4.8 Review

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1181051

Keywords

immune checkpoint inhibitors; prostate cancer; immunotherapy; PD-1; PDL; CTLA-4

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in prostate cancer patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings showed varying median overall survival (mOS) for different treatment regimens, with the lowest incidence of adverse events in the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy group. Future studies should focus on evaluating the efficacy and safety of novel combination therapies with ICIs.
Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment paradigm of many cancers, however, its effectiveness in prostate cancer patients is still under question. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought for assessing the efficacy and safety of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with prostate cancer. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched on Aguste 19, 2022. Thirty five studies met the eligibility criteria. The median overall survival (mOS) of all treatments was 14.1 months, with the longest and shortest mOS was seen among patients who received anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1+anti-CTLA-4 regimen at 24.9 and 9.2 months, respectively. Noteworthy, all types of adverse events had the lowest incidence in the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy group. Considering the ICI monotherapy regimens, we found that fatigue, diarrhea, and infusion reaction had the highest incidence rates. Future studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of novel combination therapies with ICIs are warranted.

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