-
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Nov 2023The effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness and safety of neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors as neoadjuvant therapy for malignant solid tumors.
METHODS
This study has been registered with the number CRD42023407275 on PROSPERO. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases until March 17, 2023. In addition, manual searches were performed. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the utilization of neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for patients with solid malignancies. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (ROB1) were used. Risk ratios (RRs), hazared ratios (HRs) and their respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Stata17.0 MP and Review Manager 5.4 software.
RESULTS
A total of 2780 records were identified, and ultimately 10 studies involving 273 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that the addition of CTLA-4 inhibitors to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors did not demonstrate a significant effect on overall response rate, main pathological response, pathological complete response, surgical resection, radical resection, overall survival, progression-free survival, recurrence-free survival, grade 3-4 adverse events, all-cause mortality, and completed treatment (P > 0.05). However, further subgroup analysis indicated that the combination of PD-1 with CTLA-4 inhibitors significantly increased the occurrence of grade 3-4 adverse events in patients (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
As neoadjuvant therapy for malignant solid tumors, the addition of CTLA-4 inhibitors to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors does not appear to enhance efficacy.Moreover, there is a potential increase in the risk of grade 3-4 adverse events associated with this combination. However, it is important to note that the studies included in this analysis suffer from limitations such as small samples and single-center designs, which are inherent constrains with the available published literature. Further research involving large-sample and multicenter RCTs are warranted to obtain more reliable results.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; B7-H1 Antigen; Neoplasms; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37926852
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03212-5 -
Toxicology Jan 2022Recent evidences suggest the role of chronic lead (Pb) exposure in altering immunological parameters. Present study aimed to systematically review existing literature... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Recent evidences suggest the role of chronic lead (Pb) exposure in altering immunological parameters. Present study aimed to systematically review existing literature and synthesize quantitative evidence on the association between chronic Pb exposure and changes in immunological markers. Observational studies reporting immunological markers such as leukocyte derivative counts (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD45, CD56, lymphocyte, and total leukocyte), cytokine, Immunoglobulin (Igs), C-reactive protein (CRP) among Pb-exposed and unexposed controls were systematically searched from PubMed, Scopus and Embase digital databases from inception to January 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered during systematic review. Mean differences in the immunological markers between Pb-exposed and control groups were pooled using random-effects model. The heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran-Q test and I statistic. The review included forty studies reporting immunological markers in Pb-exposed and unexposed control groups. The occupational Pb-exposed group exhibited significantly higher BLL, impaired immunological markers, characterized by a marginal lowering in lymphocyte count, lymphocyte subsets (CD3, CD4, CD4/CD8 ratio), IFN-γ and IgG levels, while CD8, IgM, IgA, IgE, and cytokines (IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α) exhibited a trend of higher values in comparison to the control group. Further, inflammatory marker viz., total leukocyte count was significantly higher among Pb-exposed. The included studies exhibited high levels of heterogeneity. In conclusion, Occupational Pb exposure alters the immunological markers such as the circulating cytokines and leukocyte counts. However, high-quality, multicentered studies are required to strengthen present observations and further understand the Pb's role on the immune system. Prospero Registration ID: CRD42021228252.
Topics: Antigens, CD; Biomarkers; Cytokines; Environmental Pollutants; Humans; Immune System; Immunoglobulins; Inflammation Mediators; Lead; Lymphocyte Subsets; Occupational Exposure; Occupational Health; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 34838595
DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2021.153047 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been controversial in the treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC). We collected randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been controversial in the treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC). We collected randomized controlled trials in accordance with the study and carried out meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in mTNBC.
AIM
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs (hereinafter referred to as ICIs) in the treatment of mTNBC.
METHODS
As of 2023.2.5, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library database and Web of Science were searched to determine the study in accordance with the trial of ICIs in the treatment of mTNBC. The assessment endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Meta-analysis of the included studies was performed using Revman 5.4.
RESULTS
A total of six trials with 3172 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The ORR of ICIs combined with chemotherapy was significantly improved compared with chemotherapy (HR=0.88, 95%CI: 0.81-0.94, I= 0%). For PFS, the experimental group were better than the control group in both intention-to-treat (ITT) population and PD-L1 positive population, showing statistical significance (ITT: HR=0.81, 95%CI: 0.74-0.89, P<0.05, I= 0%; PD-L1 positive: HR=0.72, 95%CI: 0.63-0.82, P<0.05, I= 18%); For OS, in the ITT population, no statistical difference was observed in either ICIs combined with chemotherapy(HR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.83-1.02, P=0.10)or immune monotherapy(HR=0.78, 95%CI: 0.44-1.36, P=0.37), in the PD-L1 positive population, ICIs group had better OS than chemotherapy group (HR=0.83, 95%CI: 0.74-0.93, P < 0.05); In safety, serious adverse event (SAE) was no statistically significant difference between the ICIs group and the chemotherapy group; however, the incidence of immune-related adverse event (irAE) was significantly higher in the ICIs group than in the chemotherapy group (HR=2.15, 95%CI: 1.45-3.19, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
ICIs combined with chemotherapy significantly improved the PFS of mTNBC, however, ICIs only improved the OS in PD-L1 positive people, and no statistical difference was observed in ITT population; while benefiting from ICIs, we found that irAE in ICIs group increased significantly, and its high rate of adverse events still needs to be taken seriously.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms; B7-H1 Antigen; Control Groups
PubMed: 37377959
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1206689 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; CTLA-4 Antigen; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Immunotherapy; Interferon-alpha; Interleukin-2; Male; Melanoma; Middle Aged; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 29405038
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2 -
Acta Diabetologica Oct 2014Although the polymorphisms of PTPN22 and the variants of CTLA-4 have been reported to be the susceptibility genes, which increased risk of latent autoimmune diabetes in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although the polymorphisms of PTPN22 and the variants of CTLA-4 have been reported to be the susceptibility genes, which increased risk of latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA), the results remained inconclusive. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between the polymorphisms of two genes and LADA. We performed a systematic review by identifying relevant studies and applied meta-analysis to pool gene effects. Data from ten studies published between 2001 and 2013 were pooled for two polymorphisms: rs2476601 in the PTPN22 gene and rs231775 in the CTLA-4 gene. Data extraction and assessments for risk of bias were independently performed by two reviewers. Fixed-effect model and random-effect model were used to pool the odds ratios; meanwhile, heterogeneity test, publication bias and sensitive analysis were explored. The minor T allele at rs2476601 and the minor G at rs231775 carried estimated relative risks (odds ratio) of 1.52 (95 % CI 1.29-1.79) and 1.39 (95 % CI 1.11-1.74), respectively. These alleles contributed to an absolute lowering of the risk of all LADA by 4.88 and 14.93 % when individuals do not carry these alleles. The estimated lambdas were 0.49 and 0.63, suggesting a codominant model of effects was most likely for two genes. In summary, our systematic review has demonstrated that PTPN22 rs2476601 and CTLA-4 rs231775 are potential risk factors for LADA. An updated meta-analysis is required when more studies are published to increase the power of these polymorphisms and LADA.
Topics: CTLA-4 Antigen; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Male; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase, Non-Receptor Type 22; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 25005490
DOI: 10.1007/s00592-014-0613-z -
Journal of Experimental & Clinical... May 2015CD133 and Nestin, as the markers of cancer stem cells, have recently been reported frequently in the pathogenesis and development of human gliomas. However, the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
CD133 and Nestin, as the markers of cancer stem cells, have recently been reported frequently in the pathogenesis and development of human gliomas. However, the prognostic role of CD133 and Nestin in gliomas still remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between the expression of CD133 and Nestin and the outcome of glioma patients by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We performed systematically electronic and manual searches through the database of Pubmed and embase (until to December 25, 2014) for titles and abstracts which investigated the relationships between CD133 and Nestin expression and outcome of glioma patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis was executed to generate Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS
A total of 1,490 patients from 32 studies (13 articles) were included in the analysis. 19 studies and 13 studies investigated correlation between CD133 expression or Nestin and survival in gliomas, respectively. Our results showed that high CD133 expression in patients with glioma was associated with poor prognosis in terms of OS (HR 1.69; 95 % CI, 1.16-2.47; P =0.0060) and PFS (HR, 1.64; 95 % CI, 1.12-2.39; P = 0.010). In addition, high Nestin expression were associated with worse OS (HR 1.751; 95 % CI, 1.19-2.58, p = 0.004) but has no significant association with PFS (HR 1.55; 95 % CI, 0.96-2.51, p = 0.074). Even more important, the results of the subgroup meta-analyses show that that high CD133 expression was associated with worse prognosis in terms of OS and PFS in patients with WHO IV glioma but not WHO II-III. On the other hand, Nestin high expression was associated with worse prognosis in terms of OS and PFS in patients with WHO II-III glioma but not WHO IV.
CONCLUSION
High level of CD133 expression trends to correlate with a worse OS and PFS in glioma patients, especially WHO IV gliomas and Nestin high expression trends to correlate with a worse OS in glioma patients especially WHO II-III, revealing both the markers of cancer stem cells may as the potential pathological prognostic markers for glioma patients.
Topics: AC133 Antigen; Antigens, CD; Biomarkers, Tumor; Female; Gene Expression; Glioma; Glycoproteins; Humans; Male; Neoplastic Stem Cells; Nestin; Peptides; Prognosis; Proportional Hazards Models; Publication Bias; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 25967234
DOI: 10.1186/s13046-015-0163-4 -
Leukemia & Lymphoma 2023Relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) is a challenging disease with low rates of remission and survival in adult patients. Anti-CD19... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Differences in efficacy and safety among CAR-Ts anti-CD19/CD22, anti-CD19, and anti-CD22, in adult patients with relapse/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL) is a challenging disease with low rates of remission and survival in adult patients. Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cells (CAR-Ts) therapies have been approved for these patients. Dual-target CAR-Ts against CD19 and CD22 have recently been developed to improve the efficacy of the single-target therapy; however, extent of the improvement using this dual-target therapy has yet to be determined. We performed a meta-analysis of the outcome and safety of CAR-Ts, comparing anti-CD19 vs anti-CD22 vs dual-target anti-CD19/CD22 CAR-Ts, to elucidate the differences and limitations of these therapies in adult patients with R/R B-ALL. our results suggest that anti-CD19/CD22 CAR-Ts generate lower incidence of relapse and neurotoxicity, but similar results were obtained regarding complete remission, minimal residual disease, overall survival, and cytokine release syndrome compared with single-target anti-CD19 and anti-CD22 CAR-Ts.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Recurrence; Lymphoma, B-Cell; Antigens, CD19; Acute Disease; Sialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 2
PubMed: 37548560
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2023.2243357 -
International Journal of Molecular... Sep 2023The aim of this paper was to review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined or sequential use of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and... (Review)
Review
The aim of this paper was to review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined or sequential use of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and CAR-T cell therapies in relapsed/refractory (R/R) haematological malignancies. A systematic literature review was performed until 21 November 2022. Inclusion criteria: cohort studies/clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of the combination of CAR-T cell therapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in R/R haematological malignancies, which had reported results. Those focusing only on ICI or CAR-T separately or evaluating the combination in other non-hematological solid tumours were excluded. We used a specific checklist for quality assessment of the studies, and then we extracted data on efficacy or efficiency and safety. A total of 1867 articles were identified, and 9 articles were finally included (early phase studies, with small samples of patients and acceptable quality). The main pathologies were B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) and B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (B-NHL). The most studied combination was tisagenlecleucel with pembrolizumab. In terms of efficacy, there is great variability: the combination could be a promising option in B-ALL, with modest data, and in B-NHL, although hopeful responses were received, the combination does not appear better than CAR-T cell monotherapy. The safety profile could be considered comparable to that described for CAR-T cell monotherapy.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Hematologic Neoplasms; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 37834228
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241914780 -
Systematic Review of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Oncology: From Personalized Medicine to Public Health.The Oncologist Oct 2021To review and summarize all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 blocking antibodies (collectively referred to as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To review and summarize all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 blocking antibodies (collectively referred to as PD-[L]1 inhibitors) over a 6-year period and corresponding companion/complementary diagnostic assays.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To determine the indications and pivotal trials eligible for inclusion, approval letters and package inserts available on Drugs@FDA were evaluated for approved PD-[L]1 inhibitors to identify all new indications granted from the first approval of a PD-[L]1 inhibitor on September 4, 2014, through September 3, 2020. The corresponding FDA drug and device reviews from the marketing applications for the approved indications were identified through FDA internal records. Two reviewers independently extracted information for the endpoints, efficacy data, basis for approval, type of regulatory approval, and corresponding in vitro diagnostic device test. The results were organized by organ system and tumor type.
