|
| |
 |
|
| SYSTEMATIC REVIEW |
|
| Year : 2018 | Volume
: 17
| Issue : 1 | Page : 1-13 |
|
Immune checkpoint inhibitors and health-related quality of life: A systematic review of the current literature
Mohamed H Elshahidi
Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
| Date of Web Publication | 25-Jul-2018 |
Correspondence Address:
Mohamed H Elshahidi
Algomhorria Street, Mansoura, Dakahliya
Egypt
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | 3 |
DOI: 10.4103/MJ.MJ_19_18
Background: Over the past years, some immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) have been approved for clinical use in several malignancies. Examining the effects of ICPIs on the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) may help clinicians in their decision-making process. Aim: The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence about the effects of ICPIs on the patients' HRQoL. Methods: PubMed, Embase (via OvidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost were searched from their dates of inception to January 2018. Studies reporting the effects of ICPIs on the HRQoL using a valid questionnaire are included in the review. A narrative summary of the included studies was presented. Results: Sixteen studies met the specific inclusion criteria, which are as follows: seven about melanoma, three about renal cell carcinoma (RCC), one about metastatic Merkel-cell carcinoma (mMCC), two about squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, two about non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and one about colorectal cancer (CRC). In melanoma, more improvements in the global health status (GHS) were observed with pembrolizumab, ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and pembrolizumab every 2 weeks than with ipilimumab, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, and pembrolizumab every 3 weeks, respectively. However, no clinically significant differences were found when adding gp100 vaccine, using different doses of pembrolizumab or combining ICPIs. In RCC, the EQ-5D utility index and the time to deterioration were improved in the nivolumab groups than in everolimus groups. In squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, the GHS remained stable or improved with nivolumab. However, there was no significant difference in the time to deterioration between nivolumab and investigator's choice. In mMCC, a slight gain in the GHS was observed with avelumab. In NSCLC, improvements were observed in the symptoms scales and some of the functioning scales with pembrolizumab than chemotherapy. However, no difference was observed between them on emotional functioning. In CRC, some clinically meaningful improvements were observed in nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusion: Due to the complexities in the longitudinal analysis of HRQoL data and some other concerns in the included studies designs, these results should be interpreted carefully.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018089311 Keywords: Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein -4, health-related quality of life, immune checkpoint inhibitors, programmed death-1, programmed death-ligand 1, quality of life
How to cite this article:
Elshahidi MH. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and health-related quality of life: A systematic review of the current literature. Mustansiriya Med J 2018;17:1-13 |
How to cite this URL:
Elshahidi MH. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and health-related quality of life: A systematic review of the current literature. Mustansiriya Med J [serial online] 2018 [cited 2023 Mar 24];17:1-13. Available from: https://www.mmjonweb.org/text.asp?2018/17/1/1/237548 |
| Introduction | |  |
Rationale
Being the second leading cause of death worldwide, cancer accounts for 1 in 6 deaths with 8.8 million deaths in 2015.[1] Moreover, cancer occurrence negatively affects the physical and social functioning of the patients, with psychological distress being common among them.[2],[3],[4],[5] Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is defined as individual's satisfaction or happiness with domains of life insofar as they affect or are affected by health.[6] HRQoL assessment includes the effect of diseases or treatments on the physical, social/role, emotional, and cognitive functioning domains.[7] Although clinical trials have principally considered overall survival and progress-free survival as their main endpoints, the importance of other patient-centered endpoints as HRQoL is increasingly being acknowledged.[8],[9] Incorporating HRQoL provides platform for shared clinical decision-making and personalize the treatment benefits from the patient's point of view.[10],[11] In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided recommendations on the support of using HRQoL in the labeling claims.[12]
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) are a group of drugs able to block the interaction of the inhibitory signals between the cancer cells and the immune cells.[13] The cancer cell can deceive the immune system by expressing inhibitory molecules, for example, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and programmed death-ligand 2, that bind to T-cell receptor, for example, programmed death-1 (PD-1), and inhibit the immune response against it.[14] Blocking these restraints have shown to unleash the immune response against the cancer cells and prolonging the overall survival in a subset of patients with certain types of cancer.[15] In 2011, the FDA approved ipilimumab (Yervoy®), the first ICPI drug, targeting the inhibitor receptor cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma.[16] Since then, several ICPIs have been approved for NSCLC, head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma, breast cancer, colorectal cancer (CRC), and advanced urothelial carcinoma.[16] Despite their durable response, several immune-related adverse events (irAEs) including autoimmune colitis, hepatitis, endocrinopathies, arthralgia, and cutaneous adverse reactions were observed.[17],[18],[19],[20],[21] Given the high cost of ICPIs and their associated irAEs, investigating the effects of ICPIs on the patients' HRQoL may assist in the clinical decision-making process.[22],[23]
Objective
This review aims to systematically search the literature and to summarize current evidence regarding the effects of ICPIs on the HRQoL.
