Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Immunotherapy for Cervical Cancer-A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To systematically review the current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for cervical cancer (CC).

Material and methods

Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched for prospective trials assessing immunotherapy in CC patients in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Full-text articles in English and German reporting outcomes of survival, response rates or safety were eligible.

Results

Of 4655 screened studies, 51 were included (immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) n=20; therapeutic vaccines n = 25; adoptive cell transfer therapy n=9). Of these, one qualified as a phase III randomized controlled trial and demonstrated increased overall survival following treatment with pembrolizumab, chemotherapy and bevacizumab. A minority of studies included a control group (n = 7) or more than 50 patients (n = 15). Overall, response rates were low to moderate. No response to ICIs was seen in PD-L1 negative patients. However, few remarkable results were achieved in heavily pretreated patients. There were no safety concerns in any of the included studies.

Conclusion

Strong evidence on the efficacy of strategies to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer is currently limited to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, which substantiates an urgent need for large confirmatory trials on alternative immunotherapies. Overall, there is sound evidence on the safety of immunotherapy in CC.

SUBMITTER: Schmidt MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8773848 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Backgroud and objectiveNerve-sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) may be associated with lower postoperative morbidity than radical hysterectomy (RH). We aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH and RH for treating cervical cancer through systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched for all relevant studies. Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed to compare intra- and postoperative outcomes for the two techniques.ResultsA total of 17 clinical trials were identified. Meta-analysis showed that although operating time was significantly longer for abdominal or laparoscopic NSRH than for RH, NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy proved more effective for postoperative recovery of bladder function. NSRH was also associated with lower bladder dysfunction morbidity and fewer postoperative complications. Two abdominal trials and one laparoscopic study further suggested that NSRH was associated with shorter time to recovery of anal/rectal function. In contrast, RH and NSRH based on laparotomy or laparoscopy were similar in terms of extent of resection, recurrence rate, survival rate, blood loss and frequency of intraoperative complications. The meta-analysis showed that abdominal NSRH was not significantly different from RH in length of hospital stay, while one trial suggested that length of hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic NSRH than after the corresponding RH.ConclusionNSRH may be a reliable technique for treating early cervical cancer. Available evidence suggests that it is better than RH for postoperative recovery of pelvic organ function and postoperative morbidity, while the two techniques involve similar clinical safety and extent of resection. These results should be considered preliminary since they are based on a relatively small number of controlled trials, most of which were non-randomized. The findings should be verified in larger, well-designed studies.

Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about Ezetimibe's efficacy on patient-oriented outcomes have given discordant results. The aim of this study was to determine the net effect of Ezetimibe and of the widely marketed combination, Ezetimibe+simvastatin, on mortality and morbidity outcomes.We searched for RCT on Ezetimibe using MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to December 2013, Merck and Novartis online registers, and personal communications. Two authors independently selected trials fulfilling these criteria: RCTs comparing Ezetimibe±statin or another lipid-lowering drug against placebo, or against the same lipid-lowering drug at the same dosage, with a follow-up at least 24 weeks and one or more of these outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cancer, serious adverse events (SAEs); we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane checklist. We extracted the data for major clinical events as a dichotomous measure, with the patient the unit of analysis. Pooled analysis was done with random and fixed effect based models. Trials comparing Ezetimibe plus a lipid-lowering drug against the same lipidlowering drug representing the net effect of Ezetimibe, showed a nonsignificant tendency toward damage for cancer, MI, stroke and SAEs. Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. simvastatin alone showed a stronger tendency towards a higher risk for all-cause death (2.52; 0.65-9.74), CV death (3.04; 0.48-19.21), non-CV death (3.03; 0.12-73.50), MI (1.91; 0.42-8.70), stroke (2.38; 0.46-12.35), cancer (RR 11.11; 0.62-198.29), and SAEs (1.45; 0.95-2.23). Limitations include small numbers of events and inadequate power of the pooling. Trials comparing Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo showed non-significant effects: MI (0.81; 0.66-1.00 p = 0.051), all-cause death (1.02; 0.95-1.09), CV death (0.91; 0.80-1.04), non-CV death (108; 0.99-1.18), stroke (0.86; 0.72-1.04), cancer (1.18; 0.80-1.74), SAEs (1.01; 0.96-1.06).Ezetimibe±simvastatin had inconsistent effects on important outcomes. No firm conclusions are possible, but findings indicative of damage suggest much more selective use of Ezetimibe±simvastatin.