RESULTS
Of 70 Biologic Licensing Application or supplement approvals that resulted in new indications, 32 (46%) were granted based on response rate (ORR) and durability of response, 26 (37%) on overall survival, 9 (13%) on progression-free survival, 2 (3%) on recurrence-free survival, and 1 (1%) on complete response rate. Most ORR-based approvals were granted under the accelerated approval provisions and were supported with prolonged duration of response. Overall, 21% of approvals were granted with a companion diagnostic. Efficacy results according to tumor type are discussed.
CONCLUSION
PD-[L]1 inhibitors are an effective anticancer therapy in a subset of patients. This class of drugs has provided new treatment options for patients with unmet need across a wide variety of cancer types. Yet, the modest response rates in several tumor types signal a lack of understanding of the biology of these diseases. Further preclinical and clinical investigation may be required to identify a more appropriate patient population, particularly as drug development continues and additional treatment alternatives become available.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The number of PD-[L]1 inhibitors in drug development and the associated companion and complementary diagnostics have led to regulatory challenges and questions regarding generalizability of trial results. The interchangeability of PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays between PD-1/PD-L1 drugs is unclear. Furthermore, robust responses in some patients with low levels of PD-L1 expression have limited the use of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker across all cancers, particularly in the setting of diseases with few alternative treatment options. This review summarizes the biomarker thresholds and assays approved as complementary and companion diagnostics and provides regulatory perspective on the role of biomarkers in oncology drug development.
Topics: B7-H1 Antigen; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Neoplasms; Precision Medicine; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Public Health
PubMed: 34196068
DOI: 10.1002/onco.13887 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2024Relapse/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (r/r B-ALL) represents paediatric cancer with a challenging prognosis. CAR T-cell treatment, considered an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and safety of CAR T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Relapse/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (r/r B-ALL) represents paediatric cancer with a challenging prognosis. CAR T-cell treatment, considered an advanced treatment, remains controversial due to high relapse rates and adverse events. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of CAR T-cell therapy for r/r B-ALL.
METHODS
The literature search was performed on four databases. Efficacy parameters included minimal residual disease negative complete remission (MRD-CR) and relapse rate (RR). Safety parameters constituted cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS).
RESULTS
Anti-CD22 showed superior efficacy with the highest MRD-CR event rate and lowest RR, compared to anti-CD19. Combining CAR T-cell therapy with haploidentical stem cell transplantation improved RR. Safety-wise, bispecific anti-CD19/22 had the lowest CRS rate, and anti-CD22 showed the fewest ICANS. Analysis of the costimulatory receptors showed that adding CD28ζ to anti-CD19 CAR T-cell demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing relapses with favorable safety profiles.
CONCLUSION
Choosing a more efficacious and safer CAR T-cell treatment is crucial for improving overall survival in acute leukaemia. Beyond the promising anti-CD22 CAR T-cell, exploring costimulatory domains and new CD targets could enhance treatment effectiveness for r/r B-ALL.
Topics: Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Precursor B-Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Antigens, CD19; Sialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 2; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Child; Treatment Outcome; Neoplasm, Residual; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Recurrence; Neurotoxicity Syndromes
PubMed: 38738799
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2349796