558 Programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand-1 inhibitors in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of their efficacy and safety

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A592-A592
Author(s):  
Melissa Lingohr-Smith ◽  
Chelsea Deitelzweig ◽  
Grace Lin ◽  
Jay Lin

BackgroundTreatment advances have been made in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with the development and approval of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors may be used as monotherapies or in combination with other agents and have been shown to improve NSCLC patient outcomes in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic search to compare the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of NSCLC.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed was conducted to identify phase III clinical trials in which the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of NSCLC was evaluated. PD-1 inhibitors included nivolumab and pembrolizumab; PD-L1 inhibitors included atezolizumab, avelumab, and durvalumab. Patient characteristics and efficacy data were extracted.ResultsSixteen phase III clinical trials were identified (nivolumab=4; pembrolizumab=5; atezolizumab=5; avelumab=1; durvalumab=1). Across the 3 nivolumab monotherapy trials (n=638; median ages: 61–63 years), median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged 2.3–4.2 months; response rates ranged 19%-26%; grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 7%-18% of patients. Nivolumab in combination with iplimumab (n=583; median age: 64 years) had a median PFS of 5.1 months and response rate of 33%; grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 33% of patients. Across the 3 pembrolizumab monotherapy trials (n=1,481; median ages: 63–64 years), median PFS ranged 3.9–10.3 months; response rates ranged 18%-45%; grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 13%-27% of patients. In the 2 pembrolizumab combination therapy trials (n=688; median ages: 65 years), median PFS ranged 6.4–8.8 months; response rates ranged 48%-58%; grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 67%-70% of patients. In the 4 atezolizumab combination therapy trials (n=1,486; median ages: 63–64 years), median PFS ranged 6.3–8.3 months; response rates ranged 47%-63.5%; grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 54%-73% of patients. In the 3 monotherapy trials of atezolizumab (n=613; median age: 63 years), avelumab (n=396; median age: 64 years), and durvalumab (n=476; median age: 64 years), the median months of PFS were 2.7, 2.8, and 17.2, respectively; response rates were 14%, 15%, and 30%, respectively; grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 15%, 10%, and 30.5% of patients, respectively.ConclusionsAlthough treatment responses varied, most of the evaluated PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with a clinical benefit for NSCLC trial patients. Generally, treatment efficacy was greater with combination therapies, but adverse events occurred more frequently. Innovations in the targeting/personalization of PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapies will likely lead to improved NSCLC patient outcomes and further research is needed in this regard.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14591-e14591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faheem Farooq ◽  
Jules A. Cohen

e14591 Background: Selective CDK4/6 inhibitors such as palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib have demonstrated efficacy in advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer. Drug-related toxicity has been manageable, but variable amongst the drugs. This meta-analysis was conducted to guide CDK inhibitor choice based on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: A systematic literature review of Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE was performed in December 2018. Efficacy was evaluated via reported progression free survival (PFS) and pooled hazard ratios (HR). Overall response rate (ORR), treatment discontinuation, and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were measured via pooled odds ratios (OR). Meta-analyses were performed using random effects modeling and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A pooled analysis of 7 phase III clinical trials (n = 4415) demonstrated a HR of 0.55 (CI: 0.51-0.60) for PFS and an OR of 1.93 (CI: 1.54-2.42) for ORR. First-line treatment trials (n = 3020) pairing CDK 4/6 inhibitors with NSAI/tamoxifen had a HR of 0.56 (CI: 0.51-0.60) for prolonged PFS and an OR of 1.64 (CI: 1.39-1.95) for ORR. Second-line treatment trials (n = 1916) pairing CDK 4/6 inhibitors with fulvestrant had an HR of 0.54 (CI: 0.48-0.61) for prolonged PFS and an OR of 2.48 (CI: 1.57-3.90) for ORR. Palbociclib and ribociclib had similar rates of grade 3/4 AEs, neutropenia, and treatment discontinuation. Abemaciclib had lower rates of grade 3/4 AEs overall, but significantly increased rates of diarrhea and treatment discontinuation due to AEs. Conclusions: Each drug demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS. However, there is no statistical difference in efficacy among the three CDK inhibitors. Treatment decisions can be guided by the tolerability of AEs amongst the medications. Further patient follow-up will illuminate whether there is an OS advantage in this novel drug class. [Table: see text]


Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 582
Author(s):  
Haoyue Cheng ◽  
Zhicheng Peng ◽  
Wenliang Luo ◽  
Shuting Si ◽  
Minjia Mo ◽  
...  

Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09–0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03–0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19–0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03–2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04–2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02–6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52–9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21–1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84–3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80–1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11–2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Philippe Metges ◽  
Dominique Genet ◽  
David Tougeron ◽  
Catherine Ligeza ◽  
Michel Ducreux ◽  
...  

Aim: We report real-world evidence with regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer from the French cohort of the international, prospective, observational CORRELATE study. Patients & methods: Patients receiving regorafenib according to French health authority approval were included. The primary end point was treatment-emergent adverse events. Overall survival and progression-free survival were secondary end points. Results: Two hundred and forty-two patients (61% male, median age: 66 years) were enrolled. The most common grade ≥3 drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were hand–foot skin reaction (10.3%), asthenia/fatigue (9.9/1.2%) and hypertension (6.2%). Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 6.8 (95% CI: 6.3–7.6) and 2.8 months (95% CI: 2.6–3.0), respectively. Conclusion: The real-world safety and effectiveness data of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer in France align with findings from Phase III clinical trials and the global CORRELATE population.


Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 538-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephane Lepretre ◽  
Therese Aurran ◽  
Beatrice Mahe ◽  
Bruno Cazin ◽  
Olivier Tournihlac ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 538 Introduction: Recent data suggest that FCR immunochemotherapy improves response rates and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) of previously untreated CLL pts. The monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab, a humanized anti-CD52 antibody (Campath), has shown activity alone and in combination in CLL pts. In order to validate the place of Campath in combination with the synergic association FC, the FCGCLL/MW and the GOELAMS conducted a multicenter French and Belgian phase III trial, CLL2007FMP, to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of FCCam versus FCR in previously untreated patients with advanced CLL. PFS was the primary-end-point of this trial. Methods and Patients: A cohort of 178 fit medically pts (cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score of up to 6), less than 65 years old, without 17p deletion, were enrolled between November 2007 and January 2009. Pts were randomly assigned to receive 6 oral courses of FC (F 40mg/m2 d1-3 and C 250 mg/m2 d1–3; q 28 days) in combination with either R (n=83; 375 mg/m2 i.v. d 0 at first cycle and 500 mg/m2 d1 all subsequent cycles; q 28 days) or Cam (n=82; 30 mg s/cut d1-3; q 28 days). Patients were stratified according to IgVH mutational status and 11q deletion. Anti-infective prophylaxis included trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and valaciclovir during immunochemotherapy and until the CD4-positive lymphocyte count reached 0,2 109/l. In the FCCAm arm, CMV monitoring was monthly performed by either PCR or antigenemia. The use of GSCF was recommended. The trial's recruitment was stopped in January 2009 after 165 pts had been randomized (83 and 82 respectively in the FCR and FCCam arms) because of an excess of mortality in the FCCam arm, while 13 patients were enrolled but not randomized because of this decision. Results: We reported here a preliminary analysis including baseline characteristics and response rates in the first 100 included pts but safety analysis of the whole cohort ; among the first 100 pts, 81% were Binet B, 19 % Binet C ; median age was 56.8 years (range 52.8 to 60.6). Percentages of pts with 11q deletion, unmutated IgVH status, and elevated β2m, were 18.5%, 48.4%, and 77.6%, respectively. A number of 76.5% (FCR arm) and 71.4% (FCCam arm) of pts received 6 cycles. Reasons for discontinuation were mainly related to persistent grade 3-4 neutropenia. Safety analysis data were availabel for 165 pts. Number of patients reported with Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) grade 3-4 adverse events were observed in 87.8% (FCCam arm) versus 90.2% (FCR arm) (p = 0.76). Grade 3-4 neutropenia was the most frequently reported adverse event (79.6% with FCCam and 74.6% with FCR arm). Interestingly, percentage of observed grade 4 neutropenia was stable during FCR treatment (17.6% for cycle 1 and 17.9% for cycle 6) but increased during FCCam treatment (28.4% for cycle 1 and 45.5% for cycle 6). A total of 63 Serious Adverse events (SAE) were declared (19 with 18 pts in FCR arm, and 44 with 35 pts in FCCam arm) consisting mostly of the cases in febrile neutropenia (13 with FCR arm, 27 with FCCam arm); 7 patients died, all in the FCCam arm : 3 of B diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (one of them EBV positive), 1 of mucormycosis, 1 of septic shock due to P.aeruginosae and 2 of heart failure during neutropenia. The Overall Response Rate ( ORR) in the first 100 patients was 96% in the FCR arm compared to 85% in the FCCam arm (p=0.086). The Complete Response rate was 78% (FCR arm) versus 58% (FCCam arm) (p=0.072). PFS and OS are not yet evaluable. Conclusion: the FCCam regimen for the treatment of advanced CLL appeared to be associated with an unfavourable safety profile representing a significant limitation of its use in this indication. Other combinations with Alemtuzumab may be studied. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Kidney Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Andrew W. Hahn ◽  
Amishi Y. Shah ◽  
Matthew T. Campbell

BACKGROUND: The introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors rapidly changed treatment for patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). First-line treatment now includes multiple immuno-oncology (IO) combinations that were approved over a short time period and were not directly compared in randomized clinical trials. Thus, clinicians face a challenge in individualizing first-line treatment to optimize clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically review clinical outcomes for first-line IO combinations for patients with mRCC. METHODS: Literature reporting outcomes from phase III clinical trials that evaluated first-line IO combination therapies was identified through a search of the PubMed electronic database following PRISMA guidelines. Abstracts were screened to identify manuscripts that fit the search criteria, and then, a descriptive review was performed. RESULTS: Our literature search identified 2,229 abstracts that met the initial search criteria, and then, it was narrowed to 431 abstracts using filters for “clinical trial” and a “ten year” time window. After review of the abstracts, six manuscripts were selected for data extraction and subsequent review. CONCLUSION: When compared to sunitinib, four IO combinations improved overall survival as first-line treatment, and five improved progression free survival for patients with mRCC. These IO combination therapies have unique characteristics, so clinicians should take into account patient and cancer factors to individualize treatment recommendations.


2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A284-A284
Author(s):  
B NAULT ◽  
S SUE ◽  
J HEGGLAND ◽  
S GOHARI ◽  
G LIGOZIO ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 620-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Falardeau ◽  
Pierre Champagne ◽  
Patrick Poyet ◽  
Claude Hariton ◽  
[Eacute]ric Dupont

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document