Clinical breast cancer · 2026
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Elderly Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Subgroup Evidence.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Carlos Maria Isadora Rodrigues, Mello Julia Scaramal, Marçalo de Tolosa Ana Luiza, Cardoso Marina Romero, Brando S Becerra-Galindo, Carlos Ana Cláudia Rodrigues, de Moraes Francisco Cezar Aquino
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have advanced the treatment for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but evidence in older adults remains limited. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of ICIs in elderly patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials METHODS: A systematic search identified trials evaluating ICIs in TNBC. Data from nine studies were pooled using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses examined progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in PD-L1-positive tumors and adults aged ≥65 years.
RESULTS: ICIs improved PFS in the intention-to-treat population (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86; I² = 0%), while OS improvement did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69-1.01; I² = 0%). In PD-L1-positive subgroups, pooled results showed reduced mortality risk (OS HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49-1.01; I² = 28.9%) and a nonsignificant trend toward improvement in PFS (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.43-1.16; I² = 50.5%). Benefits were consistent in sensitivity analyses and in adults aged 65 years or older. Safety reporting by age was limited, but available data suggest similar rates of immune-related adverse events, although frailty may influence tolerance CONCLUSION: ICIs provide a meaningful PFS benefit in older adults with TNBC, particularly in PD-L1-positive disease, although overall survival improvement represents a numerical trend rather than a statistically confirmed effect. These findings are based on subgroup analyses and should be interpreted cautiously. Future trials should ensure adequate elderly representation, standardized PD-L1 testing, and comprehensive reporting of toxicity and quality-of-life outcomes to optimize treatment decisions in this population.
RESULTS: ICIs improved PFS in the intention-to-treat population (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86; I² = 0%), while OS improvement did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69-1.01; I² = 0%). In PD-L1-positive subgroups, pooled results showed reduced mortality risk (OS HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.49-1.01; I² = 28.9%) and a nonsignificant trend toward improvement in PFS (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.43-1.16; I² = 50.5%). Benefits were consistent in sensitivity analyses and in adults aged 65 years or older. Safety reporting by age was limited, but available data suggest similar rates of immune-related adverse events, although frailty may influence tolerance CONCLUSION: ICIs provide a meaningful PFS benefit in older adults with TNBC, particularly in PD-L1-positive disease, although overall survival improvement represents a numerical trend rather than a statistically confirmed effect. These findings are based on subgroup analyses and should be interpreted cautiously. Future trials should ensure adequate elderly representation, standardized PD-L1 testing, and comprehensive reporting of toxicity and quality-of-life outcomes to optimize treatment decisions in this population.