Nivolumab for adults with Hodgkin's lymphoma (a rapid review using the software RobotReviewer)

Can large language models replace humans in systematic reviews? Evaluating GPT-4's efficacy in screening and extracting data from peer-reviewed and grey literature in multiple languages

Systematic reviews are vital for guiding practice, research and policy, although they are often slow and labour-intensive. Large language models (LLMs) could speed up and automate systematic reviews, but their performance in such tasks has yet to be comprehensively evaluated against humans, and no study has tested Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT)-4, the biggest LLM so far. This pre-registered study uses a "human-out-of-the-loop" approach to evaluate GPT-4's capability in title/abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction across various literature types and languages. Although GPT-4 had accuracy on par with human performance in some tasks, results were skewed by chance agreement and dataset imbalance. Adjusting for these caused performance scores to drop across all stages: for data extraction, performance was moderate, and for screening, it ranged from none in highly balanced literature datasets (~1:1) to moderate in those datasets where the ratio of inclusion to exclusion in studies was imbalanced (~1:3). When screening full-text literature using highly reliable prompts, GPT-4's performance was more robust, reaching "human-like" levels. Although our findings indicate that, currently, substantial caution should be exercised if LLMs are being used to conduct systematic reviews, they also offer preliminary evidence that, for certain review tasks delivered under specific conditions, LLMs can rival human performance.

Immunotherapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly important in the treatment algorithm for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. Numerous ongoing studies are investigating these agents as first- and second-line therapies, both alone and in combination with chemotherapy or in a maintenance therapy setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to chemotherapy as first- and second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, several trial registers, other sources of gray literature, and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on language of publication. We limited the search period to run from 2000 until August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using immunotherapy versus chemotherapy and would have considered non-randomized trials in the absence of randomized trial data. Participants had locally advanced inoperable (cT4b or N+, or both) or metastatic (M1) (or both) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder or upper urinary tract. We excluded studies of people in whom immunotherapy was used in combination with chemotherapy or in a surveillance setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion and abstracted data from included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence on a per-outcome basis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs and identified seven single-armed studies. The RCTs included 3572 participants comparing immunotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. First-line therapy Immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy compared to chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 2068 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 750 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 11 fewer (45 fewer to 26 more) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) 4.10, 95% CI 3.83 to 4.37; 1 study, 393 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), when assuming a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least 6 points (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Bladder [FACT-BL] tool; scale 0 to 156 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy probably reduces adverse events grade 3 to 5 (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.75; I2 = 97%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 908 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy, with 481 fewer (644 fewer to 227 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy. We found no evidence for the outcome time to death from bladder cancer. Immunotherapy probably increases the risk of time to disease progression (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 660 events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 102 more (57 more to 152 more) events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10; I2 = 94%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 338 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 179 fewer (271 fewer to 34 more) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy. Second-line therapy Immunotherapy may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 920 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy (vinflunine, paclitaxel, docetaxel) and 59 fewer (95 fewer to 28 fewer) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life when compared to chemotherapy (MD 4.82, 95% CI -3.11 to 12.75; I2 = 85%; 2 studies, 727 participants; low-certainty evidence), assuming an MCID of at least 10 points (using the EORTC QLQ tool; scale 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I2 = 9%; 2 studies, 1423 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 630 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 76 fewer (126 fewer to 25 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy. We found no evidence for the outcome of time to death from bladder cancer. We are very uncertain if immunotherapy reduces the risk of disease progression (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse events in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.72; I2 = 69%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 110 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 72 fewer (91 fewer to 31 fewer) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to chemotherapy, immunotherapy for treating advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy. Still, it may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy. Health-related quality of life for participants receiving first- and second-line therapy does not appear to be affected by immunotherapy. Immunotherapy probably reduces or may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 when used as first- and second-line therapy, respectively.

Anti-Angiogenic Agent Combined with Anti-PD-1 Immunotherapy Showed Activity in Patients With Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma Who Have Failed Immunotherapy: A Retrospective Case Report Study

Background

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy has showed impressive activity in various cancers, especially relapsed/refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). However, acquired resistance is inevitable for most patients. Sometimes severe side effects also lead to treatment termination. When immunotherapy failed, alternative treatment options are limited. In the past few years, we have used the anti-angiogenic agent apatinib and PD-1 inhibitor camrelizumab to treat cHL patients who failed prior immunotherapy. In this study, we analyzed the data of these patients.

Patients and Methods

Patients with r/r cHL who had failed immunotherapy and subsequently received apatinib-camrelizumab (AC) combination therapy were included in this study. Patient data were collected from medical records and follow-up system. The efficacy and safety of AC therapy were analyzed.

Results

Seven patients who failed immunotherapy were identified in our database, of which five patients acquired immunotherapy resistance and two patients experienced severe side effects. They received a combination of camrelizumab (200 mg every four weeks) and apatinib (425 mg or 250 mg per day). As of the cut-off date, these patients had received a median of 4 cycles (range, 2 - 31) of treatment. Two (2/7) patients achieved complete response, four (4/7) partial response, and one (1/7) stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 10.0 months (range, 2.0 – 27.8). Low-dose apatinib (250 mg) plus camrelizumab was well tolerated and had no unexpected side effects. Besides, no reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation was observed in AC-treated patients.

Conclusions

Low dose apatinib plus camrelizumab might be a promising treatment option for r/r cHL patients who have failed immunotherapy. This combination treatment is worthy of further investigation in more patients including solid cancer patients who have failed immunotherapy.

Salvage Therapy for Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Review of Current Regimens and Outcomes

Relapse/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma patients are still a clinical concern. Indeed, despite more effective first-line chemotherapy regimens and better stratification of unresponsive patients by clinical factors and use of early PET, roughly one-third of such patients need salvage chemotherapy and consolidation with high-dose chemotherapy. In this paper, the authors review the different salvage treatments, with special emphasis on newer combinations with brentuximab vedotin or check point inhibitors. The overall response rate is constantly increasing, with a complete remission rate approaching 80%. Functional response evaluation by PET imaging is a strong predictive factor of longer survival, and more sophisticated tools, such as detection of circulating tumour DNA, are emerging to refine the disease-status assessment after treatment. Consolidation by high-dose chemotherapy is still considered the standard of care in chemosensitive patients, leading to a high fraction of patients towards long-term disease control. Maintenance therapy with BV is now approved, reducing disease relapse/progression. An increasing number of Hodgkin lymphoma patients will be cured after first- and second-line therapy, and long-term toxicity needs to be continuously assessed and avoided.

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

BACKGROUND

Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies.

METHODS

We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews.

RESULTS

For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

Safety and Efficacy in Relapsed or Refractory Classic Hodgkin's Lymphoma Treated with PD-1 Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis of 9 Prospective Clinical Trials

Background

Classic Hodgkin's lymphoma (cHL) is characterized by the unique biology in which rare Hodgkin-Reed-Sternberg cells propagate an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Checkpoint inhibitors that target the interaction of PD-1 immune checkpoint receptors have demonstrated remarkable activities in various cancers, such as cHL. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in treating relapsed or refractory cHL (rrHL).

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biological Medical Literature, and Abstracts of Conference proceedings of annual meetings without any language restrictions to limit language bias (up to January 2019) for prospective clinical trials that evaluate PD-1 inhibitors in treating relapsed or refractory cHL.

Results

A total of 9 prospective clinical trials with 731 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled risks of all-grade and grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.66–0.98) and 0.21 (95% CI: 0.17–0.24), respectively. The pooled response, complete response, partial response, and stable disease rates were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.70–0.79), 0.24 (95% CI: 0.18–0.34), 0.48 (95% CI: 0.41–0.55), and 0.15 (95% CI: 0.12–0.17), respectively. The pooled 6-month progression-free survival and 1-year overall survival rates were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72–0.79) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90–0.96), correspondingly.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis suggested that anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improve the outcomes of response and survival rates with tolerable AEs in cHL. However, evidence of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with cHL remained insufficient. Well-designed randomized controlled trials or at least nonrandomized trials with a control group should be conducted to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.

B7-CD28 gene family expression is associated with prognostic and immunological characteristics of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

The B7-CD28 gene family plays a key role in regulating cellular immunity and is closely related to tumorigenesis and immune evasion. Here, we explored associations between clinical and immune features and B7-CD28 gene family expression in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets representing 1812 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. This included 414 in the GSE10846 training cohort and 470 and 928 patients in the GSE31312 and GSE117556 validation cohorts, respectively. Four survival-associated genes identified in the GSE10846 cohort by univariate Cox analysis were incorporated into a multivariate analysis, ultimately establishing a three-gene risk signature. Risk scores assigned based on expression of these genes were validated by Kaplan–Meier and multivariable Cox analyses in the remaining datasets and in important clinical subsets. High-risk patients had shorter overall survival and, in some cases, progression-free survival than low-risk patients. Additionally, expression of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), as well as several other important immune checkpoint genes, differed between high-risk and low-risk patients, as did the proportions of various immune-infiltrating cells. Finally, further analysis confirmed that these B7-CD28 genes play important roles in immune responses altered in DLBCL.

PD-1 and PD-L1 in cancer immunotherapy: clinical implications and future considerations

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) is a cell surface receptor that functions as a T cell checkpoint and plays a central role in regulating T cell exhaustion. Binding of PD-1 to its ligand, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), activates downstream signaling pathways and inhibits T cell activation. Moreover abnormally high PD-L1 expression on tumor cells and antigen-presenting cells in the tumor microenvironment mediates tumor immune escape, and the development of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies has recently become a hot topic in cancer immunotherapy. Here, we review the structure of PD-1 and PD-L1, the function of the PD-1/PD-L1 signaling pathway, the application of PD-1 or PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies and future directions for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies with combination therapies. Cancer immunotherapy using PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint blockade may require more studies, and this approach may be curative for patients with many types of cancer in the future.