PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis on their efficacy and safety.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Zuxiu Wang, Peimeng You, Zhanglei Yang, Hanxi Xiao, Xinrong Tang, Yongping Pan, Xuhuan Li, Feng Gao
{"title":"PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis on their efficacy and safety.","authors":"Zuxiu Wang, Peimeng You, Zhanglei Yang, Hanxi Xiao, Xinrong Tang, Yongping Pan, Xuhuan Li, Feng Gao","doi":"10.1186/s12885-024-13105-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a particularly aggressive and clinically challenging subtype of breast cancer, characterized by its invasive nature and generally poor prognosis. Treatment options for unresectable TNBC are limited. In recent years, the advent of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors has offered a promising new treatment option for unresectable TNBC. The role of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in unresectable TNBC management remains a subject of debate. This article aims to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through a meta-analysis (MA) to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety profile of ICIs in the treatment of unresectable TNBC.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs and chemotherapy alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis included 11 trials. Therapy with PD-L1 inhibitors was superior to chemotherapy in terms of OS in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and the PD-L1-positive population. (ITT: HR: = 0.90 [0.81, 0.99], P = 0.04, I<sup>2</sup> = 48%; PD-L1 + : HR = 0.82 [0.70, 0.95], P = 0.01, I<sup>2</sup> = 64%); In terms of PFS, treatment with PD-L1 inhibitors prolonged PFS in both the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations compared with chemotherapy (ITT: HR: = 0.85 [0.77, 0.93], P = 0.0006, I<sup>2</sup> = 46%; PD-L1 + : HR = 0.72 [0.62, 0.83], P < 0.00001, I<sup>2</sup> = 70%, Fig. 5); Compared with chemotherapy alone, treatment with PD-1 inhibitors prolonged OS in both the PD-L1-positive and ITT populations. (ITT: HR = 0.87 [0.78, 0.96], P = 0.007, I<sup>2</sup> = 71%; CPS ≥ 1: HR = 0.81 [0.71, 0.92], P = 0.001, I<sup>2</sup> = 39%); In terms of PFS, therapy with PD-1 inhibitors improved PFS in both the ITT population and the PD-L1-positive population compared with chemotherapy. (ITT: HR = 0.79 [0.70, 0.90], P = 0.0004, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; CPS ≥ 1: HR = 0.71 [0.61, 0.83], P < 0.0001, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; CPS ≥ 10: HR = 0.67 [0.53, 0.84], P = 0.0008, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors can offer survival benefits to TNBC patients, with the primary beneficiaries being those who are PD-L1-positive. However, immunotherapy can also lead to an increase in treatment-related adverse events. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a risk assessment for each patient before starting treatment to prevent the occurrence of serious adverse reactions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This systematic review study has been filed with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42024571775).</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526542/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-13105-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a particularly aggressive and clinically challenging subtype of breast cancer, characterized by its invasive nature and generally poor prognosis. Treatment options for unresectable TNBC are limited. In recent years, the advent of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors has offered a promising new treatment option for unresectable TNBC. The role of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in unresectable TNBC management remains a subject of debate. This article aims to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through a meta-analysis (MA) to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety profile of ICIs in the treatment of unresectable TNBC.

Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs and chemotherapy alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).