| Methods | | |
Guidelines
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used in reporting this systematic review.[24]
Search strategy
The search process was carried out using the following search algorithm: ((((((((((((((((PD-1 inhibitor) OR Pembrolizumab) OR Keytruda) OR Nivolumab) OR Opdivo) OR PD-L1 inhibitor) OR Atezolizumab) OR Tecentriq) OR Avelumab) OR Bavencio) OR Durvalumab) OR Imfinzi) OR CTLA-4 inhibitor) OR Ipilimumab) OR Yervoy)) AND (((((((((“Quality of Life”[Mesh]) OR Quality of Life) OR Life quality) OR Health-Related Quality of Life) OR Health-Related Quality of Life) OR HRQOL) OR Qol) OR Hqol) OR Patient Reported Outcome).
Data sources
An electronic search of PubMed, Embase (via OvidSP), Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost was performed for articles published in them from their dates of inception to January 2018. Besides, the references of the included studies were also hand-searched for pertaining studies. No language filter was applied.
Criteria for selecting studies
Screening of the retrieved citations was in two phases
Title and abstract screening then full-text reviewing. Records were screened for meeting the following criteria: (1) peer-reviewed, published article, (2) included an ICPI, and (3) used a valid HRQoL questionnaire. Proposals, reviews, and editorials studies not involving ICPI or studies using quality-adjusted life years as a measure in cost-utility analyzes were excluded from the review. In addition, abstracts were excluded due to the difficulty in appraising the study design and in extracting the data.
Data extraction
A data extraction form was designed to collect the following data
Study ID ( first author, year of publication), type, population, interventions or arms, questionnaire, completion rate, analysis time-point, summary of the results, sensitivity analysis, and percentage of Grade 3–5 AEs.
Risk of bias and methodological quality assessments
The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used in investigating the possible risk of bias in the included studies. It judges randomized trials based on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete data, and selective reporting.[25] Furthermore, the methodological quality was appraised using a tool previously used in other systematic reviews of HRQoL.[26],[27] The criteria focus on aspects related to the study design were as follows: inclusion and exclusion, population characteristics, and statistical analyzes. Each study accesses a total of 14 points. Studies scoring ≥75% were of high quality, 75%–50% were of moderate quality, and ≤50% were of low quality.
Data synthesis
Due to the differences in the types of cancer that are included, no quantitative analysis was carried out. Summary of the included studies was presented in a narrative, qualitative method.
| Results | | |
Study selection
The search algorithm reached 1493 citations. After duplicate removing, title and abstract screening, and full-text reviewing, 16 reports were included in the narrative synthesis by cancer type [Figure 1]. | Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram of the search process conducted on January 30th, 2018
Click here to view |
Melanoma
Seven studies were found pertaining to the effect of ICPIs on HRQoL in patients with melanoma [28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34] [Table 1] and [Table 2]. Two studies were open-label, and five studies were double-blind. HRQoL and patient-reported outcomes were considered secondary endpoints in three studies. Most studies included patients with Stage III or IV melanoma. One study included patients without BRAF mutation only, and another study included patients with BRAFV600 mutation. Most studies tested the effect of one ICPI against another ICPI, dacarbazine, placebo, or investigator's choice. One study investigated the effect of combining two ICPIs, nivolumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus ipilimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor) at different doses. All studies used the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, and four of them used the EQ-5D questionnaire. None of them included a melanoma-specific questionnaire. The total number of patients included in them was 5025. The completion rate at baseline differed among them; however, it decreased in all of them over time. The analysis of the mean change from baseline in the global health status (GHS) scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was calculated in most of them at week 12. The mean change in the GHS scale decreased more with ipilimumab than with pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor). In addition, the decrease in GHS score was more in the arm receiving pembrolizumab every 3 weeks than the group receiving it every 2 weeks. Similarly, high dose (10 mg/kg) of ipilimumab resulted in more decrease in the mean change of the GHS score than low dose (3 mg/kg). In addition, combining ipilimumab with Gp 100 peptide vaccine resulted in no or little improvements. Different doses of pembrolizumab showed no difference in the mean change in the GHS score. However, pembrolizumab showed less decrease in the mean change of GHS score than chemotherapy. In combining nivolumab plus ipilimumab, no clinical meaningful change was observed than monotherapy. No significant difference was observed in the functional scales between groups receiving different doses of pembrolizumab. Moreover, pembrolizumab was associated with improvement in the emotional functioning scale. Both dacarbazine and nivolumab were associated with stable function and symptoms. A small change was observed in the groups receiving pembrolizumab than the groups receiving chemotherapy. Furthermore, in the group receiving combination ICPIs, deterioration was observed in the fatigue, appetite, and symptoms scales than monotherapy. Using the EQ-5D scale, high dose of ipilimumab was associated with more decrease in the utility index. A significant difference in the utility index was neither observed between nivolumab and dacarbazine nor between combination ICPIs and monotherapy ICPI. However, the time to deterioration was shorter in the chemotherapy group than in the pembrolizumab group. In addition, high dose of ipilimumab and combination ICPIs were associated with high percentage of Grade 3–5 AEs than low dose of ipilimumab and monotherapy, respectively. Furthermore, more AEs were more in the dacarbazine group than the nivolumab group.
Renal cell carcinoma
Three studies examining the effects of ICPIs on HRQoL in patients with renal cell carcinoma were found [35],[36],[37] [Table 3]. Two studies were open-label, and one was single-arm, nonrandomized study. They included nivolumab either alone or versus everolimus (an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin). All of them used the disease-specific questionnaire. None of them investigated the effect of combining ICPIs. The total number of the patients included in them was 1290. The time to deterioration was improved in the nivolumab groups. In addition, Grade 3–5 AEs were more among the nivolumab groups than everolimus. | Table 3: Characteristics of the included studies about renal cell carcinoma
Click here to view |
Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck
Two studies were identified [38],[39] [Table 4] and [Table 5]. Both reports were open-label and Phase III studies. They included nivolumab versus investigator's choice or standard of therapy. The total number of included patients was 722. GHS in the nivolumab groups remained stable or improved. The functional scales showed improvements favoring the nivolumab groups. The EQ-5D questionnaire showed improvements in the nivolumab groups. In addition, Grade 3–5 AEs were less among the nivolumab groups. However, there is no significant change in the time to deterioration. | Table 4: Characteristics of the included studies about squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, colorectal cancer, and Markel carcinoma
Click here to view |
 | Table 5: Characteristics of the included studies about squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, colorectal cancer, and Markel carcinoma
Click here to view |
Non-small cell lung cancer
Two studies were identified [40],[41] [Table 4] and [Table 5]. The two studies were reports from Phase III trials, one was double-blind trial, and the other was open-label. They investigated nivolumab or pembrolizumab versus docetaxel or investigator's choice. None of them includes combinations of ICPIs. Both of them used the disease-specific scale. The total number of included patients was 571. In the GHS scores, there were some improvements in the pembrolizumab group than investigator's choice. In addition, pembrolizumab improved some functional scores than chemotherapy including physical functioning, role functioning, and social functioning. However, there was minimal decrease in the cognitive functioning scale among the pembrolizumab group than chemotherapy. In addition, the effects of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy on emotional functioning were similar. In the symptoms scales, the pembrolizumab generally showed improvements than the investigator's choice group. In the utility index score, the mean change between ICPIs groups and docetaxel or investigator's choice was nearly similar. Regarding time to deterioration, the ICPIs arms showed improvements and prolonged the time to deterioration than the docetaxel or investigator's choice arms. Besides, the disease-specific scales favored ICPIs arm. Moreover, AEs were less among ICPIs groups.
Colorectal cancer
Only one study met the inclusion criteria [42] [Table 4] and [Table 5]. It was a single-arm study including 119 patients with DNA mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer mCRC. The study included the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab for four doses then nivolumab every 2 weeks. It showed statistically and clinically significant mean change from baseline in the questionnaire scores. It considered a mean change ≥10 points to be clinically significant.
Merkel-cell carcinoma
After full-texting reviewing, a Phase II, single-arm study was included [43] [Table 4] and [Table 5]. It studied the effect of avelumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor) on HRQoL of 88 patients with metastatic Merkel-cell carcinoma. Small gain in the mean change from baseline in the HRQoL scale scores was observed.
Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment
According to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, most of the included studies have low risk of bias in the following categories: random sequence generation, incomplete data reporting, and selecting reporting [Figure 2] and [Figure 3]. However, high risk of bias was observed in allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel, mostly due to the open-label design of some of the included studies. Moreover, according to the quality assessment tool, all of the included studies were of high quality, scoring ≥10 points [Table 2], [Table 3] and [Table 5]. | Figure 2: Risk of bias summary: judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study
Click here to view |
 | Figure 3: Risk of bias graph: judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Click here to view |
Questionnaire and sensitivity analysis
Out of the 16 included studies, eight studies used a disease-specific questionnaire. Summary of the included questionnaires is provided [Table 6].[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50] The GHS scale uses a mean change ≥10 points in showing a clinically meaningful improvement. Only two included studies used a different mean change to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvement.
| Discussion | | |
The evolution of ICPI have reconstructed the regimens of treatments of metastatic malignancies.[51] Reports from clinical trials presenting the improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival of these drugs are promising about the future of this remarkable treatment technique.[52] Despite these encouraging results, irAEs including dermatologic, endocrine, and hepatotoxic effects restraint enjoying their pros.[53] In the past, the most clinical trials in oncology have considered overall survival and progression-free survival as their traditional endpoints. However, as tools and methods have evolved, assessing HRQoL in oncology trials has been on the rise.[54],[55] This helps to advise the clinicians about the effectiveness of the treatments from the patients' perspectives and equips the patients with the information to personalize their treatment choices.[56] Despite their successful impact on the tumor, only certain groups of patients continued responding to them, and the others develop irAEs necessitating the discontinuation of the therapy.[57],[58],[59] This growing body of evidence shows the importance of selecting patients appropriately for receiving ICPIs.[60],[61] HRQoL may aid in investigating the groups most likely to respond well to ICPIs. Although the included studies generally have showed, when comparing with chemotherapy or investigator's choice, that HRQoL remained stable or improved, some concerns should be highlighted in interpreting these results. First, according to the risk of bias summary, most of the studies lack allocation concealment and blinding. This may predispose to selection and performance biases which may have affected the results of them. Second, some ICPIs' HRQoL reports are found in the form of abstracts during the screening process. Moreover, there are some ongoing ICPIs trials that have not reported their HRQoL results. Thus, the presented evidence of these included studies should be interpreted carefully.[62] Third, minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of ≥10 points used in some questionnaire has been reported years ago, and thus, using the same clinically meaningful threshold currently bears some limitations in interpreting these studies from a clinical point of view.[63] Only two studies have included a sensitivity analysis for using ≥ 15 points as their MCIDs. Finally, in some of the included studies, as the number of patients decrease, the remaining number of patients continuing the therapy showed improvements in their health status. This also may support the idea of patient selection for ICPI therapy.
| Conclusion | | |
The review has summarized the present evidence regarding the HRQoL associated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. The effects of therapy differ according to the type of tumor being involved. Considering their costly price and sometimes serious irAEs, this information may aid clinician in their decision-making process when considering ICPIs. However, due to the complexities associated with the longitudinal analyzes of HRQoL data, these results should be interpreted carefully. Moreover, future reports from ongoing trials are to be watched.
Limitation
The review results are limited by the limitations of the primary clinical trials included in it. Moreover, gray literature, for example, Google Scholar, has not been searched.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | |
| 2. | Boini S, Briançon S, Guillemin F, Galan P, Hercberg S. Impact of cancer occurrence on health-related quality of life: A longitudinal pre-post assessment. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:4.  |
| 3. | Lee GL, Pang GS, Akhileswaran R, Ow MY, Fan GK, Wong CC, et al. Understanding domains of health-related quality of life concerns of Singapore Chinese patients with advanced cancer: A qualitative analysis. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:1107-18. |
| 4. | Bottomley A. The cancer patient and quality of life. Oncologist 2002;7:120-5. |
