Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment paradigm of many cancers, however, its effectiveness in prostate cancer patients is still under question. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought for assessing the efficacy and safety of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with prostate cancer. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched on Aguste 19, 2022. Thirty five studies met the eligibility criteria. The median overall survival (mOS) of all treatments was 14.1 months, with the longest and shortest mOS was seen among patients who received anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1+anti-CTLA-4 regimen at 24.9 and 9.2 months, respectively. Noteworthy, all types of adverse events had the lowest incidence in the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy group. Considering the ICI monotherapy regimens, we found that fatigue, diarrhea, and infusion reaction had the highest incidence rates. Future studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of novel combination therapies with ICIs are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Noori M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10644317 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Noori Maryam M Azizi Shadi S Mahjoubfar Aref A Abbasi Varaki Farhan F Fayyaz Farimah F Mousavian Amir-Hossein AH Bashash Davood D Kardoust Parizi Mehdi M Kasaeian Amir A

Frontiers in immunology 20231031

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment paradigm of many cancers, however, its effectiveness in prostate cancer patients is still under question. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought for assessing the efficacy and safety of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with prostate cancer. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched on Aguste 19, 2022. Thirty five studies met the eligibility criteria. The median overall survival (mOS) of ...[more]

PMID: 38022569

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundsThere is little evidence on the safety, efficacy, and survival benefit of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with cancer after discontinuation due to immune-related adverse events (irAEs) or progressive disease (PD). Here, we performed a meta-analysis to elucidate the possible benefits of ICI rechallenge in patients with cancer.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of irAEs were the outcomes of interest.ResultsThirty-six studies involving 2026 patients were analyzed. ICI rechallenge was associated with a lower incidence of all-grade (OR, 0.05; 95%CI, 0.02-0.13, P < .05) and high-grade irAEs (OR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.21-0.64, P < .05) when compared with initial ICI treatment. Though no significant difference was observed between rechallenge and initial treatment regarding ORR (OR, 0.69; 95%CI, 0.39-1.20, P = .29) and DCR (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.51-1.40, P = 0.52), patients receiving rechallenge had improved PFS (HR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.43-0.73, P < .05) and OS (HR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.43-0.72, P < .05) than those who discontinued ICI therapy permanently. Subgroup analysis revealed that for patients who stopped initial ICI treatment because of irAEs, rechallenge showed similar safety and efficacy with initial treatment, while for patients who discontinued ICI treatment due to PD, rechallenge caused a significant increase in the incidence of high-grade irAEs (OR, 4.97; 95%CI, 1.98-12.5, P < .05) and a decrease in ORR (OR, 0.48; 95%CI, 0.24-0.95, P < .05).ConclusionICI rechallenge is generally an active and feasible strategy that is associated with relative safety, similar efficacy, and improved survival outcomes. Rechallenge should be considered individually with circumspection, and randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a complete toxicity profile, toxicity spectrum, and a safety ranking of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) drugs for treatment of cancer.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published in English between January 2007 and February 2018.Review methodsOnly head-to-head phase II and III randomised controlled trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments or different doses of the same ICI drug were included: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, tremelimumab, atezolizumab, conventional therapy (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and their combinations), two ICI drugs, or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Eligible studies must have reported site, organ, or system level data on treatment related adverse events. High quality, single arm trials and placebo controlled trials on ICI drugs were selected to establish a validation group.Results36 head-to-head phase II and III randomised trials (n=15 370) were included. The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for all adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (probability 76%, pooled incidence 66.4%), nivolumab (56%, 71.8%), pembrolizumab (55%, 75.1%), ipilimumab (55%, 86.8%), and tremelimumab (54%, not applicable). The general safety of ICI drugs ranked from high to low for severe or life threatening adverse events was as follows: atezolizumab (49%, 15.1%), nivolumab (46%, 14.1%), pembrolizumab (72%, 19.8%), ipilimumab (51%, 28.6%), and tremelimumab (28%, not applicable). Compared with conventional therapy, treatment-related adverse events for ICI drugs occurred mainly in the skin, endocrine, hepatic, and pulmonary systems. Taking one ICI drug was generally safer than taking two ICI drugs or one ICI drug with conventional therapy. Among the five ICI drugs, atezolizumab had the highest risk of hypothyroidism, nausea, and vomiting. The predominant treatment-related adverse events for pembrolizumab were arthralgia, pneumonitis, and hepatic toxicities. The main treatment-related adverse events for ipilimumab were skin, gastrointestinal, and renal toxicities. Nivolumab had a narrow and mild toxicity spectrum, mainly causing endocrine toxicities. Integrated evidence from the pooled incidences, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses implied that nivolumab is the best option in terms of safety, especially for the treatment of lung cancer.ConclusionsCompared with other ICI drugs used to treat cancer, atezolizumab had the best safety profile in general, and nivolumab had the best safety profile in lung cancer when taking an integrated approach. The safety ranking of treatments based on ICI drugs is modulated by specific treatment-related adverse events.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017082553.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets