Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38705953›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute2024

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy compared to nivolumab monotherapy in advanced cancers (excluding melanoma): a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Hussain Sohail Rangwala, Hareer Fatima, Mirha Ali, Sailesh Sunder, Sonia Devi, Burhanuddin Sohail Rangwala, Syed Raza Abbas

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Hussain Sohail RangwalaDepartment of Medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan. srangwala01@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2167-3481
Hareer FatimaDepartment of Medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Mirha AliDepartment of Medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Sailesh SunderDepartment of Medicine, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College Lyari, Karachi, Pakistan.
Sonia DeviDepartment of Medicine, Ghulam Muhammad Mahar Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan.
Burhanuddin Sohail RangwalaDepartment of Medicine, Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Syed Raza AbbasDepartment of Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) have revolutionized cancer treatment by targeting different pathways. Their combination shows promising results in various cancers, including melanoma, but not all studies have demonstrated significant benefits. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Nivo-Ipi compared to Nivo alone in advanced cancer types (excluding melanoma).

methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a meta-analysis up to September 30, 2023, searching databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on advanced solid malignancies (excluding melanoma) with specific Nivo and Ipi dosing. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grades 3-4 adverse events (AEs), and treatment-related discontinuations. Secondary outcomes included specific adverse events. Statistical analysis in Review Manager included hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR), assessing heterogeneity (Higgins I

resultsNine RCTs, involving 2152 patients covering various malignancies, were analyzed. The Nivo plus Ipi group exhibited a median OS of 12.3 months and a median PFS of 3.73 months, compared to monotherapy with 11.67 months and 3.98 months, respectively. OS showed no significant difference between Nivo and Ipi combination and Nivo alone (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.08, p = 0.61). PFS had a slight improvement with combination therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.00, p = 0.04). Treatment-related cumulative grades 3-4 adverse events were higher with Nivo and Ipi (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.78, p < 0.00001), as were treatment-related discontinuations (RR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.70, p < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (RR = 2.42, 95% CI: 1.39 to 4.24, p = 0.002), GI toxicity (RR = 2.84, 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.59, p = 0.002), pneumonitis (RR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.23, p = 0.008), dermatitis (RR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.08 to 8.14, p = 0.04), and endocrine dysfunction (RR = 6.22, 95% CI: 2.31 to 16.71, p = 0.0003) were more frequent with Nivo and Ipi.

conclusionsCombining nivolumab and ipilimumab did not significantly improve overall survival compared to nivolumab alone in advanced cancers (except melanoma). However, it did show slightly better PFS at the cost of increased toxicity, particularly grades 3-4 adverse events. Specific AEs occurred more frequently in the combination group. Further trials are needed to fully assess this combination in treating advanced cancers.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsIpilimumabNeoplasmsNivolumabAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsProgression-Free SurvivalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsIpilimumabNivolumabAdverse eventsCombination therapyIpilimumabNivolumabOverall survivalProgression-free survival

Identifiers

PMID38705953
PMCPMC13313857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.