Results: This meta-analysis included 11 trials. Therapy with PD-L1 inhibitors was superior to chemotherapy in terms of OS in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and the PD-L1-positive population. (ITT: HR: = 0.90 [0.81, 0.99], P = 0.04, I2 = 48%; PD-L1 + : HR = 0.82 [0.70, 0.95], P = 0.01, I2 = 64%); In terms of PFS, treatment with PD-L1 inhibitors prolonged PFS in both the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations compared with chemotherapy (ITT: HR: = 0.85 [0.77, 0.93], P = 0.0006, I2 = 46%; PD-L1 + : HR = 0.72 [0.62, 0.83], P < 0.00001, I2 = 70%, Fig. 5); Compared with chemotherapy alone, treatment with PD-1 inhibitors prolonged OS in both the PD-L1-positive and ITT populations. (ITT: HR = 0.87 [0.78, 0.96], P = 0.007, I2 = 71%; CPS ≥ 1: HR = 0.81 [0.71, 0.92], P = 0.001, I2 = 39%); In terms of PFS, therapy with PD-1 inhibitors improved PFS in both the ITT population and the PD-L1-positive population compared with chemotherapy. (ITT: HR = 0.79 [0.70, 0.90], P = 0.0004, I2 = 0%; CPS ≥ 1: HR = 0.71 [0.61, 0.83], P < 0.0001, I2 = 0%; CPS ≥ 10: HR = 0.67 [0.53, 0.84], P = 0.0008, I2 = 0%).

Conclusion: Both PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors can offer survival benefits to TNBC patients, with the primary beneficiaries being those who are PD-L1-positive. However, immunotherapy can also lead to an increase in treatment-related adverse events. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a risk assessment for each patient before starting treatment to prevent the occurrence of serious adverse reactions.

Trial registration: This systematic review study has been filed with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42024571775).

PD-1/PD-L1免疫检查点抑制剂治疗不可切除的局部晚期或转移性三阴性乳腺癌:疗效和安全性荟萃分析。
背景:三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC)是一种特别具有侵袭性和临床挑战性的乳腺癌亚型,其特点是侵袭性和预后普遍较差。无法切除的 TNBC 的治疗方案有限。近年来,PD-1/PD-L1 免疫检查点抑制剂的出现为不可切除的 TNBC 提供了一种前景广阔的新治疗方案。PD-1/PD-L1免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)在不可切除的TNBC治疗中的作用仍存在争议。本文旨在通过荟萃分析(Meta-analysis,MA)综合来自随机对照试验(RCTs)的证据,对ICIs治疗不可切除TNBC的疗效和安全性进行全面评估:我们检索了PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science和ClinicalTrials.gov上符合条件的RCT,这些RCT比较了PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs和单纯化疗的疗效和安全性。分析的结果包括总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)、客观反应率(ORR)和治疗相关不良反应(AEs):这项荟萃分析包括11项试验。在意向治疗(ITT)人群和PD-L1阳性人群中,PD-L1抑制剂治疗的OS均优于化疗。(ITT: HR: = 0.90 [0.81, 0.99],P = 0.04,I2 = 48%;PD-L1 + :HR=0.82[0.70,0.95],P=0.01,I2=64%);在PFS方面,与化疗相比,PD-L1抑制剂治疗可延长ITT和PD-L1阳性人群的PFS(ITT:HR:=0.85[0.77,0.93],P=0.0006,I2=46%;PD-L1 + :HR=0.72[0.62,0.83],P2=70%,图5);与单纯化疗相比,PD-1抑制剂治疗可延长PD-L1阳性和ITT人群的OS。(ITT:HR = 0.87 [0.78,0.96],P = 0.007,I2 = 71%;CPS≥1:HR = 0.81 [0.71,0.92],P = 0.001,I2 = 39%);在PFS方面,与化疗相比,PD-1抑制剂治疗可改善ITT人群和PD-L1阳性人群的PFS。(ITT:HR = 0.79 [0.70,0.90],P = 0.0004,I2 = 0%;CPS≥1:HR = 0.71 [0.61,0.83],P 2 = 0%;CPS≥10:HR = 0.67 [0.53,0.84],P = 0.0008,I2 = 0%):PD-1和PD-L1抑制剂都能为TNBC患者带来生存益处,其中PD-L1阳性患者是主要受益者。然而,免疫疗法也可能导致治疗相关不良事件的增加。因此,在开始治疗前,必须对每位患者进行风险评估,以防止严重不良反应的发生:本系统综述研究已在 PROSPERO 注册(注册号:CRD42024571775)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信