Safety and Tolerability of PD‐1/PD‐L1 Inhibitors Compared with Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Meta‐Analysis
TL;DR: Compared with chemotherapy, the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors had a significantly lower risk of all- and high-grade fatigue, sensory neuropathy, diarrhea and hematologic toxicities, all-grade anorexia, nausea, and constipation, and treatment discontinuation.
Abstract: Background Compared with chemotherapy, significant improvement in survival outcomes with the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab and the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor atezolizumab has been shown in several types of advanced solid tumors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare safety and tolerability between PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy. Methods PubMed and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) databases were searched 1966 to September 2016. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single-agent U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab) with chemotherapy in cancer patients reporting any all-grade (1-4) or high-grade (3-4) adverse events (AEs), all- or high-grade treatment-related symptoms, hematologic toxicities and immune-related AEs, treatment discontinuation due to toxicities, or treatment-related deaths. The summary incidence, relative risk, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results A total of 3,450 patients from 7 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis: 4 nivolumab, 2 pembrolizumab, and 1 atezolizumab trials. The underlying malignancies included were non-small cell lung cancer (4 trials) and melanoma (3 trials). Compared with chemotherapy, the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors had a significantly lower risk of all- and high-grade fatigue, sensory neuropathy, diarrhea and hematologic toxicities, all-grade anorexia, nausea, and constipation, any all- and high-grade AEs, and treatment discontinuation. There was an increased risk of all-grade rash, pruritus, colitis, aminotransferase elevations, hypothyroidism, and hyperthyroidism, and all- and high-grade pneumonitis with PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Conclusion PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are overall better tolerated than chemotherapy. Our results provide further evidence supporting the favorable risk/benefit ratio for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. The Oncologist 2017;22:470-479 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare summary toxicity endpoints and clinically relevant adverse events between programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors and chemotherapy. PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of treatment-related symptoms (fatigue, anorexia, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and sensory neuropathy) but a higher risk of immune-related adverse events (AEs). Summary toxicity endpoints favor PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors (any all- and high-grade AEs and treatment discontinuation). PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors are overall better tolerated than chemotherapy. In addition to efficacy data from trials, our findings provide useful information for clinicians for well-balanced discussions with their patients on the risks and benefits of treatment options for advanced cancer.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This guide to cancer immunotherapy provides a comprehensive historical and biological perspective regarding the advent and clinical implementation of cancer immunotherapeutics, with an emphasis on the fundamental importance of T lymphocyte regulation.
Abstract: The T lymphocyte, especially its capacity for antigen-directed cytotoxicity, has become a central focus for engaging the immune system in the fight against cancer. Basic science discoveries elucidating the molecular and cellular biology of the T cell have led to new strategies in this fight, including checkpoint blockade, adoptive cellular therapy and cancer vaccinology. This area of immunological research has been highly active for the past 50 years and is now enjoying unprecedented bench-to-bedside clinical success. Here, we provide a comprehensive historical and biological perspective regarding the advent and clinical implementation of cancer immunotherapeutics, with an emphasis on the fundamental importance of T lymphocyte regulation. We highlight clinical trials that demonstrate therapeutic efficacy and toxicities associated with each class of drug. Finally, we summarize emerging therapies and emphasize the yet to be elucidated questions and future promise within the field of cancer immunotherapy.
1,695 citations
TL;DR: Predictive biomarkers, mechanisms of resistance, hyperprogressors, treatment duration and treatment beyond progression, immune-related toxicities, and clinical trial design are key concepts in need of further consideration to optimize the anticancer potential of this class of immunotherapy.
Abstract: Early preclinical evidence provided the rationale for programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade as a potential form of cancer immunotherapy given that activation of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis putatively served as a mechanism for tumor evasion of host tumor antigen-specific T-cell immunity. Early-phase studies investigating several humanized monoclonal IgG4 antibodies targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 in advanced solid tumors paved way for the development of the first PD-1 inhibitors, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014. The number of FDA-approved agents of this class is rapidly enlarging with indications for treatment spanning across a spectrum of malignancies. The purpose of this review is to highlight the clinical development of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer therapy to date. In particular, we focus on detailing the registration trials that have led to FDA-approved indications of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapies in cancer. As the number of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors continues to grow, predictive biomarkers, mechanisms of resistance, hyperprogressors, treatment duration and treatment beyond progression, immune-related toxicities, and clinical trial design are key concepts in need of further consideration to optimize the anticancer potential of this class of immunotherapy.
867 citations
TL;DR: The clinical success of these FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors is highlighted, current challenges and future strategies that must be considered going forward are discussed to maximize the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer.
778 citations
TL;DR: A better understanding of PD-1 pathway mediated immunosuppression is needed to predict patient response and improve treatment efficacy, as well as how to improve therapeutic efficacy and safety of cancer immunotherapy.
Abstract: The programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) pathway has received considerable attention due to its role in eliciting the immune checkpoint response of T cells, resulting in tumor cells capable of evading immune surveillance and being highly refractory to conventional chemotherapy. Application of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies as checkpoint inhibitors is rapidly becoming a promising therapeutic approach in treating tumors, and some of them have successfully been commercialized in the past few years. However, not all patients show complete responses and adverse events have been noted, suggesting a better understanding of PD-1 pathway mediated immunosuppression is needed to predict patient response and improve treatment efficacy. Here, we review the progresses on the studies of the mechanistic role of PD-1 pathway in the tumor immune evasion, recent clinical development and commercialization of PD-1 pathway inhibitors, the toxicities associated with PD-1 blockade observed in clinical trials as well as how to improve therapeutic efficacy and safety of cancer immunotherapy.
283 citations
TL;DR: This article provides a comprehensive review of the early and late phase trials that led to the regulatory approval of all five PD1‐ PDL‐1 inhibitors in the corresponding cancer types and presents available data on the combinations of PD1 • PDL •1 inhibitors with other therapies, the toxicity profile of the PD1• PDL•1 inhibitors and ongoing trials testing the efficacy of these agents in cancer types beyond those that have been addressed already.
220 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice?
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis.
Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4
Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted?
A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …
45,105 citations
"Safety and Tolerability of PD‐1/PD‐..." refers methods in this paper
...Statistical heterogeneity in results between studies included in the meta-analysis was examined using Cochrane’s Q statistic, and inconsistency was quantified with I(2) statistic (100% 3 (Q2 df)/Q) [20]....
[...]
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure
37,989 citations
"Safety and Tolerability of PD‐1/PD‐..." refers methods in this paper
...We evaluated publication bias using funnel plots and the Begg and Egger tests [22, 23]....
[...]
TL;DR: This paper examines eight published reviews each reporting results from several related trials in order to evaluate the efficacy of a certain treatment for a specified medical condition and suggests a simple noniterative procedure for characterizing the distribution of treatment effects in a series of studies.
33,234 citations
"Safety and Tolerability of PD‐1/PD‐..." refers methods in this paper
...When substantial heterogeneity was observed, the pooled estimate calculated based on the random-effects model was reported by using the DerSimonian and Laird method, which considers both within-study and between-study variations [21]....
[...]
Journal Article•
26,749 citations