Frontiers in Oncology (Dec 2022)
Treatment- and immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors in esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the safety and adverse event profiles of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with esophageal cancer (EPC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC).MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major conference proceedings were systematically searched for all phase II or phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in EPC or GEJC using ICIs. Safety outcomes including treatment-related adverse events (trAEs), immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and serious trAEs were evaluated by network meta-analysis or dichotomous meta-analysis based on the random-effects model.ResultsEleven RCTs involving EPC (five RCTs) and GEJC (six RCTs) were included in the final meta-analysis. NMA showed that placebo was associated with the best safety ranking for grade 3–5 trAEs (SUCRA = 96.0%), followed by avelumab (78.6%), nivolumab (73.9%), ipilimumab (57.0%), and pembrolizumab (56.6%). Conventional pairwise meta-analysis (CPM) showed that ICIs have similar grade 3–5 trAE risk compared with chemotherapy (RR = 0.764, 95% CI: 0.574 to 1.016, I2 = 95.7%, Z = 1.85, P = 0.065). NMA showed that the general safety of grade 3–5 irAEs ranked from high to low is as follows: ChT (85.1%), placebo (76.5%), ipilimumab (56.0%), nivolumab (48.5%), avelumab (48.4%), camrelizumab (41.8%), pembrolizumab (36.4%), and nivolumab + ipilimumab (21.6%). CPM showed that the rates of grade 3–5 irAEs in the ICI group and the chemotherapy group were 7.35% (154/2,095, 95% CI: [6.23%, 8.47%]) versus 2.25% (42/1,869, 95% CI: [1.58%, 2.92%]), with statistical significance (RR = 3.151, 95% CI = 2.175 to 4.563, Z = 6.07, P = 0.000). The most common irAEs in the ICI group were skin reaction (15.76%, 95% CI: [13.67%, 17.84%]), followed by hypothyroidism (9.73%, 95% CI: [8.07%, 11.39%]), infusion-related reactions (5.93%, 95% CI: [4.29%, 7.58%]), hepatitis (5.25%, 95% CI: [4.28%, 6.22%]), and pneumonitis (4.45%, 95% CI: [3.5%, 5.4%]).ConclusionDifferent ICIs had different toxicity manifestations and should not be considered as an entity. Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs were more prone to irAEs, but the overall rates remained low and acceptable. For clinicians, it is important to recognize and monitor the adverse events caused by ICIs for patients with EPC or GEJC.
Keywords
