DataSheet_1_Adverse Event Reporting Quality in Cancer Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: A Systematic Review.docx

BackgroundImmunotherapy has become one of the most important breakthroughs in cancer treatment. Consequently, there have been more immuno-oncology (IO) clinical trials for various cancers in recent decades. However, the quality of such trials in reporting adverse events (AE), especially immune-related AE (irAE), has not been comprehensively evaluated.MethodsWe evaluated the harm reporting quality of IO trials. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify all head-to-head phase II and III clinical trials assessing cancer immunotherapy published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. Publications were assessed using a 16-point harm reporting quality score (HRQS) derived from the 2004 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension. The characteristics associated with improved reporting quality were identified with linear regression.ResultsA total of 123 publications were included. The mean HRQS was 11.1 (range, 5-14). The most common poorly reported items were harms addressed in the title (2%), AE collection methodology (3%), the statistical approach for analyzing harms (11%), and the irAE onset patterns and management (adequately reported in 14% and 33% of publications, respectively). The harm information was well described in the publications’ Results and Discussion sections (89-99%). The multivariable regression model revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (30ConclusionOur findings show that AE reporting in IO randomized trials is suboptimal. Efforts should be made to improve harm reporting and to standardize reporting practices. Improvements in AE reporting would permit more balanced assessment of interventions and would enhance evidence-based IO practice.</p

Additional file 1: of First-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma and high PD-L1 expression: pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy

Supplemental Methods. Search strategies and number of studies yielded from each database. Table S1. Quality assessment: risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Figure S1. Trial Selection Process (PDF 337 kb

Image_5_Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Treatment Strategies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.jpeg

BackgroundTargeted therapies have led to significant improvement in the management and prognosis of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a network meta-analysis of frontline treatment options of ALK-positive NSCLC to provide clinical guidance.MethodsPubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases were searched to identify relevant trials from inception to June 30, 2021. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), risk of the central nervous system (CNS) progression, adverse events (AEs) of grade (G) 3 or higher (G3 AEs), or serious AEs (SAEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and CI for primary outcome of PFS and secondary outcome of OS and risk of CNS progression were obtained. A multivariate, consistency model, fixed-effects analysis was used in the network meta-analysis. Data on G3 AEs and SAEs were abstracted and meta-analyzed. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.ResultsNine RCTs comprising 2,484 patients were included with seven treatments: alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, lorlatinib, and chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) significantly prolong PFS and reduced risk of CNS progression except for ceritinib. Lorlatinib appears superior at reducing risk of CNS progression. None of the ALK-TKIs have a significantly prolonged OS as compared with chemotherapy. Lorlatinib increases the risk of G3 AEs as compared with alectinib (odds ratio 4.26 [95% CrI 1.22 to 15.53]), while alectinib caused the fewest G3 AEs.ConclusionsLorlatinib is associated with the highest PFS benefit and lowest risk of CNS progression benefits for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, compared with other first-line treatments, but with higher toxicity. The implementation of a newer generation of ALK-TKIs in the first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC into current clinical practice is evolving rapidly.</p

Image_1_Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Treatment Strategies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.jpeg

BackgroundTargeted therapies have led to significant improvement in the management and prognosis of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a network meta-analysis of frontline treatment options of ALK-positive NSCLC to provide clinical guidance.MethodsPubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases were searched to identify relevant trials from inception to June 30, 2021. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), risk of the central nervous system (CNS) progression, adverse events (AEs) of grade (G) 3 or higher (G3 AEs), or serious AEs (SAEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and CI for primary outcome of PFS and secondary outcome of OS and risk of CNS progression were obtained. A multivariate, consistency model, fixed-effects analysis was used in the network meta-analysis. Data on G3 AEs and SAEs were abstracted and meta-analyzed. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.ResultsNine RCTs comprising 2,484 patients were included with seven treatments: alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, lorlatinib, and chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) significantly prolong PFS and reduced risk of CNS progression except for ceritinib. Lorlatinib appears superior at reducing risk of CNS progression. None of the ALK-TKIs have a significantly prolonged OS as compared with chemotherapy. Lorlatinib increases the risk of G3 AEs as compared with alectinib (odds ratio 4.26 [95% CrI 1.22 to 15.53]), while alectinib caused the fewest G3 AEs.ConclusionsLorlatinib is associated with the highest PFS benefit and lowest risk of CNS progression benefits for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, compared with other first-line treatments, but with higher toxicity. The implementation of a newer generation of ALK-TKIs in the first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC into current clinical practice is evolving rapidly.</p

Image_3_Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Treatment Strategies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.jpeg

BackgroundTargeted therapies have led to significant improvement in the management and prognosis of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a network meta-analysis of frontline treatment options of ALK-positive NSCLC to provide clinical guidance.MethodsPubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases were searched to identify relevant trials from inception to June 30, 2021. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), risk of the central nervous system (CNS) progression, adverse events (AEs) of grade (G) 3 or higher (G3 AEs), or serious AEs (SAEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and CI for primary outcome of PFS and secondary outcome of OS and risk of CNS progression were obtained. A multivariate, consistency model, fixed-effects analysis was used in the network meta-analysis. Data on G3 AEs and SAEs were abstracted and meta-analyzed. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.ResultsNine RCTs comprising 2,484 patients were included with seven treatments: alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, lorlatinib, and chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) significantly prolong PFS and reduced risk of CNS progression except for ceritinib. Lorlatinib appears superior at reducing risk of CNS progression. None of the ALK-TKIs have a significantly prolonged OS as compared with chemotherapy. Lorlatinib increases the risk of G3 AEs as compared with alectinib (odds ratio 4.26 [95% CrI 1.22 to 15.53]), while alectinib caused the fewest G3 AEs.ConclusionsLorlatinib is associated with the highest PFS benefit and lowest risk of CNS progression benefits for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, compared with other first-line treatments, but with higher toxicity. The implementation of a newer generation of ALK-TKIs in the first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC into current clinical practice is evolving rapidly.</p

Low Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) Predicts Unfavorable Distant Metastasis-Free Survival in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>Poor nutritional status is associated with progression and advanced disease in patients with cancer. The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) may represent a simple method of assessing host immunonutritional status. This study was designed to investigate the prognostic value of the PNI for distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).</p><p>Methods</p><p>A training cohort of 1,168 patients with non-metastatic NPC from two institutions was retrospectively analyzed. The optimal PNI cutoff value for DMFS was identified using the online tool “Cutoff Finder”. DMFS was analyzed using stratified and adjusted analysis. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to balance baseline characteristics between the high and low PNI groups. Subsequently, the prognostic value of the PNI for DMFS was validated in an external validation cohort of 756 patients with NPC. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was calculated to compare the discriminatory ability of different prognostic scores.</p><p>Results</p><p>The optimal PNI cutoff value was determined to be 51. Low PNI was significantly associated with poorer DMFS than high PNI in univariate analysis (P<0.001) as well as multivariate analysis (P<0.001) before propensity score matching. In subgroup analyses, PNI could also stratify different risks of distant metastases. Propensity score-matched analyses confirmed the prognostic value of PNI, excluding other interpretations and selection bias. In the external validation cohort, patients with high PNI also had significantly lower risk of distant metastases than those with low PNI (Hazards Ratios, 0.487; P<0.001). The PNI consistently showed a higher AUC value at 1-year (0.780), 3-year (0.793) and 5-year (0.812) in comparison with other prognostic scores.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>PNI, an inexpensive and easily assessable inflammatory index, could aid clinicians in developing individualized treatment and follow-up strategies for patients with non-metastatic NPC.</p></div

Image_8_Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Treatment Strategies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.jpeg

BackgroundTargeted therapies have led to significant improvement in the management and prognosis of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a network meta-analysis of frontline treatment options of ALK-positive NSCLC to provide clinical guidance.MethodsPubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases were searched to identify relevant trials from inception to June 30, 2021. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), risk of the central nervous system (CNS) progression, adverse events (AEs) of grade (G) 3 or higher (G3 AEs), or serious AEs (SAEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and CI for primary outcome of PFS and secondary outcome of OS and risk of CNS progression were obtained. A multivariate, consistency model, fixed-effects analysis was used in the network meta-analysis. Data on G3 AEs and SAEs were abstracted and meta-analyzed. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.ResultsNine RCTs comprising 2,484 patients were included with seven treatments: alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, lorlatinib, and chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) significantly prolong PFS and reduced risk of CNS progression except for ceritinib. Lorlatinib appears superior at reducing risk of CNS progression. None of the ALK-TKIs have a significantly prolonged OS as compared with chemotherapy. Lorlatinib increases the risk of G3 AEs as compared with alectinib (odds ratio 4.26 [95% CrI 1.22 to 15.53]), while alectinib caused the fewest G3 AEs.ConclusionsLorlatinib is associated with the highest PFS benefit and lowest risk of CNS progression benefits for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, compared with other first-line treatments, but with higher toxicity. The implementation of a newer generation of ALK-TKIs in the first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC into current clinical practice is evolving rapidly.</p

Image_4_Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Treatment Strategies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.jpeg

BackgroundTargeted therapies have led to significant improvement in the management and prognosis of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a network meta-analysis of frontline treatment options of ALK-positive NSCLC to provide clinical guidance.MethodsPubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases were searched to identify relevant trials from inception to June 30, 2021. Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), risk of the central nervous system (CNS) progression, adverse events (AEs) of grade (G) 3 or higher (G3 AEs), or serious AEs (SAEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and CI for primary outcome of PFS and secondary outcome of OS and risk of CNS progression were obtained. A multivariate, consistency model, fixed-effects analysis was used in the network meta-analysis. Data on G3 AEs and SAEs were abstracted and meta-analyzed. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.ResultsNine RCTs comprising 2,484 patients were included with seven treatments: alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinib, crizotinib, ensartinib, lorlatinib, and chemotherapy. Compared with chemotherapy, ALK-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) significantly prolong PFS and reduced risk of CNS progression except for ceritinib. Lorlatinib appears superior at reducing risk of CNS progression. None of the ALK-TKIs have a significantly prolonged OS as compared with chemotherapy. Lorlatinib increases the risk of G3 AEs as compared with alectinib (odds ratio 4.26 [95% CrI 1.22 to 15.53]), while alectinib caused the fewest G3 AEs.ConclusionsLorlatinib is associated with the highest PFS benefit and lowest risk of CNS progression benefits for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, compared with other first-line treatments, but with higher toxicity. The implementation of a newer generation of ALK-TKIs in the first-line treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC into current clinical practice is evolving rapidly.</p

Univariable and multivariate analysis of associations with DMFS before propensity score matching.

Univariable and multivariate analysis of associations with DMFS before propensity score matching.</p

DataSheet_2_LRRC3B and its promoter hypomethylation status predicts response to anti-PD-1 based immunotherapy.xlsx

BackgroundThe leucine rich repeat containing 3B (LRRC3B) gene is a tumor suppressor gene involved in the anti-tumor immune microenvironment. Expression of LRRC3B and DNA methylation at the LRRC3B promoter region may serve as a useful marker to predict response to anti-PD-1 therapy. However, no studies have yet systematically explored the protective role of LRRC3B methylation in tumor progression and immunity.MethodsExpression of LRRC3B of 33 cancer types in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) was downloaded from UCSC Xena (http://xena.ucsc.edu/). And, we evaluated the differential expression of LRRC3B according to tumor stage, overall survival, and characteristics of the tumor microenvironment. The immunotherapeutic cohorts included IMvigor21, GSE119144, and GSE72308 which were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. We conducted pearson correlation analysis of LRRC3B and tumor microenvironment (TME) in pan-cancer. Also, six immune cell types (B cells, CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells) and tumor purity were analyzed using the Tumor IMmune Estimation Resource (TIMER1.0) (Tumor IMmune Estimation Resource (TIMER2.0). And, a “silencing score” model base on LRRC3B promoter methylation to predict overall survival (OS) by multivariate Cox regression analysis was constructed. Finally, the model was applied to predict anti-PD-1 therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and breast cancer (BRCA).ResultsLRRC3B expression associated with less tumor invasion, less severe tumor stage, and decreased metastasis. The inactivation of LRRC3B promoted the enrichment of immuneosuppressive cells, including myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), M2 subtype of tumor-associated macrophages (M2-TAMs), M1 subtype of tumor-associated macrophages (M1-TAMs), and regulatory T (Treg) cells. A high silencing score was significantly associated with immune inhibition, low expression of LRRC3B, poor patient survival, and activation of cancer-related pathways.ConclusionOur comprehensive analysis demonstrated the potential role of LRRC3B in the anti-tumor microenvironment, clinicopathological features of cancer, and disease prognosis. It suggested that LRRC3B methylation could be used as a powerful biomarker to predict immunotherapy responses in NSCLC and BRCA.</p