4.3 Review

Risk of Immune-Related Pancreatitis in Patients with Solid Tumors Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Systematic Assessment with Meta-Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 2018, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2018/1027323

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Foundation Clinical Research of Capital Medical University [15JL33]
  2. Foundation of Beijing Friendship Hospital [yyqdkt 2014-12]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the risk of immune-related pancreatitis associated with the treatment by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for solid tumors. Eligible studies were selected from multiple databases including phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with ICIs in solid tumor patients. The data were analyzed with Stata version 12.0 software. After excluding ineligible studies, a total of 15 clinical trials were considered eligible for the meta-analysis, which included 9099 patients. Compared with chemotherapy or placebo, the risk ratio (RR) for all-grade lipase elevation after CTLA-4 inhibitor treatment was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-2.24, p = 0 047). However, the risk for pancreatitis after ICI treatment in any subgroup was not significantly higher than that after control therapy. In addition, compared with ipilimumab/nivolumab alone, the RR for all-grade and high-grade lipase elevation under combination treatment of nivolumab and ipilimumab was 6.43 (95% CI: 1.43-28.99, p = 0 015) and 6.44 (95% CI: 1.39-29.79, p = 0 017), respectively, and the RR for all-grade amylase elevation under combination treatment was 6.08 (95% CI: 1.51-24.44, p = 0 011). Our meta-analysis has demonstrated that both CTLA-4 inhibitors alone and combination treatment of nivolumab and ipilimumab could increase the risk of amylase or lipase elevation, but not significantly increase the risk of pancreatitis when compared with controls.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available