Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of copanlisib in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials

Jinjin Wang, Hui Zhou, Mingchun Mu, Ai-lin Zhao, Zhaolun Cai, Lin-Feng Li, Mengyao Wang, T. Niu

Frontiers in Immunology, 2022

652 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Background Copanlisib is an intravenously administered pan-class I PI3K inhibitor that has been demonstrated to have appreciable effects in the treatment of patients with lymphoma. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of copanlisib for treating patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Methods PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies published prior to July 2022. The efficacy evaluation included complete response rate (CR), partial response rate (PR), rate of stable disease (SDR), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), rate of progressive disease (PDR), median progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (OS). Any grade adverse events (AEs) and grade ≥3 AEs were synthesized to assess its safety. Results Eight studies with a total of 652 patients with R/R B-NHL were identified. The pooled CR, PR, ORR, SDR, DCR, and PDR from all 8 articles were 13%, 40%, 57%, 19%, 86%, and 9%, respectively. The CR and ORR of combination therapy with rituximab were higher than those with copanlisib monotherapy for R/R B-NHL (34% vs. 6%, p<0.01; 89% vs. 42%, p<0.01). For patients with R/R indolent B-NHL, CR and ORR were lower with copanlisib monotherapy than with combination therapy with rituximab (7% vs. 34%, p<0.01; 58% vs. 92%, p<0.01). In R/R B-NHL patients receiving copanlisib monotherapy and combination…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 652 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free