| 5. | Ryan H, Schofield P, Cockburn J, Butow P, Tattersall M, Turner J, et al. How to recognize and manage psychological distress in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2005;14:7-15. |
| 6. | Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995;273:59-65. |
| 7. | Osoba D. Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2011;3:57-71. |
| 8. | Fiteni F, Westeel V, Pivot X, Borg C, Vernerey D, Bonnetain F. Endpoints in cancer clinical trials. J Visc Surg 2014;151:17-22. |
| 9. | Punt CJ, Buyse M, Köhne CH, Hohenberger P, Labianca R, Schmoll HJ, et al. Endpoints in adjuvant treatment trials: A systematic review of the literature in colon cancer and proposed definitions for future trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:998-1003. |
| 10. | Sztankay M, Giesinger JM, Zabernigg A, Krempler E, Pall G, Hilbe W, et al. Clinical decision-making and health-related quality of life during first-line and maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Findings from a real-world setting. BMC Cancer 2017;17:565. |
| 11. | Kaplan RM. Health-related quality of life in patient decision making. J Soc Issues 1991;47:69-90. |
| 12. | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:79. |
| 13. | Granier C, De Guillebon E, Blanc C, Roussel H, Badoual C, Colin E, et al. Mechanisms of action and rationale for the use of checkpoint inhibitors in cancer. ESMO Open 2017;2:e000213. |
| 14. | Buchbinder EI, Desai A. CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways: Similarities, differences, and implications of their inhibition. Am J Clin Oncol 2016;39:98-106. |
| 15. | Azoury SC, Straughan DM, Shukla V. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy: Clinical efficacy and safety. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2015;15:452-62. |
| 16. | Mahmoudi M, Farokhzad OC. Cancer immunotherapy: Wound-bound checkpoint blockade. Nat Biomed Eng 2017;1:31. |
| 17. | Michot JM, Bigenwald C, Champiat S, Collins M, Carbonnel F, Postel-Vinay S, et al. Immune-related adverse events with immune checkpoint blockade: A comprehensive review. Eur J Cancer 2016;54:139-48. |
| 18. | Friedman CF, Proverbs-Singh TA, Postow MA. Treatment of the immune-related adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A review. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:1346-53. |
| 19. | Khoja L, Day D, Wei-Wu Chen T, Siu LL, Hansen AR. Tumour- and class-specific patterns of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review. Ann Oncol 2017;28:2377-85. |
| 20. | Abdel-Wahab N, Shah M, Suarez-Almazor ME. Adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade in patients with cancer: A systematic review of case reports. PLoS One 2016;11:e0160221. |
| 21. | Brahmer JR, Lacchetti C, Schneider BJ, Atkins MB, Brassil KJ, Caterino JM, et al. Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1714-68. |
| 22. | Andrews A. Treating with checkpoint inhibitors-figure $1 million per patient. Am Health Drug Benefits 2015;8:9. |
| 23. | Braschi-Amirfarzan M, Tirumani SH, Hodi FS Jr., Nishino M. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors in the era of precision medicine: What radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol 2017;18:42-53. |
| 24. | Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100. |
| 25. | |
| 26. | Mols F, Vingerhoets AJ, Coebergh JW, van de Poll-Franse LV. Quality of life among long-term breast cancer survivors: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2613-9. |
| 27. | Cornish D, Holterhues C, van de Poll-Franse LV, Coebergh JW, Nijsten T. A systematic review of health-related quality of life in cutaneous melanoma. Ann Oncol 2009;20 Suppl 6:vi51-8. |
| 28. | Petrella TM, Robert C, Richtig E, Miller WH Jr., Masucci GV, Walpole E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in KEYNOTE-006, a randomised study of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2017;86:115-24. |
| 29. | Ascierto PA, Del Vecchio M, Robert C, Mackiewicz A, Chiarion-Sileni V, Arance A, et al. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma: A randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:611-22. |
| 30. | Long GV, Atkinson V, Ascierto PA, Robert C, Hassel JC, Rutkowski P, et al. Effect of nivolumab on health-related quality of life in patients with treatment-naïve advanced melanoma: Results from the phase III checkMate 066 study. Ann Oncol 2016;27:1940-6. |
| 31. | Revicki DA, van den Eertwegh AJ, Lorigan P, Lebbe C, Linette G, Ottensmeier CH, et al. Health related quality of life outcomes for unresectable stage III or IV melanoma patients receiving ipilimumab treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012;10:66. |
| 32. | Schadendorf D, Dummer R, Hauschild A, Robert C, Hamid O, Daud A, et al. Health-related quality of life in the randomised KEYNOTE-002 study of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with ipilimumab-refractory melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2016;67:46-54. |
| 33. | Schadendorf D, Larkin J, Wolchok J, Hodi FS, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Health-related quality of life results from the phase III checkMate 067 study. Eur J Cancer 2017;82:80-91. |
| 34. | Coens C, Suciu S, Chiarion-Sileni V, Grob JJ, Dummer R, Wolchok JD, et al. Health-related quality of life with adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): Secondary outcomes of a multinational, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:393-403. |
| 35. | Cella D, Grünwald V, Nathan P, Doan J, Dastani H, Taylor F, et al. Quality of life in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma given nivolumab versus everolimus in checkMate 025: A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:994-1003. |
| 36. | Escudier B, Motzer RJ, Sharma P, Wagstaff J, Plimack ER, Hammers HJ, et al. Treatment beyond progression in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab in CheckMate 025. Eur Urol 2017;72:368-76. |
| 37. | Tomita Y, Fukasawa S, Shinohara N, Kitamura H, Oya M, Eto M, et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from the CheckMate 025 study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2017;47:639-46. |
| 38. | Harrington KJ, Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr., Colevas AD, Fayette J, Licitra L, et al. Nivolumab versus standard, single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CheckMate 141): Health-related quality-of-life results from a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1104-15. |
| 39. | Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr., Fayette J, Guigay J, Colevas AD, Licitra L, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1856-67. |
| 40. | Brahmer JR, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Hui R, Csőszi T, Fülöp A, et al. Health-related quality-of-life results for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in advanced, PD-L1-positive NSCLC (KEYNOTE-024): A multicentre, international, randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1600-9. |
| 41. | Reck M, Taylor F, Penrod JR, DeRosa M, Morrissey L, Dastani H, et al. Impact of nivolumab versus docetaxel on health-related quality of life and symptoms in patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer: Results from the CheckMate 017 study. J Thorac Oncol 2018;13:194-204. |
| 42. | Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KY, Lenz HJ, Gelsomino F, Aglietta M, et al. Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/Microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:773-9. |
| 43. | Kaufman HL, Hunger M, Hennessy M, Schlichting M, Bharmal M. Nonprogression with avelumab treatment associated with gains in quality of life in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Future Oncol 2018;14:255-66. |
| 44. | |
| 45. | |
| 46. | |
| 47. | Bergman B, Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Kaasa S, Sullivan M. The EORTC QLQ-LC13: A modular supplement to the EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC study group on quality of life. Eur J Cancer 1994;30A: 635-42. |
| 48. | |
| 49. | |
| 50. | |
| 51. | Thallinger C, Füreder T, Preusser M, Heller G, Müllauer L, Höller C, et al. Review of cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors: Current concepts, expectations, limitations and pitfalls. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2018;130:85-91. |
| 52. | Spain L, Larkin J. Weighing up the pros and cons of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of melanoma. Immunotherapy 2016;8:677-9. |
| 53. | Kourie HR, Klastersky J. Immune checkpoint inhibitors side effects and management. Immunotherapy 2016;8:799-807. |
| 54. | Zikos E, Coens C, Ediebah DE, Quinten C, Greimel E, Flechtner H, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment in EORTC cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2012;30 Suppl 15:6090. |
| 55. | Efficace F, Osoba D, Gotay C, Sprangers M, Coens C, Bottomley A. Has the quality of health-related quality of life reporting in cancer clinical trials improved over time? Towards bridging the gap with clinical decision making. Ann Oncol 2007;18:775-81. |
| 56. | Bottomley A, Aaronson NK; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. International perspective on health-related quality-of-life research in cancer clinical trials: The European organisation for research and treatment of cancer experience. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5082-6. |
| 57. | Assi HI, Kamphorst AO, Moukalled NM, Ramalingam SS. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer 2018;124:248-61. |
| 58. | Abdel-Wahab N, Shah M, Lopez-Olivo MA, Suarez-Almazor ME. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of patients with cancer and preexisting autoimmune disease: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2018;168:121-30. |
| 59. | Dijkstra KK, Voabil P, Schumacher TN, Voest EE. Genomics- and transcriptomics-based patient selection for cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A review. JAMA Oncol 2016;2:1490-5. |
| 60. | Sen S, Hess K, Hong DS, Naing A, Piha-Paul S, Janku F, et al. Development of a prognostic scoring system for patients with advanced cancer enrolled in immune checkpoint inhibitor phase 1 clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2018;118:763-9. |
| 61. | Choudhury N, Nakamura Y. Importance of immunopharmacogenomics in cancer treatment: Patient selection and monitoring for immune checkpoint antibodies. Cancer Sci 2016;107:107-15. |
| 62. | Solinas C, Gombos A, Latifyan S, Piccart-Gebhart M, Kok M, Buisseret L. Targeting immune checkpoints in breast cancer: An update of early results. ESMO Open 2017;2:e000255. |
| 63. | Singh J, Sloan JA, Johanson NA. Challenges with health-related quality of life assessment in arthroplasty patients: Problems and solutions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010;18:72-82. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]
|
Search Pubmed for