Evidence Hub

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of antibiotic use on the clinical outcomes of cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

A. Crespin, C. Le Bescop, J. de Gunzburg, F. Vitry, G. Zalcman, Julie Cervesi, P. Bandinelli

Frontiers in Oncology, 2023

41,663 participants · 65 citations

Abstract

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have considerably improved patient outcomes in various cancer types, but their efficacy remains poorly predictable among patients. The intestinal microbiome, whose balance and composition can be significantly altered by antibiotic use, has recently emerged as a factor that may modulate ICI efficacy. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the impact of antibiotics on the clinical outcomes of cancer patients treated with ICIs. Methods PubMed and major oncology conference proceedings were systematically searched to identify all studies reporting associations between antibiotic use and at least one of the following endpoints: Overall Survival (OS), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Objective Response Rate (ORR) and Progressive Disease (PD) Rate. Pooled Hazard Ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS, and pooled Odds Ratios (ORs) for ORR and PD were calculated. Subgroup analyses on survival outcomes were also performed to investigate the potential differential effect of antibiotics according to cancer types and antibiotic exposure time windows. Results 107 articles reporting data for 123 independent cohorts were included, representing a total of 41,663 patients among whom 11,785 (28%) received antibiotics around ICI initiation. The pooled HRs for OS and PFS were respectively of 1.61 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.48-1.76] and 1.45 [95% CI 1.32-1.60], confirming that antibiotic use was significantly associated…

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: 41,663 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