The combined use of steroids and immune checkpoint inhibitors in brain metastasis patients:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have been a breakthrough for selected cancer patients, including those with brain metastases (BMs). Likewise, steroids have been an integral component of symptomatic management of BM patients. However, clinical evidence on the interaction between ICI and steroids in BM patients is conflicting and has not adequately been summarized thus far. Hence, the aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the association between steroid use and overall survival (OS) in BM patients receiving ICI. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects models across included studies. RESULTS: After screening 1145 abstracts, 15 observational studies were included. Fourteen studies reported sufficient data for meta-analysis, comprising 1102 BM patients of which 32.1% received steroids. In the steroid group, median OS ranged from 2.9 to 10.2 months. In the nonsteroid group, median OS ranged from 4.9 to 25.1 months. Pooled results demonstrated significantly worse OS (HR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.22-2.77) and systemic progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.37-2.91) in the steroid group. Stratified analysis showed a consistent effect across the melanoma subgroup; not in the lung cancer subgroup. No significant association was shown between steroid use and intracranial PFS (HR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.42-4.07). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of steroids was associated with significantly worse OS and PFS in BM patients receiving ICI. Further research on dose, timing, and duration of steroids is needed to elucidate the cause of this association and optimize outcomes in BM patients receiving ICI

Biomarkers for Response of Melanoma Patients to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), targeting CTLA-4 or PD-1 molecules, have shown impressive therapeutic results. However, only 20–40% of advanced melanoma patients have durable responses to ICI, and these positive effects must be balanced against severe off-target immune toxicity and high costs. This urges the development of predictive biomarkers for ICI response to select patients with likely clinical benefit from treatment. Although many candidate biomarkers exist, a systematic overview of biomarkers and their usefulness is lacking.ObjectivesHere, we systematically review the current literature of clinical data of ICI treatment to provide an overview of candidate predictive biomarkers for ICI in melanoma patients.MethodsTo identify studies on biomarkers for clinical response or survival to ICI therapy in melanoma patients, we performed a systematic search in OVID MEDLINE and retrieved 429 publications, of which 67 met the eligibility criteria.ResultsBlood and genomic biomarkers were mainly studied for CTLA-4 ICI, while tumor tissue markers were analyzed for both CTLA-4 and PD-1 ICI. Blood cytology and soluble factors correlated more frequently to overall survival (OS) than to response, indicating their prognostic rather than predictive nature. Systemic T-cell response and regulation markers correlated to response, but progression-free survival or OS were not analyzed. Tumor tissue analyses revealed response correlations with mutational load, neoantigen load, immune-related gene expression, and CD8+ T-cell infiltration at the invasive margin. The predictive value of PD-L1 varied, possibly due to the influence of T-cell infiltration on tumor PD-L1 expression. Genomic biomarker studies addressed CTLA-4 and other immune-related genes.ConclusionThis review outlines all published biomarkers for ICI therapy and highlights potential candidate markers for future research. To date, PD-L1 is the best studied biomarker for PD-1 ICI response. The most promising candidate predictive biomarkers for ICI response have not yet been identified. Variations in outcome parameters, statistical power, and analyses hampered summary of the results. Further investigation of biomarkers in larger patient cohorts using standardized objectives and outcome measures is recommended

Evidence-based dexamethasone dosing in malignant brain tumors: what do we really know?

Purpose: The present study aims to conduct a systematic review of literature reporting on the dose and dosing schedule of dexamethasone (DXM) in relation to clinical outcomes in malignant brain tumor patients, with particular attention to evidence-based practice. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Academic Search Premier, and PsycINFO to identify studies that reported edema volume reduction, symptomatic relief, adverse events and survival in relation to dexamethasone dose in glioma or brain metastasis (BM) patients. Results: After screening 1812 studies, fifteen articles were included for qualitative review. Most studies reported a dose of 16 mg, mostly in a schedule of 4 mg four times a day. Due to heterogeneity of studies, it was not possible to perform quantitative meta-analysis. For BMs, best available evidence suggests that higher doses of DXM may give more adverse events, but may not necessarily result in better clinical condition. Some studies suggest that higher DXM doses are associated with shorter survival in the palliative setting. For glioma, DXM may lead to symptomatic improvement, yet no studies directly compare different doses. Results regarding edema reduction and survival in glioma patients are conflicting. Conclusions: Evidence on the safety and efficacy of different DXM doses in malignant brain tumor patients is scarce and conflicting. Best available evidence suggests that low DXM doses may be noninferior to higher doses in certain circumstances, but more comparative research in this area is direly needed, especially in light of the increasing importance of immunotherapy for brain tumors