Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Cancer Patients With Preexisting Autoantibodies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors therapy is now a routine scheme in cancers. However, the effect of preexisting autoantibodies on the safety and efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer patients is not well understood.

Methods

The present retrospective cohort study evaluated the safety and efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with preexisting autoantibodies. Patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the Department of Medical Oncology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital between November 2017 and August 2021 were reviewed.

Results

67 (37.9%) of the 177 patients, 27 (20.3%) of the 133 patients, and 16 (11.0%) of 146 patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were positive for ANA, anti-Ro52, and antithyroid antibodies, respectively. Preexisting ANA and anti-Ro52 antibody were not associated with the increased risk of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), while thyroid dysfunction was more frequent in patients with positive antithyroid antibody (75.0% versus 13.8%, p < 0.001). The median progression-free survival (PFS, 13.1 versus 7.0 months, p = 0.015) was significantly longer in the ANA-positive patients, while the median overall survival (OS, 14.5 versus 21.8 months, p = 0.67) did not differ significantly between the ANA-positive and ANA-negative groups. Moreover, the preexisting anti-Ro52 and antithyroid antibodies were not significantly associated with PFS and OS.

Conclusions

The presence of ANA and anti-Ro52 antibody were not associated with a higher risk of irAEs, whereas patients positive for antithyroid antibody should monitor closely immune-related thyroid dysfunction. Preexisting ANA might be a predictor of longer PFS, while anti-Ro52 and antithyroid antibodies had no significant effect on survival outcomes in patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors therapy.

SUBMITTER: Tang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9148956 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Cancer Patients With Preexisting Autoantibodies.

Tang Hui H Geng Ruixuan R Xu Xiuxiu X Wang Yingyi Y Zhou Jiaxin J Zhang Shulan S Zhao Lin L Guan Mei M Bai Chunmei C

Frontiers in immunology 20220516

<h4>Background</h4>Programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors therapy is now a routine scheme in cancers. However, the effect of preexisting autoantibodies on the safety and efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer patients is not well understood.<h4>Methods</h4>The present retrospective cohort study evaluated the safety and efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with preexisting autoantibodies. Patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in ...[more]

PMID: 35651612

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the relative efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors versus conventional drugs in patients with cancer that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. DESIGN:Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, and conference abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology up to March 2018. REVIEW METHODS:Studies of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (avelumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) that had available hazard ratios for death based on PD-L1 positivity or negativity were included. The threshold for PD-L1 positivity or negativity was that PD-L1 stained cell accounted for 1% of tumour cells, or tumour and immune cells, assayed by immunohistochemistry staining methods. RESULTS:4174 patients with advanced or metastatic cancers from eight randomised controlled trials were included in this study. Compared with conventional agents, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with significantly prolonged overall survival in both patients that were PD-L1 positive (n=2254, hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.74) and PD-L1 negative (1920, 0.80, 0.71 to 0.90). However, the efficacies of PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade treatment in patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative were significantly different (P=0.02 for interaction). Additionally, in both patients that were PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative, the long term clinical benefits from PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade were observed consistently across interventional agent, cancer histotype, method of randomisation stratification, type of immunohistochemical scoring system, drug target, type of control group, and median follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS:PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy is a preferable treatment option over conventional therapy for both patients that are PD-L1 positive and PD-L1 negative. This finding suggests that PD-L1 expression status alone is insufficient in determining which patients should be offered PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade therapy.

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recommended as first-line treatment for late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. However, efficacy and safety comparisons between ICIs as monotherapy and ICIs with chemotherapy are lacking. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published before February 29th, 2020, with the search terms "immunotherapy" and "chemotherapy". 10 eligible trials were identified with a total of 5,956 patients. Of these patients, 3,204 received immune therapy and 2,752 received chemotherapy. PD-1 inhibitors with chemotherapy improved OS (HR 0.84, 0.77-0.92), PFS (HR 0.80, 0.75-0.85), and objective response rate (ORR) (odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 1.20-5.28) compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In contrast, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant differences in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitors as monotherapy. When patients were stratified according to PD-L1 expression level, patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%) receiving PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy had improved PFS, but not other outcomes, compared to PD-1 inhibitors as monotherapy. In these patients, PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy showed no significant difference in survival compared with PD-L1 inhibitors. In the low PD-L1 expression group (1%-49%), PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy improved OS and PFS, but no advantage was observed in PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy in OS, PFS, or ORR compared with PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy. When comparing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors monotherapy, no significant differences were observed in the rate of immune-related adverse events (AEs). In summary, for treating patients with late-stage NSCLC, PD-1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have improved efficacy compared with PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy, but PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy have similar efficacy as PD-L1 monotherapy. Survival benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy were particularly significant in patients with low PD-L1 expression levels.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42020166678 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=166678).

Project description:IntroductionThis meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1 inhibitors or PD-L1 inhibitors [PD-(L)1 inhibitors] for muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma (MIBC).Materials and methodsFour databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and 21 CENTRAL) were searched for articles studying neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors for MIBC. The search time period was from the establishment of each database to 21 July 2023. Meta-analyses of pCR, pPR, Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate, RFS, and OS were performed.ResultsIn total, 22 studies were included for meta-analysis. The overall pooled pCR of neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.36 (95%CI=0.30-0.42, p=0.00). In subgroup meta-analysis, the pooled PCR of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.27 (95%CI=0.19-0.35, p=0.1), 0.41 (95%CI=0.21-0.62, p=0.01), 0.43 (95%CI=0.35-0.50, p=0.06), respectively. The overall pooled pPR of neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.53 (95%CI=0.46-0.60, p=0.00). In subgroup meta-analysis, the pooled pPR of PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.36 (95%CI=0.22-0.51, p=0.01), 0.51 (95%CI=0.39-0.62, p=0.43), and 0.61 (95%CI=0.53-0.69, p=0.01), respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and RFS were reconstructed, but there was no significant difference among three groups in terms of OS or RFS. The pooled result of Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate for neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors was 0.15 (95%CI=0.09-0.22, p=0.00%). In subgroup analysis, the pooled result of Grade≥ 3 irAEs rate for PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI, and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy was 0.07 (95%CI=0.04-0.11, p=0.84), 0.31 (95%CI=0.16-0.47, p=0.06), and 0.17 (95%CI=0.06-0.31, I2 = 71.27%, p=0.01), respectively.ConclusionNeoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors were feasible and safe for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Compared with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone, PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus other ICI and PD-(L)1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy were associated with higher pCR and pPR, but higher Grade≥3 irAEs. Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and RFS indicated that neoadjuvant PD-(L)1 inhibitors had an acceptable long-term prognostic, but it was not possible to discern statistical differences between the three neoadjuvant subgroups.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023452437, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42023452437).

Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Cancer Patients With Preexisting Autoantibodies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Safety and Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Cancer Patients With Preexisting Autoantibodies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets