Risk of Rash in PD-1 or PD-L1-Related Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tian, Yuan; Zhang, Chi; Dang, Qi; Wang, Kaiyong; Liu, Qian; Liu, Hongmei; Shang, Heli; Zhao, Junyan; Xu, Yuedong; Wu, Tong; Liu, Wei; Yang, Xiaowei; Safi, Mohammed

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4976032

Journal of Oncology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Abbreviations Data Availability Ethical Approval Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4976032 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4976032

Risk of Rash in PD-1 or PD-L1-Related Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yuan Tian,¹Chi Zhang,²Qi Dang,³Kaiyong Wang,⁴Qian Liu,⁵Hongmei Liu,⁶Heli Shang,⁶Junyan Zhao,⁷Yuedong Xu,⁸Tong Wu,¹Wei Liu,¹and Xiaowei Yang⁹ et al.

Academic Editor: Yuan Seng Wu

Received19 Mar 2022

Accepted25 Jun 2022

Published18 Jul 2022

Abstract

Background. Given that immune-related rash was the most frequently reported PD-1 or PD-L1-related skin toxicity, this systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to elucidate its incidence risk. Methods. The meta-analysis was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. The random effect model was used in the process of all analyses. Skin rash of all grades and grades 3–5 were calculated and gathered in the final comprehensive analyses. Results. The study included 86 clinical trials classified into 15 groups. Compared with chemotherapy, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors significantly strengthened the risk of developing rash across all grades (OR = 1.66, 95% CI: [1.31, 2.11]; ). This trend was significantly stronger when the control group was placebo (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: [1.88, 3.65]; ). Similar results were observed when PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given together with chemotherapy (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: [1.59, 2.20]; ), even in patients with grades 3–5. As with other combination therapies, the risk of developing rash for all grades was enhanced when PD-1 or PD-L1 was given together with chemotherapy as the second-line option (OR = 2.98, 95% CI: [1.87, 4.75]; ). No statistically significant differences could be found in skin rash between the PD-1 and PD-L1-related subgroups. Conclusion. Whether PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given alone or together with others, the risk of developing rash would be enhanced. Furthermore, the risk of developing rash appeared to be higher when PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors together with other antitumor drugs were given as the second-line options. No statistically significant results of developing rash between PD-1 and PD-L1 subgroups were obtained owing to the participation of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors.

1. Introduction

Due to tobacco cessation, advancements in early diagnosis and treatment, the death rate of various cancers has been falling year after year in the United States, while the survival rate has been improving, particularly for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1]. Among the several therapeutic options available, cancer immunotherapy is extremely successful in increasing cancer patients’ survival rates, particularly when PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors are given [2]. On the basis of research into the mechanisms of immune escape, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors have reshaped the therapy landscape for cancer by activating the immune system, while also gradually reporting plenty of treatment-related side effects [3]. Although the association between some adverse events and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors has been extensively examined and documented [4–9], many toxicities remain unexplored, including skin toxicities [3].

Skin toxicities, such as rash, pruritus, vitiligo, palmar-plantar erythrodysasthesia (PPE), erythema, eczema, urticaria, dermatitis, dry skin, and maculopapular rash, were frequently observed in cancer patients treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 [3, 10, 11]. Additionally, autoimmune skin toxicities associated with PD-1 or PD-L1 have been reported to be significantly more prevalent in patients with NSCLC who are in complete or partial remission [10]. This pattern may also be observed in other types of tumors [11, 12]. Correlations between adverse events and clinical benefit are not uncommon [13–15]. However, the correlations between the risk of developing skin toxicities and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, as well as their effect on patient prognosis, remain unknown. Therefore, the rash with the highest rate of occurrence among PD-1 or PD-L1-related skin toxicities was chosen for the comprehensive analysis. To begin, subgroup analysis would be used to assess the difference in rash risk between the PD-1 and PD-L1 subgroups; second, the effect of different administration timing on rash would be assessed; and then, detailed subgroup analysis would be used to elucidate the source of heterogeneity.

2. Methods

The design and specific procedures of the meta-analysis were carried out step-by-step as recommended by the PRISMA [16].

2.1. Eligibility Screening for All Clinical Trials

Phase III clinical trials involving PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with control groups would be preferred. Other clinical trials with control groups would be placed in an alternate location. With the exception of hematological malignancies, the types of solid tumors would not be limited. All data involving rash would be extracted and recorded in preparation for the subsequent adequate subgroup analysis. Four authors were appointed for eligibility screening.

2.2. Formulation and Implementation of Literature Search Strategy

According to the principle of PICOS (participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design), the specific strategy of literature search was specified and implemented by all authors [16]. First, neoplasm was firstly searched as the MeSH keyword, not limited to specific solid tumor types. Then, all kinds of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, including common names, trade names, and abbreviations, would be searched as keywords and the search results would be unioned.

The publication time of relevant studies would be limited from July 09, 2013, to September 14, 2021. If one clinical trial was repeatedly reported several times, only the one with full detailed data could be selected for the analysis.

2.3. Quality Evaluation and Publication Bias Screening

The revised Cochrane Collaboration tool was adopted for bias risk screening in all selected trials [17], and the Funnel plot and Egger’s test were used for publication bias assessments [18]. A value < 0.05 was considered as the evidence for the existence of publication bias.

The quality screening of all the enrolled clinical trials were also carried out by the above four authors. The screening criteria were listed as the following 5 items: (a) selection bias, (b) performance bias, (c) detection bias, (d) attrition bias, and (e) reporting bias [17].

2.4. Screening of Results

The main outcome measure was the risk of PD-1 or PD-L1 involving rash across all grades, while the second was the rash for grades 3–5. The main information of all trials would be extracted and summarized in the single table (Table 1). The main content included in the table was listed as the following items: the first author’s name, publication years, trial title, registered trial number, therapies lines, treatment regimens, participants, phase, tumor type, RCT, and the number of rash events.

2.5. Heterogeneity Screening and Statistical Analyses

Cochrane’s Q and I² statistics were used for heterogeneity screening, as described by Higgins and colleagues [16, 19], while the Harbord test was used for publication bias evaluation [19]. Three grades of heterogeneity were defined according to the I² value: The two separation thresholds were 25% and 50%, respectively [20]. Using Review Manager 5.3, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) across all enrolled clinical trials using the random effect (RE) method were calculated [21], whereas funnel plots were constructed using the fixed effect (FE) model. All statistical tests were two-sided, and was taken as a statistically significant result. In the process of analyses, adequate subgroup evaluations would be carried out according to the actual situation.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search Results

After a preliminary PubMed search, 522 studies were retrieved (Figure 1). After criteria screened, 95 studies involving 86 clinical trials, including 55207 participants, were used for the final comprehensive analyses [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117]. According to the PICOS guidelines, the detailed process of literature screening was provided in the form of PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1). All types of literature included in the quality checking were finished by the four authors independently and finally summarized by the corresponding author and then plotted as the (S Figure 1) [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117].

3.2. Basic Information for All Included Clinical Trials

Basic characteristics of 86 clinical trials included in the study were extracted and shown in Table 1 [5], [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117]. 6 clinical trials, including KEYNOTE-021 [27, 28], KEYNOTE-189 [40–42], CheckMate 227 [47, 48], JAVELIN Renal 101 [51, 52], KEYNOTE-042 [61, 62], and CheckMate 067 [114–117], were repeatedly reported multiple times by different reporters, and only one with the detailed data could be selected for the final analyses. Among them, there were 72 Phase III, 8 Phase II, 2 Phase II/III, 1 Phase I/II, 1 Phase I/III, 1 Phase Ib, and 1 Phase I clinical trials. In 55 clinical trials, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given alone or together with other antitumor drugs as the first-line regimens [23, 27, 28, 31], [36–38, 40–42], [44–48, 50, 53], [55–58], [61–68], [72, 73, 75], [77–80, 83–86], [88–95], [98–104], [106, 107, 109, 111, 112], [114–117], while previous therapies were found in the other 31 clinical trials [22, 24–26, 29, 30, 32–35, 39, 43, 49, 51, 52, 54, 59, 60, 69–71, 74, 76, 81, 82, 87, 96, 97, 105, 108, 110, 113]. Among the tumor types involved in all enrolled clinical trials, NSCLC accounted for the highest proportion (n = 22) [22, 24, 26–28, 35–37, 39–43, 47, 48, 53, 58, 59, 61, 62, 68, 74, 75, 92, 93, 98, 113], followed by melanoma (n = 11) [23, 31, 34, 44, 57, 65, 67, 76, 81, 104, 114–117], urothelial carcinoma (n = 8) [32, 49, 71, 77, 78, 86, 87, 90], renal cell carcinoma (n = 7) [25, 51, 52, 55, 56, 89, 91, 102], SCLC (n = 7) [29, 38, 50, 79, 95, 100, 105], triple-negative breast cancer (n = 6) [46, 66, 73, 82, 84, 88], and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (n = 4) [30, 60, 63, 84].

All enrolled clinical trials were classified into 15 groups in view of the treatment regimens of all the control groups, which were listed as follows: Group A (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Chemotherapy) [22–24, 26, 32, 43, 47, 49, 54, 59, 61, 68, 77, 78, 80, 82, 86, 92, 96], Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy) [27, 37, 41, 45, 53, 66, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 95, 96, 100, 101, 103, 107, 111, 112], Group C (Camrelizumab plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy) [75, 99, 106], Group D (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab versus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab) [36, 107], Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo) [33, 39, 44, 71, 87, 90, 91, 97, 98, 105, 108], Group F (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus PD-1 or PD-L1) [63, 77, 80, 96], Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1) [29, 47, 76, 78, 105, 118], Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4) [34, 67, 117], Group I (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus Chemotherapy) [47, 94], Group J (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy) [93, 95], Group K (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib) [64, 85], Group L (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus CTLA-4) [31, 117], Group M (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Methotrexate/docetaxel/cetuximab) [30, 60], and Group N (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Antineoplastic Drug versus Sunitinib) [51, 55, 56, 89, 91]. The others would just be used for the systematic review [25, 26, 34, 57, 63, 65, 69, 72, 81, 83, 88, 89, 95, 101, 104, 105, 109, 110]. Within each group, the differences between the PD-1 and PD-L1 subgroups would be assessed firstly, followed by the treatment lines.

3.3. Risk of Bias

86 clinical trials, involving 95 literatures, were all screened for 5 relevant bias risks, and the results were shown in the (S Figure 1) [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117]. Data with high bias would not be adopted for the final meta-analysis (S Figure 1) [57, 114–116]. The funnel plots for publication bias assessments were constructed and shown in the corresponding figures (S Figures 2–6).

3.4. Risk Assessments of Rash for All Grades in Group A (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Chemotherapy)

Reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP) was the characteristic rash of camrelizumab, so the clinical trials including camrelizumab were evaluated separately [70]. 19 clinical trials in Group A were summarized and prepared for the final analyses [22–24, 26, 32, 43, 47, 49, 54, 59, 61, 68, 77, 78, 80, 82, 86, 92, 96]. Among all tumor types, NSCLC was the most common one (n = 10) [22, 24, 26, 43, 47, 59, 61, 68, 92], followed by UC (n = 5) [32, 49, 77, 78, 86].

Through analyses, we found that PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors significantly increased the risk of developing rash for all grades (OR = 1.66, 95% CI: [1.31, 2.11]; I² = 57%, Z = 4.19, ; Figures 2(a)–2(d)). Compared with the PD-L1 subgroup, the risk of developing rash appeared to be higher in PD-1 subgroup (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: [1.48, 2.50]; I² = 46%, Z = 4.86, ; Figure 2(a)). Similar trend was also found when subgroup was divided based on the treatment lines (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: [1.48, 2.24]; I² = 0%, Z = 5.67, ; Figure 2(b)). However, no statistically significant subgroup differences were found in the above two subgroups (Chi² = 2.62, , I² = 61.8%, Figure 2(a); Chi² = 0.46, , I² = 0%, Figure 2(b)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 2

Forest plots of comparison in Group A (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Chemotherapy). (a) The OR of rash for all grades calculated by the random effect (RE) model: subgroup analyses were performed according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). (b) The OR of rash for all grades calculated by the random effect (RE) model: subgroup analyses were performed according to the treatment lines (first or second line). (c) The OR of rash for all grades calculated by the random effect (RE) model: subgroup analyses were performed based on drug name, tumor type, and immune checkpoint type. (d) The OR of rash for all grades calculated by the random effect (RE) model: subgroup analyses were performed based on drug name, tumor type, immune checkpoint type, and I2 value.

High heterogeneity (I² = 57%) could be found in the analysis results (Figures 2(a)–2(d)). After adequate subgroup analyses, it was found that this high degree of heterogeneity stemmed mainly from the two clinical trials of NSCLC (I² = 76%, Figure 2(c); I² = 83%, Figure 2(d)) [22, 24]. The funnel plots of them are shown in S Figures 2(a)–2(d).

3.5. Risk Assessments of Rash for All Grades in Group B, Group C, and Group D

21 clinical trials in Group B were enrolled for the final analysis [27, 37, 41, 45, 53, 66, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 95, 96, 100, 101, 103, 107, 111, 112]. Among all enrolled clinical trials, clinical trials involving NSCLC (n = 5) still accounted for the highest proportion [27, 37, 41, 53, 74], followed by triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (n = 4) [45, 66, 73, 84], small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (n = 3) [79, 95, 100], ovarian cancer (OC) (n = 3) [96, 101, 103], and urothelial carcinoma (UC) (n = 2) [77, 86].

Compared with chemotherapy in Group B, it was found that PD-1 or PD-L1 together with chemotherapy significantly increased the risk of rash for all grades (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: [1.59, 2.20]; I² = 53%, Z = 7.50, ; Figures 3(a)–3(d)), even in each evaluable subgroups (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)). Similar to the former analysis result of Group A, the PD-1 subgroup appeared to have a higher risk of rash (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: [1.63, 2.47]; Figure 3(a)) with no statistical significant differences [27, 37, 41, 73, 79, 80, 86, 107, 111, 112], when it was compared to the PD-L1 subgroup (Chi² = 0.66, ; Figure 3(a)) [45, 53, 66, 74, 77, 84, 95, 96, 100, 101, 103]. Different from the previous analyses (Figure 2(b)), the incidence risk of rash was higher when PD-1 or PD-L1 together with chemotherapy was given as the second-line option (OR = 2.98, 95% CI: [1.87, 4.75]; Chi² = 3.95, ; Figure 3(b)) [74, 96]. Subgroup analyses indicated that the incidence risk of rash was different among different tumor types, especially in UC subgroup (OR = 2.66, 95% CI: [1.73, 4.09]; I² = 61%, Z = 4.48, ; Figure 3(c)) [77, 86]. Through subgroup analyses (Figures 3(c) and 3(d)), it was found that the high heterogeneity (I² = 53%) might be mainly derived from the clinical trial KEYNOTE-361 (Figure 3(d)) [86].

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 3

Forest plots of comparison in combination regimens. (a) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). (b) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). (c) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. (d) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type and immune checkpoint type. (e) The OR of rash for all-grade checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group C (Camrelizumab plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy). (f) The OR of rash for all-grade checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group D (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab versus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab).

Similar to the analysis result in Group B, the incidence risk of rash was also significantly increased when camrelizumab was given together with chemotherapy (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: [1.54, 3.44]; I² = 0%, Z = 4.04, ; Figure 3(e)) [75, 99, 106]. However, when PD-1 or PD-L1 was given with bevacizumab and chemotherapy, no statistically significant analysis result was found (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: [0.86, 4.20]; I² = 77%, Z = 1.60, ; Figure 3(e)). All the corresponding funnel lots are shown in S Figures 3(a)–3(f).

3.6. Risk Assessments of Rash for All Grades in Groups E and F

11 clinical trials in Group E were enrolled for the final analyses [33, 39, 44, 71, 87, 90, 91, 97, 98, 105, 108]. Among all clinical trials, clinical trials involving UC (n = 3) accounted for the highest proportion [71, 87, 90], followed by NSCLC (n = 2) [39, 98]. In 5 clinical studies [44, 90, 91, 98, 108], PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given as the first-line choice, whereas they were utilized as second-line or alternative therapeutic choices in the other 6 trials [33, 39, 71, 87, 97, 105].

Compared with placebo, it was found that PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors significantly increased the risk of developing rash for all grades (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: [1.88, 3.65]; I² = 69%, Z = 5.71, ; Figures 4(a)–4(d)), especially for UC (OR = 5.81, 95% CI: [2.78, 12.15]; I² = 71%, Z = 4.68, ; Figure 4(d)) [71, 87, 90]. Subgroup comparison indicated that the risk of developing rash was higher in the PD-L1 subgroup and first-line subgroup (Figures 4(a)–4(d)), which no statistical subgroup difference could be found. Overall heterogeneity in high degree (I² = 69%) could be found, which was mainly caused by the clinical trial CheckMate 274 (I² = 0%, Figure 4(c); I² = 71%, Figure 4(d)) [87]. The corresponding funnel plots are shown in S Figures 4(a)–4(d).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 4

Forest plots of different comparison groups. (a) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). (b) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). (c) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. (d) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type and I2 value. (e) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group F (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy VS PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). (f) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group F (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line).

4 clinical trials in Group F were enrolled for the final analyses [63, 77, 80, 96]. For PD-1/PD-L1 alone, the risk of rash was significantly increased when they were given with chemotherapy (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: [1.15, 4.75]; I² = 81%, Z = 2.34, ; Figures 4(e) and 4(f)). Furthermore, this trend was much more pronounced when PD-L1 was combined with chemotherapy (OR = 4.02, 95% CI: [1.70, 9.53]; I² = 71%, Z = 3.16, ; Figure 4(e)) or prescribed as the second line (OR = 6.50, 95% CI: [3.07, 13.75]; Figure 4(f)). Through subgroup analysis, it could be indicated that the high degree heterogeneity might be caused by the clinical trial JAVELIN Ovarian 200 (Figures 4(e) and 4(f)) [96]. The corresponding funnel plots were constructed and are shown in S Figures 4(e) and 4(f).

3.7. The Incidence Risk of Rash for All Grades in Groups G–N

6 clinical trials in Group G were used for the final analysis [29, 47, 76, 78, 105, 118]. In 3 clinical trials [47, 78, 118], PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given as the first-line choice, while they were used as second-line or other treatment options in the other 3 trials [29, 76, 105]. Compared with the adoption of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor alone, the combination regimen (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4) significantly increased the risk of developing rash (OR = 2.39, 95% CI: [1.67, 3.42]; I² = 54%, Z = 4.79, ; Figures 5(a)–5(c)). Subgroup analysis suggested that the risk of rash in SCLC was higher than that in other tumor types (OR = 4.61, 95% CI: [2.70, 7.88]; I² = 0%, Z = 5.59, ; Figure 5(b)). Furthermore, the incidence risk of rash was higher when PD-1 or PD-L1 together with CTLA-4 was given as the second-line choice (OR = 4.31, 95% CI: [2.58, 7.20]; I² = 0%, Z = 5.59, ; Figure 5(c)). By comprehensively evaluating the results of various subgroup analyses (Figures 5(a)–5(c)), we inferred that the high degree of heterogeneity might be mainly caused by the clinical trial CheckMate 227 [47]. The corresponding funnel plots are shown in S Figures 5(a)–5(c).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

Figure 5

Forest plots of comparison groups (Groups G-M). (a) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). (b) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. (c) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). (d) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4). (e) The odds ratio of rash for all grades calculated by the random effect (RE) model in Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). (f) The OR of rash for all-grade checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group I (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. (g) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group J (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on treatment regimens. (h) The OR of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group K (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). (i) The odds ratio of rash for all-grade checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group L (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus CTLA-4). (j) The odds ratio of rash for all grades checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group M (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Methotrexate/docetaxel/cetuximab).

3 clinical trials in Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4) were selected for the final meta-analysis [34, 67, 117]. The risk of developing rash caused by PD-1 was found to be significantly lower than that of CTLA-4 only in the first-line therapy subgroup (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: [0.26, 0.99]; I² = 87%, Z = 1.99, ; Figure 5(e)), whereas the overall effect was not statistically significant (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: [0.43, 1.22]; I² = 86%, Z = 1.20, ; Figure 5(d)). The subgroup analysis suggested that the high heterogeneity might be mainly caused by CheckMate 238 and CheckMate 067 [67, 117]. The corresponding funnel plots are shown in S Figures 5(d) and 5(e).

For chemotherapy alone, PD-1 or PD-L1 together with CTLA-4 (Group I) [47, 94], or together with chemotherapy on this basis (Group J) [93, 95], would significantly increase the risk of developing rash (Figures 5(f) and 5(g)). However, the conclusion was still controversial due to few studies included in those analyses (Figures 5(f) and 5(g)). The corresponding funnel plots are shown in (S Figures 5(f) and 5(g)).

For sorafenib (Group K), the risk of developing rash was lower (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: [0.41, 0.89]; I² = 0%, Z = 2.52, ; Figure 5(h)). When PD-1 or PD-L1 was given with CTLA-4 (Group L), the risk of developing rash was higher than that of CTLA-4 subgroup (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: [1.06, 1.93]; I² = 0%, Z = 2.32, ; Figure 5(i)). When PD-1 was compared with chemotherapy (Group M), no statistical significant result was found (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: [0.25, 2.98]; I² = 78%, Z = 0.23, ; Figure 5(j)). The corresponding funnel plots are shown in S Figures 5(k)–5(m).

In 5 of the 6 clinical trials of renal cell carcinoma, the control group was sunitinib [51, 55, 56, 89, 91]. In these 5 clinical trials, we found that PD-1 or PD-L1 increased the incidence risk of rash regardless of which antitumor drug was used in combination [51, 55, 56, 89, 91]. However, the meta-analysis could not be performed due to the lack of consistency in the experimental groups in these 5 clinical trials [51, 55, 56, 89, 91]. The types of combination therapy regimens involving PD-1 or PD-L1 have been increasingly used in different tumors [26, 34, 57, 63, 65, 69, 72, 81, 83, 88, 95, 101, 104, 105, 109, 110]. In those combined treatment regimens, rash has been reported, which further verified the correlation between PD-1 or PD-L1 and the incidence of rash [26, 34, 57, 63, 65, 69, 72, 81, 83, 88, 95, 101, 104, 105, 109, 110].

3.8. Risk Assessments of Rash for Grades 3–5

The risk of developing rash for grades 3–5 was reported in 18 clinical trials (Group A) [22–24, 26, 32, 47, 54, 59, 61, 68, 70, 72, 77, 78, 82, 86, 92, 96]. Through analyses, statistically significant result was found only in NSCLC (OR = 2.51, 95% CI: [1.03, 6.11]; I² = 0%, Z = 2.02, ; Figure 6(a)) [22, 24, 47, 59, 61, 64, 68, 92], while the overall effect across all tumor types was not statistically different (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: [0.91, 3.31]; I² = 0%, Z = 1.66, ; Figure 6(a)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

Figure 6

Forest plots of comparison groups for grades 3–5. (a) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group A (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. (b) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. (c) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. (d) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. (e) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group F (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out based on the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). (f) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4). (g) The odds ratio of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group M (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Methotrexate/docetaxel/cetuximab). (h) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group K (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib): subgroup analyses were carried out based on the name of immune checkpoint inhibitors. (i) The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the random effect (RE) model in Group J (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on treatment regimens.

Similar to the risk of rash for all grades in Group B, the risk of developing rash was significantly higher than that of the control chemotherapy group [27, 36, 38, 41, 45, 53, 66, 73–75, 79, 80, 84, 86, 96, 101, 103, 107, 111, 112], when PD-1 or PD-L1 was given together with chemotherapy (OR = 2.61, 95% CI: [1.67, 4.08]; I² = 0%, Z = 4.20, ; Figure 6(b)), especially for ovarian cancer (OR = 4.34, 95% CI: [1.89, 9.96]; I² = 0%, Z = 3.46, ; Figure 6(b)) [96, 101, 103]. The positive result could also be found in Group C (OR = 3.42, 95% CI: [1.49, 7.85]; I² = 0%, Z = 2.89, ; Figure 6(c)), Group G (OR = 3.39, 95% CI: [1.54, 7.49]; I² = 0%, Z = 3.02, ; Figure 6(d)), and Group J (OR = 9.64, 95% CI: [1.22, 76.16]; I² = 0%, Z = 2.15, ; Figure 6(i)) [39, 44, 47, 77, 78, 81, 90, 91, 93, 95, 98, 105, 117]. However, when PD-1 or PD-L1 plus bevacizumab were compared with sorafenib, the risk of developing rash was lower than that of the control group (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: [0.02, 0.83]; I² = 0%, Z = 2.16, ; Figure 6(h)). In the other groups, no statistical significant results could be found (Figures 6(e)–6(g)). All the corresponding funnel plots were constructed and are shown in S Figures 6(a)–6(i).

4. Discussion

Among several therapeutic options available, cancer immunotherapy is extremely successful in increasing tumor patients’ survival rates, particularly with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors [2]. Currently, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors are extensively employed in the treatment of many types of malignancies, and the combination regimens using PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors are diversified [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117], [118]. As with cetuximab [119, 120], rash associated with therapeutic benefit was one of the most frequently reported skin toxicities associated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors [13–15]. The correlation between rash and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, on the other hand, has to be further clarified in detail, particularly in diverse combination treatment regimens. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with the guidelines of the PRISMA criteria (Figure 1) [16].

After quality screening (S Figure 1), 86 clinical trials with complete data were adopted for the final comprehensive analyses [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117], which avoided the high risk of attrition bias. With the development of clinical research, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors have been increasingly prescribed as the first-line antitumor options (n = 51) [23, 27, 28], [31, 36–38], [40–42], [44–48], [50, 53], [55–58], [61–68], [72, 73], [75, 77–80], [83–86], [88–95], [98–104], [106, 107, 109], [111, 112], [114–117], especially for PD-1 or PD-L1 combined regimens [27, 36, 38, 41, 45, 53, 66, 73, 75, 79, 80, 84, 86, 99, 101, 103, 107, 111, 112], which also increase the difficulty of elucidating the relationship between PD-1 or PD-L1 and the risk of rash. Therefore, it is necessary for us to conduct this meta-analysis.

According to the compositions of all the control groups, all the enrolled clinical trials were firstly classified into different groups (Groups A-N), and then, analyses were carried out for each group (Figures 2–6 and S Figures 2–6). Through the analyses, it was found that PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors raised the risk of developing rash (Figure 2, Figures 4(a)–4(d), and Figure 6(a)), whether compared with chemotherapy or placebo alone (Group A and Group E) [22–24, 26, 32, 33, 39, 43, 44, 47, 49, 54, 59, 61, 68, 71, 77, 78, 80, 82, 86, 87, 90–92, 96–98, 105, 108]. However, this effect was weaker than CTLA-4 with no statistical significance (Group H) (Figures 5(d)–5(e) and 6(f)) [34, 67, 117]. In the combined antitumor treatment regimens containing PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (Group B, Group C, Group D, and Group L) [27, 31, 36, 37, 41, 45, 53, 66, 73–75, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 95, 96, 99–101, 103, 106, 107, 111, 112, 117], it was also found that the risk of rash was increased due to the involvement of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (Figure 3, Figures 5(a)–5(c), Figure 6(b), S Figure 3, S Figure 5(a)–5(c), and S Figure 6(b)). Similar trend was also found in other PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor-based combination regimens (Group F, Group G, Group I, and Group G) (Figures 4(e) and 4(f); Figures 5(a)–5(c), 5(f), 5(g), 6(d), 6(e), and 6(i); S Figures 4(e)–4(f); S Figures 5(a)–5(c), 5(f), 5(g), 6(d), 6(e), and 6(i)) [29, 47, 63, 76–78, 80, 93–96, 105, 117]. In the other clinical trials for which meta-analysis could not be performed, the experimental group of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors involved also indicated an increased risk of rash [25, 26, 34, 51, 55–57, 63, 65, 69, 72, 81, 83, 88, 89, 91, 95, 101, 104, 105, 109, 110]. From the above, it could be concluded that the risk of rash would be increased when PD-1 or PD-L-1 inhibitors were given alone or together with other antitumor regimens.

For the lack of head-to-head contrast between PD-1 and PD-L1 [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117], we tried to investigate the differences between PD-1 and PD-L1 subgroups and indirectly observe the differences of rash risk. Although the analyses indicated that the risk of rash differed between PD-1 and PD-L1-related subgroups (Figures 2(a), 3(a) and 4(a)), no statistically significant results were found due to the involvement of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors [22–24], [26, 27, 32], [33, 37, 39], [41, 43–45], [47, 49, 53], [54, 59, 61, 66], [68, 71–74], [77–80], [82, 84, 86], [87, 90–92], [95–98], [100, 101, 103], [105, 107, 108], [111, 112]. However, compared with the PD-1 involved subgroup (Figure 4(e)), the participation of chemotherapy significantly increased the risk of rash in the PD-L1 subgroup () [63, 77, 80, 96].

The similar strategy was used to elucidate the influence of PD-1 or PD-L1 involved treatment lines on the risk of developing rash (Figures 2(b), 3(b), 4(b), 4(f), 5(c), and 5(e)). Subgroup studies revealed an increased risk of rash when PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given together with other antitumor agents as the second-line choice (Figure 3(b), 4(f), and 5(c)) [27, 29, 37, 41, 45, 47, 53, 63, 66, 73, 74, 76–80, 84, 86, 95, 96, 100, 101, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112, 117]. When PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given alone, this incidence trend was only seen in Group H (Figure 5(e)) [34, 67, 117]. The reasons leading to the above results might be related to the combined treatment drugs, and the specific reasons were still need to be further studied.

The formation of heterogeneity is inevitable in the course of detailed examination (Figures 2–6). By conducting adequate subgroup analyses and comparing the results of rash between all grades and grades 3–5, the clinical trials responsible for the heterogeneity were identified, and further analyses revealed that the heterogeneity might be primarily due to the data themselves (Figure 6), implying that it would have little effect on the overall analysis results. Additionally, no noticeable publication bias was detected using funnel plots (S Figures 2–6). This further increased the reliability and rigor of this meta-analysis.

Although the correlation between skin toxicities and tumor regression had been reported frequently in some studies [10–12], no such data were found in all the enrolled clinical trials [22–25], [26–30], [31–35], [36–40], [41–45], [46–50], [51–55], [56–60], [61–65], [66–70], [71–75], [76–80], [81–85], [86–90], [91–95], [96–110], [111–115], [116, 117]. Therefore, to elucidate the correlation between the rash risk and tumor prognosis, more and more relevant clinical trials should be put into practice [13–15]. Furthermore, researchers needed to pay more attention to this kind of data and report it in a timely manner. In clinical work, we need to use treatment-related rashes cautiously to judge the treatment response and prognosis of patients.

5. Conclusions

The risk of developing rash would be enhanced whether PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors were given alone or together with others. Furthermore, the incidence risk of rash appeared to be higher when PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors together with other antitumor drugs were given as the second-line choice. No statistically significant differences in the results of the rash between the PD-1 and PD-L1 subgroups were found due to the involvement of PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors.

Abbreviations

PRISMA:	Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
PICOS:	Participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design
RCT:	Randomized controlled trial
N/A:	Not available
PD-1:	Programmed cell death-1
PD-L1:	Programmed cell death ligand 1
HR:	Hazard ratios
OR:	Odds ratio
RD:	Risk difference
CI:	Confidence interval
RE:	Random effect
NSCLC:	Non-small-cell lung cancer
SCLC:	Small-cell lung cancer
NC:	Nasopharyngeal carcinoma
OC:	Ovarian cancer
TNBC:	Triple-negative breast cancer
HNSCC:	Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
UC:	Urothelial carcinoma
GC/GJC:	Gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer
RCC:	Renal cell carcinoma
ESCC:	Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Ethical Approval

The study was not carried out in any human subjects, and no ethical issues were involved; hence, ethical approval was not needed.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Yuan Tian designed and wrote the draft of the manuscript. Chi Zhang, Qi Dang, Qian Liu, and Kaiyong Wang were responsible for PubMed search and data collection; all the data selection and analyses were carried out by Yuan Tian, Hongmei Liu, Heli Shang, Junyan Zhao, Yuedong Xu, Tong Wu, and Wei Liu; all authors reviewed the final draft and approved its submission. Yuan Tian was responsible for all the disagreement, controversy, and inconsistency. Mohammed Safi was appointed for grammar and sentence modification. Yuan Tian, Chi Zhang, Qi Dang, and Kaiyong Wang contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Medicine and Health Technology Development Plan of Shandong Province (2017WS878, Hongmei Liu).

