抗体药物结合物加免疫疗法治疗实体瘤的安全性和有效性:系统综述与荟萃分析。

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Guillermo Villacampa , Pablo Cresta Morgado , Lorenzo Carità , Victor Navarro , Tomas Pascual , Rodrigo Dienstmann
{"title":"抗体药物结合物加免疫疗法治疗实体瘤的安全性和有效性:系统综述与荟萃分析。","authors":"Guillermo Villacampa ,&nbsp;Pablo Cresta Morgado ,&nbsp;Lorenzo Carità ,&nbsp;Victor Navarro ,&nbsp;Tomas Pascual ,&nbsp;Rodrigo Dienstmann","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Combining antibody-drug conjugate (ADCs) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is emerging as a promising treatment option to increase efficacy outcomes. However, concerns arise regarding the safety of these combinations, as some toxicities may overlap. Currently, there is still limited information about the safety profiles of this strategy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify clinical trials investigating FDA-approved ADCs in combination with ICI drugs in the metastatic setting across all solid tumors. The primary endpoint of this study was the percentage of adverse events (AEs) of any grade and grade <span><math><mo>≥</mo></math></span> 3. Secondary endpoints include the percentage of patients with AEs leading to death, treatment discontinuation, proportion of complete responses (CR) and overall response rate (ORR). A parallel search was conducted to quantify the safety profile of ADCs and ICIs in monotherapy. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixteen trials involving 1,133 patients treated with ADC plus ICI met the inclusion criteria with six different ADCs evaluated. Overall, 55.3 % of patients developed grade ≥ 3 AEs, 30.0 % of patients had treatment discontinuation, and 3.0 % experienced AEs leading to death. When compared to trials evaluating ADC or ICI as monotherapy, the combination results in similar rates of the most common AEs. However, it increases the risk of specific toxicities, such as ILD/pneumonitis (15.0 % with T-DXd plus ICI vs. 11.5 % with T-DXd alone). The pooled ORR was 48.8 % (95 %CI 39.4 % – 58.4 %) and the CR rate was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.5 – 14.5). PD-L1-positive tumors showed numerically better efficacy outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This meta-analysis shows that the safety profile of the ADC plus ICI is comparable to that of ADC monotherapy. However, it increases the risk of certain toxicities of special interest, such as ILD/pneumonitis, highlighting the need for careful monitoring.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"131 ","pages":"Article 102847"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immunotherapy in solid tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Guillermo Villacampa ,&nbsp;Pablo Cresta Morgado ,&nbsp;Lorenzo Carità ,&nbsp;Victor Navarro ,&nbsp;Tomas Pascual ,&nbsp;Rodrigo Dienstmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102847\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Combining antibody-drug conjugate (ADCs) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is emerging as a promising treatment option to increase efficacy outcomes. However, concerns arise regarding the safety of these combinations, as some toxicities may overlap. Currently, there is still limited information about the safety profiles of this strategy.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify clinical trials investigating FDA-approved ADCs in combination with ICI drugs in the metastatic setting across all solid tumors. The primary endpoint of this study was the percentage of adverse events (AEs) of any grade and grade <span><math><mo>≥</mo></math></span> 3. Secondary endpoints include the percentage of patients with AEs leading to death, treatment discontinuation, proportion of complete responses (CR) and overall response rate (ORR). A parallel search was conducted to quantify the safety profile of ADCs and ICIs in monotherapy. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixteen trials involving 1,133 patients treated with ADC plus ICI met the inclusion criteria with six different ADCs evaluated. Overall, 55.3 % of patients developed grade ≥ 3 AEs, 30.0 % of patients had treatment discontinuation, and 3.0 % experienced AEs leading to death. When compared to trials evaluating ADC or ICI as monotherapy, the combination results in similar rates of the most common AEs. However, it increases the risk of specific toxicities, such as ILD/pneumonitis (15.0 % with T-DXd plus ICI vs. 11.5 % with T-DXd alone). The pooled ORR was 48.8 % (95 %CI 39.4 % – 58.4 %) and the CR rate was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.5 – 14.5). PD-L1-positive tumors showed numerically better efficacy outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This meta-analysis shows that the safety profile of the ADC plus ICI is comparable to that of ADC monotherapy. However, it increases the risk of certain toxicities of special interest, such as ILD/pneumonitis, highlighting the need for careful monitoring.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer treatment reviews\",\"volume\":\"131 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102847\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer treatment reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224001762\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224001762","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:抗体药物共轭物(ADCs)与免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)的结合正在成为一种有希望提高疗效的治疗方案。然而,由于某些毒性可能会重叠,人们对这些组合的安全性产生了担忧。目前,有关这一策略安全性的信息仍然有限:方法:我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,以确定在所有实体瘤的转移性治疗中研究 FDA 批准的 ADC 与 ICI 药物联用的临床试验。本研究的主要终点是任何级别和级别≥3的不良事件(AEs)的百分比。次要终点包括AEs导致死亡、治疗中止、完全应答(CR)比例和总应答率(ORR)的患者比例。为量化 ADC 和 ICIs 单药治疗的安全性,还进行了平行检索。随机效应模型用于估计汇总结果:有16项试验符合纳入标准,涉及1133名接受ADC加ICI治疗的患者,对6种不同的ADC进行了评估。总体而言,55.3%的患者出现了≥3级的AEs,30.0%的患者中断了治疗,3.0%的患者出现了导致死亡的AEs。与评估 ADC 或 ICI 作为单一疗法的试验相比,联合疗法导致的最常见 AEs 发生率相似。然而,联合用药会增加特定毒性反应的风险,如ILD/肺炎(T-DXd加ICI为15.0%,单用T-DXd为11.5%)。总ORR为48.8%(95%CI为39.4% - 58.4%),CR为9.0%(95%CI为5.5 - 14.5)。PD-L1阳性肿瘤的疗效更好:这项荟萃分析表明,ADC 加 ICI 的安全性与 ADC 单药治疗相当。然而,它增加了某些特别值得关注的毒性反应的风险,如ILD/肺炎,这就突出了仔细监测的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety and efficacy of antibody-drug conjugates plus immunotherapy in solid tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Combining antibody-drug conjugate (ADCs) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is emerging as a promising treatment option to increase efficacy outcomes. However, concerns arise regarding the safety of these combinations, as some toxicities may overlap. Currently, there is still limited information about the safety profiles of this strategy.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify clinical trials investigating FDA-approved ADCs in combination with ICI drugs in the metastatic setting across all solid tumors. The primary endpoint of this study was the percentage of adverse events (AEs) of any grade and grade 3. Secondary endpoints include the percentage of patients with AEs leading to death, treatment discontinuation, proportion of complete responses (CR) and overall response rate (ORR). A parallel search was conducted to quantify the safety profile of ADCs and ICIs in monotherapy. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled outcomes.

Results

Sixteen trials involving 1,133 patients treated with ADC plus ICI met the inclusion criteria with six different ADCs evaluated. Overall, 55.3 % of patients developed grade ≥ 3 AEs, 30.0 % of patients had treatment discontinuation, and 3.0 % experienced AEs leading to death. When compared to trials evaluating ADC or ICI as monotherapy, the combination results in similar rates of the most common AEs. However, it increases the risk of specific toxicities, such as ILD/pneumonitis (15.0 % with T-DXd plus ICI vs. 11.5 % with T-DXd alone). The pooled ORR was 48.8 % (95 %CI 39.4 % – 58.4 %) and the CR rate was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.5 – 14.5). PD-L1-positive tumors showed numerically better efficacy outcomes.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows that the safety profile of the ADC plus ICI is comparable to that of ADC monotherapy. However, it increases the risk of certain toxicities of special interest, such as ILD/pneumonitis, highlighting the need for careful monitoring.
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
Cancer treatment reviews
Cancer treatment reviews 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
21.40
自引率
0.80%
发文量
109
审稿时长
13 days
期刊介绍: Cancer Treatment Reviews Journal Overview: International journal focused on developments in cancer treatment research Publishes state-of-the-art, authoritative reviews to keep clinicians and researchers informed Regular Sections in Each Issue: Comments on Controversy Tumor Reviews Anti-tumor Treatments New Drugs Complications of Treatment General and Supportive Care Laboratory/Clinic Interface Submission and Editorial System: Online submission and editorial system for Cancer Treatment Reviews
×
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