Evidence mapPaperPMID 35280736Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

An Up-To-Date Investigation Into the Correlation Between Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and the Clinical Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chaoxing Liu, Huaijuan Guo, Haiyan Mao, Jiandong Tong, Mengxue Yang, Xuebing Yan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chaoxing LiuDepartment of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Huaijuan GuoDepartment of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Haiyan MaoDepartment of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Jiandong TongDepartment of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Mengxue YangDepartment of Oncology, Hefei Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Heifei, China.
Xuebing YanDepartment of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Yangzhou University · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the current anticancer therapies, a considerable proportion of patients are found to hardly benefit from these drugs. Accumulating studies have demonstrated that concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use may affect the clinical efficacy of ICIs; however, their results are inconsistent. In this study, based on updated evidence, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis to clarify the prognostic significance of PPI use in advanced solid cancer patients receiving ICI therapy. Methods: Eligible literature was searched using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, and other network resources before July 2021. Clinical outcome was evaluated using overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The correlation of PPI use with OS or PFS was determined based on hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 17 studies enrolling 9,978 ICI-treated cancer patients were included in our meta-analysis. The global analysis demonstrated that PPI use was significantly correlated with worse OS [HR = 1.29 (1.10-1.50)] instead of PFS [HR = 1.19 (0.98-1.44)] in solid cancer patients receiving ICI therapy. In a subgroup analysis, the negative correlation of PPI use with ICI efficacy was significant in patients with non-small cell lung cancer [PFS, HR = 1.27 (1.10-1.47)] and urothelial carcinoma [OS, HR = 1.55 (1.31-1.84), PFS, HR = 1.52 (1.13-2.06)] and mixed cohorts containing multiple cancer types [OS, HR = 1.40 (1.16-1.69)], while an opposite result was observed in the PFS of patients with melanoma [HR = 0.48 (0.25-0.90)]. Moreover, the unfavorable prognostic impact of PPI use was also significant in patients over 65 years old [OS, HR = 1.28 (1.05-1.55), PFS, HR = 1.32 (1.12-1.56)] or those receiving anti-PD-1 [OS, HR = 1.37 (1.04-1.79)] or anti-PD-L1 therapies (OS, HR = 1.49 (1.30-1.69), PFS, HR = 1.34 (1.20-1.50). Finally, PPI use was significantly correlated with a worse prognosis in patients receiving PPIs 30 days before and/or after ICI initiation (OS, HR = 1.38 (1.18-1.62), PFS, HR = 1.23 (1.06-1.43)). Conclusion: Although our global analysis revealed PPI use was not correlated with the PFS of ICI-treated patients, considering the results of our subgroup analysis, PPIs should be still cautiously used shortly before or during ICI therapy. Furthermore, more clinical validations and related mechanism investigations are of great necessity to clarify the clinical correlation of PPI use with ICI efficacy. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], PROSPERO [No. CRD42021243707].

Indexed as

cancerimmune checkpoint inhibitorsmeta-analysisprognosisproton pump inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID35280736
PMCPMC8907621
OpenAlexW4213442497

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.