Pooled safety profiles of bispecific antibodies targeting PD-1/CTLA-4 or PD-1/VEGF in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Jiayun Ma, Weixing Zhao
{"title":"Pooled safety profiles of bispecific antibodies targeting PD-1/CTLA-4 or PD-1/VEGF in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.","authors":"Jiayun Ma, Weixing Zhao","doi":"10.1186/s43046-026-00387-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to systematically synthesize and separately quantify the pooled safety profiles of bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) targeting PD-1/CTLA-4 or PD-1/VEGF in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to descriptively summarize class-specific safety patterns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed prospective clinical trials published through January 2026. A total of 17 studies, encompassing 1802 patients, were included. Single-arm proportion meta-analyses were conducted separately for each BsAb class using random-effects models. No formal between-class statistical comparison was performed. Given the clinical heterogeneity across included cohorts, including differences in study phase, treatment line, molecular subtype, and treatment regimen, pooled estimates were interpreted descriptively. Subgroup analyses by treatment regimen, treatment line, and individual BsAb agent were considered exploratory. Because of the limited number of cohorts within each phase stratum, the impact of study phase was assessed descriptively rather than through formal stratified meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In separate pooled analyses, the incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 41.79% for PD-1/CTLA-4 BsAbs and 43.51% for PD-1/VEGF BsAbs. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested different patterns of heterogeneity across the available cohorts. In PD-1/CTLA-4 BsAb studies, AE rates appeared to vary across individual agents, whereas in PD-1/VEGF BsAb studies, higher AE rates were observed mainly in chemotherapy-containing regimens. These observations should be interpreted cautiously because they may reflect differences in the distribution of included agents, patient populations, study phases, and treatment strategies rather than inherent class-specific toxicity mechanisms. Regarding tolerability, the pooled treatment discontinuation rate due to TRAEs was 10.26% in the PD-1/CTLA-4 analysis and 4.44% in the PD-1/VEGF analysis. The pooled incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 46.68% in the PD-1/CTLA-4 analysis and 27.10% in the PD-1/VEGF analysis, whereas the pooled rates of grade 3 or higher irAEs were low in both analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review provides a descriptive synthesis of available safety data for PD-1/CTLA-4 and PD-1/VEGF BsAbs in NSCLC. Because the included cohorts differed substantially in study phase, treatment line, molecular background, and concomitant therapies, the pooled AE estimates should not be interpreted as direct comparative evidence. Instead, the findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating signals that require validation in more homogeneous prospective studies or head-to-head trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":17301,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13442781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43046-026-00387-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to systematically synthesize and separately quantify the pooled safety profiles of bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) targeting PD-1/CTLA-4 or PD-1/VEGF in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to descriptively summarize class-specific safety patterns.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed prospective clinical trials published through January 2026. A total of 17 studies, encompassing 1802 patients, were included. Single-arm proportion meta-analyses were conducted separately for each BsAb class using random-effects models. No formal between-class statistical comparison was performed. Given the clinical heterogeneity across included cohorts, including differences in study phase, treatment line, molecular subtype, and treatment regimen, pooled estimates were interpreted descriptively. Subgroup analyses by treatment regimen, treatment line, and individual BsAb agent were considered exploratory. Because of the limited number of cohorts within each phase stratum, the impact of study phase was assessed descriptively rather than through formal stratified meta-analysis.

Results: In separate pooled analyses, the incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 41.79% for PD-1/CTLA-4 BsAbs and 43.51% for PD-1/VEGF BsAbs. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested different patterns of heterogeneity across the available cohorts. In PD-1/CTLA-4 BsAb studies, AE rates appeared to vary across individual agents, whereas in PD-1/VEGF BsAb studies, higher AE rates were observed mainly in chemotherapy-containing regimens. These observations should be interpreted cautiously because they may reflect differences in the distribution of included agents, patient populations, study phases, and treatment strategies rather than inherent class-specific toxicity mechanisms. Regarding tolerability, the pooled treatment discontinuation rate due to TRAEs was 10.26% in the PD-1/CTLA-4 analysis and 4.44% in the PD-1/VEGF analysis. The pooled incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) was 46.68% in the PD-1/CTLA-4 analysis and 27.10% in the PD-1/VEGF analysis, whereas the pooled rates of grade 3 or higher irAEs were low in both analyses.

Conclusion: This systematic review provides a descriptive synthesis of available safety data for PD-1/CTLA-4 and PD-1/VEGF BsAbs in NSCLC. Because the included cohorts differed substantially in study phase, treatment line, molecular background, and concomitant therapies, the pooled AE estimates should not be interpreted as direct comparative evidence. Instead, the findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating signals that require validation in more homogeneous prospective studies or head-to-head trials.

针对PD-1/CTLA-4或PD-1/VEGF的双特异性抗体治疗非小细胞肺癌的综合安全性:一项系统综述和单臂荟萃分析
目的:本研究旨在系统地合成并分别量化针对PD-1/CTLA-4或PD-1/VEGF的双特异性抗体(BsAbs)在非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)患者中的合并安全性,并描述性地总结类特异性的安全性模式。方法:遵循PRISMA指南,我们系统地回顾了截至2026年1月发表的前瞻性临床试验。总共纳入了17项研究,包括1802名患者。采用随机效应模型对每个BsAb类别分别进行单臂比例meta分析。没有进行正式的班级间统计比较。考虑到所纳入队列的临床异质性,包括研究阶段、治疗线、分子亚型和治疗方案的差异,对汇总估计进行描述性解释。治疗方案、治疗线和单个BsAb药物的亚组分析被认为是探索性的。由于每个阶段地层的队列数量有限,研究阶段的影响是描述性评估,而不是通过正式的分层荟萃分析。结果:在单独的汇总分析中,PD-1/CTLA-4 bsab的3级或更高级别治疗相关不良事件(TRAEs)发生率为41.79%,PD-1/VEGF bsab为43.51%。探索性亚组分析表明,在可用队列中存在不同的异质性模式。在PD-1/CTLA-4 BsAb研究中,AE率似乎因药物而异,而在PD-1/VEGF BsAb研究中,AE率主要在含化疗方案中观察到。这些观察结果应谨慎解释,因为它们可能反映了所纳入药物分布、患者群体、研究阶段和治疗策略的差异,而不是固有的类别特异性毒性机制。在耐受性方面,在PD-1/CTLA-4分析中,TRAEs的总停药率为10.26%,在PD-1/VEGF分析中为4.44%。在PD-1/CTLA-4分析中,免疫相关不良事件(irAEs)的合并发生率为46.68%,在PD-1/VEGF分析中为27.10%,而在两种分析中,3级或更高级别irAEs的合并发生率均较低。结论:本系统综述提供了PD-1/CTLA-4和PD-1/VEGF bsab在非小细胞肺癌中的可用安全性数据的描述性综合。由于纳入的队列在研究阶段、治疗线、分子背景和伴随治疗方面存在很大差异,因此汇总的AE估计不应被解释为直接的比较证据。相反,这些发现应该被视为产生假设的信号,需要在更均匀的前瞻性研究或正面试验中进行验证。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official publication of the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, the Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute (JENCI) is an open access peer-reviewed journal that publishes on the latest innovations in oncology and thereby, providing academics and clinicians a leading research platform. JENCI welcomes submissions pertaining to all fields of basic, applied and clinical cancer research. Main topics of interest include: local and systemic anticancer therapy (with specific interest on applied cancer research from developing countries); experimental oncology; early cancer detection; randomized trials (including negatives ones); and key emerging fields of personalized medicine, such as molecular pathology, bioinformatics, and biotechnologies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书