Safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer patients following immune-related adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer patients following immune-related adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Kexin Tan, Aolin Wang, Yumin Zheng, Shuo Wang, Chao Wang, Jia Li, Xingyu Lu, Huijing Dong, Jiabin Zheng, Huijuan Cui","doi":"10.1007/s12094-024-03529-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after experiencing immune-related adverse events (irAEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies investigating the safety and efficacy of restarting ICIs in NSCLC patients after irAEs. Outcome measures, including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) after ICI restarting, were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using the R meta-package.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four studies involving a total of 326 subjects were included, comprising 137 patients who restarted ICI treatment after irAEs and 189 patients who did not restart ICI treatment. The results revealed that ICI restarting was associated with an increased ORR (OR = 2.36, 95% CI 1.49-3.84), prolonged PFS (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.86), and prolonged OS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.99) compared to non-restarting. The incidence of irAEs after ICI restarting was 45% (95% CI 0.27-0.63).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Restarting ICI treatment after discontinuation due to previous irAEs appears to be a reasonable option for NSCLC patients. However, a comprehensive assessment of the potential benefits and risks to individual patients is crucial, and close monitoring of irAEs is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":50685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical & Translational Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"196-203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical & Translational Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03529-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of restarting immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after experiencing immune-related adverse events (irAEs).
Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies investigating the safety and efficacy of restarting ICIs in NSCLC patients after irAEs. Outcome measures, including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) after ICI restarting, were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed using the R meta-package.
Results: Four studies involving a total of 326 subjects were included, comprising 137 patients who restarted ICI treatment after irAEs and 189 patients who did not restart ICI treatment. The results revealed that ICI restarting was associated with an increased ORR (OR = 2.36, 95% CI 1.49-3.84), prolonged PFS (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.86), and prolonged OS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.99) compared to non-restarting. The incidence of irAEs after ICI restarting was 45% (95% CI 0.27-0.63).
Conclusion: Restarting ICI treatment after discontinuation due to previous irAEs appears to be a reasonable option for NSCLC patients. However, a comprehensive assessment of the potential benefits and risks to individual patients is crucial, and close monitoring of irAEs is warranted.
期刊介绍：
Clinical and Translational Oncology is an international journal devoted to fostering interaction between experimental and clinical oncology. It covers all aspects of research on cancer, from the more basic discoveries dealing with both cell and molecular biology of tumour cells, to the most advanced clinical assays of conventional and new drugs. In addition, the journal has a strong commitment to facilitating the transfer of knowledge from the basic laboratory to the clinical practice, with the publication of educational series devoted to closing the gap between molecular and clinical oncologists. Molecular biology of tumours, identification of new targets for cancer therapy, and new technologies for research and treatment of cancer are the major themes covered by the educational series. Full research articles on a broad spectrum of subjects, including the molecular and cellular bases of disease, aetiology, pathophysiology, pathology, epidemiology, clinical features, and the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cancer, will be considered for publication.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
