Medicine · 2022
Efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in treating non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Guan Jiaheng, Zhang Jing, Zhang Xiaoping, Yuan Zhongshu, Cheng Jian, Chen Baoan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors has been widely used in the treatment of solid tumors and Hodgkin lymphoma, demonstrating powerful efficacy and good safety. However, there is no systematic review and meta-analysis to fully investigate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in treating non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, and abstracts of conference proceedings of annual meetings up to January 23, 2022, to identify eligible clinical trials. To evaluate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR), 1-year overall survival rate, and 1-year progression-free survival rate were analyzed. For safety analysis, we calculated rates of any grade and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events.
RESULTS: Overall 22 studies and 1150 participants were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled ORR, CRR, 1-year overall survival, and 1-year progression-free survival rates were 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.54), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.13-0.31), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.29-0.62), respectively. The ORR and CRR in the combination immunochemotherapy subgroup (0.65 and 0.41) were higher than those in the monotherapy (0.27 and 0.09) and combination chemotherapy (0.39 and 0.19) subgroups. This study was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD 42022316805).
CONCLUSION: Given that there were limited clinical trials and relatively few relevant studies, we conducted this meta-analysis to fully elucidate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in NHL. Our results suggested that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors improved outcomes of responses as well as survival rates in NHL patients with tolerable adverse events. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are still needed to further confirm our findings.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, and abstracts of conference proceedings of annual meetings up to January 23, 2022, to identify eligible clinical trials. To evaluate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR), 1-year overall survival rate, and 1-year progression-free survival rate were analyzed. For safety analysis, we calculated rates of any grade and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events.
RESULTS: Overall 22 studies and 1150 participants were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled ORR, CRR, 1-year overall survival, and 1-year progression-free survival rates were 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.54), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.13-0.31), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.29-0.62), respectively. The ORR and CRR in the combination immunochemotherapy subgroup (0.65 and 0.41) were higher than those in the monotherapy (0.27 and 0.09) and combination chemotherapy (0.39 and 0.19) subgroups. This study was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD 42022316805).
CONCLUSION: Given that there were limited clinical trials and relatively few relevant studies, we conducted this meta-analysis to fully elucidate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in NHL. Our results suggested that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors improved outcomes of responses as well as survival rates in NHL patients with tolerable adverse events. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are still needed to further confirm our findings.