We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse this site, you accept our cookie policy.×
Skip main navigation
Aging Health
Bioelectronics in Medicine
Biomarkers in Medicine
Breast Cancer Management
CNS Oncology
Colorectal Cancer
Concussion
Epigenomics
Future Cardiology
Future Medicine AI
Future Microbiology
Future Neurology
Future Oncology
Future Rare Diseases
Future Virology
Hepatic Oncology
HIV Therapy
Immunotherapy
International Journal of Endocrine Oncology
International Journal of Hematologic Oncology
Journal of 3D Printing in Medicine
Lung Cancer Management
Melanoma Management
Nanomedicine
Neurodegenerative Disease Management
Pain Management
Pediatric Health
Personalized Medicine
Pharmacogenomics
Regenerative Medicine
Systematic Review

A network meta-analysis of the risk of immune-related renal toxicity in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

    Omar Abdel-Rahman

    *Author for correspondence:

    E-mail Address: omar.abdelrhman@med.asu.edu.eg

    Clinical Oncology Department, Faculty of medicine, Ain Shams University, Lotfy Elsayed Street, Cairo, 11331, Egypt

    &
    Mona Fouad

    Medical Microbiology & Immunology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Published Online:https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2015-0020

    Background: We performed a network meta-analysis of the risk of immune-related renal toxicity associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Methods: Eligible studies included randomized trials of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitors; describing events of immune-related renal toxicity. Results: Compared with chemotherapy control, immune checkpoint inhibitors carry a higher risk of all-grade (but not high-grade) immune-related renal toxicity. The risk with both nivolumab/ipilimumab combination was higher than the risk with either ipilimumab or nivolumab alone (odds ratio: 0.47 [95% credible interval: 0.21–0.99] and 0.11 [95% credible interval: 0.03–0.29]); for nivolumab/ipilimumab combination versus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of all-grade immune-related renal toxicity compared with chemotherapy control.

    Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

    References

    • 1 Rosenberg SA, Yang JC, Restifo NP. Cancer immunotherapy: moving beyond current vaccines. Nat. Med. 10(9), 909–915 (2004).
    • 2 Momtaz P, Postow MA. Immunologic checkpoints in cancer therapy: focus on the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor pathway. Pharmgenomics Pers. Med. 7, 357 (2014).
    • 3 Hodi FS, O'day SJ, Mcdermott DF et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 363(8), 711–723 (2010).
    • 4 Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(26), 2517–2526 (2011).
    • 5 Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 369(2), 134–144 (2013).
    • 6 Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(26), 2521–2532 (2015).
    • 7 Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R et al. Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(21), 2018–2028 (2015).
    • 8 Berger R, Rotem-Yehudar R, Slama G et al. Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study of ct-011, a humanized antibody interacting with PD-1, in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Clin. Cancer Res. 14(10), 3044–3051 (2008).
    • 9 Armand P, Nagler A, Weller EA et al. Disabling immune tolerance by programmed death-1 blockade with pidilizumab after autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results of an international Phase II trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(33), 4199–4206 (2013).
    • 10 Spira A, Park K, Mazieres J, Vansteenkiste J, Rittmeyer A, Ballinger M. Efficacy, safety and predictive biomarker results from a randomized phase II study comparing atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) vs docetaxel in 2L/3L NSCLC (POPLAR). J. Clin. Oncol. 33 (2015).
    • 11 Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ et al. Safety and activity of anti-PD-l1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366(26), 2455–2465 (2012).
    • 12 Abdel-Rahman O, Elhalawani H, Fouad M. Risk of cutaneous toxicities in patients with solid tumors treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Future Oncol. 11(17), 2471–2484 (2015).
    • 13 Abdel-Rahman O, Elhalawani H, Fouad M. Risk of elevated transaminases in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 14(10), 1507–1518 (2015).
    • 14 Abdel-Rahman O, El Halawani H, Fouad M. Risk of endocrine complications in cancer patients treated with immune check point inhibitors; a meta-analysis. Future Oncol. (2015).
    • 15 Abdel-Rahman O, ElHalawani H, Fouad M. Risk of gastrointestinal complications in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors; a meta-analysis. Immunotherapy 7(11), 1213–1227 (2015).
    • 16 Westin JR, Chu F, Zhang M et al. Safety and activity of PD1 blockade by pidilizumab in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma: a single group, open-label, Phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 15(1), 69–77 (2014).
    • 17 Corsello SM, Barnabei A, Marchetti P, De Vecchis L, Salvatori R, Torino F. Endocrine side effects induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 98(4), 1361–1375 (2013).
    • 18 Torino F, Barnabei A, Paragliola RM, Marchetti P, Salvatori R, Corsello SM. Endocrine side-effects of anti-cancer drugs: mAbs and pituitary dysfunction: clinical evidence and pathogenic hypotheses. Eur. J. Endocrinol. 169(6), R153–R164 (2013).
    • 19 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(4), 264–269 (2009).
    • 20 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials 17(1), 1–12 (1996).
    • 21 Caldwell DM, Ades A, Higgins J. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. Br. Med. J. 331(7521), 897 (2005).
    • 22 Lu G, Ades A. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat. Med. 23(20), 3105–3124 (2004).
    • 23 Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. (2015).
    • 24 Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without braf mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(4), 320–330 (2015).
    • 25 Weber JS, D'angelo SP, Minor D et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (checkmate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(4), 375–384 (2015). • In this study, all grade renal toxicities happen in two patients (0.7%) in the nivolumab arm versus no patients in the chemotherapy arm.
    • 26 Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(17), 1627–1639 (2015).
    • 27 Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (keynote-002): a randomised, controlled, Phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(8), 908–918 (2015).
    • 28 Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(21), 2006–2017 (2015).
    • 29 Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(1), 23–34 (2015).
    • 30 Abdel-Rahman O. Immune checkpoints aberrations and gastric cancer; assessment of prognostic value and evaluation of therapeutic potentials. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. (2015).
    • 31 Intlekofer AM, Thompson CB. At the bench: preclinical rationale for CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade as cancer immunotherapy. J. Leukoc. Biol. 94(1), 25–39 (2013).
    • 32 Alegre M-L, Noel PJ, Eisfelder BJ et al. Regulation of surface and intracellular expression of CTLA4 on mouse T cells. J. Immunol. 157(11), 4762–4770 (1996).
    • 33 Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366(26), 2443–2454 (2012).
    • 34 Izzedine H, Gueutin V, Gharbi C et al. Kidney injuries related to ipilimumab. Invest. New Drugs 32(4), 769–773 (2014).
    • 35 Fadel F, Karoui KE, Knebelmann B. Anti-ctla4 antibody-induced lupus nephritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 361(2), 211–212 (2009).
    • 36 Abdel-Rahman O, Elhalawani H. Proteinuria in patients with solid tumors treated with ramucirumab: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chemotherapy 60(5–6), 325–333 (2014).
    • 37 Weber JS, Kähler KC, Hauschild A. Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J. Clin. Oncol. 30(21), 2691–2697 (2012).
    • 38 Thajudeen B, Madhrira M, Bracamonte E, Cranmer LD. Ipilimumab granulomatous interstitial nephritis. Am. J. Ther. 22(3), e84–e87 (2015).
    • 39 Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Mcdermott DF et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(19), 1803–1813 (2015).
    • 40 Bronstein Y, Ng CS, Hwu P, Hwu W-J. Radiologic manifestations of immune-related adverse events in patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing anti–CTLA-4 antibody therapy. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 197(6), W992–W1000 (2011).