analysis revealed higher incidences of grade ?3 AEs, fatigue, and increased transaminases from combination ICI therapy. In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicated that combination ICI therapy should be considered in clinical practice and future study designs for NSCLC patients. However, the current data do not support the large-scale clinical application of combination ICI therapy in SCLC patients.
| S-EPMC6204847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immune checkpoint blockades (ICBs) have revolutionized cancer therapy by inducing durable clinical responses, but only a small percentage of patients can benefit from ICB treatments. Many studies have established various biomarkers to predict ICB responses. However, different biomarkers were found with diverse performances in practice, and a timely and unbiased assessment has yet to be conducted due to the complexity of ICB-related studies and trials. In this study, we manually curated 29 published datasets with matched transcriptome and clinical data from more than 1400 patients, and uniformly preprocessed these datasets for further analyses. In addition, we collected 39 sets of transcriptomic biomarkers, and based on the nature of the corresponding computational methods, we categorized them into the gene-set-like group (with the self-contained design and the competitive design, respectively) and the deconvolution-like group. Next, we investigated the correlations and patterns of these biomarkers and utilized a standardized workflow to systematically evaluate their performance in predicting ICB responses and survival statuses across different datasets, cancer types, antibodies, biopsy times, and combinatory treatments. In our benchmark, most biomarkers showed poor performance in terms of stability and robustness across different datasets. Two scores (TIDE and CYT) had a competitive performance for ICB response prediction, and two others (PASS-ON and EIGS_ssGSEA) showed the best association with clinical outcome. Finally, we developed ICB-Portal to host the datasets, biomarkers, and benchmark results and to implement the computational methods for researchers to test their custom biomarkers. Our work provided valuable resources and a one-stop solution to facilitate ICB-related research.
| S-EPMC10452274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have evolved for the treatment of solid tumors. In addition to the efficacy of ICIs for cancer, the adverse events (AEs) of ICIs are also noteworthy for gradually more extensive clinical use. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the treatment-related AEs that occurred in clinical trials using different kinds of ICIs, to explore the differences in AEs among ICIs for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma, and to compare select immune-related AEs. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other available sources were systematically searched for published reports up to January 1, 2019. Two reviewers independently selected reports about phase II/III randomized controlled trials to compare among ICIs and between ICIs and chemotherapy. After the bias assessment of all included trials, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were any-grade and high-grade treatment-related AEs from all ICIs. The secondary outcomes were AEs in patients with NSCLC and melanoma and the presence of the select AEs pneumonitis/pneumonia and colitis. Results: Eighteen randomized controlled trials containing 11,223 patients with NSCLC or melanoma were included. A total network meta-analysis was conducted. The meta-analysis showed that atezolizumab 1,200 mg and pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks were generally more tolerable than other ICIs. ICI combined with chemotherapy might suggest a higher risk of treatment-related AEs than monotherapy with a single ICI, except durvalumab and ipilimumab. In the NSCLC subgroup, pembrolizumab was associated with a higher risk of high-grade AEs than nivolumab. In addition, ICIs (nivolumab, atezolizumab, and avelumab) led to a lower risk of any/high-grade treatment-related AEs than traditional chemotherapy and ICI combination chemotherapy. However, ICIs did not present preferable safety and tolerability compared to chemotherapy in treating melanoma. Compared with chemotherapy, nivolumab, durvalumab, two ICIs, and ICI combined chemotherapy led to more pneumonitis/pneumonia. However, when treating NSCLC, different types of ICIs did not differ significantly regarding the incidence of pneumonitis/pneumonia. A combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab had the highest risk for colitis, while pembrolizumab and atezolizumab had a lower possibility than the other ICIs. Conclusion: Atezolizumab 1,200 mg and pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks were ordinarily safer than other ICIs. When treating NSCLC, nivolumab had the lowest risk; when treating melanoma, pembrolizumab had the lowest toxicity.
| S-EPMC6821878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to compare and rank the effects of 9 immune checkpoint inhibitor-related therapies for treating advanced melanoma.We searched Pubmed, Cochrane databases, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials of the immune checkpoint inhibitor-related treatments for advanced melanoma. Analysis was done on a Bayesian framework.Twelve trials including 5413 patients were identified. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab were significantly more efficacious for progression-free survival (PFS) than ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38, 0.50, and 0.58, respectively), ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (0.45, 0.60, and 0.70, respectively), or ipilimumab plus sargramostim (0.44, 0.57, and 0.67, respectively). Ipilimumab plus gp100 was significantly less efficacious for PFS than the remaining eight immune checkpoint inhibitor-related strategies. Pembrolizumab was significantly more efficacious than ipilimumab and ipilimumab plus gp100 (HR, 0.66, and 0.64, respectively) in improving overall survival (OS). Nivolumab significantly improved OS over tremelimumab (HR, 0.48). Ipilimumab plus sargramostim was ranked the second most effective strategy in terms of OS and well tolerated. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab showed the best profile of acceptability, with significantly less high-grade adverse events than ipilimumab (odds ratio [OR], 0.49 and 0.50, respectively), tremelimumab (0.21 and 0.21, respectively), ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (0.13 and 0.13, respectively), or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (0.15 and 0.15, respectively).Nivolumab, pembrolizumab and ipilimumab plus sargramostim might be optimum treatments for advanced melanoma because they have the most favorable balance between benefits and acceptability. Ipilimumab plus nivolumab is the most effective in prolonging PFS, but is far more toxic than nivolumab and pembrolizumab.
| S-EPMC5663542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have yielded conflicting results in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The overall effect of ICIs compared with standard therapies in unresectable HCC requires more research.ObjectiveTo estimate the efficacy and safety associated with ICIs compared with standard therapies in patients with unresectable HCC.Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology meeting proceedings were systematically searched. Reference lists from studies selected by electronic searching were manually searched to identify additional relevant studies. The search included literature published or presented from February 2010 to February 2020.Study selectionFrom December 2019 to February 2020, independent reviewers evaluated each database, scanning the title, abstract, and keywords of every record retrieved. Full articles were further assessed if the information given suggested that the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing ICIs vs standard therapies in the treatment of unresectable HCC.Data extraction and synthesisThe full text of the resulting studies and extracted data were reviewed independently according to PRISMA guidelines. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated by a random-effects model. The likelihood of ICIs being associated with overall response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was expressed by odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were OS, PFS, ORR, and TRAEs.ResultsOf 1836 studies yielded by the search, 3 were retained, totaling 1657 patients (985 treated with ICIs vs 672 receiving standard treatment). Two studies evaluated ICIs as monotherapy, and 1 study investigated the combination of ICIs with bevacizumab. Compared with standard therapies (sorafenib in first-line therapy or placebo in second-line therapy), ICIs were associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92; P = .006), PFS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.97; P = .03), and ORR (OR, 2.82; 95% CI 2.02-3.93; P < .001). The probability of grade 3 or 4 TRAEs was lower with ICIs than with sorafenib (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.96; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThis meta-analysis found superior efficacy and safety associated with ICIs compared with standard therapies and highlights the survival benefit associated with the combination of antiangiogenic therapy with ICIs in first-line systemic therapy of unresectable HCC.
| S-EPMC8649834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018.Review methodsOnly head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group.Results36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15?370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer.ConclusionsCompared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017082553.
| S-EPMC6222274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immunotherapy can be used for cutaneous, mucosal, uveal and conjunctival melanoma. Nevertheless, we cannot expect the same benefit from checkpoint inhibitors for all the types of melanoma. The different biological features can explain the variable efficacy. The main results obtained with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the various types of melanoma were reviewed.
| S-EPMC7872095 | biostudies-literature