scholarly journals P48.13 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Combined with Etoposide-Platinum as First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage SCLC: A Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. S504-S505
Author(s):  
F. Chen ◽  
N. Chen ◽  
J. Cui
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Extensive Stage

scholarly journals Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Bladder Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
Antonio Lopez-Beltran ◽  
Alessia Cimadamore ◽  
Ana Blanca ◽  
Francesco Massari ◽  
Nuno Vau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Durable Response ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

A number of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved as first-line therapy in case of cisplatin-ineligible patients or as second-line therapy for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) of the bladder. About 30% of patients with mUC will respond to ICIs immunotherapy. Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression detected by immunohistochemistry seems to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with mUC as supported by the objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) associated with the response observed in most clinical trials. Pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, demonstrated better OS respective to chemotherapy in a randomized phase 3 study for second-line treatment of mUC. Nivolumab, a PD-1 antibody, also demonstrated an OS benefit when compared to controls. Atezolizumab, Durvalumab, and Avelumab antibodies targeting PD-L1 have also received approval as second-line treatments for mUC with durable response for more than 1 year in selected patients. Atezolizumab and Pembrolizumab also received approval for first-line treatment of patients that are ineligible for cisplatin. A focus on the utility of ICIs in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or as combination with chemotherapy, is the basis of some ongoing trials. The identification of a clinically useful biomarker, single or in association, to determine the optimal ICIs treatment for patients with mUC is very much needed as emphasized by the current literature. In this review, we examined relevant clinical trial results with ICIs in patients with mUC alone or as part of drug combinations; emphasis is also placed on the adjuvant and neoadjuvant setting. The current landscape of selected biomarkers of response to ICIs including anti-PD-L1 immunohistochemistry is also briefly reviewed.

scholarly journals Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Vaccines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 616
Author(s):  
Mohamed A. Abd El Aziz ◽  
Antonio Facciorusso ◽  
Tarek Nayfeh ◽  
Samer Saadi ◽  
Mohamed Elnaggar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Despite the advances in screening protocols and treatment options, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still considered to be the most lethal malignancy in patients with liver cirrhosis. Moreover, the survival outcomes after failure of first-line therapy for unresectable HCC is still poor with limited therapeutic options. One of these options is immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of this study is to comprehensively review the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with HCC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy in first-line NSCLC: a meta-analysis

Immunotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fausto Petrelli ◽  
Roberto Ferrara ◽  
Diego Signorelli ◽  
Antonio Ghidini ◽  
Claudia Proto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
First Line ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Programmed Death ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis

This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving first-line studies in which immune checkpoint inhibitors were added to chemotherapy and were compared with chemotherapy alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to rate the quality of the evidence. Nine articles were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. A meta-analysis of the nine randomized trials showed a significant benefit in terms of OS (hazard ratio: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.66–0.85]; p < 0.01). Only programmed death ligand-1 positive-high cancers derive a significant OS benefit. In this meta-analysis, there is moderate evidence that the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy may improve both OS compared with chemotherapy alone.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Combination with Chemotherapy as a First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Carcinoma

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3629
Author(s):  
Hsiao-Ling Chen ◽  
Yu-Kang Tu ◽  
Hsiu-Mei Chang ◽  
Tai-Huang Lee ◽  
Kuan-Li Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
Grade 3

Patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) have a very short survival time even if they receive standard cytotoxic chemotherapy with etoposide and platinum (EP). Several randomized controlled trials have shown that patients with ED-SCLC who received a combination of EP plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) had superior survival compared with those who received EP alone. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide a ranking of ICIs for our primary endpoints in terms of overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR), as well as our secondary endpoint in terms of adverse events. The fractional polynomial model was used to evaluate the adjusted hazard ratios for the survival indicators (OS and PFS). Treatment rank was estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), as well as the probability of being best (Prbest) reference. EP plus nivolumab, atezolizumab or durvalumab had significant benefits compared with EP alone in terms of OS (Hazard Ratio HR = 0.67, 95% Confidence Interval CI = 0.46–0.98 for nivolumab, HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54–0.91 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59–0.90 for durvalumab) but no significant differences were observed for pembrolizumab or ipilimumab. The probability of nivolumab being ranked first among all treatment arms was highest (SCURA = 78.7%, Prbest = 46.7%). All EP plus ICI combinations had a longer PFS compared with EP alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46–0.92 for nivolumab, HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.61–0.96 for atezolizumab, HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65–0.94 for durvalumab, HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61–0.92 for pembrolizumab), and nivolumab was ranked first in terms of PFS (SCURA = 85.0%, Prbest = 66.8%). In addition, nivolumab had the highest probability of grade 3–4 adverse events (SUCRA = 84.8%) in our study. We found that nivolumab had the best PFS and OS in all combinations of ICIs and EP, but nivolumab also had the highest probability of grade 3–4 adverse events in our network meta-analysis. Further head-to head large-scale phase III randomized controlled studies are needed to verify our conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document