European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2022
Immune checkpoint blockers in patients with unresectable or metastatic thymic epithelial tumours: A meta-analysis.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Remon Jordi, Villacampa Guillermo, Facchinetti Francesco, Di Maio Massimo, Marcuse Florit, Tiseo Marcello, Hochstenbag Monique, Hendriks Lizza E L, Besse Benjamin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: For patients with advanced thymic epithelial tumours (TET), there is no standard second-line treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy. Although immune checkpoint blockers (ICB) are a potential treatment strategy, their efficacy seems limited with an increased risk of immune-related adverse events (ir-AEs), thus hampering their application in daily clinical practice.
METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to better evaluate the existing evidence about the activity and safety of ICB in the setting of unresectable or metastatic advanced TET previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Six phase I/II trials met the eligibility criteria including a total of 166 evaluable patients (77% thymic carcinoma, 23% thymoma) evaluable for activity after being treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab or atezolizumab. The overall response rate to ICB was 18.4% (95% CI: 12.3-26.5), and the one-year progression-free survival rate and one-year overall survival rate were 26.0% (95% CI: 19.6-34.6) and 66.9% (95% CI: 59.6-75.2%), respectively. The incidence of grade 3-5 ir-AEs was 26.4%, with 17.1% in thymic carcinoma and 58.3% in thymoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the absence of a robust demonstration of efficacy in the context of randomised trials, our results suggest ICB as a potential strategy in patients with pretreated TET, mainly among patients with thymic carcinoma. Close monitoring is strongly advised to detect severe immune-toxicity.
METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis to better evaluate the existing evidence about the activity and safety of ICB in the setting of unresectable or metastatic advanced TET previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Six phase I/II trials met the eligibility criteria including a total of 166 evaluable patients (77% thymic carcinoma, 23% thymoma) evaluable for activity after being treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, avelumab or atezolizumab. The overall response rate to ICB was 18.4% (95% CI: 12.3-26.5), and the one-year progression-free survival rate and one-year overall survival rate were 26.0% (95% CI: 19.6-34.6) and 66.9% (95% CI: 59.6-75.2%), respectively. The incidence of grade 3-5 ir-AEs was 26.4%, with 17.1% in thymic carcinoma and 58.3% in thymoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the absence of a robust demonstration of efficacy in the context of randomised trials, our results suggest ICB as a potential strategy in patients with pretreated TET, mainly among patients with thymic carcinoma. Close monitoring is strongly advised to detect severe immune-toxicity.