Loading…
Immune checkpoint blockade for unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review
•Metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) is an orphan disease of high unmet need.•The current use of immune checkpoint blockade in UM is not evidence-based.•A systematic review on immune checkpoint blockade for UM was performed.•CTLA-4 blockade lacks efficacy but maintains toxicity in metastatic UM. The use...
Saved in:
Published in: | Cancer treatment reviews 2017-11, Vol.60, p.44-52 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-71cfe4d2ccee5c37829c3e40d6152782bd34498201042f83aa38f0472bc947533 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-71cfe4d2ccee5c37829c3e40d6152782bd34498201042f83aa38f0472bc947533 |
container_end_page | 52 |
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 44 |
container_title | Cancer treatment reviews |
container_volume | 60 |
creator | Heppt, Markus V. Steeb, Theresa Schlager, Justin Gabriel Rosumeck, Stefanie Dressler, Corinna Ruzicka, Thomas Nast, Alexander Berking, Carola |
description | •Metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) is an orphan disease of high unmet need.•The current use of immune checkpoint blockade in UM is not evidence-based.•A systematic review on immune checkpoint blockade for UM was performed.•CTLA-4 blockade lacks efficacy but maintains toxicity in metastatic UM.
The use of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) for uveal melanoma (UM) is little established. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ICB in patients with UM.
We performed a systematic literature research covering MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. Abstracts of pertinent conferences and trial registers were handsearched for relevant studies.
Out of 1327 records initially identified, 12 eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. They comprised 7 expanded access or named patient programs (n=162), 4 phase II trials (n=171), and 1 phase Ib trial (sample size unknown), while no randomized controlled trial was found. Ipilimumab monotherapy was assessed at 3mg/kg in 5 trials (n=186) with a response rate of 0 to 5%. Two reports investigated ipilimumab at 10mg/kg (n=45) with radiological responses observed in 0 to 6.5%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was below 3months and the median overall survival was 5.2–9.8months for ipilimumab monotherapy. Severe immune-related adverse events occurred at a frequency comparable to cutaneous melanoma (6 to 36%). Two studies investigated pembrolizumab (2mg/kg) and nivolumab (3mg/kg) with overall response rates of 30% and 6%, respectively. Data on combined ipilimumab and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition were available from one expanded access program, but no response was observed with a median PFS of 2.9months.
UM is little responsive to ipilimumab regardless of dosage schemes. Sound randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of combined ICB in patients with UM. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.08.009 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1937517376</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0305737217301329</els_id><sourcerecordid>1937517376</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-71cfe4d2ccee5c37829c3e40d6152782bd34498201042f83aa38f0472bc947533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EglL4ARYoSzYJfiSxg9igipdUiQ0skeVMJiJtHsV2ivr3uLSwZGWNfXw19xBywWjCKMuvFwl4u044ZTKhKqG0OCATlgkesyKXh2RCBc1iKSQ_IafOLWggRF4ckxOulGKc8wl5f-66sccIPhCWq6HpfVS2AyxNhVE92GjsLToEb8oWozB36I3zxjcQjWs0bbhoTT905ia6i9zGeex-Hi2uG_w6I0e1aR2e788peXu4f509xfOXx-fZ3TwGkeU-lgxqTCsOgJiBkIoXIDClVc4yHqayEmlaqFCUprxWwhihappKXkKRykyIKbna5a7s8Dmi87prHGAbVsNhdJoVQmYsmMgDynco2ME5i7Ve2aYzdqMZ1VuteqG3WvVWq6ZKb6VNyeU-fyw7rP6-_HoMwO0OwNAyNLfaQYM9YNXYYE9XQ_Nf_jffJ4mY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1937517376</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Immune checkpoint blockade for unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Heppt, Markus V. ; Steeb, Theresa ; Schlager, Justin Gabriel ; Rosumeck, Stefanie ; Dressler, Corinna ; Ruzicka, Thomas ; Nast, Alexander ; Berking, Carola</creator><creatorcontrib>Heppt, Markus V. ; Steeb, Theresa ; Schlager, Justin Gabriel ; Rosumeck, Stefanie ; Dressler, Corinna ; Ruzicka, Thomas ; Nast, Alexander ; Berking, Carola</creatorcontrib><description>•Metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) is an orphan disease of high unmet need.•The current use of immune checkpoint blockade in UM is not evidence-based.•A systematic review on immune checkpoint blockade for UM was performed.•CTLA-4 blockade lacks efficacy but maintains toxicity in metastatic UM.
The use of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) for uveal melanoma (UM) is little established. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ICB in patients with UM.
We performed a systematic literature research covering MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. Abstracts of pertinent conferences and trial registers were handsearched for relevant studies.
