Evidence Hub

Association of Anticancer Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors With Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessed in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pala L, Sala I, Oriecuia C, De Pas T, Queirolo P, Specchia C, Cocorocchio E, Ferrucci P et al.

JAMA network open, 2022

18 participants

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The association of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with patient quality of life has been poorly explored.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of immunotherapy-based treatments.

DATA SOURCES: This systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis used RCTs identified in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from database inception to June 1, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION: A total of 2259 RCTs were identified that assessed ICIs as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy or combined with another ICI and/or targeted therapy vs control groups not containing immunotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors. Studies were reviewed independently by 2 authors.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines and recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The coprimary aims of the meta-analysis were (1) pooled differences between treatment groups in the mean change of PRO score from baseline to 12 and 24 weeks of follow-up and (2) pooled differences between treatment groups in the time to deterioration of PRO score. For each end point, RCTs have been analyzed according to the type of treatment administered in the experimental group: ICIs given as monotherapy, ICIs combined with chemotherapy, or ICIs in association with another ICI and/or with…

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: 18 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