Suppr超能文献

评估转移性结直肠癌患者一线和二线免疫治疗的疗效和安全性:基于随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of first- and second-line immunotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

School of Basic Medical, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.

Department of Pharmacy, Emergency General Hospital, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Front Immunol. 2024 Sep 18;15:1439624. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1439624. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

A multitude of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in both the initial and subsequent treatment settings for patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have provided clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of immunotherapy with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In light of these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of several ICIs in specific subpopulations of mCRC patients. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of direct comparative RCTs evaluating various treatment options. Consequently, the most effective ICI therapeutic strategy for microsatellite-stable (MSS) subgroup and microsatellite instability (MSI) subgroup in the first- and second-line therapies remains undefined. To address this gap, the present study employs a Bayesian network meta-analysis to ascertain the most effective first- and second-line ICI therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, with the retrieval date ranging from the databases' inception to August 20, 2024. A total of 875 studies were identified, and seven were ultimately included in the analysis after a screening process. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted on the basis of the search results.

RESULTS

This comprehensive analysis, comprising seven RCTs, evaluated first-line and second-line immunotherapy regimens in 1,358 patients diagnosed with mCRC. The treatments under investigation consisted of five initial treatments, including three focusing on MSS patients and two on MSI patients, as well as two secondary immunotherapy regimens, both focusing on MSS patients. A total of 1051 individuals underwent first-line treatment, while 307 received second-line treatment. The application of ICIs proved to offer varying degrees clinical benefits when compared to standard-of-care therapy alone, both in two subgroups of the first and the second treatment phases. Of particular note is the performance of Nivolumab combination with ipilimumab, which demonstrated superior efficacy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34),. Moreover, the treatment demonstrated an optimal safety profile, with a relatively low risk of adverse events (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.56), compared to other first-line treatment modalities for MSI subgroup. Regarding MSS subgroup, the improvement of PFS by Nivolumab plus standard-of-care (SOC) was relatively significant (HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.02). In the realm of second-line therapies for MSS subgroup, the administration of Atezolizumab plus SOC has proven to be an effective approach for prolonging PFS, exhibiting an HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.44-0.99). These findings underscore the clinical benefits and safety profiles of ICIs in the treatment of mCRC across various treatment lines.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical application of ICIs in both first- and second-line treatment strategies for patients with mCRC yields substantial therapeutic benefits. A detailed assessment in this study indicates that first-line treatment with Nivolumab combination with ipilimumab may represent an efficacious and well-tolerated therapeutic approach for MSI subgroup. In terms of MSS subgroup in first-line therapy, Nivolumab plus SOC may be a relative superior choice. In the context of second-line therapy for MSS subgroup, it is evident that a combination of Atezolizumab and SOC represents a preferable option for enhancing PFS. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that other ICIs treatment regimens also exhibit great value in various aspects, with the potential to inform the development of future clinical treatment guidelines and provide a stronger rationale for the selection of ICIs in both first- and second-line therapeutic strategies for mCRC.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42024543400.

摘要

背景

大量针对转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)患者初始和后续治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)提供了免疫疗法使用免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)的疗效临床证据。鉴于这些发现,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)已授权在 mCRC 患者的特定亚群中使用几种 ICI。然而,仍然缺乏直接比较各种治疗方案的 RCT。因此,对于 MSS 亚组和 MSI 亚组的一线和二线治疗中最有效的 ICI 治疗策略仍未确定。为了解决这一差距,本研究采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析来确定最有效的一线和二线 ICI 治疗策略。

方法

我们在包括 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 在内的多个数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,检索日期范围从数据库创建到 2024 年 8 月 20 日。共确定了 875 项研究,经过筛选后最终有 7 项研究纳入分析。基于检索结果进行了系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

结果

这项综合分析包括 7 项 RCT,评估了 1358 例 mCRC 患者的一线和二线免疫治疗方案。研究中的治疗方法包括五种初始治疗方法,其中三种针对 MSS 患者,两种针对 MSI 患者,以及两种二线免疫治疗方案,均针对 MSS 患者。共有 1051 人接受了一线治疗,307 人接受了二线治疗。与单独使用标准护理相比,ICI 的应用在第一和第二治疗阶段的两个亚组中都提供了不同程度的临床获益。值得注意的是,Nivolumab 联合 ipilimumab 的表现优于其他 MSI 亚组的一线治疗方法,在改善无进展生存期(PFS)方面表现出更高的疗效(HR=0.21;95%CI,0.13-0.34)。此外,与其他一线治疗方法相比,该治疗方法具有相对较低的不良事件风险(OR=0.33;95%CI,0.19-0.56),具有较好的安全性。对于 MSS 亚组,Nivolumab 联合标准护理(SOC)改善 PFS 的效果相对显著(HR=0.74;95%CI,0.53-1.02)。在 MSS 亚组的二线治疗中,Atezolizumab 联合 SOC 是一种有效的延长 PFS 的方法,其 HR 为 0.66(95%CI,0.44-0.99)。这些发现突出了 ICI 在 mCRC 各种治疗线中的临床获益和安全性。

结论

ICI 在 mCRC 的一线和二线治疗策略中的临床应用带来了显著的治疗益处。本研究的详细评估表明,Nivolumab 联合 ipilimumab 的一线治疗可能是 MSI 亚组一种有效且耐受良好的治疗方法。在 MSS 亚组的一线治疗中,Nivolumab 联合 SOC 可能是一个相对更好的选择。在 MSS 亚组的二线治疗中,Atezolizumab 联合 SOC 是提高 PFS 的较好选择。此外,值得注意的是,其他 ICI 治疗方案在各个方面也具有很大的价值,为未来的临床治疗指南的制定提供了信息,并为 mCRC 的一线和二线治疗策略中 ICI 的选择提供了更强的理论依据。

系统评价注册

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails,标识符 CRD42024543400。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/953d/11444977/be057a480bbb/fimmu-15-1439624-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验