4.8 Review

Efficacy and safety of copanlisib in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials

Journal

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1034253

Keywords

copanlisib; rituximab; R/R B-NHL; efficacy; safety; meta-analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Incubation Program for Clinical Trials
  2. 1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University
  3. [19HXFH030]
  4. [ZYJC21007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of Copanlisib in treating patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). The results showed that both Copanlisib monotherapy and combination therapy with rituximab were effective in R/R B-NHL patients, with manageable treatment-related adverse events.
Background: Copanlisib is an intravenously administered pan-class I PI3K inhibitor that has been demonstrated to have appreciable effects in the treatment of patients with lymphoma. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of copanlisib for treating patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies published prior to July 2022. The efficacy evaluation included complete response rate (CR), partial response rate (PR), rate of stable disease (SDR), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), rate of progressive disease (PDR), median progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS). Any grade adverse events (AEs) and grade & GE;3 AEs were synthesized to assess its safety. Results: Eight studies with a total of 652 patients with R/R B-NHL were identified. The pooled CR, PR, ORR, SDR, DCR, and PDR from all 8 articles were 13%, 40%, 57%, 19%, 86%, and 9%, respectively. The CR and ORR of combination therapy with rituximab were higher than those with copanlisib monotherapy for R/R B-NHL (34% vs. 6%, p < 0.01; 89% vs. 42%, p < 0.01). For patients with R/R indolent B-NHL, CR and ORR were lower with copanlisib monotherapy than with combination therapy with rituximab (7% vs. 34%, p < 0.01; 58% vs. 92%, p < 0.01). In R/R B-NHL patients receiving copanlisib monotherapy and combination therapy with rituximab, the risk of any grade AEs was 99% and 96%, respectively, and the risk of grade >= 3 AEs was 84% and 91%, respectively. The common any grade AEs included hyperglycemia (66.75%), hypertension (48.57%), diarrhea (35.06%), nausea (34.98%) and fatigue (30.33%). The common grade >= 3 AEs included hyperglycemia (45.14%), hypertension (35.07%), and neutropenia (14.75%). The comparison of AEs between the copanlisib monotherapy and the combination therapy with rituximab showed that hyperglycemia of any grade (p < 0.0001), hypertension of any grade (p=0.0368), fatigue of any grade (p < 0.0001), grade >= 3 hypertension (p < 0.0001) and grade >= 3 hyperglycemia (p=0.0074) were significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the efficacy of both copanlisib monotherapy and combination therapy with rituximab in patients with R/R B-NHL was satisfactory, while treatment-related AEs were tolerable. Compared with copanlisib monotherapy, combination therapy with rituximab showed superior efficacy for treating R/R B-NHL, and its safety was manageable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available