神经胶质瘤常规治疗后疫苗的有效性和安全性：系统回顾与元分析

IF 3.1 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Oncology Reviews Pub Date : 2024-04-19 DOI:10.3389/or.2024.1374513

Elnaz Amanzadeh Jajin, Saeed Oraee Yazdani, Alireza Zali, Abolghasem Esmaeili

{"title":"神经胶质瘤常规治疗后疫苗的有效性和安全性：系统回顾与元分析","authors":"Elnaz Amanzadeh Jajin, Saeed Oraee Yazdani, Alireza Zali, Abolghasem Esmaeili","doi":"10.3389/or.2024.1374513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Malignant gliomas are known with poor prognosis and low rate of survival among brain tumors. Resection surgery is followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy in treatment of gliomas which is known as the conventional treatment. However, this treatment method results in low survival rate. Vaccination has been suggested as a type of immunotherapy to increase survival rate of glioma patients. Different types of vaccines have been developed that are mainly classified in two groups including peptide vaccines and cell-based vaccines. However, there are still conflicts about which type of vaccines is more efficient for malignant glioma treatment.Phase Ⅰ/Ⅱ clinical trials which compared the efficacy and safety of various vaccines with conventional treatments were searched in databases through November 2022. Overall survival (OS) rate, progression free survival (PFS), and OS duration were used for calculation of pooled risk ratio (RR). In addition, fatigue, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and flu-like syndrome were used for evaluating the safety of vaccines therapy in glioma patients.A total of twelve articles were included in the present meta-analysis. Comparison of OS rate between vaccinated groups and control groups who underwent only conventional treatments showed a significant increase in OS rate in vaccinated patients (I2 = 0%, RR = 11.17, 95% CI: 2.460–50.225). PFS rate was better in vaccinated glioma patients (I2 = 83%, RR = 2.87, 95% CI: 1.63–5.03). Assessment of safety demonstrated that skin reaction (I2 = 0.0%, RR = 3.654; 95% CI: 1.711–7.801, p-value = 0.0058) and flu-like syndrome were significantly more frequent adverse effects win vaccinated groups compared to the control group. Subgroup analysis also showed that vaccination leads to better OS duration in recurrent gliomas than primary gliomas, and in LGG than HGG (p-value = 0). On the other hand, personalized vaccines showed better OS duration than non-personalized vaccines (p-value = 0).Vaccination is a type of immunotherapy which shows promising efficacy in treatment of malignant glioma patients in terms of OS, PFS and duration of survival. In addition, AFTV, peptide, and dendritic cell-based vaccines are among the most efficient vaccines for gliomas. Personalized vaccines also showed considerable efficacy for glioma treatments.","PeriodicalId":19487,"journal":{"name":"Oncology Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Vaccines After Conventional Treatments for Survival of Gliomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Elnaz Amanzadeh Jajin, Saeed Oraee Yazdani, Alireza Zali, Abolghasem Esmaeili\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/or.2024.1374513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Malignant gliomas are known with poor prognosis and low rate of survival among brain tumors. Resection surgery is followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy in treatment of gliomas which is known as the conventional treatment. However, this treatment method results in low survival rate. Vaccination has been suggested as a type of immunotherapy to increase survival rate of glioma patients. Different types of vaccines have been developed that are mainly classified in two groups including peptide vaccines and cell-based vaccines. However, there are still conflicts about which type of vaccines is more efficient for malignant glioma treatment.Phase Ⅰ/Ⅱ clinical trials which compared the efficacy and safety of various vaccines with conventional treatments were searched in databases through November 2022. Overall survival (OS) rate, progression free survival (PFS), and OS duration were used for calculation of pooled risk ratio (RR). In addition, fatigue, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and flu-like syndrome were used for evaluating the safety of vaccines therapy in glioma patients.A total of twelve articles were included in the present meta-analysis. Comparison of OS rate between vaccinated groups and control groups who underwent only conventional treatments showed a significant increase in OS rate in vaccinated patients (I2 = 0%, RR = 11.17, 95% CI: 2.460–50.225). PFS rate was better in vaccinated glioma patients (I2 = 83%, RR = 2.87, 95% CI: 1.63–5.03). Assessment of safety demonstrated that skin reaction (I2 = 0.0%, RR = 3.654; 95% CI: 1.711–7.801, p-value = 0.0058) and flu-like syndrome were significantly more frequent adverse effects win vaccinated groups compared to the control group. Subgroup analysis also showed that vaccination leads to better OS duration in recurrent gliomas than primary gliomas, and in LGG than HGG (p-value = 0). On the other hand, personalized vaccines showed better OS duration than non-personalized vaccines (p-value = 0).Vaccination is a type of immunotherapy which shows promising efficacy in treatment of malignant glioma patients in terms of OS, PFS and duration of survival. In addition, AFTV, peptide, and dendritic cell-based vaccines are among the most efficient vaccines for gliomas. Personalized vaccines also showed considerable efficacy for glioma treatments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncology Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncology Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/or.2024.1374513\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncology Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/or.2024.1374513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

众所周知，恶性胶质瘤的预后较差，在脑肿瘤中存活率较低。切除手术后再进行化疗和放疗是治疗胶质瘤的传统方法。然而，这种治疗方法的存活率很低。疫苗接种被认为是提高胶质瘤患者存活率的一种免疫疗法。目前已开发出不同类型的疫苗，主要分为两类，包括多肽疫苗和细胞疫苗。截至 2022 年 11 月，我们在数据库中搜索了比较各种疫苗与传统疗法的有效性和安全性的Ⅰ/Ⅱ期临床试验。总生存期（OS）率、无进展生存期（PFS）和OS持续时间用于计算集合风险比（RR）。此外，疲劳、头痛、恶心、腹泻和流感样综合征也被用于评估胶质瘤患者接受疫苗治疗的安全性。疫苗接种组与仅接受常规治疗的对照组的OS率比较显示，疫苗接种患者的OS率显著增加（I2 = 0%，RR = 11.17，95% CI：2.460-50.225）。接种疫苗的胶质瘤患者的 PFS 率更高（I2 = 83%，RR = 2.87，95% CI：1.63-5.03）。安全性评估显示，与对照组相比，接种组的皮肤反应（I2 = 0.0%，RR = 3.654；95% CI：1.711-7.801，P 值 = 0.0058）和流感样综合征是接种组中更常见的不良反应。亚组分析还显示，接种疫苗后，复发性胶质瘤的OS持续时间优于原发性胶质瘤，LGG的OS持续时间优于HGG（P值=0）。疫苗接种是一种免疫疗法，在治疗恶性胶质瘤患者的 OS、PFS 和生存期方面显示出良好的疗效。此外，基于 AFTV、多肽和树突状细胞的疫苗是治疗胶质瘤最有效的疫苗之一。个性化疫苗在胶质瘤治疗中也显示出相当大的疗效。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Efficacy and Safety of Vaccines After Conventional Treatments for Survival of Gliomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Malignant gliomas are known with poor prognosis and low rate of survival among brain tumors. Resection surgery is followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy in treatment of gliomas which is known as the conventional treatment. However, this treatment method results in low survival rate. Vaccination has been suggested as a type of immunotherapy to increase survival rate of glioma patients. Different types of vaccines have been developed that are mainly classified in two groups including peptide vaccines and cell-based vaccines. However, there are still conflicts about which type of vaccines is more efficient for malignant glioma treatment.Phase Ⅰ/Ⅱ clinical trials which compared the efficacy and safety of various vaccines with conventional treatments were searched in databases through November 2022. Overall survival (OS) rate, progression free survival (PFS), and OS duration were used for calculation of pooled risk ratio (RR). In addition, fatigue, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and flu-like syndrome were used for evaluating the safety of vaccines therapy in glioma patients.A total of twelve articles were included in the present meta-analysis. Comparison of OS rate between vaccinated groups and control groups who underwent only conventional treatments showed a significant increase in OS rate in vaccinated patients (I2 = 0%, RR = 11.17, 95% CI: 2.460–50.225). PFS rate was better in vaccinated glioma patients (I2 = 83%, RR = 2.87, 95% CI: 1.63–5.03). Assessment of safety demonstrated that skin reaction (I2 = 0.0%, RR = 3.654; 95% CI: 1.711–7.801, p-value = 0.0058) and flu-like syndrome were significantly more frequent adverse effects win vaccinated groups compared to the control group. Subgroup analysis also showed that vaccination leads to better OS duration in recurrent gliomas than primary gliomas, and in LGG than HGG (p-value = 0). On the other hand, personalized vaccines showed better OS duration than non-personalized vaccines (p-value = 0).Vaccination is a type of immunotherapy which shows promising efficacy in treatment of malignant glioma patients in terms of OS, PFS and duration of survival. In addition, AFTV, peptide, and dendritic cell-based vaccines are among the most efficient vaccines for gliomas. Personalized vaccines also showed considerable efficacy for glioma treatments.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Oncology Reviews ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

9 weeks

期刊介绍： Oncology Reviews is a quarterly peer-reviewed, international journal that publishes authoritative state-of-the-art reviews on preclinical and clinical aspects of oncology. The journal will provide up-to-date information on the latest achievements in different fields of oncology for both practising clinicians and basic researchers. Oncology Reviews aims at being international in scope and readership, as reflected also by its Editorial Board, gathering the world leading experts in both pre-clinical research and everyday clinical practice. The journal is open for publication of supplements, monothematic issues and for publishing abstracts of scientific meetings; conditions can be obtained from the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher.