放疗和免疫疗法治疗脑转移黑色素瘤患者的生存获益和毒性效应:一项荟萃分析

Q1 Health Professions
Jialing Wen , Xiangdi Meng , Wenchao Gu , Shenke Zhang , Li Sui , Gang Guo , Liang Yan , Wangcai Ren , Xuanzhang Tu , Kensuke Osada , Takashi Shimokawa , Yang Li , Liqiu Ma
{"title":"放疗和免疫疗法治疗脑转移黑色素瘤患者的生存获益和毒性效应:一项荟萃分析","authors":"Jialing Wen ,&nbsp;Xiangdi Meng ,&nbsp;Wenchao Gu ,&nbsp;Shenke Zhang ,&nbsp;Li Sui ,&nbsp;Gang Guo ,&nbsp;Liang Yan ,&nbsp;Wangcai Ren ,&nbsp;Xuanzhang Tu ,&nbsp;Kensuke Osada ,&nbsp;Takashi Shimokawa ,&nbsp;Yang Li ,&nbsp;Liqiu Ma","doi":"10.1016/j.radmp.2025.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the efficacy and toxicity of four treatment strategies in patients with MBMs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic literature search of the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and OVID Medline databases was performed until July 24, 2024. A total of four therapeutic modalities for MBMs, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy, radiotherapy (RT) alone, ICI combined with RT (ICI ​+ ​RT), and dual ICI therapy (ICI ​+ ​ICI), were evaluated by the overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), and adverse effect (AE). The meta-analysis was performed using R language and registered in PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42023480912).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This study included 33 studies comprising 2,496 patients with MBMs. ICI combined with RT and dual ICI therapy improved the 6 and 12-month OS rates compared with ICI monotherapy and RT alone. There was no significant difference in OS between the ICI + RT group and the ICI + ICI group. Similar results were observed for iPFS, with the combination treatment groups showing a significant difference compared with the treatment groups alone. However, no significant difference was observed in 1-year iPFS between the ICI + RT group and the ICI + ICI group (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.07), whereas the ICI + ICI group demonstrated superior 2-year iPFS compared with the ICI + RT group (<em>P</em> ​&lt; 0.05). Furthermore, the survival advantages of combination therapy gradually decreased with increasing duration of treatment. Additionally, compared with ICI monotherapy, dual ICI therapy significantly increased the incidence of AEs over grade 3 (ICI ​+ ​ICI: 57% <em>vs.</em> ICI: 11%, <em>P</em> ​&lt; ​0.0001), whereas ICI combined with RT did not significantly differ (ICI ​+ ​RT: 19% <em>vs.</em> ICI: 11%, <em>P</em> ​= ​0.14).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The combination of ICI with RT offers superior survival benefits without increasing toxicity in patients with MBMs. However, this survival benefit decreases over time, and further optimizing the treatment strategy is essential for improving the outcomes of patients with MBMs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34051,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Medicine and Protection","volume":"6 2","pages":"Pages 91-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survival benefits and toxicity effects of radiotherapy and immunotherapy treatments in melanoma patients with brain metastases: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jialing Wen ,&nbsp;Xiangdi Meng ,&nbsp;Wenchao Gu ,&nbsp;Shenke Zhang ,&nbsp;Li Sui ,&nbsp;Gang Guo ,&nbsp;Liang Yan ,&nbsp;Wangcai Ren ,&nbsp;Xuanzhang Tu ,&nbsp;Kensuke Osada ,&nbsp;Takashi Shimokawa ,&nbsp;Yang Li ,&nbsp;Liqiu Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.radmp.2025.02.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the efficacy and toxicity of four treatment strategies in patients with MBMs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic literature search of the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and OVID Medline databases was performed until July 24, 2024. A total of four therapeutic modalities for MBMs, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy, radiotherapy (RT) alone, ICI combined with RT (ICI ​+ ​RT), and dual ICI therapy (ICI ​+ ​ICI), were evaluated by the overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), and adverse effect (AE). The meta-analysis was performed using R language and registered in PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42023480912).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This study included 33 studies comprising 2,496 patients with MBMs. ICI combined with RT and dual ICI therapy improved the 6 and 12-month OS rates compared with ICI monotherapy and RT alone. There was no significant difference in OS between the ICI + RT group and the ICI + ICI group. Similar results were observed for iPFS, with the combination treatment groups showing a significant difference compared with the treatment groups alone. However, no significant difference was observed in 1-year iPFS between the ICI + RT group and the ICI + ICI group (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.07), whereas the ICI + ICI group demonstrated superior 2-year iPFS compared with the ICI + RT group (<em>P</em> ​&lt; 0.05). Furthermore, the survival advantages of combination therapy gradually decreased with increasing duration of treatment. Additionally, compared with ICI monotherapy, dual ICI therapy significantly increased the incidence of AEs over grade 3 (ICI ​+ ​ICI: 57% <em>vs.</em> ICI: 11%, <em>P</em> ​&lt; ​0.0001), whereas ICI combined with RT did not significantly differ (ICI ​+ ​RT: 19% <em>vs.</em> ICI: 11%, <em>P</em> ​= ​0.14).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The combination of ICI with RT offers superior survival benefits without increasing toxicity in patients with MBMs. However, this survival benefit decreases over time, and further optimizing the treatment strategy is essential for improving the outcomes of patients with MBMs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiation Medicine and Protection\",\"volume\":\"6 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 91-102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiation Medicine and Protection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666555725000206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Medicine and Protection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666555725000206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较四种治疗方案对骨髓瘤的疗效和毒副作用。方法系统检索Cochrane、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、OVID Medline数据库,检索时间截止到2024年7月24日。通过总生存期(OS)、颅内无进展生存期(iPFS)和不良反应(AE)评估四种治疗方式,包括免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)单药治疗、单独放疗(RT)、ICI联合放疗(ICI + RT)和双重ICI治疗(ICI + ICI)。meta分析使用R语言进行,并在PROSPERO注册(注册号:CRD42023480912)。结果本研究纳入33项研究,包括2496例MBMs患者。与ICI单药治疗和单独RT相比,ICI联合RT和双ICI治疗提高了6个月和12个月的OS率。ICI + RT组与ICI + ICI组的OS无显著差异。iPFS也观察到类似的结果,联合治疗组与单独治疗组相比有显著差异。然而,ICI + RT组和ICI + ICI组的1年iPFS没有显著差异(P = 0.07),而ICI + ICI组的2年iPFS优于ICI + RT组(P <;0.05)。此外,联合治疗的生存优势随着治疗时间的增加而逐渐降低。此外,与ICI单药治疗相比,双重ICI治疗显著增加了3级以上ae的发生率(ICI + ICI: 57% vs. ICI: 11%, P <;0.0001),而ICI联合RT无显著差异(ICI + RT: 19% vs ICI: 11%, P = 0.14)。结论:在不增加毒性的情况下,ICI联合RT治疗对MBMs患者有更好的生存益处。然而,这种生存益处随着时间的推移而减少,进一步优化治疗策略对于改善MBMs患者的预后至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Survival benefits and toxicity effects of radiotherapy and immunotherapy treatments in melanoma patients with brain metastases: A meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the efficacy and toxicity of four treatment strategies in patients with MBMs.

Methods

A systematic literature search of the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and OVID Medline databases was performed until July 24, 2024. A total of four therapeutic modalities for MBMs, including immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy, radiotherapy (RT) alone, ICI combined with RT (ICI ​+ ​RT), and dual ICI therapy (ICI ​+ ​ICI), were evaluated by the overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS), and adverse effect (AE). The meta-analysis was performed using R language and registered in PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42023480912).

Results

This study included 33 studies comprising 2,496 patients with MBMs. ICI combined with RT and dual ICI therapy improved the 6 and 12-month OS rates compared with ICI monotherapy and RT alone. There was no significant difference in OS between the ICI + RT group and the ICI + ICI group. Similar results were observed for iPFS, with the combination treatment groups showing a significant difference compared with the treatment groups alone. However, no significant difference was observed in 1-year iPFS between the ICI + RT group and the ICI + ICI group (P ​= ​0.07), whereas the ICI + ICI group demonstrated superior 2-year iPFS compared with the ICI + RT group (P ​< 0.05). Furthermore, the survival advantages of combination therapy gradually decreased with increasing duration of treatment. Additionally, compared with ICI monotherapy, dual ICI therapy significantly increased the incidence of AEs over grade 3 (ICI ​+ ​ICI: 57% vs. ICI: 11%, P ​< ​0.0001), whereas ICI combined with RT did not significantly differ (ICI ​+ ​RT: 19% vs. ICI: 11%, P ​= ​0.14).

Conclusion

The combination of ICI with RT offers superior survival benefits without increasing toxicity in patients with MBMs. However, this survival benefit decreases over time, and further optimizing the treatment strategy is essential for improving the outcomes of patients with MBMs.
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
Radiation Medicine and Protection
Radiation Medicine and Protection Health Professions-Emergency Medical Services
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
103 days
×
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