Dataset Information

Checkpoint inhibitors for malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Rates of malignant melanoma are continuing to increase, and until recently effective treatments were lacking. However, since 2011 three immunotherapeutic agents, known as checkpoint inhibitors, have been approved. This review aims to establish whether these three drugs - ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab - offer greater efficacy and tolerability compared to control interventions (placebo, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy) in patients with stage III or IV unresectable cutaneous melanoma.A search on four major medical and scientific databases yielded 7,553 records, of which seven met the inclusion criteria, with a total study population of 3,628. Only prospective Phase II or III randomized controlled trials on checkpoint inhibitors for patients with unresectable cutaneous melanoma that reported data on survival (overall or progression-free), tumor response, or adverse events were included. Three meta-analyses were carried out.The hazard ratio for progression or death was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.67), and the odds ratio for best overall response rate was 4.48 (95% CI: 2.77-7.24), both in favor of checkpoint inhibitors. However, control treatments were associated with an insignificantly lower rate of discontinuation of treatment due to adverse effects or treatment-related adverse events (odds ratio =1.63 [95% CI: 0.55-4.88]).This study finds that checkpoint inhibitors are more effective than control interventions, both in terms of survival and tumor response, and yet no less tolerable. PD1 therapies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) appear to offer greater efficacy than CTLA4 therapy (ipilimumab). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab was, however, the most effective, but significantly less tolerable than monotherapy. The lack of published clinical data does, however, limit this study. Further research is needed in two areas in particular: 1) to determine the optimal use of checkpoint inhibitors, specifically in terms of combination therapy, and 2) to identify reliable biomarkers to predictive responders and guide treatment assignment.

SUBMITTER: Karlsson AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5580705 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Checkpoint inhibitors for malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karlsson Adam K AK Saleh Sohag N SN

Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology 20170824

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Rates of malignant melanoma are continuing to increase, and until recently effective treatments were lacking. However, since 2011 three immunotherapeutic agents, known as checkpoint inhibitors, have been approved. This review aims to establish whether these three drugs - ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab - offer greater efficacy and tolerability compared to control interventions (placebo, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy) in patients with stage III or IV un ...[more]

PMID: 28883738

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAcral melanoma (AM) has different biological characteristics from cutaneous melanoma. Although systemic therapeutic strategies for advanced AM resemble those for advanced cutaneous melanoma, the evidence of the clinical use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for AM is still inadequate. We aimed to systematically analyze the therapeutic effects and safety profile of ICI treatments in advanced AM.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted in line with a previously registered protocol. Three electronic databases, conference abstracts, clinical trial registers, and reference lists of included articles were searched for eligible studies. The primary outcomes were therapeutic effects, and the secondary outcomes were the safety profiles.ResultsThis systematic review included six studies investigating anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy, 12 studies investigating anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, one study investigating the combination therapy of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1, and one study investigating anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in combination with radiotherapy. In most studies investigating ipilimumab, the anti-CTLA-4 antibody, the objective response rate ranged from 11.4 to 25%, the median progression-free survival ranged from 2.1 to 6.7 months, and the median overall survival was more than 7.16 months. For studies discussing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or JS001, the objective response rate ranged from 14 to 42.9%, the median progression-free survival ranged from 3.2 to 9.2 months, and the median overall survival was more than 14 months. The combination therapy of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy showed better efficacy with an objective response rate of 42.9% than single-agent therapy. The retrospective study investigating the combination therapy of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and radiation showed no overall response. Few outcomes regarding safety were reported in the included studies.ConclusionsICIs, especially anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies combined with anti-PD-1 antibodies, are effective systematic treatments in advanced AM. However, there remains a lack of high-level evidence to verify their efficacy and safety and support their clinical application.

Project description:ImportanceSince 2011, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been effective treatment options for advanced melanoma. Little is known about how risks of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) vary by ICIs.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of irAEs across different treatment regimens for advanced melanoma using network meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for all randomized clinical trial (RCT) articles published from January 1, 2010, through June 30, 2019.Study selectionStudies included phases 2 and 3 RCTs in the treatment of advanced melanoma that compared ICIs (ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) with chemotherapy drugs (eg, dacarbazine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel) or different ICI regimens.Data extraction and synthesisDifferent treatment regimens were compared using bayesian network meta-analysis with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation with noninformative prior distribution and random-effects generalized linear models.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of any irAEs (regardless of severity) and severe irAEs (grades 3-5). Based on the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrI), the probability of being associated with the lowest irAE risks was estimated for each treatment regimen.ResultsNine RCTs with 8 different treatment regimens for advanced melanoma and involving a total of 5051 patients were included. Overall, the 3 ICI treatment regimens associated with the lowest risk of any or severe irAEs were pembrolizumab, 2 mg/kg, every 3 weeks; nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks; and pembrolizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks. Compared with ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks, only nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, was associated with a decreased risk for any irAEs (OR, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.94). A decreased risk for severe irAEs was observed for ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, every 3 weeks (OR,?0.35; 95% CrI,?0.14-0.74); pembrolizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks (OR,?0.22; 95% CrI,?0.05-0.95) and 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (OR,?0.20; 95% CrI,?0.06-0.68); and nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks (OR,?0.20; 95% CrI,?0.07-0.48) compared with ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks. An increased risk for severe irAEs was associated with nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, every 3 weeks combined with ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, every 3 weeks compared with other ICI regimens (ORs ranging from?4.09 [95% CrI, 1.73-10.99] to 7.40 [95% CrI, 1.12-49.29]) except ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that for patients with advanced melanoma at high risk of irAEs, pembrolizumab, 2 mg/kg, every 3 weeks, nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks may be the preferred treatment regimens (with respect to irAE risks) among the ICI regimens reported, whereas ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks alone and nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, every 3 weeks combined with ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, every 3 weeks should be used with caution. A network analysis may be valuable for clinical decision-making when evidence from head-to-head comparisons is lacking.

Project description:Background: Multiple immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies have been widely used as adjuvant treatments for high-risk resected melanoma, with unclear comparative efficacy and safety. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception until 6 June 2023. We included RCTs that assess adjuvant ICIs or targeted therapies in high-risk resected melanoma. Frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results: Eleven trials including 10,712 patients and comparing 10 treatments (nivolumab [Nivo], ipilimumab 3 mg/kg [Ipi3], Ipi10, pembrolizumab [Pemb], vemurafenib [Vemu], bevacizumab [Beva], Nivo + Ipi1, Nivo + Ipi3, dabrafenib plus trametinib [Dab + Tram], and placebo/observation [Pla/Obs]) were included. NMA showed that all treatments showed RFS benefit over placebo/observation except Ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05). Combination therapy of Nivo + Ipi3 was the most effective treatment, which significantly improved RFS compared with other treatments. NMA also showed that all treatments were associated with an increased risk of grade 3-5 adverse events over placebo/observation except Nivo (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80). NMA suggested that Nivo and Pemb were the two safest treatments except for placebo/observation. Although three combination therapies ranked as the top three in terms of RFS, they did not show significant overall survival benefits compared to monotherapies including Pemb, Nivo, Ipi3, and Ipi10. Conclusion: In this NMA, adjuvant Nivo and Pemb are the preferred options in patients with resected melanoma considering the benefits and harms. Combination therapy of Nivo + Ipi3 may be a promising strategy, but more evidence from phase 3 trials is needed. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=438667, PROSPERO (CRD42023438667).

Project description:Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved as cancer immunotherapeutic agents for advanced malignant melanoma (MM) in recent years, and nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used ICIs either alone or in combination. However, their efficacy and safety between single and combined ICIs are not clear. This meta-analysis (MA) is aimed to update the efficacy and safety of ICIs by comparing monotherapy and combination therapy in the treatment of advanced MM. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, EbscoHost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy and safety of ICIs between a single ICI and combined ICIs. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). A fixed-effect or random-effects model was adopted depending on the study heterogeneity. Results: A total of nine RCTs were included in this MA. Regarding the efficacy, combined nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy showed statistically significant prolonged OS and PFS with HR 0.65, 95% CI [0.53, 0.79], p <0.0001 and HR 0.48, 95% CI [0.38, 0.60], p<0.0001 respectively. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab also showed statistically significant longer ORR than monotherapy; with RR 2.15, 95% CI [1.63, 2.84], p <0.00001. In terms of safety, the incidence of all AEs which include any AEs, high-grade, haematological, gastrointestinal, dermatological, pulmonary, liver and endocrine AEs were significantly lower with monotherapy (either nivolumab or ipilimumab) of ICI compared to combination ICI therapy with a p-value <0.00001 to 0.03. Conclusion: Efficacy of the combined nivolumab and ipilimumab was better than a single ICI, especially in the treatment of advanced MM. Although combination therapy showed better efficacy than monotherapy, monotherapy (either nivolumab or ipilimumab) was safer than combination therapy as it tended to decrease the incidence of most of the treatment-related AEs.

Dataset Information

Checkpoint inhibitors for malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Checkpoint inhibitors for malignant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets