Aim: We aimed to assess the incidence and relative risk (RR) of fatigue in cancer patients treated with anti programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and anti programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) agents. Patients & methods: Eligible studies were selected according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Incidence, RR and 95% CIs were calculated using random or fixed-effects models. Results: Thirty-eight studies were included in this analysis, with a total of 11,719 patients. The incidences were 23.4 and 2.1% for all- and high-grade fatigue, respectively. The highest incidence of high-grade fatigue was reported by the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Overall RR of high-grade fatigue with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 compared with chemotherapy or targeted therapy was 0.48. Conclusion: Treatment with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents correlates with lower incidence and RR of fatigue compared with standard therapies.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1 Ryan JL, Carroll JK, Ryan El P, Mustian KM, Fiscella K, Morrow GR. Mechanisms of cancer-related fatigue. Oncologist 12, 22–34 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2 US FDA. Resources for information on approved drugs. www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ApprovedDrugs.
Google Scholar
3 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systemic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 8(5), 336–431 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al. Assessing th quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin. Trials 17(1), 1–12 (1996). •• Fundamental to correctly analyze the quality of data from clinical trials.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5 Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 326(7382), 219 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6 Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat. Med. 23(15), 1351–1375 (2004).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50(4), 1088–1101 (1994).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109), 629–634 (1997). • Fundamental to correctly analyze biases within meta-analyses.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9 Kaufman HL, Russell J, Hamid O et al. Avelumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-group, open-label, Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(10), 1374–1385 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10 Balar AV, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE et al. Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, Phase II trial. Lancet 389(10064), 67–76 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11 McDermott DF, Sosman JA, Sznol M et al. Atezolizumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: long-term safety, clinical activity, and immune correlates from a Phase Ia study. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(8), 833–842 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12 Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, Phase II trial. Lancet 387(10031), 1909–1920 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13 Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a Phase III, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 389(10066), 255–265 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14 Sharma P, Retz M, Siefker-Radtke A et al. Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 18(3), 312–322 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15 Kudo T, Hamamoto Y, Kato K et al. Nivolumab treatment for oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma: an open-label, multicentre, Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 18(5), 631–639 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16 Morris VK, Salem ME, Nimeiri H et al. Nivolumab for previously treated unresectable metastatic anal cancer (NCI9673): a multicentre, single-arm, Phase II study. Lancet Oncol. 18(4), 446–453 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17 Hellmann MD, Rizvi NA, Goldman JW et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 012): results of an open-label, Phase I, multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 18(1), 31–41 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18 Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, Fayette J et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(19), 1856–1867 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19 Gettinger S, Rizvi NA, Chow LQ et al. Nivolumab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(25), 2980–2987 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20 Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DF et al. Nivolumab for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized Phase II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(13), 1430–1437 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21 Hamanishi J, Mandai M, Ikeda T et al. Safety and antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 antibody, nivolumab, in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(34), 4015–4022 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22 Antonia SJ, López-Martin JA, Bendell J et al. Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, Phase I/II trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(7), 883–895 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23 Sharma P, Callahan MK, Bono P et al. Nivolumab monotherapy in recurrent metastatic urothelial carcinoma (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, two-stage, multi-arm, Phase I/II trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(11), 1590–1598 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24 Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(17), 1627–1639 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25 Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(2), 123–135 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26 Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(1), 23–34 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27 Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(21), 2006–2017 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28 Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(19), 1803–1813 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29 Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(26), 2521–2532 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30 Bauml J, Seiwert TY, Pfister DG et al. Pembrolizumab for platinum- and cetuximab-refractory head and neck cancer: results from a single-arm, Phase II Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(14), 1542–1549 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31 Alley EW, Lopez J, Santoro A et al. Clinical safety and activity of pembrolizumab in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (KEYNOTE-028): preliminary results from a non-randomised, open-label, Phase Ib trial. Lancet Oncol. 18(5), 623–630 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32 Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 376(11), 1015–1026 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33 Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H et al. Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, Phase II cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study. Lancet Oncol. 17(11), 1497–1508 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34 Plimack ER, Bellmunt J, Gupta S et al. Safety and activity of pembrolizumab in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE-012): a non-randomised, open-label, Phase Ib study. Lancet Oncol. 18(2), 212–220 (2017). • Has been practice changing for this disease.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35 Hui R, Garon EB, Goldman JW et al. Pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with PD-L1–positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a Phase I trial. Ann. Oncol. 28(4), 874–881 (2017). • Has been practice changing for this disease.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36 Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(19), 1823–1833 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37 Nanda R, Chow LQ, Dees EC et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer: Phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 study. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(21), 2460–2467 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38 Muro K, Chung HC, Shankaran V et al. Pembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1–positive advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-012): a multicentre, open-label, Phase Ib trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(6), 717–726 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39 Seiwert TY, Burtness B, Mehra R et al. Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-012): an open-label, multicentre, Phase Ib trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(7), 956–965 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40 Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387(10027), 1540–1550 (2016). • Has been practice-changing for this disease.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41 Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): a randomised, controlled, Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(8), 908–918 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42 Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R et al. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(21), 2018–2028 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43 Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(20), 1919–1929 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44 Massard C, Gordon MS, Sharma S et al. Safety and efficacy of durvalumab (MEDI4736), an anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with advanced urothelial bladder cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(26), 3119–3125 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45 Lee JM, Cimino-Mathews A, Peer CJ et al. Safety and clinical activity of the programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor durvalumab in combination with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1–3 inhibitor cediranib in women's cancers: a dose-escalation, Phase I study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(19), 2193–2202 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46 Powles T, O'Donnell PH, Massard C et al. Efficacy and safety of durvalumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: updated results from a Phase I/II open-label study. JAMA Oncol. 3(9), e172411 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47 www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003985/WC500189765.pdf.
Google Scholar
48 www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003820/WC500190990.pdf.
Google Scholar
49 Santoni M, Conti A, Massari F et al. Treatment-related fatigue with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib in patients with advanced solid tumors: an up-to-date review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Int. J. Cancer 136(1), 1–10 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
50 www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/004143/WC500235780.pdf.
Google Scholar
51 Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF et al. CheckMate 214 investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 378(14), 1277–1290 (2018). •• Has been practice changing for this disease.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 10, No. 15

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 254 times

History

Received 30 May 2018

Accepted 14 October 2018

Published online 26 November 2018

Published in print November 2018

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/imt-2018-0067

PDF download