Approved immune checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma: a large-scale meta-analysis and systematic review
-
Published:2024-02-06
Issue:2
Volume:150
Page:
-
ISSN:1432-1335
-
Container-title:Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
Author:
Zhang Ruyi,Wang Fang,You Zhiyu,Deng Dongyang,He Jiangyan,Yan Wentao,Quan Jian,Wang Jing,Yan Shujuan
Abstract
AbstractA meta-analysis was performed to assess the benefits and safety profile of approved immune checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Eligible studies were searched from Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases based on a well-established strategy. Following the exclusion of ineligible studies, 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with control group, immune checkpoint inhibitors were associated with improved ORR (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.26–4.05, P < 0.00001), SD (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.95, P = 0.02), OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68–0.83, P < 0.00001), and PFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63–0.87, P < 0.0003). However, no significant differences were observed in DCR (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.97–1.81, P = 0.07), PD (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67–1.21, P = 0.48), and all caused any-grade adverse events (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.62–2.39, P = 0. 57), all caused ≥ grade 3 adverse events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97–1.25, P = 0.14), treatment-related any-grade adverse events (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.55–2.32, P = 0.73), and treatment-related ≥ grade 3 events (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34–1.97, P = 0.65) between the two groups. After subgroup analysis conducted, patients in the immune checkpoint inhibitor group compared with targeted drug group showed significant improvements in OS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.84, P < 0.00001) and PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.91, P = 0.004). Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated peculiar benefits in the treatment of HCC with an acceptable safety profile. Compared to targeted drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors still offer advantages in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. However, there is still considerable room for further improvement.
Funder
Science and Technology Department of Guizhou Province Health care Commission of Guizhou Province Guizhou Department and Platform Talents Scientific research project of higher education Department of Guizhou Province Health Care Commission of Guizhou Province National Natural Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cancer Research,Oncology,General Medicine
Reference44 articles.
1. Abou-Alfa GK, Lau G, Kudo M, Chan SL, Kelley RK, Furuse J, Sukeepaisarnjaroen W, Kang Y-K, Van Dao T, De Toni EN (2022) Tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. NEJM Evidence 1(8):2100070. https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2100070 2. Bruix J, Qin S, Merle P, Granito A, Huang YH, Bodoky G, Pracht M, Yokosuka O, Rosmorduc O, Breder V, Gerolami R, Masi G, Ross PJ, Song T, Bronowicki JP, Ollivier-Hourmand I, Kudo M, Cheng AL, Llovet JM, Finn RS, LeBerre MA, Baumhauer A, Meinhardt G, Han G (2017) Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 389(10064):56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32453-9 3. Chen Z, Xie H, Hu M, Huang T, Hu Y, Sang N, Zhao Y (2020) Recent progress in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Cancer Res 10(9):2993–3036 4. Cheng ML, Nakib D, Perciani CT, MacParland SA (2021) The immune niche of the liver. Clin Sci (lond) 135(20):2445–2466. https://doi.org/10.1042/cs20190654 5. Choi WM, Choi J, Lee D, Shim JH, Lim YS, Lee HC, Chung YH, Lee YS, Park SR, Ryu MH, Ryoo BY, Lee SJ, Kim KM (2020) Regorafenib versus nivolumab after sorafenib failure: real-world data in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Commun 4(7):1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep4.1523
|
|