Efficacy and Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitor as Single-Agent Immunotherapy in Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway plays a crucial role in the immune escape mechanism and growth of cancer cells in endometrial cancer (EC). Clinical trials investigating PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor have shown promising results in other cancers, but their efficacy in EC still remains uncertain. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to provide an updated and robust analysis of the effectiveness and safety of PD-1/PDL1 inhibitor as single-agent immunotherapy in EC, focusing on the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs). This meta-analysis utilized STATA version 17 and RevMan version 5.4 software to pool the results of relevant studies. Five studies conducted between 2017 and 2022, comprising a total of 480 EC patients enrolled for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy met the inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of EC patients who achieved ORR through PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor treatment was 26.0% (95% CI: 16.0-36.0%; p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis based on mismatch repair (MMR) status showed an ORR of 44.0% (95% CI: 38.0-50.0%; p = 0.32) for the deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) group and 8.0% (95% CI: 0.0-16.0%; p = 0.07) for the proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) group. Pooled proportion analysis by DCR demonstrated an odds ratio (OR) of 41.0% (95% CI: 36.0-46.0%, p = 0.83) for patients undergoing PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor treatment. Subgroup analysis based on MMR status revealed DCR of 54.0% (95% CI: 47.0-62.0%; p = 0.83) for the dMMR group, and 31.0% (95% CI: 25.0-39.0%; p = 0.14) for the pMMR group. The efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was significantly higher in the dMMR group compared to the pMMR group, in terms of both ORR (OR = 6.30; 95% CI = 3.60-11.03; p < 0.05) and DCR (OR = 2.57; 95% CI = 1.66-3.99; p < 0.05). In terms of safety issues, the pooled proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse event was 69.0% (95% CI: 65.0-73.0%; p > 0.05), with grade three or higher AEs occurring in 16.0% of cases (95% CI: 12.0-19.0%; p > 0.05). Based on the subgroup analysis of MMR status, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy showed significantly better efficacy among dMMR patients. These findings suggest that patients with dMMR status may be more suitable for this treatment approach. However, further research on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy strategies is needed to fully explore their potential and improve treatment outcomes in EC.

[1]  G. Bogani,et al.  Novel Insights into Molecular Mechanisms of Endometrial Diseases , 2023, Biomolecules.

[2]  G. Bogani,et al.  Role of Genomic and Molecular Biology in the Modulation of the Treatment of Endometrial Cancer: Narrative Review and Perspectives , 2023, Healthcare.

[3]  Y. Asano,et al.  Immunotherapy for Melanoma: The Significance of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced Melanoma , 2022, International journal of molecular sciences.

[4]  Xian Wu,et al.  Therapeutic targets and biomarkers of tumor immunotherapy: response versus non-response , 2022, Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy.

[5]  N. Vlahos,et al.  Current Approaches to the Management of Patients with Endometrial Cancer , 2022, Cancers.

[6]  M. Shafiee,et al.  PD-L1 Expression in Endometrial Cancer and Its Association with Clinicopathological Features: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2022, Cancers.

[7]  A. Rizzo Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Mismatch Repair Status in Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Elective Affinities , 2022, Journal of clinical medicine.

[8]  H. Fan,et al.  Risk of Adverse Events in Cancer Patients Receiving Nivolumab With Ipilimumab: A Meta-Analysis , 2022, Frontiers in Oncology.

[9]  A. Kulasinghe,et al.  Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy , 2022, Current oncology.

[10]  V. Smrkolj,et al.  Overview of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Gynecological Cancer Treatment , 2022, Cancers.

[11]  A. Italiano,et al.  Pembrolizumab in Patients With Microsatellite Instability–High Advanced Endometrial Cancer: Results From the KEYNOTE-158 Study , 2022, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  M. Mendiola,et al.  Dostarlimab for the treatment of advanced endometrial cancer , 2022, Expert review of clinical pharmacology.

[13]  A. Tinker,et al.  Safety and antitumor activity of dostarlimab in patients with advanced or recurrent DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) or proficient/stable (MMRp/MSS) endometrial cancer: interim results from GARNET—a phase I, single-arm study , 2022, Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer.

[14]  C. Scott,et al.  Mismatch repair and clinical response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in endometrial cancer , 2021, Cancer.

[15]  Y. Drew,et al.  British Gynaecological Cancer Society (BGCS) uterine cancer guidelines: Recommendations for practice. , 2021, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[16]  A. Pasanen,et al.  Mismatch Repair Deficiency as a Predictive and Prognostic Biomarker in Molecularly Classified Endometrial Carcinoma , 2021, Cancers.

[17]  B. Kong,et al.  Immunotherapy in endometrial cancer: rationale, practice and perspectives , 2021, Biomarker Research.

[18]  M. Stockler,et al.  Clinical activity of durvalumab for patients with advanced mismatch repair-deficient and repair-proficient endometrial cancer. A nonrandomized phase 2 clinical trial , 2021, Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer.

[19]  A. Maker,et al.  The Evolution of Cancer Immunotherapy , 2021, Vaccines.

[20]  M. Rodrigues,et al.  [New drug approval: Dostarlimab - second line in advanced MSI endometrial cancer]. , 2021, Bulletin du Cancer.

[21]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2020, BMJ.

[22]  S. Cannistra,et al.  Phase II Study of Avelumab in Patients With Mismatch Repair Deficient and Mismatch Repair Proficient Recurrent/Persistent Endometrial Cancer. , 2019, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[23]  Xin Wang,et al.  Treatment-Related Adverse Events of PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitors in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2019, JAMA oncology.

[24]  Qin Li,et al.  Mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability-high as a predictor for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy efficacy , 2019, Journal of Hematology & Oncology.

[25]  T. Chan,et al.  The evolving landscape of biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy , 2019, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[26]  C. Gridelli,et al.  "Comparison of the toxicity profile of PD-1 versus PD-L1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer": is there a substantial difference or not? , 2018, Journal of thoracic disease.

[27]  K. Hargadon,et al.  Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: An overview of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors. , 2018, International immunopharmacology.

[28]  K. Kabashima,et al.  Anti-PD-1 and Anti-CTLA-4 Therapies in Cancer: Mechanisms of Action, Efficacy, and Limitations , 2018, Front. Oncol..

[29]  F. Khuri,et al.  Comparison of the toxicity profile of PD‐1 versus PD‐L1 inhibitors in non–small cell lung cancer: A systematic analysis of the literature , 2018, Cancer.

[30]  Matthew D. Hellmann,et al.  Immune‐Related Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Blockade , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  S. Kyo,et al.  Microsatellite instability is a biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors in endometrial cancer , 2017, Oncotarget.

[32]  Giorgio Valabrega,et al.  Checkpoint inhibitors in endometrial cancer: preclinical rationale and clinical activity , 2017, Oncotarget.

[33]  E. Tartour,et al.  Mechanisms of action and rationale for the use of checkpoint inhibitors in cancer , 2017, ESMO Open.

[34]  K. Goldberg,et al.  Oncology Drug Approvals: Evaluating Endpoints and Evidence in an Era of Breakthrough Therapies , 2017, The oncologist.

[35]  A. Talhouk,et al.  Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics‐based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer , 2017, Cancer.

[36]  L. Schwartz,et al.  Response Rate as a Regulatory End Point in Single-Arm Studies of Advanced Solid Tumors. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[37]  K. Kelly,et al.  Disease Control Rate at 8 Weeks Predicts Subsequent Survival in Platinum-Treated Extensive Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Database. , 2016, Clinical lung cancer.

[38]  C. Chew‐Graham,et al.  PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[39]  M. Socinski,et al.  The Clinical Viewpoint: Definitions, Limitations of RECIST, Practical Considerations of Measurement , 2013, Clinical Cancer Research.

[40]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma , 2013, Nature.

[41]  George Coukos,et al.  Cancer immunotherapy comes of age , 2011, Nature.

[42]  A. Stang Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses , 2010, European Journal of Epidemiology.

[43]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

[44]  A. Guddati,et al.  Clinical endpoints in oncology - a primer. , 2021, American journal of cancer research.

[45]  H. Rugo,et al.  Safety and Antitumor Activity of Pembrolizumab in Advanced Programmed Death Ligand 1-Positive Endometrial Cancer: Results from the KEYNOTE-028 Study , 2018 .