Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35530329›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Meta-Analysis.

Marina Gómez-Llobell, Andrés Peleteiro Raíndo, Jose Climent Medina, Ignacio Gómez Centurión, Adrián Mosquera Orgueira

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 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marina Gómez-LlobellHematology Department, Medical University General Hospital Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Andrés Peleteiro RaíndoHealth Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Jose Climent MedinaA&P Lifescience Advisors, Madrid, Spain.
Ignacio Gómez CenturiónHematology Department, Medical University General Hospital Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Adrián Mosquera OrgueiraHealth Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña · ESHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Experience with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is still limited and based on early clinical trials, with no reported randomized clinical data. In this study, we reviewed the available evidence on the use of ICIs, either in monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, in different AML settings, including newly diagnosed AML, relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML and maintenance treatment after allogeneic-HSCT (allo-HSCT). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed electronic database as primary source to identify the studies involving immune checkpoint inhibitors in first-line and R/R AML. We recorded Overall Response (ORR), Complete Response (CR) and Complete Response with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rates, overall survival (OS) and immune-related adverse events ≥ grade 3 (irAEs). Hereafter, we analyzed the overall profile of these ICIs by performing a meta-analysis of the reported outcomes. Results: A total of 13 studies were identified where ICI was used in patients with AML. ORR across these studies was 42% (IC95%, 31% - 54%) and CR/CRi was 33% (IC95%, 22%-45%). Efficacy was also assessed considering the AML setting (first-line vs. relapsed/refractory) and results pointed to higher response rates in first-line, compared to R/R. Mean overall survival was 8.9 months [median 8 months, (IC95%, 3.9 - 15.5)]. Differences between first line and R/R settings were observed, since average overall survival in first line was 12.0 months, duplicating the OS in R/R which was 7.3 months. Additionally, the most specific adverse events (AEs) of these therapies are immune-related adverse events (irAEs), derived from their inflammatory effects. Grade ≥3 irAEs rate was low and similar among studies [12% (95%CI 8% - 16%)]. Conclusion: ICIs in combination with intensive chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents or other targeted therapies are gaining interest in the management of hematological malignancies such as AML. However, results obtained from clinical trials are modest and limited by both, the type of design and the clinical trial phase. Hopefully, the prospective study of these therapies in late-stage development could help to identify patients who may benefit from ICI therapy.

Indexed as

acute myeloid leukemia (AML)Anti-CD47Anti-CD70Anti-CTLA-4Anti-PD1Anti-TIM-3immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35530329
PMCPMC9069679
OpenAlexW4224267286

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.