Nivolumab与Pembrolizumab新辅助免疫疗法在可切除非小细胞肺癌中的疗效和安全性比较:系统回顾

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Anastasia Papaporfyriou, Konstantinos Bartziokas, Ioulianos Apessos, Jan Mueller, Vasileios Leivaditis, Efstratios Koletsis, Konstantinos Grapatsas
{"title":"Nivolumab与Pembrolizumab新辅助免疫疗法在可切除非小细胞肺癌中的疗效和安全性比较:系统回顾","authors":"Anastasia Papaporfyriou, Konstantinos Bartziokas, Ioulianos Apessos, Jan Mueller, Vasileios Leivaditis, Efstratios Koletsis, Konstantinos Grapatsas","doi":"10.3390/curroncol31100469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Immunotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment option due to its favorable toxicity profile. However, selecting the most appropriate immunotherapeutic agent for neoadjuvant use-aimed at curative intent in early-stage NSCLC-based on efficacy and safety remains a critical question. This review aims to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of nivolumab and pembrolizumab when used as neoadjuvant treatments in NSCLC. A systematic review was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar, utilizing the search terms \"Nivolumab OR Pembrolizumab AND Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy AND non-small cell lung cancer.\" Out of 1444 retrieved studies, 4 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria by providing comparative data on nivolumab and pembrolizumab within the same study cohorts. Despite the critical risk of bias and the evidence quality ranging from moderate to very low across these studies, both nivolumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated efficacy rates exceeding 30% and maintained favorable safety profiles. There is no observed superiority between nivolumab and pembrolizumab in terms of efficacy and safety for the neoadjuvant treatment of early-stage NSCLC.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"31 10","pages":"6289-6299"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506529/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy with Nivolumab vs. Pembrolizumab in Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Anastasia Papaporfyriou, Konstantinos Bartziokas, Ioulianos Apessos, Jan Mueller, Vasileios Leivaditis, Efstratios Koletsis, Konstantinos Grapatsas\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/curroncol31100469\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Immunotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment option due to its favorable toxicity profile. However, selecting the most appropriate immunotherapeutic agent for neoadjuvant use-aimed at curative intent in early-stage NSCLC-based on efficacy and safety remains a critical question. This review aims to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of nivolumab and pembrolizumab when used as neoadjuvant treatments in NSCLC. A systematic review was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar, utilizing the search terms \\\"Nivolumab OR Pembrolizumab AND Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy AND non-small cell lung cancer.\\\" Out of 1444 retrieved studies, 4 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria by providing comparative data on nivolumab and pembrolizumab within the same study cohorts. Despite the critical risk of bias and the evidence quality ranging from moderate to very low across these studies, both nivolumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated efficacy rates exceeding 30% and maintained favorable safety profiles. There is no observed superiority between nivolumab and pembrolizumab in terms of efficacy and safety for the neoadjuvant treatment of early-stage NSCLC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current oncology\",\"volume\":\"31 10\",\"pages\":\"6289-6299\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506529/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100469\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100469","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)仍然是全球癌症相关死亡的主要原因。免疫疗法因其良好的毒性特征而成为一种前景广阔的治疗选择。然而,如何根据疗效和安全性选择最合适的免疫治疗药物用于新辅助治疗--以治愈早期NSCLC为目标--仍是一个关键问题。本综述旨在比较 nivolumab 和 pembrolizumab 作为 NSCLC 新辅助治疗药物的疗效和安全性。我们在 PubMed、Scopus、Wiley Online Library、ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global 和 Google Scholar 上进行了系统性综述,使用的检索词为 "Nivolumab OR Pembrolizumab AND Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy AND Non-small cell lung cancer"。在检索到的 1444 项研究中,有 4 项回顾性研究符合纳入标准,它们提供了相同研究队列中有关尼妥珠单抗和彭博利珠单抗的比较数据。尽管这些研究存在严重的偏倚风险,且证据质量从中等到极低不等,但nivolumab和pembrolizumab的有效率都超过了30%,并保持了良好的安全性。在早期 NSCLC 的新辅助治疗方面,没有观察到 nivolumab 和 pembrolizumab 在疗效和安全性方面的优越性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy with Nivolumab vs. Pembrolizumab in Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Immunotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment option due to its favorable toxicity profile. However, selecting the most appropriate immunotherapeutic agent for neoadjuvant use-aimed at curative intent in early-stage NSCLC-based on efficacy and safety remains a critical question. This review aims to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of nivolumab and pembrolizumab when used as neoadjuvant treatments in NSCLC. A systematic review was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Google Scholar, utilizing the search terms "Nivolumab OR Pembrolizumab AND Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy AND non-small cell lung cancer." Out of 1444 retrieved studies, 4 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria by providing comparative data on nivolumab and pembrolizumab within the same study cohorts. Despite the critical risk of bias and the evidence quality ranging from moderate to very low across these studies, both nivolumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated efficacy rates exceeding 30% and maintained favorable safety profiles. There is no observed superiority between nivolumab and pembrolizumab in terms of efficacy and safety for the neoadjuvant treatment of early-stage NSCLC.

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
Current oncology
Current oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
664
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease. We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.
×
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