Adjuvant immunotherapy in high-risk muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Laura Oscar-Thompson, Carlos Riveros, Guru Sonpavde, Andrea B Apolo, Aly-Khan A Lalani, Christopher J D Wallis, Raj Satkunasivam
{"title":"Adjuvant immunotherapy in high-risk muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Laura Oscar-Thompson, Carlos Riveros, Guru Sonpavde, Andrea B Apolo, Aly-Khan A Lalani, Christopher J D Wallis, Raj Satkunasivam","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite surgical resection, many patients with muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) experience recurrence. Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) following radical resection in patients with MIUC demonstrates disparate outcomes among phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our objective was to synthesize available data regarding the disease-free survival (DFS) benefit of adjuvant ICIs for patients with MIUC and evaluate the overall safety profile of ICIs in this setting. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022352587. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and relevant conference proceedings from inception up to January 29, 2024. Only phase III RCTs comparing adjuvant ICI versus placebo/observation were selected. Study screening and selection, along with data extraction was performed in duplicate according to a predefined registered protocol. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials. The primary and secondary endpoints were DFS and serious adverse events, respectively. All outcomes were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis owing to inter-study heterogeneity. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. A priori defined subgroups of interest included positive program death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, previous use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), primary tumor origin, pathologic lymph node status, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Pooled results across the 3 RCTs (2,220 patients) demonstrated significantly improved DFS for patients treated with ICI in the intention-to-treat cohorts (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.90). There was considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 44%) due to differences in inclusion criteria and interventions. Overall, there was a low risk of bias among the RCTs. Regarding subgroup analyses, there was significant benefit among patients with negative PD-L1 expression (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90), those who received prior NAC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.91), and patients with lower tract (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92) but not upper tract disease (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.87-1.68). This pooled analysis of DFS and safety provides support for ICI utilization in the setting of high-risk resected MIUC.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.08.003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite surgical resection, many patients with muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) experience recurrence. Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) following radical resection in patients with MIUC demonstrates disparate outcomes among phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our objective was to synthesize available data regarding the disease-free survival (DFS) benefit of adjuvant ICIs for patients with MIUC and evaluate the overall safety profile of ICIs in this setting. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022352587. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and relevant conference proceedings from inception up to January 29, 2024. Only phase III RCTs comparing adjuvant ICI versus placebo/observation were selected. Study screening and selection, along with data extraction was performed in duplicate according to a predefined registered protocol. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials. The primary and secondary endpoints were DFS and serious adverse events, respectively. All outcomes were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis owing to inter-study heterogeneity. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. A priori defined subgroups of interest included positive program death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, previous use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), primary tumor origin, pathologic lymph node status, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Pooled results across the 3 RCTs (2,220 patients) demonstrated significantly improved DFS for patients treated with ICI in the intention-to-treat cohorts (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.90). There was considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 44%) due to differences in inclusion criteria and interventions. Overall, there was a low risk of bias among the RCTs. Regarding subgroup analyses, there was significant benefit among patients with negative PD-L1 expression (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90), those who received prior NAC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.91), and patients with lower tract (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92) but not upper tract disease (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.87-1.68). This pooled analysis of DFS and safety provides support for ICI utilization in the setting of high-risk resected MIUC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高风险肌浸润性尿路上皮癌的辅助免疫疗法:随机临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
尽管进行了手术切除,但许多肌浸润性尿路上皮癌(MIUC)患者仍会复发。肌浸润性尿路癌(MIUC)患者根治性切除术后的辅助免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)在III期随机对照试验(RCT)中显示出不同的结果。我们的目的是综合现有数据,了解辅助 ICIs 对 MIUC 患者的无病生存期 (DFS) 的益处,并评估 ICIs 在这种情况下的总体安全性。该方案已在 PROSPERO 注册,编号为 CRD42022352587。我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL 以及从开始到 2024 年 1 月 29 日的相关会议论文集。只选择了比较辅助 ICI 与安慰剂/观察的 III 期 RCT。研究筛选和数据提取均按照预定的注册协议重复进行。采用了系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)报告指南。采用科克伦随机试验偏倚风险(RoB 2)工具进行质量评估。主要和次要终点分别为 DFS 和严重不良事件。由于研究间存在异质性,所有结果均采用随机效应荟萃分析法进行分析。为了确定潜在的异质性来源,我们进行了敏感性分析和亚组分析。先验定义的相关亚组包括程序死亡配体1(PD-L1)阳性表达、既往使用过新辅助化疗(NAC)、原发肿瘤来源、病理淋巴结状态和基线东部合作肿瘤学组表现状态。3 项研究(2220 例患者)的汇总结果显示,在意向治疗队列中,接受 ICI 治疗的患者的 DFS 明显改善(HR 0.76,95% CI 0.65-0.90)。由于纳入标准和干预措施不同,临床和统计异质性相当大(I2 = 44%)。总体而言,研究性试验的偏倚风险较低。在亚组分析中,PD-L1阴性表达患者(HR 0.76,95% CI 0.64-0.90)、既往接受过NAC治疗的患者(HR 0.69,95% CI 0.52-0.91)、下段疾病患者(HR 0.71,95% CI 0.55-0.92)而非上段疾病患者(HR 1.21,95% CI 0.87-1.68)明显获益。这项关于 DFS 和安全性的汇总分析为在高风险的 MIUC 切除术中使用 ICI 提供了支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
7.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Cover 2 - Masthead 2023 Star Reviewers for Urologic Oncology Cover 3 - Information for Authors
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1