Out of 1327 records initially identified, 12 eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. They comprised 7 expanded access or named patient programs (n=162), 4 phase II trials (n=171), and 1 phase Ib trial (sample size unknown), while no randomized controlled trial was found. Ipilimumab monotherapy was assessed at 3mg/kg in 5 trials (n=186) with a response rate of 0 to 5%. Two reports investigated ipilimumab at 10mg/kg (n=45) with radiological responses observed in 0 to 6.5%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was below 3months and the median overall survival was 5.2–9.8months for ipilimumab monotherapy. Severe immune-related adverse events occurred at a frequency comparable to cutaneous melanoma (6 to 36%). Two studies investigated pembrolizumab (2mg/kg) and nivolumab (3mg/kg) with overall response rates of 30% and 6%, respectively. Data on combined ipilimumab and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition were available from one expanded access program, but no response was observed with a median PFS of 2.9months.
UM is little responsive to ipilimumab regardless of dosage schemes. Sound randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of combined ICB in patients with UM.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-7372</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1967</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.08.009</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28881222</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use ; Cell Cycle Checkpoints ; CTLA-4 ; CTLA-4 Antigen - antagonists & inhibitors ; CTLA-4 Antigen - immunology ; Humans ; Immune checkpoint blockade ; Immunotherapy - methods ; Ipilimumab ; Melanoma - drug therapy ; Melanoma - immunology ; Melanoma - secondary ; Nivolumab ; Pembrolizumab ; Uveal melanoma ; Uveal Neoplasms - drug therapy ; Uveal Neoplasms - immunology ; Uveal Neoplasms - secondary</subject><ispartof>Cancer treatment reviews, 2017-11, Vol.60, p.44-52</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-71cfe4d2ccee5c37829c3e40d6152782bd34498201042f83aa38f0472bc947533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-71cfe4d2ccee5c37829c3e40d6152782bd34498201042f83aa38f0472bc947533</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28881222$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Heppt, Markus V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steeb, Theresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlager, Justin Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosumeck, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dressler, Corinna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruzicka, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nast, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berking, Carola</creatorcontrib><title>Immune checkpoint blockade for unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review</title><title>Cancer treatment reviews</title><addtitle>Cancer Treat Rev</addtitle><description>•Metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) is an orphan disease of high unmet need.•The current use of immune checkpoint blockade in UM is not evidence-based.•A systematic review on immune checkpoint blockade for UM was performed.•CTLA-4 blockade lacks efficacy but maintains toxicity in metastatic UM.
The use of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) for uveal melanoma (UM) is little established. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ICB in patients with UM.
We performed a systematic literature research covering MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. Abstracts of pertinent conferences and trial registers were handsearched for relevant studies.
Out of 1327 records initially identified, 12 eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. They comprised 7 expanded access or named patient programs (n=162), 4 phase II trials (n=171), and 1 phase Ib trial (sample size unknown), while no randomized controlled trial was found. Ipilimumab monotherapy was assessed at 3mg/kg in 5 trials (n=186) with a response rate of 0 to 5%. Two reports investigated ipilimumab at 10mg/kg (n=45) with radiological responses observed in 0 to 6.5%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was below 3months and the median overall survival was 5.2–9.8months for ipilimumab monotherapy. Severe immune-related adverse events occurred at a frequency comparable to cutaneous melanoma (6 to 36%). Two studies investigated pembrolizumab (2mg/kg) and nivolumab (3mg/kg) with overall response rates of 30% and 6%, respectively. Data on combined ipilimumab and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition were available from one expanded access program, but no response was observed with a median PFS of 2.9months.
UM is little responsive to ipilimumab regardless of dosage schemes. Sound randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of combined ICB in patients with UM.</description><subject>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Cell Cycle Checkpoints</subject><subject>CTLA-4</subject><subject>CTLA-4 Antigen - antagonists & inhibitors</subject><subject>CTLA-4 Antigen - immunology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immune checkpoint blockade</subject><subject>Immunotherapy - methods</subject><subject>Ipilimumab</subject><subject>Melanoma - drug therapy</subject><subject>Melanoma - immunology</subject><subject>Melanoma - secondary</subject><subject>Nivolumab</subject><subject>Pembrolizumab</subject><subject>Uveal melanoma</subject><subject>Uveal Neoplasms - drug therapy</subject><subject>Uveal Neoplasms - immunology</subject><subject>Uveal Neoplasms - secondary</subject><issn>0305-7372</issn><issn>1532-1967</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtOwzAQRS0EglL4ARYoSzYJfiSxg9igipdUiQ0skeVMJiJtHsV2ivr3uLSwZGWNfXw19xBywWjCKMuvFwl4u044ZTKhKqG0OCATlgkesyKXh2RCBc1iKSQ_IafOLWggRF4ckxOulGKc8wl5f-66sccIPhCWq6HpfVS2AyxNhVE92GjsLToEb8oWozB36I3zxjcQjWs0bbhoTT905ia6i9zGeex-Hi2uG_w6I0e1aR2e788peXu4f509xfOXx-fZ3TwGkeU-lgxqTCsOgJiBkIoXIDClVc4yHqayEmlaqFCUprxWwhihappKXkKRykyIKbna5a7s8Dmi87prHGAbVsNhdJoVQmYsmMgDynco2ME5i7Ve2aYzdqMZ1VuteqG3WvVWq6ZKb6VNyeU-fyw7rP6-_HoMwO0OwNAyNLfaQYM9YNXYYE9XQ_Nf_jffJ4mY</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Heppt, Markus V.</creator><creator>Steeb, Theresa</creator><creator>Schlager, Justin Gabriel</creator><creator>Rosumeck, Stefanie</creator><creator>Dressler, Corinna</creator><creator>Ruzicka, Thomas</creator><creator>Nast, Alexander</creator><creator>Berking, Carola</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>Immune checkpoint blockade for unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review</title><author>Heppt, Markus V. ; Steeb, Theresa ; Schlager, Justin Gabriel ; Rosumeck, Stefanie ; Dressler, Corinna ; Ruzicka, Thomas ; Nast, Alexander ; Berking, Carola</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-71cfe4d2ccee5c37829c3e40d6152782bd34498201042f83aa38f0472bc947533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Cell Cycle Checkpoints</topic><topic>CTLA-4</topic><topic>CTLA-4 Antigen - antagonists & inhibitors</topic><topic>CTLA-4 Antigen - immunology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immune checkpoint blockade</topic><topic>Immunotherapy - methods</topic><topic>Ipilimumab</topic><topic>Melanoma - drug therapy</topic><topic>Melanoma - immunology</topic><topic>Melanoma - secondary</topic><topic>Nivolumab</topic><topic>Pembrolizumab</topic><topic>Uveal melanoma</topic><topic>Uveal Neoplasms - drug therapy</topic><topic>Uveal Neoplasms - immunology</topic><topic>Uveal Neoplasms - secondary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Heppt, Markus V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steeb, Theresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schlager, Justin Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosumeck, Stefanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dressler, Corinna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruzicka, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nast, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berking, Carola</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cancer treatment reviews</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Heppt, Markus V.</au><au>Steeb, Theresa</au><au>Schlager, Justin Gabriel</au><au>Rosumeck, Stefanie</au><au>Dressler, Corinna</au><au>Ruzicka, Thomas</au><au>Nast, Alexander</au><au>Berking, Carola</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Immune checkpoint blockade for unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Cancer treatment reviews</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer Treat Rev</addtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>60</volume><spage>44</spage><epage>52</epage><pages>44-52</pages><issn>0305-7372</issn><eissn>1532-1967</eissn><abstract>•Metastatic uveal melanoma (UM) is an orphan disease of high unmet need.•The current use of immune checkpoint blockade in UM is not evidence-based.•A systematic review on immune checkpoint blockade for UM was performed.•CTLA-4 blockade lacks efficacy but maintains toxicity in metastatic UM.
The use of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) for uveal melanoma (UM) is little established. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ICB in patients with UM.
We performed a systematic literature research covering MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. Abstracts of pertinent conferences and trial registers were handsearched for relevant studies.
Out of 1327 records initially identified, 12 eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. They comprised 7 expanded access or named patient programs (n=162), 4 phase II trials (n=171), and 1 phase Ib trial (sample size unknown), while no randomized controlled trial was found. Ipilimumab monotherapy was assessed at 3mg/kg in 5 trials (n=186) with a response rate of 0 to 5%. Two reports investigated ipilimumab at 10mg/kg (n=45) with radiological responses observed in 0 to 6.5%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was below 3months and the median overall survival was 5.2–9.8months for ipilimumab monotherapy. Severe immune-related adverse events occurred at a frequency comparable to cutaneous melanoma (6 to 36%). Two studies investigated pembrolizumab (2mg/kg) and nivolumab (3mg/kg) with overall response rates of 30% and 6%, respectively. Data on combined ipilimumab and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibition were available from one expanded access program, but no response was observed with a median PFS of 2.9months.
UM is little responsive to ipilimumab regardless of dosage schemes. Sound randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of combined ICB in patients with UM.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>28881222</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.08.009</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0305-7372 |
ispartof | Cancer treatment reviews, 2017-11, Vol.60, p.44-52 |
issn | 0305-7372 1532-1967 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1937517376 |
source | Elsevier |
subjects | Antineoplastic Agents - therapeutic use Cell Cycle Checkpoints CTLA-4 CTLA-4 Antigen - antagonists & inhibitors CTLA-4 Antigen - immunology Humans Immune checkpoint blockade Immunotherapy - methods Ipilimumab Melanoma - drug therapy Melanoma - immunology Melanoma - secondary Nivolumab Pembrolizumab Uveal melanoma Uveal Neoplasms - drug therapy Uveal Neoplasms - immunology Uveal Neoplasms - secondary |
title | Immune checkpoint blockade for unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma: A systematic review |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T04%3A58%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Immune%20checkpoint%20blockade%20for%20unresectable%20or%20metastatic%20uveal%20melanoma:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Cancer%20treatment%20reviews&rft.au=Heppt,%20Markus%20V.&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=60&rft.spage=44&rft.epage=52&rft.pages=44-52&rft.issn=0305-7372&rft.eissn=1532-1967&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.08.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1937517376%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-71cfe4d2ccee5c37829c3e40d6152782bd34498201042f83aa38f0472bc947533%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1937517376&rft_id=info:pmid/28881222&rfr_iscdi=true |