-
International Journal of Molecular... May 2024Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC-RCC) is a novel and uncommon type of renal cell carcinoma, which has been recently recognized and introduced as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Eosinophilic solid and cystic renal cell carcinoma (ESC-RCC) is a novel and uncommon type of renal cell carcinoma, which has been recently recognized and introduced as a distinct entity in the WHO 2022 kidney tumor classification. Previously known as "unclassified RCC", followed by "tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-associated RCC", ESC-RCC is now a distinct category of kidney tumor, with its own name, with specific clinical manifestations, and a unique morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular profile. Due to its recent introduction and the limited available data, the diagnosis of ESC-RCC is still a complex challenge, and it is probably frequently misdiagnosed. The secret of diagnosing this tumor lies in the pathologists' knowledge, and keeping it up to date through research, thereby limiting the use of outdated nomenclature. The aim of our case-based review is to provide a better understanding of this pathology and to enrich the literature with a new case report, which has some particularities compared to the existing cases.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Kidney Neoplasms; Eosinophilia; Male
PubMed: 38892169
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25115982 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024The rate and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with solid cancer tumors actively treated with immune... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
The rate and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with solid cancer tumors actively treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have not been fully determined. The goal of this meta-analysis was to explore this issue, which can be helpful to clinicians in their decision-making concerning patient treatment. We conducted a thorough search for relevant cohort studies in the databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Mortality and infection rate were the primary endpoints, and the incidence of severe or critical disease was the secondary result. A total of 6,267 cases (individual patients) were represented in 15 studies. Prior exposure to ICIs was not correlated with an elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.57-1.88, z = 0.12, = 0.905) or mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99-1.50, z = 1.90, = 0.057). However, the results of the meta-analysis revealed that taking ICIs before SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis increased the chance of developing severe or critical disease (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.09-2.10, z = 2.46, = 0.014). No significant inter-study heterogeneity was observed. The infection and mortality rates of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with solid tumors who previously received ICIs or other antitumor therapies did not differ significantly. However, secondary outcomes showed that ICIs treatment before the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with the probability of severe or critical illness.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023393511.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Neoplasms; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; SARS-CoV-2; Prognosis
PubMed: 38887296
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1259112 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Immunotherapeutic approaches, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, are increasingly recognized for their potential. Despite notable successes, patient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in peripheral blood as predictive biomarkers in patients with solid tumors undergoing immune checkpoint therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Immunotherapeutic approaches, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, are increasingly recognized for their potential. Despite notable successes, patient responses to these treatments vary significantly. The absence of reliable predictive and prognostic biomarkers hampers the ability to foresee outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the predictive significance of circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) in patients with solid tumors undergoing ICI therapy, focusing on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed and EMBASE from January 2007 to November 2023, utilizing keywords related to MDSC and ICI. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) directly from the publications or calculated them based on the reported data. A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicated a beneficial effect of low MDSC levels. We assessed heterogeneity and effect size through subgroup analyses.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 4,023 articles, of which 17 studies involving 1,035 patients were included. The analysis revealed that patients with lower levels of circulating MDSC experienced significantly improved OS (HR=2.13 [95% CI 1.51-2.99]) and PFS (HR=1.87 [95% CI 1.29-2.72]) in response to ICI therapy. Notably, heterogeneity across these outcomes was primarily attributed to differences in polymorphonuclear MDSC (PMN-MDSC) subpopulations and varying cutoff methodologies used in the studies. The monocytic MDSC (M-MDSC) subpopulation emerged as a consistent and significant prognostic marker across various subgroup analyses, including ethnicity, tumor type, ICI target, sample size, and cutoff methodology.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that standardized assessment of MDSC, particularly M-MDSC, should be integral to ICI therapy strategies. These cells hold the promise of identifying patients at risk of poor response to ICI therapy, enabling tailored treatment approaches. Further research focusing on the standardization of markers and validation of cutoff methods is crucial for integrating MDSC into clinical practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023420095, identifier CRD42023420095.
Topics: Humans; Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells; Neoplasms; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Biomarkers, Tumor; Prognosis
PubMed: 38855104
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1403771 -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Jun 2024Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15-20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15-20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to Dec 31, 2023, for CRC or advanced polyps [advanced adenoma (AA) or advanced SP] incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those >10mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1,000 person-years (p-y) were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RR) using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
5,903 studies were reviewed and 14 included, with 493,949 patients (mean age 59·5 years, 55% men). Mean follow-up was 4·9 years. CRC incidence per 1,000 p-y was 2·09 (95%CI 1·29-2·90) for advanced SP, 1·52 (0·78-2·25) for SP>10mm, 5·86 (2·16-9·56) for SP with dysplasia, 1·18 (0·77-1·60) for proximal SP, 0·52 (0·08-1·12) for >3SP, 0·50 (0·35-0·66) for non-advanced SP, and 0·44 (0·41-0·46) for normal colonoscopy. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SP vs non-advanced SP (RR 1·84, 95%CI 1·11-3·04), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·92, 2·26-3·77); in SP>10mm vs <10mm (RR 2·61, 1·43-4·77), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 3·52, 2·17-5·69); and in SP with dysplasia vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·71, 2·00-3·67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal vs distal SP, nor in >3SP vs 1-2SP.
CONCLUSIONS
CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SP after 4·9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SP.
PubMed: 38851458
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2024.05.021 -
BMJ Open Jun 2024The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit value of approved antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) for solid tumours using the European Society for Medical...
Application of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to assess the clinical benefit of antibody drug conjugates in solid cancer: a systematic descriptive analysis of phase III and pivotal phase II trials.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit value of approved antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) for solid tumours using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) V.1.1.
DESIGN
Systematic descriptive analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed was searched for publications from 1 January 2000 to 18 October 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included the phase III randomised controlled trials or phase II pivotal trials leading to approval of ADCs in solid tumours.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus in the presence of a third investigator.
RESULTS
ESMO-MCBS Scores were calculated for 16 positive clinical trials of eight ADCs, which were first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the China National Medical Products Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency for solid cancers. Among 16 trials, 4 (25%) met the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade, while 12 (75%) of the regimens did not meet the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade. 5 (31%) of the 16 trials had no published scorecard on the ESMO website due to the approval by other jurisdictions but not by the FDA or EMA. Discrepancies between our results and the ESMO scorecard were observed in 4 (36%) of 11 trials, mostly owing to integration of more recent data.
CONCLUSIONS
ESMO-MCBS is an important tool for assessing the clinical benefit of cancer drugs, but not all drugs met the meaningful benefit threshold.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Immunoconjugates; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Antineoplastic Agents; United States; Drug Approval
PubMed: 38851227
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077108 -
JAMA Health Forum Jun 2024The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other...
IMPORTANCE
The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov.
FINDINGS
Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.
Topics: Humans; Racial Groups; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; United States; Neoplasms; Ethnicity
PubMed: 38848090
DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.1388 -
Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy : CII Jun 2024Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapies. The debate surrounding the potential additive clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based dual immunotherapies versus PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor alone in patients with advanced solid tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination therapies. The debate surrounding the potential additive clinical benefits of combination of two immune-oncology (IO) therapies for cancer patients persists.
METHODS
Both published and grey sources of randomized clinical trials that compared anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based immunotherapy combinations with monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were encompassed. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).
RESULTS
Our analysis encompassed 31 studies comprising 10,341 patients, which covered 12 distinct immune-oncology combination regimens. Across all patients, the immunotherapy combinations exhibited the capability to enhance the ORR (OR = 1.23 [95% CI 1.13-1.34]) and extend PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.87-0.95]). However, the observed enhancement in OS (HR = 0.96 [95% CI 0.91-1.01]) was of no significance. Greater benefits in terms of PFS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93]) and OS (HR = 0.85 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.99]) may be particularly pronounced in cases where PD-L1 expression is negative. Notably, despite a heightened risk of any-grade TRAEs (OR = 1.72 [95% CI 1.40-2.11]) and grade greater than or equal to 3 TRAEs (OR = 2.01 [95% CI 1.67-2.43]), toxicity was generally manageable.
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that incorporating an additional immunotherapy agent with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors can elevate the response rate and reduce the risk of disease progression, all while maintaining manageable toxicity. However, there remains a challenge in translating these primary clinical benefits into extended overall survival.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; B7-H1 Antigen; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Neoplasms; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38834888
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-024-03734-1 -
JAMA Network Open Jun 2024Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors....
IMPORTANCE
Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors. Little is known about these practices in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the prevalence of PROs as prespecified end points in RCTs of hematological malignant neoplasms, and to assess reporting of PROs in associated trial publications.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
All issues of 8 journals known for publishing high-impact RCTs (NEJM, Lancet, Lancet Hematology, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Blood, JAMA, and JAMA Oncology) between January 1, 2018, and December 13, 2022, were searched for primary publications of therapeutic phase 3 trials for adults with hematological malignant neoplasms. Studies that evaluated pretransplant conditioning regimens, graft-vs-host disease treatment, or radiotherapy as experimental treatment were excluded. Data regarding trial characteristics and PROs were extracted from manuscripts and trial protocols. Univariable analyses assessed associations between trial characteristics and PRO collection or reporting.
FINDINGS
Ninety RCTs were eligible for analysis. PROs were an end point in 66 (73%) trials: in 1 trial (1%) as a primary end point, in 50 (56%) as a secondary end point, and in 15 (17%) as an exploratory end point. PRO data were reported in 26 of 66 primary publications (39%): outcomes were unchanged in 18 and improved in 8, with none reporting worse PROs with experimental treatment. Trials sponsored by for-profit entities were more likely to include PROs as an end point (49 of 55 [89%] vs 17 of 35 [49%]; P < .001) but were not significantly more likely to report PRO data (20 of 49 [41%] vs 6 of 17 [35%]; P = .69). Compared with trials involving lymphoma (18 of 29 [62%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (18 of 28 [64%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (27 of 30 [90%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (3 of 3 [100%]) were more likely to include PROs as an end point (P = .03). Similarly, compared with trials involving lymphoma (3 of 18 [17%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (5 of 18 [28%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (16 of 27 [59%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (2 of 3 [67%]) were more likely to report PROs in the primary publication (P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review, almost 3 of every 4 therapeutic RCTs for blood cancers collected PRO data; however, only 1 RCT included PROs as a primary end point. Moreover, most did not report resulting PRO data in the primary publication and when reported, PROs were either better or unchanged, raising concern for publication bias. This analysis suggests a critical gap in dissemination of data on the lived experiences of patients enrolled in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.
Topics: Humans; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Hematologic Neoplasms; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38829615
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.14425 -
Yonsei Medical Journal Jun 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) compared to that of conventional radiotherapy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) compared to that of conventional radiotherapy in patients with various types of solid tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched eight electronic databases from inception until August 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The comparative effectiveness of the different treatment options was assessed by a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
This review included 34 comparative studies and three treatment groups. Overall, the meta-analysis indicated comparable local control rates between the CIRT and control groups [pooled risk ratio (RR)=1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.15]. The local control rate in the CIRT group was higher than that in the photon therapy group, but slightly lower than that in the proton radiation therpy (PRT) group. Additionally, the CIRT group had significantly higher overall survival (OS) (RR=1.19, 95% CI=1.01-1.42) and progression-free survival (PFS) (RR=1.50, 95% CI=1.01-2.21) rates compared to the control group. In the subgroup analysis, survival rates were similar between the CIRT and PRT groups.
CONCLUSION
CIRT was associated with improved toxicity, local tumor control, OS, and PFS compared to conventional treatments. Therefore, CIRT was found to be a safe and effective option for achieving local control in patients with solid tumors.
Topics: Humans; Heavy Ion Radiotherapy; Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38804027
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2023.0439 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Currently, therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor-T Cell (CAR-T) and immune checkpoint inhibitors like programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) blockers are showing...
Currently, therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor-T Cell (CAR-T) and immune checkpoint inhibitors like programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) blockers are showing promising results for numerous cancer patients. However, significant advancements are required before CAR-T therapies become readily available as off-the-shelf treatments, particularly for solid tumors and lymphomas. In this review, we have systematically analyzed the combination therapy involving engineered CAR-T cells and anti PD-1 agents. This approach aims at overcoming the limitations of current treatments and offers potential advantages such as enhanced tumor inhibition, alleviated T-cell exhaustion, heightened T-cell activation, and minimized toxicity. The integration of CAR-T therapy, which targets tumor-associated antigens, with PD-1 blockade augments T-cell function and mitigates immune suppression within the tumor microenvironment. To assess the impact of combination therapy on various tumors and lymphomas, we categorized them based on six major tumor-associated antigens: mesothelin, disialoganglioside GD-2, CD-19, CD-22, CD-133, and CD-30, which are present in different tumor types. We evaluated the efficacy, complete and partial responses, and progression-free survival in both pre-clinical and clinical models. Additionally, we discussed potential implications, including the feasibility of combination immunotherapies, emphasizing the importance of ongoing research to optimize treatment strategies and improve outcomes for cancer patients. Overall, we believe combining CAR-T therapy with PD-1 blockade holds promise for the next generation of cancer immunotherapy.
Topics: Humans; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Animals; Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Tumor Microenvironment; Antigens, Neoplasm; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 38799440
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1389971