Dataset Information

Immune-based treatment re-challenge in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as a front-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has significantly improved patient' outcome. However, little is known about the efficacy or lack thereof of immunotherapy after prior use of anti-PD1/PD-L1 or/and anti-CTLA monoclonal antibodies.

Methods

Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were comprehensively searched from inception to July 2022. Objective response rates (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and ≥ grade 3 adverse events (AEs) were assessed in the meta-analysis, along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and publication bias.

Results

Ten studies which contained a total of 500 patients were included. The pooled ORR was 19% (95% CI: 10, 31), and PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.1, 7.8). There were ≥ grade 3 AEs noted in 25% of patients (95% CI: 14, 37).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis on different second-line ICI-containing therapies in ICI-pretreated mRCC patients supports a modest efficacy and tolerable toxicity.

SUBMITTER: Papathanassiou M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9756433 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Immune-based treatment re-challenge in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Papathanassiou Maria M Tamposis Ioannis I Exarchou-Kouveli Kalliopi K KK Kontou Panagiota I PI de Paz Anna Tzortzi AT Mitrakas Lampros L Samara Maria M Bagos Pantelis G PG Tzortzis Vassilios V Vlachostergios Panagiotis J PJ

Frontiers in oncology 20221202

<h4>Introduction</h4>The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as a front-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has significantly improved patient' outcome. However, little is known about the efficacy or lack thereof of immunotherapy after prior use of anti-PD1/PD-L1 or/and anti-CTLA monoclonal antibodies.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were comprehensively searched from inception to July 2022. ...[more]

PMID: 36531034

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextSurgery is the gold standard for the local treatment of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but alternatives are emerging. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the results of prospective studies using definitive stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to treat primary localised RCC.Evidence acquisitionThis review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023447274). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar for reports of prospective studies published since 2003, describing the outcomes of SBRT for localised RCC. Meta-analyses were performed for local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and rates of adverse events (AEs) using generalised linear mixed models (GLMMs). Outcomes were presented as rates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Risk-of-bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.Evidence synthesisOf the 2983 records, 13 prospective studies (n = 308) were included in the meta-analysis. The median diameter of the irradiated tumours ranged between 1.9 and 5.5 cm in individual studies. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported in 15 patients, and their estimated rate was 0.03 (95%CI: 0.01-0.11; n = 291). One- and two-year LC rates were 0.98 (95%CI: 0.95-0.99; n = 293) and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.93-0.99; n = 253), while one- and two-year OS rates were 0.95 (95%CI: 0.88-0.98; n = 294) and 0.86 (95%CI: 0.77-0.91; n = 224). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity, and the estimations were consistent after excluding studies at a high risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis. Major limitations include a relatively short follow-up, inhomogeneous reporting of renal function deterioration, and a lack of prospective comparative evidence.ConclusionsThe short-term results suggest that SBRT is a valuable treatment method for selected inoperable patients (or those who refuse surgery) with localised RCC associated with low rates of high-grade AEs and excellent LC. However, until the long-term data from randomised controlled trials are available, surgical management remains a standard of care in operable patients.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a significant overall survival advantage over standard advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) therapies, tumor response to these agents remains poor. Some studies have shown that combination therapy including an ICI appears to be the best treatment; however, the overall benefit in terms of efficacy and toxicity still needs to be assessed. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of several combinations that include an ICI to provide a basis for clinical treatment selection.MethodsWe conducted a thorough search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles from January 2010 to June 2023. R 4.4.2 and STATA 16.0 were used to analyze data; hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results.ResultsAn indirect comparison showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib were the most effective treatments for progression-free survival (PFS), with no significant differences between the two interventions (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.96-1.78; P=0.08); rank probability showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib had a 57.1% chance of being the preferred treatment. In the absence of indirect comparisons between pembrolizumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, avelumab plus axitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, pembrolizumab plus axitinib (40.2%) was the best treatment option for overall survival (OS). Compared to pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.65; P=0.02) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.00-0.78; P<0.001) had a lower incidence of overall adverse events (AEs).ConclusionPembrolizumab plus lenvatinib and pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in the highest PFS and OS rates, respectively. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib may be the best option when AEs are a concern.Systematic review registrationhttps://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202410078.

Dataset Information

Immune-based treatment re-challenge in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Immune-based treatment re-challenge in renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets