Cargando…

Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors is of critical importance. To address this issue, a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing existing common measurements for curative effect of PD-1/PD-L1 monother...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shi, Haotong, Zhang, Wenxia, Zhang, Lin, Zheng, Yawen, Dong, Taotao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10562577/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37822932
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1265202
_version_ 1785118158559903744
author Shi, Haotong
Zhang, Wenxia
Zhang, Lin
Zheng, Yawen
Dong, Taotao
author_facet Shi, Haotong
Zhang, Wenxia
Zhang, Lin
Zheng, Yawen
Dong, Taotao
author_sort Shi, Haotong
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors is of critical importance. To address this issue, a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing existing common measurements for curative effect of PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was conducted. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library database, and relevant clinical trials to find out studies published before Feb 22, 2023 that use PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), tumor mutational burden (TMB), gene expression profiling (GEP), microsatellite instability (MSI), multiplex IHC/immunofluorescence (mIHC/IF), other immunohistochemistry and hematoxylin-eosin staining (other IHC&HE) and combined assays to determine objective response rates to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. Study-level data were extracted from the published studies. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the predictive efficacy and rank these assays mainly by NMA, and the second objective was to compare them in subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity, quality assessment, and result validation were also conducted by meta-analysis. FINDINGS: 144 diagnostic index tests in 49 studies covering 5322 patients were eligible for inclusion. mIHC/IF exhibited highest sensitivity (0.76, 95% CI: 0.57-0.89), the second diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (5.09, 95% CI: 1.35-13.90), and the second superiority index (2.86). MSI had highest specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.94), and DOR (6.79, 95% CI: 3.48-11.91), especially in gastrointestinal tumors. Subgroup analyses by tumor types found that mIHC/IF, and other IHC&HE demonstrated high predictive efficacy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while PD-L1 IHC and MSI were highly efficacious in predicting the effectiveness in gastrointestinal tumors. When PD-L1 IHC was combined with TMB, the sensitivity (0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94) was noticeably improved revealed by meta-analysis in all studies. INTERPRETATION: Considering statistical results of NMA and clinical applicability, mIHC/IF appeared to have superior performance in predicting response to anti PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Combined assays could further improve the predictive efficacy. Prospective clinical trials involving a wider range of tumor types are needed to establish a definitive gold standard in future.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10562577
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105625772023-10-11 Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Shi, Haotong Zhang, Wenxia Zhang, Lin Zheng, Yawen Dong, Taotao Front Immunol Immunology BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of efficacy of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) checkpoint inhibitors is of critical importance. To address this issue, a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing existing common measurements for curative effect of PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was conducted. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library database, and relevant clinical trials to find out studies published before Feb 22, 2023 that use PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), tumor mutational burden (TMB), gene expression profiling (GEP), microsatellite instability (MSI), multiplex IHC/immunofluorescence (mIHC/IF), other immunohistochemistry and hematoxylin-eosin staining (other IHC&HE) and combined assays to determine objective response rates to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. Study-level data were extracted from the published studies. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the predictive efficacy and rank these assays mainly by NMA, and the second objective was to compare them in subgroup analyses. Heterogeneity, quality assessment, and result validation were also conducted by meta-analysis. FINDINGS: 144 diagnostic index tests in 49 studies covering 5322 patients were eligible for inclusion. mIHC/IF exhibited highest sensitivity (0.76, 95% CI: 0.57-0.89), the second diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (5.09, 95% CI: 1.35-13.90), and the second superiority index (2.86). MSI had highest specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.94), and DOR (6.79, 95% CI: 3.48-11.91), especially in gastrointestinal tumors. Subgroup analyses by tumor types found that mIHC/IF, and other IHC&HE demonstrated high predictive efficacy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), while PD-L1 IHC and MSI were highly efficacious in predicting the effectiveness in gastrointestinal tumors. When PD-L1 IHC was combined with TMB, the sensitivity (0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94) was noticeably improved revealed by meta-analysis in all studies. INTERPRETATION: Considering statistical results of NMA and clinical applicability, mIHC/IF appeared to have superior performance in predicting response to anti PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Combined assays could further improve the predictive efficacy. Prospective clinical trials involving a wider range of tumor types are needed to establish a definitive gold standard in future. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10562577/ /pubmed/37822932 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1265202 Text en Copyright © 2023 Shi, Zhang, Zhang, Zheng and Dong https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author (s) and the copyright owner (s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Immunology
Shi, Haotong
Zhang, Wenxia
Zhang, Lin
Zheng, Yawen
Dong, Taotao
Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of different predictive biomarker testing assays for pd-1/pd-l1 checkpoint inhibitors response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Immunology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10562577/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37822932
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1265202
work_keys_str_mv AT shihaotong comparisonofdifferentpredictivebiomarkertestingassaysforpd1pdl1checkpointinhibitorsresponseasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT zhangwenxia comparisonofdifferentpredictivebiomarkertestingassaysforpd1pdl1checkpointinhibitorsresponseasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT zhanglin comparisonofdifferentpredictivebiomarkertestingassaysforpd1pdl1checkpointinhibitorsresponseasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT zhengyawen comparisonofdifferentpredictivebiomarkertestingassaysforpd1pdl1checkpointinhibitorsresponseasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT dongtaotao comparisonofdifferentpredictivebiomarkertestingassaysforpd1pdl1checkpointinhibitorsresponseasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis