4.7 Review

Treatment of brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery and immune checkpoint inhibitors: An international meta-analysis of individual patient data

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 104-112

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.08.025

关键词

Ipilimumab; Nivolumab; Pembrolizumab; Radiation; Steroid; Immunotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: While the combination of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is becoming more widely used in the treatment of brain metastases (BM), there is a paucity of prospective data to validate both the safety and efficacy, as well as the optimal timing of these two therapies relative to one another. Methods: A PICOS/PRISMA/MOOSE selection protocol was used to identify 17 studies across 15 institutions in 3 countries. Inclusion criteria were patients: diagnosed with BM; treated with SRS/ICI, either concurrently or non-concurrently; with at least one of the primary or secondary outcome measures reported. Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird method were performed. The primary outcome was 1-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC), 1-year regional brain control (RBC), and radionecrosis incidence. Results: A total of 534 patients with 1,570 BM were included. The 1-year OS was 64.6% and 51.6% for concurrent and non-concurrent therapy, respectively (p < 0.001). Local control at 1-year was 89.2% and 67.8% for concurrent and non-concurrent therapy, respectively (p = 0.09). The RBC at 1-year was 38.1% and 12.3% for concurrent and ICI administration prior to SRS, respectively (p = 0.049). The overall incidence of radionecrosis for all studies was 5.3%. Conclusions: Concurrent administration of SRS/ICI may be associated with improved safety and efficacy versus sequential therapy. These findings, however, are hypothesis-generating and require further validation by ongoing and planned prospective trials. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据