Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39381634›Full record

ArticleJournal of bone oncology2024

Synergistic effect between denosumab and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)? A retrospective study of 268 patients with ICI and bone metastases.

E Mabrut, S Mainbourg, J Peron, D Maillet, S Dalle, C Fontaine Delaruelle, E Grolleau, P Clezardin, E Bonnelye, C B Confavreux and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bone oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

E MabrutUniversité de Lyon, France.
S MainbourgService universitaire de Pharmacotoxicologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, France.
J PeronService d'Oncologie Médicale. Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Hôpital Lyon Sud-HCL, Pierre-Bénite, France.
D MailletService d'Oncologie Médicale. Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Hôpital Lyon Sud-HCL, Pierre-Bénite, France.
S DalleService de Dermatologie, Hôpital Lyon Sud - HC L, Pierre-Bénite, France.
C Fontaine DelaruelleService de Pneumologie, Hôpital Lyon Sud - HC L, Pierre-Bénite, France.
E GrolleauService de Pneumologie, Hôpital Lyon Sud - HC L, Pierre-Bénite, France.
P ClezardinINSERM UMR 1033-LYOS, Lyon, France.
E BonnelyeUniversité de Lille, France.
C B ConfavreuxINSERM UMR 1033-LYOS, Lyon, France.
E MassyINSERM UMR 1033-LYOS, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bone metastasis is a significant concern in advanced solid tumors, contributing to diminished patient survival and quality of life due to skeletal-related events (SREs). Denosumab (DMAB), a monoclonal antibody targeting the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), is used to prevent SREs in such cases. The RANK/RANKL axis, crucial in immunological processes, has garnered attention, especially with the expanding use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in modern oncology. Objective: Our study aims to explore the potential synergistic antitumor effects of combining immunotherapy with denosumab, as suggested by anecdotal evidence, small cohort studies, and preclinical research. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the IMMUCARE database, encompassing patients receiving ICI treatment since 2014 and diagnosed with bone metastases. We examined overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and switch of treatment line based on denosumab usage. Patients were stratified into groups: without denosumab, ICI followed by denosumab, and denosumab followed by ICI. Survival curves and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed. Results: Among the 268 patients with bone metastases, 154 received treatment with ICI alone, while 114 received ICI in combination with denosumab at some point during their oncological history. No significant differences were observed in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) between patients receiving ICI monotherapy and those receiving ICI with denosumab (p = 0.29 and p = 0.79, respectively). However, upon analyzing patients who received denosumab following ICI initiation (17 patients), a notable difference emerged. The group receiving ICI followed by denosumab exhibited a significant advantage compared to those without denosumab (154 patients) or those receiving denosumab before ICI initiation (72 patients) (p = 0.022). Conclusion: This retrospective investigation supports the notion of potential benefits associated with sequential administration of ICI and denosumab, although statistical significance was not achieved. Future studies, including prospective trials or updated retrospective analyses, focusing on cancers treated with first-line immunotherapy, could provide further insights into this therapeutic approach.

Indexed as

Bone metastasisDenosumabImmune check point inhibitorsSurvival

Identifiers

PMID39381634
PMCPMC11460504

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.