-
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Jun 2022Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is a novel therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. Most CAR T cell therapy recipients... (Review)
Review
Clinical Presentation, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome Following Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy: A Systematic Review.
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is a novel therapy for patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. Most CAR T cell therapy recipients will experience clinical features of the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), a potentially life-threatening condition. Here we describe the clinical, biological, and radiological findings associated with ICANS in adults with hematologic malignancies treated with CAR T cell therapy, as well as the acute and long-term outcomes of ICANS. A literature search of Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted from each database's inception through February 1, 2022, using search terms reflecting CAR T cell therapy and ICANS. We included studies that enrolled adults (age ≥18 years) who received CAR T cell therapy as management for hematologic malignancies and reported the clinical presentation, predictors, and/or acute or long-term outcomes of ICANS. Two reviewers independently extracted data following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) reporting guidelines. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for cohort studies. Of the 2928 studies screened, 23 observational studies (10 prospective, 11 retrospective, 1 mixed design, and 1 cross-sectional) with a total of 1666 participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in our review. The most common hematologic malignancies were diffuse large B cell lymphoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. ICANS onset was most often associated with the presence and severity of cytokine release syndrome, as well as with C-reactive protein and ferritin levels. Aphasia was the most common ICANS-related symptom reported, although the neurologic manifestations of ICANS were highly variable. Neuroimaging studies (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) were often normal in cases of ICANS; however, electroencephalography often showed generalized background slowing, abnormal rhythmic, and periodic discharge patterns. The pooled mean (± SD) onset of ICANS was 6.4 ± 3.2 days, with a pooled mean duration of 8.3 ± 10.5 days. Two of the 23 studies (9%) reported 5 ICANS-related deaths among 233 participants. A subset of patients experienced persistent neurocognitive complaints at ≥1-year after CAR T cell therapy. The clinical presentation, onset, severity, long-term sequelae, and grading system of ICANS are variable. Future studies should consider using a consensus grading/reporting scale that would permit cross-trial comparisons of the safety profile of various CAR T cell products and enable the development of interventions to mitigate or manage these neurotoxicities. © 2022 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. This systematic review was conducted according to a published protocol (PROSPERO CRD42020207864) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) in systematic review reporting guidelines (Supplementary Table S1) [15,16].
Topics: Adult; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Cross-Sectional Studies; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Prospective Studies; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35288347
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.03.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Humans; Pandemics; Point-of-Care Systems; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 35866452
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013705.pub3 -
ESMO Open Jun 2022Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based regimens in non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been deeply investigated. To rank the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Frontline immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-based regimens in non-oncogene-addicted non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been deeply investigated. To rank the available therapeutic options, we carried out a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
METHODS
A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICI regimens, and a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) with an all-comers and a stratified strategy were conducted. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).
RESULTS
Nineteen RCTs involving 17 treatment regimens were included. For the all-comers population, pembrolizumab/chemotherapy (CT) and cemiplimab were most likely the best treatments. For programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% nivolumab/ipilimumab with/without CT, for PD-L1 >1% and 1%-49% pembrolizumab/CT and for PD-L1 >50% cemiplimab ranked first for OS. In non-squamous (NSQ), pembrolizumab with/without CT ranked first for OS; cemiplimab ranked worse than the unselected population. In squamous (SQ), pooled hazard ratio (HR) showed a better chance in improving efficacy for combination strategy, while monotherapy did not, except for cemiplimab that ranked second. Atezolizumab/CT/bevacizumab ranked first in most subgroups for PFS. Direct comparison showed a non-statistically significant benefit of ICI regimens for the liver metastases cohort in OS, with a good ranking for pembrolizumab/CT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab/CT. Regarding brain metastases, all ICI regimens demonstrated an improvement in OS and PFS compared to CT. Nivolumab/ipilimumab/CT ranked better in this subset.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis updated on the most recent findings demonstrates that different ICI treatments rank differently in specific NSCLC settings (histology, biomarker and clinical presentation) offering a novel challenging scenario for clinical decision making and research planning.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; B7-H1 Antigen; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Humans; Ipilimumab; Lung Neoplasms; Nivolumab
PubMed: 35427835
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100465 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2022Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1), its ligand (PD-L1), or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) have shown promising results... (Review)
Review
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1), its ligand (PD-L1), or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) have shown promising results against multiple cancers, where they reactivate exhausted T cells primed to eliminate tumor cells. ICI therapies have been particularly successful in hypermutated cancers infiltrated with lymphocytes. However, resistance may appear in tumors evading the immune system through alternative mechanisms than the PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA-4 pathways. A systematic pan-cancer literature search was conducted to examine the association between alternative immune evasion mechanisms via the antigen presentation machinery (APM) and resistance towards ICI treatments targeting PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab), PD-L1 (durvalumab, avelumab, and atezolizumab), and CTLA-4 (ipilimumab). The APM proteins included the human leucocyte antigen (HLA) class I, its subunit beta-2 microglobulin (B2M), the transporter associated with antigen processing (TAP) 1, TAP2, and the NOD-like receptor family CARD domain containing 5 (NLRC5). In total, 18 cohort studies (including 21 original study cohorts) containing 966 eligible patients and 9 case studies including 12 patients were reviewed. Defects in the APM significantly predicted poor clinical benefit with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.39 (95% CI 0.24−0.63, p < 0.001). The effect was non-significant, when considering complete and partial responses only (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.18−1.47, p = 0.216). In summary, the APM contains important targets for tumorigenic alterations which may explain insensitivity towards ICI therapy.
PubMed: 36615128
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12010329 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Single-agent pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is currently the standard of care as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression is less than 50%. Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has also been approved in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic antibody) in first-line NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression. The combination of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has also been shown to improve survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, particularly in people with high tumour mutational burden (TMB). The association of ipilimumab (an anti CTLA4) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in all patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Although these antibodies are currently used in clinical practice, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best-treatment strategy, the role of different biomarkers for treatment selection and the effectiveness of immunotherapy according to specific clinical characteristics.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination, compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced NSCLC, according to the level of PD-L1 expression.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed an electronic search of the main databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase) from inception until 31 December 2020 and conferences meetings from 2015 onwards.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy or safety of first-line ICI treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC who had not previously received any anticancer treatment. We included trials comparing single- or double-ICI treatment to standard first-line therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy +/- bevacizumab). All data come from 'international multicentre studies involving adults, age 18 or over, with histologically-confirmed stage IV NSCLC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed the search results and a fourth review author resolved any disagreements. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1, grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (CTCAE v 5.0) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the random-effects model for hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Main results We identified 15 trials for inclusion, seven completed and eight ongoing trials. We obtained data for 5893 participants from seven trials comparing first-line single- (six trials) or double- (two trials) agent ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy, one trial comparing both first-line single- and double-agent ICsI with platinum-based chemotherapy. All trials were at low risk of selection and detection bias, some were classified at high risk of performance, attrition or other source of bias. The overall certainty of evidence according to GRADE ranged from moderate-to-low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. The majority of the included trials reported their outcomes by PD-L1 expressions, with PD-L1 ≥ 50 being considered the most clinically useful cut-off level for decision makers. Also, iIn order to avoid overlaps between various PDL-1 expressions we prioritised the review outcomes according to PD-L1 ≥ 50. Single-agent ICI In the PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% group single-agent ICI probably improved OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.76, 6 RCTs, 2111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In this group, single-agent ICI also may improve PFS (HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88, 5 RCTs, 1886 participants, low-certainty evidence) and ORR (risk ratio (RR):1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75, 4 RCTs, 1672 participants, low-certainty evidence). HRQoL data were available for only one study including only people with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, which suggested that single-agent ICI may improve HRQoL at 15 weeks compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.10, 1 RCT, 297 participants, low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, treatment-related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. Grade 3-4 AEs may be less frequent with single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50, I² = 62%, 5 RCTs, 3346 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status or specific clinical characteristics is available in the full text. Double-agent ICI Double-ICI treatment probably prolonged OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in people with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89 2 RCTs, 612 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Trials did not report data on HRQoL, PFS and ORR according to PD-L1 groups. Treatment related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. The frequency of grade 3-4 AEs may not differ between double-ICI treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, I² = 81%, 2 RCTs, 1869 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of double-agent ICI according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status is available in the full text.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Authors' conclusions The evidence in this review suggests that single-agent ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% probably leads to a higher overall survival rate and may lead to a higher progression-free survival and overall response rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy and may also lead to a lower rate of adverse events and higher HRQoL. Combined ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% also probably leads to a higher overall survival rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, but its effect on progression-free survival, overall response rate and HRQoL is unknown due to a lack of data. The rate of adverse events may not differ between groups. This review used to be a living review. It is transitioned out of living mode because current research is exploring ICI in association with chemotherapy or other immunotherapeutic drugs versus ICI as single agent rather than platinum based chemotherapy.
Topics: Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; B7-H1 Antigen; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nivolumab; Platinum Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33930176
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013257.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Single or combined immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis have changed the first-line treatment of people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Single-agent pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is currently the standard of care as monotherapy in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy when PD-L1 expression is less than 50%. Atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has also been approved in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic antibody) in first-line NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 expression. The combination of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has also been shown to improve survival compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, particularly in people with high tumour mutational burden (TMB). The association of ipilimumab (an anti CTLA4) and nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in all patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%. Although these antibodies are currently used in clinical practice, some questions remain unanswered, such as the best-treatment strategy, the role of different biomarkers for treatment selection and the effectiveness of immunotherapy according to specific clinical characteristics.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective: to determine the effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as monotherapy or in combination, compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, with or without bevacizumab for people with advanced NSCLC, according to the level of PD-L1 expression.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE
to maintain the currency of evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed an electronic search of the main databases (Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase) from inception until 21 October 2020 and conferences meetings from 2015 onwards.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the efficacy or safety of first-line ICI treatment for adults with advanced NSCLC who had not previously received any anticancer treatment. We included trials comparing single- or double-ICI treatment to standard first-line therapy (platinum-based chemotherapy +/- bevacizumab). All data come from 'international multicentre studies involving adults, age 18 or over, with histologically-confirmed stage IV NSCLC who had not received any previous systemic anti-cancer treatment for advanced disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed the search results and a fourth review author resolved any disagreements. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v 1.1, grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (CTCAE v 5.0) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the random-effects model for hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Main results We identified 15 trials for inclusion, seven completed and eight ongoing trials. We obtained data for 5893 participants from seven trials comparing first-line single- (six trials) or double- (two trials) agent ICI with platinum-based chemotherapy, one trial comparing both first-line single- and double-agent ICsI with platinum-based chemotherapy. All trials were at low risk of selection and detection bias, some were classified at high risk of performance, attrition or other source of bias. The overall certainty of evidence according to GRADE ranged from moderate-to-low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, or imprecision. The majority of the included trials reported their outcomes by PD-L1 expressions, with PD-L1 ≥ 50 being considered the most clinically useful cut-off level for decision makers. Also, iIn order to avoid overlaps between various PDL-1 expressions we prioritised the review outcomes according to PD-L1 ≥ 50. Single-agent ICI In the PD-L1 expression ≥ 50% group single-agent ICI probably improved OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.76, 6 RCTs, 2111 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). In this group, single-agent ICI also may improve PFS (HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88, 5 RCTs, 1886 participants, low-certainty evidence) and ORR (risk ratio (RR):1.40, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.75, 4 RCTs, 1672 participants, low-certainty evidence). HRQoL data were available for only one study including only people with PD-L1 expression ≥ 50%, which suggested that single-agent ICI may improve HRQoL at 15 weeks compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.10, 1 RCT, 297 participants, low-certainty evidence). In the included studies, treatment-related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. Grade 3-4 AEs may be less frequent with single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.41, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.50, I² = 62%, 5 RCTs, 3346 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of single-agent ICI compared to platinum-based chemotherapy according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status or specific clinical characteristics is available in the full text. Double-agent ICI Double-ICI treatment probably prolonged OS compared to platinum-based chemotherapy in people with PD-L1 expression ≥50% (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89 2 RCTs, 612 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Trials did not report data on HRQoL, PFS and ORR according to PD-L1 groups. Treatment related AEs were not reported according to PD-L1 expression levels. The frequency of grade 3-4 AEs may not differ between double-ICI treatment and platinum-based chemotherapy (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09, I² = 81%, 2 RCTs, 1869 participants, low-certainty evidence). More information about efficacy of double-agent ICI according to the level of PD-L1 expression and to TMB status is available in the full text.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Authors' conclusions The evidence in this review suggests that single-agent ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% probably leads to a higher overall survival rate and may lead to a higher progression-free survival and overall response rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy and may also lead to a lower rate of adverse events and higher HRQoL. Combined ICI in people with NSCLC and PD-L1 ≥50% also probably leads to a higher overall survival rate when compared to platinum-based chemotherapy, but its effect on progression-free survival, overall response rate and HRQoL is unknown due to a lack of data. The rate of adverse events may not differ between groups.
Topics: Aged; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; B7-H1 Antigen; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nivolumab; Platinum Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33316104
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013257.pub2 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2023Behçet's disease (BD) is a complex, recurring inflammatory disorder with autoinflammatory and autoimmune components. This comprehensive review aims to explore BD's... (Review)
Review
Behçet's disease (BD) is a complex, recurring inflammatory disorder with autoinflammatory and autoimmune components. This comprehensive review aims to explore BD's pathogenesis, focusing on established genetic factors. Studies reveal that is the primary genetic risk factor, but non-HLA genes (, , ), as well as innate immunity genes (, , ), also contribute. Genome-wide studies emphasize the significance of and HLA-I epistasis. These variants influence antigen presentation, enzymatic activity, and HLA-I peptidomes, potentially leading to distinct autoimmune responses. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify studies exploring the association between and BD and further highlighted the roles of innate and adaptive immunity in BD. Dysregulations in Th1/Th2 and Th17/Th1 ratios, heightened clonal cytotoxic (CD8+) T cells, and reduced T regulatory cells characterize BD's complex immune responses. Various immune cell types (neutrophils, γδ T cells, natural killer cells) further contribute by releasing cytokines (IL-17, IL-8, GM-CSF) that enhance neutrophil activation and mediate interactions between innate and adaptive immunity. In summary, this review advances our understanding of BD pathogenesis while acknowledging the research limitations. Further exploration of genetic interactions, immune dysregulation, and immune cell roles is crucial. Future studies may unveil novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, offering improved management for this complex disease.
Topics: Humans; Behcet Syndrome; Antigen Presentation; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; HLA-B Antigens; Risk Factors; Aminopeptidases; Minor Histocompatibility Antigens
PubMed: 38003572
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242216382 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2021Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by autoreactive B and T cells against β2-glycoprotein I (B2GPI), with vascular thrombosis or... (Review)
Review
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by autoreactive B and T cells against β2-glycoprotein I (B2GPI), with vascular thrombosis or obstetrical complications. Dendritic cells (DCs) are crucial in the generation of autoimmunity. Here, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review on the relationship between DC and APS. We performed a literature search of PubMed as of 26 March 2021. A total of 33 articles were extracted. DCs are pivotal in inducing inflammatory responses and orchestrating adaptive immunity. DCs contribute to the local inflammation regarding vascular thrombosis or obstetrical complications. Both B2GPI and antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) can promote antigen presentation by DCs and the generation or maintenance of autoimmunity. In addition, plasmacytoid DC activation is enhanced by aPL, thereby augmenting the inflammatory response. In line with these findings, DC modulation appears promising as a future treatment for APS. In conclusion, our review indicated the crucial role of DCs in the pathogenesis of APS. Deeper understanding of the complex relationship would help in developing new treatment strategies.
PubMed: 34440545
DOI: 10.3390/life11080801 -
BJUI Compass Jan 2021Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is relatively rare, but is nonetheless the second most common subtype of prostate cancer. First described in 1967, opinion is still divided... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Ductal adenocarcinoma (DAC) is relatively rare, but is nonetheless the second most common subtype of prostate cancer. First described in 1967, opinion is still divided regarding its biology, prognosis, and outcome.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically interrogate the literature to clarify the epidemiology, diagnosis, management, progression, and survival statistics of DAC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a literature search of five medical databases from inception to May 04 2020 according to PRISMA criteria using search terms "prostate ductal adenocarcinoma" OR "endometriod adenocarcinoma of prostate" and variations of each.
RESULTS
Some 114 studies were eligible for inclusion, presenting 2 907 170 prostate cancer cases, of which 5911 were DAC. [Correction added on 16 January 2021 after the first online publication: the preceding statement has been corrected in this current version.] DAC accounts for 0.17% of prostate cancer on meta-analysis (range 0.0837%-13.4%). The majority of DAC cases were admixed with predominant acinar adenocarcinoma (AAC). Median Prostate Specific Antigen at diagnosis ranged from 4.2 to 9.6 ng/mL in the case series.DAC was more likely to present as T3 (RR1.71; 95%CI 1.53-1.91) and T4 (RR7.56; 95%CI 5.19-11.01) stages, with far higher likelihood of metastatic disease (RR4.62; 95%CI 3.84-5.56; all -values < .0001), compared to AAC. Common first treatments included surgery (radical prostatectomy (RP) or cystoprostatectomy for select cases) or radiotherapy (RT) for localized disease, and hormonal or chemo-therapy for metastatic disease. Few studies compared RP and RT modalities, and those that did present mixed findings, although cancer-specific survival rates seem worse after RP.Biochemical recurrence rates were increased with DAC compared to AAC. Additionally, DAC metastasized to unusual sites, including penile and peritoneal metastases. Where compared, all studies reported worse survival for DAC compared to AAC.
CONCLUSION
When drawing conclusions about DAC it is important to note the heterogenous nature of the data. DAC is often diagnosed incidentally post-treatment, perhaps due to lack of a single, universally applied histopathological definition. As such, DAC is likely underreported in clinical practice and the literature. Poorer prognosis and outcomes for DAC compared to AAC merit further research into genetic composition, evolution, diagnosis, and treatment of this surprisingly common prostate cancer sub-type.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Ductal prostate cancer is a rare but important form of prostate cancer. This review demonstrates that it tends to be more serious at detection and more likely to spread to unusual parts of the body. Overall survival is worse with this type of prostate cancer and urologists need to be aware of the presence of ductal prostate cancer to alter management decisions and follow-up.
PubMed: 35474657
DOI: 10.1002/bco2.60 -
The Oncologist Jul 2021Prostate cancer remains the leading diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death among American men. Despite improvements in screening modalities, diagnostics,...
Prostate cancer remains the leading diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death among American men. Despite improvements in screening modalities, diagnostics, and treatment, disparities exist among Black men in this country. The primary objective of this systematic review is to describe the reported disparities in screening, diagnostics, and treatments as well as efforts to alleviate these disparities through community and educational outreach efforts. Critical review took place of retrospective, prospective, and socially descriptive data of English language publications in the PubMed database. Despite more advanced presentation, lower rates of screening and diagnostic procedures, and low rates of trial inclusion, subanalyses have shown that various modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Moreover, patients treated on prospective clinical trials and within equal-access care environments have shown similar outcomes regardless of race. Additional prospective studies and enhanced participation in screening, diagnostic and genetic testing, clinical trials, and community-based educational endeavors are important to ensure equitable progress in prostate cancer for all patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Notable progress has been made with therapeutic advances for prostate cancer, but racial disparities continue to exist. Differing rates in screening and utility in diagnostic procedures play a role in these disparities. Black patients often present with more advanced disease, higher prostate-specific antigen, and other adverse factors, but outcomes can be attenuated in trials or in equal-access care environments. Recent data have shown that multiple modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Novel and bold hypotheses to increase inclusion in clinical trial, enhance decentralized trial efforts, and enact successful models of patient navigation and community partnership are vital to ensure continued progress in prostate cancer disparities.
Topics: Black or African American; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; United States
PubMed: 33683758
DOI: 10.1002/onco.13749