Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30413665›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2019

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and the Risk of Allograft Rejection: A Comprehensive Analysis on an Emerging Issue.

Luis E Aguirre, Maria E Guzman, Gilberto Lopes, Judith Hurley

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. [Therapeutic response and monitoring of antibody-mediated renal graft rejection].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Unforeseen Complications of Pembrolizumab in Breast Reconstruction Post-Mastectomy.European journal of case reports in internal medicine · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Luis E AguirreDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine/Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5377-9252
Maria E GuzmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine/Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, Florida, USA.
Gilberto LopesDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Judith HurleyDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA jhurley@med.miami.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is well known that the state of immune tolerance induced by broad immunosuppression to prevent allograft rejection leads to an increased risk of the development of cancer. One of the most promising new areas of cancer treatment has been the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors that target the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 and programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. As a logical consequence, growing interest in these agents translated into their implementation in patients with transplant-related malignancies. Because of overlapping and perhaps mutually exclusive mechanisms of action of transplant immunosuppression and cancer immunomodulation, it is critical to examine these interactions. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe carried out a systematic search for review articles and case reports published between July 2014 and November 2017 using three engines: Usearch, PubMed, and Up-to-date.

resultsOverall, there were 20 cases with 12 allograft rejections. The rejection rate associated with nivolumab was 73% (8/11) and with pembrolizumab it was 100% (2/2). The use of ipilimumab did not lead to rejection in any instance (0/4, 0%). Of the two patients treated with the sequential use of ipilimumab/nivolumab, one lost his allograft, yielding a rejection rate of 50%. The sequential use of ipilimumab/pembrolizumab led to a rejection rate of 100% (1/1, 100%).

conclusionThe use of agents that act on the PD-L1 pathway are contraindicated in the face of solid organ allografts because of unacceptably high rates of irreversible allograft rejection. It appears that the use of ipilimumab may be tolerated as the mechanism is different from that of the PD-L1 agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Transplant rejection is a complex process that puts stress on patients and their families and can lead to tragic results. Significant advancements in the field of immunosuppression have led to the engenderment of agents devised to extend the survival of transplant recipients. The advent of immunomodulators in cancer therapy has been paradigm-shifting; however, because of their mechanism of action, their use must be carefully considered in patients with allografts and concomitant cancer. It appears that ipilimumab can be administered safely in these patients but that agents acting on the programmed death-ligand 1 pathway are contraindicated because of high rates of irreversible rejection.

Indexed as

AllograftsAntibodies, MonoclonalGraft RejectionHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorAntibodies, MonoclonalProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorAllograftCytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated antigen 4Immune checkpoint inhibitorsImmunotherapyProgrammed cell death protein 1Programmed death‐ligand 1Transplant rejection

Identifiers

PMID30413665
PMCPMC6519766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.