Immune checkpoint blockade‐related pneumonitis is a rare but potentially life‐threatening adverse effect, but its risk factors are not completely understood. This case‐control study was conducted to identify pneumonitis risk factors in patients treated with anti‐PD1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including all the patients who developed pneumonitis after anti‐PD‐1 mAbs treatment in the Cancer Center of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from September 2015 to September 2017. Two controls per case were matched according to a propensity‐score matching algorithm to account for confounding effects caused by individual baseline variables. Demographic and clinical information was obtained from medical records. In total, 55 cases and 110 controls were included in the study. No association was observed between smoking status or primary lung cancer and risk of pneumonitis. Significant risk factors for pneumonitis related to anti‐PD‐1 mAbs were prior thoracic radiotherapy, prior lung disease and combination therapy with odds ratios of 3.34 (1.51‐7.39), 2.86 (1.45‐5.64) and 2.73 (1.40‐5.31), respectively. The associations remained significant in the multivariable logistic regression model. The risk of pneumonitis induced by anti‐PD‐1 mAbs is associated with prior thoracic radiotherapy, prior lung disease, and combination therapy. Clinicians should monitor these features in patients receiving anti‐PD‐1 therapy to optimize clinical safety and efficacy.
Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have demonstrated great promise for treating cancers with homologous recombination (HR) defects, such as germline BRCA1/2 mutation. Further studies suggest that PARP inhibitors (PARPi) can also exhibit efficacy in HR-competent cancers, by amplifying the DNA damage and inducing immunogenic cell death, and PARPi lead to increasing tumor neoantigen, upregulation of interferons and PD-L1, and modulation of the tumor microenvironment, which may facilitate a more profound antitumor immune response. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA-4 have achieved impressive success in the treatment of different malignancies. However, only a subset of populations derive clinical benefit, and the biomarkers and resistance mechanisms are not fully understood. Therefore, given that PARPi could potentiate the therapeutic effect of ICIs, PARPi combined with ICIs are becoming an alternative for patients who cannot benefit from ICI monotherapy. In this review, we focus on the mechanisms and immune role of PARPi and discuss the rationale and clinical studies of this combined regimen.
Background Evidence for the efficacy of immunotherapy in biliary tract cancer (BTC) is limited and unsatisfactory. Methods Chinese BTC patients receiving a PD-1 inhibitor with chemotherapy, PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy or chemotherapy alone were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The key secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Patients previously treated with any agent targeting T cell costimulation or immune checkpoints were excluded. Results The study included 77 patients (a PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy, n = 38; PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy, n = 20; chemotherapy alone, n = 19). The median OS was 14.9 months with a PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy, significantly longer than the 4.1 months with PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.80, P = 0.001) and the 6.0 months with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42–0.94, P = 0.011). The median PFS was 5.1 months with a PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy, significantly longer than the 2.2 months with PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31–1.10, P = 0.014) and the 2.4 months with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45–0.83, P = 0.003). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were similar between the anti-PD-1 combination group and the chemotherapy alone group (34.2% and 36.8%, respectively). Conclusions Anti-PD-1 therapy plus chemotherapy is an effective and tolerable approach for advanced BTC.
BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway have demonstrated promise in treating a variety of advanced cancers; however, little is known regarding their efficacy under various clinical situations, including different cancer types, treatment lines, drug combinations, and therapeutic regimens.MethodsPublished articles and conference abstracts (in English) in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register, and Web of Science were searched up to February 10, 2020. The data were analyzed by the meta-analysis program in Stata.ResultsA total of 16,400 patients from 91 clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors had a mean ORR of 19.56% (95% CI: 15.09–24.03), a median TTR of 2.05 months (m) (95%CI: 1.85–2.26), and a median DOR of 10.65 m (95%CI: 7.78–13.52). First-line treatment had a higher ORR (36.57% vs. 13.18%) but a shorter DOR (9.00 m vs. 13.42 m) compared to the second-line or subsequent treatment. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (I+C) (46.81% [95%CI: 36.02–57.60]) had a statistically significant higher ORR compared to immunotherapy (I) (17.75% [95%CI: 14.47–21.03]) or immunotherapy combined with immunotherapy (I+O) (12.25% [95%CI: 1.56–22.94]), while I+C (8.09 m [95%CI: 6.86–9.32]) appeared to reduce the DOR compared to I (12.39 m [95%CI: 7.60–17.18]). PD-1 inhibitors were associated with better ORR (21.65% vs. 17.60%) and DOR (11.26 m vs. 10.03 m) compared to PD-L1 inhibitors. There were no significant differences in TTR under different situations.ConclusionsPD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were promising immunotherapeutic agents to achieve satisfactory response efficacies with different cancer types, treatment lines, drug combinations, and therapeutic regimens. This comprehensive summary of the response efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors serves as a reference for clinicians to make evidence-based decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.