• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Differences in oncological and toxicity outcomes between programmed cell death-1 and programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

K. Mori, B. Pradere, F. Quhal, S. Katayama, H. Mostafaei, E. Laukhtina, VM. Schuettfort, D. D'Andrea, S. Egawa, K. Bensalah, M. Schmidinger, T. Powles, SF. Shariat

. 2021 ; 99 (-) : 102242. [pub] 20210612

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21024995

BACKGROUND: The programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) pathway is important in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, some dissimilarities between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 inhibitors have emerged. We aimed to assess differences between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 combination immunotherapies as first-line treatments in mRCC patients. METHODS: Multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched for articles published until March 2021. Studies were eligible if they compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR), complete response rates (CRR), and adverse events. RESULTS: Five studies met the eligibility criteria. PD-1 combination therapy was associated with significantly better OS and PFS and higher ORR and CRR than sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.89; HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37-0.75; odds ratio [OR]: 3.20, 95% CI: 2.18-4.68; and OR: 3.05, 95% CI: 2.13-4.37, respectively; P < 0.001). For all oncological outcomes, anti-PD-1 agents were superior to anti-PD-L1 agents based on HR and OR (OS: HR = 0.88, PFS: HR = 0.76, ORR: OR = 1.85, and CRR: OR = 2.24). Conversely, anti-PD-L1 agents were superior to anti-PD-1 agents in their safety profiles. In network meta-analyses, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib seemed the worst tolerated anti-PD-1 combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates the superior oncologic benefits of first-line anti-PD-1 combination therapies over anti-PD-L1 combination therapies in mRCC patients. This biological difference is of vital importance for clinical treatment decision making and the design of future rational combination therapy trials in mRCC.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21024995
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20211026134223.0
007      
ta
008      
211013s2021 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102242 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34153830
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
245    10
$a Differences in oncological and toxicity outcomes between programmed cell death-1 and programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis / $c K. Mori, B. Pradere, F. Quhal, S. Katayama, H. Mostafaei, E. Laukhtina, VM. Schuettfort, D. D'Andrea, S. Egawa, K. Bensalah, M. Schmidinger, T. Powles, SF. Shariat
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: The programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) pathway is important in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, some dissimilarities between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 inhibitors have emerged. We aimed to assess differences between anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 combination immunotherapies as first-line treatments in mRCC patients. METHODS: Multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched for articles published until March 2021. Studies were eligible if they compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR), complete response rates (CRR), and adverse events. RESULTS: Five studies met the eligibility criteria. PD-1 combination therapy was associated with significantly better OS and PFS and higher ORR and CRR than sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.89; HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37-0.75; odds ratio [OR]: 3.20, 95% CI: 2.18-4.68; and OR: 3.05, 95% CI: 2.13-4.37, respectively; P < 0.001). For all oncological outcomes, anti-PD-1 agents were superior to anti-PD-L1 agents based on HR and OR (OS: HR = 0.88, PFS: HR = 0.76, ORR: OR = 1.85, and CRR: OR = 2.24). Conversely, anti-PD-L1 agents were superior to anti-PD-1 agents in their safety profiles. In network meta-analyses, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib seemed the worst tolerated anti-PD-1 combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates the superior oncologic benefits of first-line anti-PD-1 combination therapies over anti-PD-L1 combination therapies in mRCC patients. This biological difference is of vital importance for clinical treatment decision making and the design of future rational combination therapy trials in mRCC.
650    _2
$a protokoly protinádorové kombinované chemoterapie $x škodlivé účinky $x terapeutické užití $7 D000971
650    _2
$a antigeny CD274 $x antagonisté a inhibitory $x imunologie $7 D060890
650    _2
$a karcinom z renálních buněk $x farmakoterapie $x imunologie $7 D002292
650    _2
$a klinické zkoušky, fáze III jako téma $7 D017326
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a inhibitory kontrolních bodů $x aplikace a dávkování $x škodlivé účinky $x terapeutické užití $7 D000082082
650    _2
$a nádory ledvin $x farmakoterapie $x imunologie $7 D007680
650    _2
$a antigeny CD279 $x antagonisté a inhibitory $x imunologie $7 D061026
650    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Pradere, Benjamin $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Quhal, Fahad $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
700    1_
$a Katayama, Satoshi $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
700    1_
$a Mostafaei, Hadi $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
700    1_
$a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
700    1_
$a Schuettfort, Victor M $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a D'Andrea, David $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Egawa, Shin $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Bensalah, Karim $u Department of Urology, University of Rennes, Rennes, France
700    1_
$a Schmidinger, Manuela $u Clinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Powles, Thomas $u Centre for Experimental Cancer Medicine, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Research Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at
773    0_
$w MED00001047 $t Cancer treatment reviews $x 1532-1967 $g Roč. 99, č. - (2021), s. 102242
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34153830 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20211013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20211026134229 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1714164 $s 1145502
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 99 $c - $d 102242 $e 20210612 $i 1532-1967 $m Cancer treatment reviews $n Cancer Treat Rev $x MED00001047
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20211013

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace