The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis based on 40 cohorts incorporating 3697 individuals

Effect of Subgroups on Study Outcomes in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Upfront Systemic Treatment: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Immunotherapy improved the outcome of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but not all studies are in agreement, nor is it clear whether certain subgroups have really benefited. This study aims to perform an updated meta-analysis of trials comparing upfront immunotherapy-based regimens versus tyrosin-kinase inhibitors, and some exploratory analyses.

METHODS

After a systematic review, randomized trials of immunotherapy-based regimens versus tyrosin-kinase inhibitors were selected. A meta-analysis assessed the relationship between treatment arm and overall survival. Based on the resulting heterogeneity, a further investigation of 11 variables by meta-regression and an exploration of subgroups were planned.

RESULTS

Eight studies were selected. From the meta-analysis, the overall survival improvement for the immunotherapy-based arms was consistent (HR: 0.77, CI: 0.68-0.88), although heterogeneity between studies was significant ( Q =16.37; P =0.0373; I2 =51.1%). After meta-regression, the effect of the experimental arm was more pronounced in the elderly and lost among patients with HCV-related liver disease. Subgroups suggested a favorable effect of immunotherapy in patients with HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma, extrahepatic dissemination, and elevated alpha-fetoprotein.

CONCLUSION

The study results confirm the significant overall survival improvement after immunotherapy-based regimens but suggest different effects on the outcome depending on age, etiology of liver disease, and tumor burden.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal malignancies: an Umbrella review

In the Modern era, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been the cornerstone of success in the treatment of several malignancies. Despite remarkable therapeutic advances, complex matrix together with significant molecular and immunological differences have led to conflicting outcomes of ICI therapy in gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. As far we are aware, to date, there has been no study to confirm the robustness of existing data, and this study is the first umbrella review to provide a more comprehensive picture about ICIs' efficacy and safety in GI malignancies. Systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library identified 14 meta-analyses. The pooled analysis revealed that ICIs application, especially programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors such as Camrelizumab and Sintilimab, could partially improve response rates in patients with GI cancers compared to conventional therapies. However, different GI cancer types did not experience the same efficacy; it seems that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and esophageal cancer (EC) patients are likely better candidates for ICI therapy than GC and CRC patients. Furthermore, application of ICIs in a combined-modal strategy are perceived opportunity in GI cancers. We also assessed the correlation of PD-L1 expression as well as microsatellite status with the extent of the response to ICIs; overall, high expression of PD-L1 in GI cancers is associated with better response to ICIs, however, additional studies are required to precisely elaborate ICI responses with respect to microsatellite status in different GI tumors. Despite encouraging ICI efficacy in some GI cancers, a greater number of serious and fatal adverse events have been observed; further highlighting the fact that ICI therapy in GI cancers is not without cost, and further studies are required to utmost optimization of this approach in GI cancers.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in Proficient Mismatch Repair (pMMR)/ Non-Microsatellite Instability-High (non-MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer: a study based on 39 cohorts incorporating 1723 patients

PURPOSE

This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)-based therapy in proficient mismatch repair (pMMR)/non-microsatellite instability-high (non-MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

Electronic databases were screened to identify relevant trials. The primary endpoints were pooled objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Stratified analysis was accomplished on ICIs-based regimens, treatment lines and RAS status.

RESULTS

Totally, 1723 mCRC patients from 39 cohorts were included. The pooled ORR, DCR, 12-month overall survival (OS) rate and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate of ICIs-based therapy in pMMR/non-MSI-H mCRC were 8.5% (95% CI: 4.4%-13.5%), 48.2% (95% CI: 37.8%-58.6%), 52.3% (95% CI: 46.4%-58.1%) and 32.8% (95% CI: 23.5%-42.7%) respectively. As a whole, no significantly differences were shown between ICIs-based and non-ICIs-based therapy for pMMR/non-MSI-H mCRC in terms of both PFS (HR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9-1.1, P = 0.91) and OS (HR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9-1.2, P = 0.51). It was worth noting that the addition of ICIs to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent plus chemotherapy displayed excellent efficacy in pMMR/non-MSI-H mCRC (ORR = 42.4%, 95% CI: 10.0%-78.6%; DCR = 92.0%, 95% CI: 68.3%-100.0%; 12-month OS rate = 71.4%, 95% CI: 50.0%-89.1%; 6-month PFS rate = 55.2%, 95% CI: 24.8%-83.8%; and PFS (compared with non-ICIs-based therapy): HR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8-1.0, P = 0.02), especially served as first-line therapy (ORR = 74.2%, 95% CI: 61.4%-85.4%; DCR = 98.7%, 95% CI: 92.0%-100.0%); and without additional treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ICIs-based combination therapy, especially the addition of ICIs to first-line anti-VEGF agent plus chemotherapy, is promising in pMMR/non-MSI-H mCRC with good efficacy and controllable toxicity.

Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Triple-negative Breast Cancer: A Study Based on 41 Cohorts Incorporating 6558 Participants

The project was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Electronic databases were screened to identify relevant trials. The primary endpoints were prognostic parameters and adverse events (AEs) through pooled rate, odds ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI. Totally, 6558 TNBC patients from 41 cohorts were included. The pooled pathologic complete response rate (odds ratio=2.03, 95% CI: 1.35-3.06, P =0.0007) and event-free survival (HR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.96, P =0.0100) of ICIs plus chemotherapy was higher than that of chemotherapy-alone in early-stage TNBC. For metastatic TNBC, compared with chemotherapy-alone, the addition of ICIs prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.88-0.96, P <0.0001); the improvement also existed in the following 3 subgroups: programmed cell death-ligand 1 positive, race of White and Asian, and patients without previous neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy; however, the benefit of the combined regimen was not observed in overall survival (OS) (HR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.89-1.03, P =0.2127). In addition, the pooled rates of OS, PFS, and objective response rate of ICIs plus chemotherapy were better than those of ICIs plus targeted therapy or ICIs-alone. In the safety analysis, compared with chemotherapy-alone, ICIs plus chemotherapy increased immune-related AEs and several serious AE. The regimen of ICIs plus chemotherapy is promising in both early-stage and metastatic TNBC, while the increased serious AE should not be neglected. Furthermore, the pooled rates of OS, PFS, and objective response rate of ICIs plus chemotherapy were better than those of ICIs plus targeted therapy or ICIs-alone.

Clinical Outcomes Associated with Monotherapy and Combination Therapy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Practice: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)-based therapy has recently been demonstrated to greatly ameliorate survival outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of ICIs-based monotherapy and combination therapy as first-line treatment of adults with advanced HCC in real-world practice by conducting a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to 25 April 2022. Retrospective or prospective real-world studies evaluating progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of patients with advanced HCC receiving first-line ICIs-based therapy were included.

RESULTS

Of 7805 studies retrieved, 38 were deemed eligible for inclusion. For patients receiving first-line ICIs-based therapy in real-world practice, the pooled median PFS and OS were 7.03 (95% CI: 5.55-8.51) and 14.39 (95% CI: 10.91-17.86) months. The ORR and DCR were 0.432 (95% CI: 0.327-0.538) and 0.756 (95% CI: 0.677-0.836), according to mRECIST 1.1, 0.317 (95% CI: 0.218-0.416) and 0.740 (95% CI: 0.644-0.835), judged by RECIST 1.1. The best outcomes of survival and response rate were observed in ICIs-based combination therapy of ICIs, TKIs, plus LRTs. Furthermore, ORR, DCR judged by mRECIST 1.1, and PFS could be potential prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This research revealed diversified first-line ICIs-based therapies for advanced HCC in real-world practice. Future studies are needed to adopt prospective, multicentric and comparative designs to test the ICIs-based combination therapies, especially triple therapies of ICIs, TKIs, plus LRTs.

Focus on the Dynamics of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background: A number of studies have reported an association between the dynamics of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and clinical efficacy in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but there is still a lack of a meta-analysis or systematic review. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched until September 2022 for studies reporting on the association between the change in NLR after ICI treatment and clinical outcomes. Outcome measures of interest included: change in NLR before and after treatment, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Results: A total of 4154 patients in 38 studies were included. The pooled percentage of patients with increased NLR was 49.7% (95CI%: 43.7−55.8%). Six studies discussing the change in NLR in patients with different tumor responses all showed that the NLR level in patients without response to immunotherapy may increase after ICI treatment. The upward trend in NLR was associated with shorter OS (pooled HR: 2.05, 95%CI: 1.79−2.35, p < 0.001) and PFS (pooled HR: 1.89, 95%CI: 1.66−2.14, p < 0.001) and higher ORR (pooled OR: 0.27, 95%CI: 0.19−0.39, p < 0.001), and downward trend in NLR was associated with longer OS (pooled HR: 0.49, 95%CI: 0.42−0.58, p < 0.001) and PFS (pooled HR: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.48−0.63, p < 0.001) and lower ORR (pooled OR: 3.26, 95%CI: 1.92−5.53, p < 0.001). In addition, post-treatment high NLR was associated with more impaired survival than baseline high NLR (pooled HR of baseline high NLR: 1.82, 95%CI: 1.52−2.18; pooled HR of post-treatment high NLR: 2.93, 95%CI: 2.26−3.81), but the NLR at different time points may have a similar predictive effect on PFS (pooled HR of baseline high NLR: 1.68, 95%CI: 1.44−1.97; pooled HR of post-treatment high NLR: 2.00, 95%CI: 1.54−2.59). Conclusions: The NLR level of tumor patients after ICI treatment is stable overall, but the NLR level in patients without response to immunotherapy may increase after ICI treatment. Patients with an upward trend in NLR after ICI treatment were associated with worse clinical outcomes; meanwhile, the downward trend in NLR was associated with better clinical outcomes. Post-treatment high NLR was associated with more impaired survival than baseline high NLR.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Nivolumab versus Pembrolizumab in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are effective therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, comparisons of the clinical efficacy and safety profile for these drugs are still scarce. Thus, the aims of this study were to investigate the differences in efficacy and safety between nivolumab and pembrolizumab in unresectable HCC patients in a real-world setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 115 patients who received treatment with nivolumab (n = 73) or pembrolizumab (n = 42) in combination with or without tyrosine kinase inhibitors was enrolled. Therapeutic response, survival outcomes, and safety profiles were compared among these groups. Multivariate analysis of survival response was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Patients treated with pembrolizumab demonstrated a significantly higher objective response rate than those with nivolumab (38.1% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio 4.18, p = 0.005) regardless of the combination strategies. In addition, pembrolizumab performed a better overall survival (OS) than nivolumab, (34.9 vs. 9.5 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.39, p = 0.004). In subgroup analysis, pembrolizumab exhibited favorable OS than nivolumab for monotherapy (HR = 0.16, p = 0.001) or combination therapy (HR = 0.33, p = 0.006) as second-line or later-line (HR = 0.19, p = 0.001) therapy and those with (HR = 0.31, p = 0.006) or without (HR = 0.15, p = 0.004) well-compensated liver disease. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for both treatments.

CONCLUSION

Both pembrolizumab and nivolumab had significant effects for HCC therapy, and pembrolizumab had a significant survival benefit as compared with nivolumab.

Safety and Efficacy of Sintilimab and Anlotinib as First Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (KEEP-G04): A Single-Arm Phase 2 Study

Purpose

Immune checkpoint inhibitors plus antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors may offer a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this phase 2 trial [registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04052152)], we investigated the safety and efficacy of first-line anti-PD-1 antibody sintilimab plus antiangiogenic TKI anlotinib for advanced HCC.

Methods and Materials

Pathologically-proven advanced HCC patients received sintilimab (200 mg) on day 1 and anlotinib (12 mg) once daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks, with a safety run-in for the first six participants to assess dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1.

Results

Twenty advanced HCC patients were enrolled. No DLTs occurred in the safety run-in. All patients had treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 8 (40.0%) patients, the most common being decreased platelet count (10.0%) and increased γ-glutamyl transferase (10.0%). No grade 4/5 TRAEs occurred. Five (25%) patients developed immune-related AEs. The ORR was 35.0% (95%CI 15.4%-59.2%) per RECIST v1.1 and 55.0% (95%CI 31.5%-76.9%) per modified RECIST. At data cutoff (March 31, 2021), the median progression-free survival was 12.2 months (95%CI, 3.8 to not reached). The median PFS was significantly longer in patients with lower LDH levels (not reached [NR], 95% CI, 8.7 to NR vs. higher LDH levels 5.2 months, 95% CI 3.4 to NR; P=0.020) and a CONUT score ≤2 (NR, 95% CI 5.1 to NR vs. CONUT score >2 6.2 months, 95% CI 1.8 to NR; P=0.020). Furthermore, patients showing tumor response had a significantly higher median proportion of CD16⁺CD56⁺ NK cells than patients who had stable or progressive disease (21.6% vs. 14.6%; P=0.026).

Conclusion

Sintilimab plus anlotinib showed promising clinical activities with manageable toxicity as first-line treatment of advanced HCC.