Comparison of neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus routine neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
chemoradiotherapy
chemotherapy
esophageal cancer
immune checkpoint inhibitor
meta-analysis
neoadjuvant
pathological complete response
Journal
Frontiers in immunology
ISSN: 1664-3224
Titre abrégé: Front Immunol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101560960
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
25
11
2022
accepted:
13
03
2023
medline:
11
4
2023
entrez:
10
4
2023
pubmed:
11
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The neoadjuvant use of immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with chemotherapy (nICT) or chemoradiotherapy (nICRT) in locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) is currently an area of active ongoing research. Therefore, we carried out a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of the new strategy with routine neoadjuvant strategy, which included neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), ISI Web of Science database and Cochrane Library were included. And, all of them were searched for eligible studies between January, 2000 and February, 2023. The pathological complete response (pCR) and major pathological response (MPR) were primary outcome of our study. The second outcome of interest was R0 resection rate. Odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% CI were used as the effect indicators comparing the safety and efficiency of the neoadjuvant immunotherapy with the routine neoadjuvant therapy. Fixed-effect model (Inverse Variance) or random-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel method) was performed depending on the statistically heterogeneity. There were eight trials with 652 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The estimated pCR rate was higher in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy group (OR =1.86; 95% CI, 1.25-2.75; I The pooled correlations indicated that the neoadjuvant immunotherapy (both nICT and nICRT) could significantly increase the rates of pCR and MPR, compared with routine neoadjuvant therapy (both nCT and nCRT) in the treatment of locally advanced EC. The neoadjuvant immunotherapy and routine neoadjuvant therapy were with acceptable toxicity. However, randomized studies with larger groups of patients need to performed to confirm these results. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020155802.
Sections du résumé
Background
The neoadjuvant use of immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with chemotherapy (nICT) or chemoradiotherapy (nICRT) in locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) is currently an area of active ongoing research. Therefore, we carried out a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of the new strategy with routine neoadjuvant strategy, which included neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).
Patients and methods
MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID), ISI Web of Science database and Cochrane Library were included. And, all of them were searched for eligible studies between January, 2000 and February, 2023. The pathological complete response (pCR) and major pathological response (MPR) were primary outcome of our study. The second outcome of interest was R0 resection rate. Odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% CI were used as the effect indicators comparing the safety and efficiency of the neoadjuvant immunotherapy with the routine neoadjuvant therapy. Fixed-effect model (Inverse Variance) or random-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel method) was performed depending on the statistically heterogeneity.
Results
There were eight trials with 652 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The estimated pCR rate was higher in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy group (OR =1.86; 95% CI, 1.25-2.75; I
Conclusion
The pooled correlations indicated that the neoadjuvant immunotherapy (both nICT and nICRT) could significantly increase the rates of pCR and MPR, compared with routine neoadjuvant therapy (both nCT and nCRT) in the treatment of locally advanced EC. The neoadjuvant immunotherapy and routine neoadjuvant therapy were with acceptable toxicity. However, randomized studies with larger groups of patients need to performed to confirm these results.
Systematic review registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020155802.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37033991
doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1108213
pmc: PMC10076616
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1108213Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Qin, Liu, Zhang, Liang, Mi, Yu, Xu, Li, Lin, Li, Tian and Wang.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Nurs Manag. 2021 Nov;29(8):2674-2688
pubmed: 34331491
Ann Transl Med. 2022 Feb;10(4):229
pubmed: 35280363
Indian J Cancer. 2015 Jul-Sep;52(3):413-6
pubmed: 26905156
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Ann Surg. 2017 Mar;265(3):481-491
pubmed: 27429017
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Sep 01;12:731798
pubmed: 34539412
Front Immunol. 2022 Sep 28;13:931429
pubmed: 36248782
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Jun 20;39(18):1995-2004
pubmed: 33891478
JAMA. 2021 Sep 14;326(10):916-925
pubmed: 34519801
Nucl Med Commun. 2022 May 1;43(5):560-567
pubmed: 35045553
Front Immunol. 2021 Dec 06;12:772450
pubmed: 34938292
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2239778
pubmed: 36322089
Int J Surg. 2022 Aug;104:106767
pubmed: 35840049
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
BMJ. 2022 Apr 19;377:e068714
pubmed: 35440464
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021 Feb;12(1):1-10
pubmed: 33708420
Front Immunol. 2022 Mar 11;13:848881
pubmed: 35371089
JAMA Oncol. 2022 Oct 1;8(10):1456-1465
pubmed: 36006624
Br Dent J. 2022 Jun;232(11):760-761
pubmed: 35689040
Front Immunol. 2022 Mar 01;13:836338
pubmed: 35300335
Eur J Cancer. 2021 Feb;144:232-241
pubmed: 33373868
Stata J. 2020;20(3):548-564
pubmed: 34434078
Science. 2020 Jan 31;367(6477):
pubmed: 32001626
Int J Cancer. 2022 Jul 1;151(1):128-137
pubmed: 35188268
Stat Med. 2016 Sep 20;35(21):3661-75
pubmed: 27161124
Lancet. 2021 Aug 28;398(10302):759-771
pubmed: 34454674
Front Oncol. 2022 Aug 03;12:887525
pubmed: 35992797
Clin Cancer Res. 2022 Aug 15;28(16):3489-3498
pubmed: 35657979
Front Immunol. 2021 Sep 27;12:730320
pubmed: 34646270
Dis Esophagus. 2022 Nov 15;35(11):
pubmed: 35649396
Esophagus. 2019 Oct;16(4):371-376
pubmed: 31111308
N Engl J Med. 2022 Feb 3;386(5):449-462
pubmed: 35108470
Cancer Cell. 2022 Mar 14;40(3):277-288.e3
pubmed: 35245446
Front Immunol. 2022 Oct 07;13:970534
pubmed: 36275724
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct 05;5:55
pubmed: 33073050
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Jun 15;27(12):3351-3359
pubmed: 33504550
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021 Oct;12(5):2013-2021
pubmed: 34790369
Nat Commun. 2022 Nov 10;13(1):6807
pubmed: 36357415
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul;43(7):752-5
pubmed: 23625063
Front Oncol. 2022 Apr 29;12:864533
pubmed: 35574384
Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2019 Mar 01;3(3):269-275
pubmed: 31131355
Esophagus. 2022 Apr;19(2):224-232
pubmed: 34988773
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2018 Dec;16(4):195-203
pubmed: 29621038
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep 20;36(27):2796-2803
pubmed: 30089078
Front Immunol. 2022 Oct 13;13:1031171
pubmed: 36311804
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 Mar;161(3):836-843.e1
pubmed: 33485662
Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed). 2021 Jan;112(1):90-92
pubmed: 32891586
Int J Surg. 2022 Jul;103:106680
pubmed: 35595021
Front Immunol. 2022 Sep 13;13:998620
pubmed: 36177019
Ann Transl Med. 2021 Nov;9(22):1700
pubmed: 34988209