Supplementary Materials

S Figure 1: a summary table of review authors’ judgements for each risk of bias item for each study. S Figure 2: funnel plots of comparison in Group A (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Chemotherapy). A: the OR of rash for all-grade checked using the fixed effect (FE) model: Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). B: the OR of rash for all-grade checked using the fixed effect (FE) model: subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). C: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model: Subgroup analyses were carried out based on drug name, tumor type, and immune checkpoint type. D: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model: subgroup analyses were carried out based on drug name, tumor type, immune checkpoint type, and I² value. S Figure 3: funnel plots of comparison in combination regimens. A: the odds ratio of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). B: the odds ratio of rash for all-grade checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). C: the odds ratio of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. D: the odds ratio of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type and immune checkpoint type. E: the odds ratio of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group C (Camrelizumab plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy). F: the odds ratio of rash for all-grade checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group D (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab versus Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab). S Figure 4: funnel plots of different comparisons. A: the OR of rash for all-grade checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). B: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). C: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. D: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type, and I² value. E: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group F (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). F: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group F (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). S Figure 5: funnel plots of comparison groups (Groups G-M). A: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). B: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group G (PD-1 OR PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. C: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). D: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4). E: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the treatment lines (first or second line). F: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group I (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor type. G: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group J (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on treatment regimens. H: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group K (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib): subgroup analyses were carried out according to the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). I: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group L (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus CTLA-4). J: the OR of rash for all grades checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group M (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Methotrexate/docetaxel/cetuximab). S Figure 6: funnel plots of comparison groups for grades 3–5. A: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group A (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. B: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group B (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. C: The OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group E (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Placebo): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. D: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group G (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out based on tumor types. E: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group F (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Chemotherapy versus PD-1 or PD-L1): subgroup analyses were carried out based on the types of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1 or PD-L1). F: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group H (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus CTLA-4). G: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group M (PD-1 or PD-L1 versus Methotrexate/docetaxel/cetuximab). H: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group K (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib): subgroup analyses were carried out based on the name of immune checkpoint inhibitors. I: the OR of rash for grades 3–5 checked using the fixed effect (FE) model in Group J (PD-1 or PD-L1 plus CTLA-4 plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy): subgroup analyses were carried out based on treatment regimens. (Supplementary Materials)

References

R. L. Siegel, K. D. Miller, H. E. Fuchs, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2021,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 7–33, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Del Paggio, “Cancer immunotherapy and the value of cure,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 268–270, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. B. Kennedy and A. K. S. Salama, “A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 86–104, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tian, R. Li, Y. Liu et al., “The risk of immune-related thyroid dysfunction induced by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 11, Article ID 667650, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tian, A. Huang, Y. Yang et al., “Assessment of the clinical trials safety profile of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors among patients with cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 11, Article ID 662392, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tian, A. Gao, Q. Wen et al., “Immune-related neurological toxicities of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Immunology, vol. 11, Article ID 595655, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Liu, D. Xu, W. Wang et al., “Systematic assessment of risk of fever in solid tumor patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 10, Article ID 570080, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tian, Z. Zhang, X. Yang et al., “The risk ratio of immune-related colitis, hepatitis, and pancreatitis in patients with solid tumors caused by PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 10, p. 261, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Si, S. Zhang, X. Yang et al., “The association between the incidence risk of peripheral neuropathy and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment for solid tumor patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 9, p. 866, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Berner, D. Bomze, S. Diem et al., “Association of checkpoint inhibitor-induced toxic effects with shared cancer and tissue antigens in non-small cell lung cancer,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1043–1047, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Khan, F. Di Nucci, A. Kwan et al., “Polygenic risk for skin autoimmunity impacts immune checkpoint blockade in bladder cancer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 22, pp. 12288–12294, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Sibaud, “Dermatologic reactions to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 345–361, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Yang, J. Lin, D. Wang, L. Zhang, and H. Zhao, “Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) predict for clinical efficacy: focusing on organ-specific irAEs and the critical role of steroids,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. e233–e234, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Remon, N. Reguart, E. Auclin, and B. Besse, “Immune-related adverse events and outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a predictive marker of efficacy?” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 963–967, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Pier Vitale, G. R. Pond, S. Abou Alaiwi et al., “Association of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with clinical benefit in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 37, no. 15, Article ID e16038, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, no. 71, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. C. Sterne, J. Savović, M. J. Page et al., “RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials,” BMJ, vol. 366, Article ID l4898, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Egger, G. Smith, M. Schneider, and C. Minder, “Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test,” BMJ, vol. 315, no. 7109, pp. 629–634, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Higgins, S. G. Thompson, J. J. Deeks, and D. G. Altman, “Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses,” BMJ, vol. 327, no. 7414, pp. 557–560, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. B. Huedo-Medina, J. Sánchez-Meca, F. Marín-Martínez, and J. Botella, “Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?” Psychological Methods, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 193–206, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. C. Norton, B. E. Dowd, and M. L. Maciejewski, “Odds ratios-current best practice and use,” JAMA, vol. 320, no. 1, pp. 84-85, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Borghaei, L. Paz-Ares, L. Horn et al., “Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 373, no. 17, pp. 1627–1639, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Weber, S. P. D’Angelo, D. Minor 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,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 375–384, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Brahmer, K. L. Reckamp, P. Baas et al., “Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 373, no. 2, pp. 123–135, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Motzer, B. Escudier, D. F. McDermott et al., “Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 373, no. 19, pp. 1803–1813, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Herbst, P. Baas, D. W. Kim et al., “Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 387, no. 10027, pp. 1540–1550, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Langer, S. M. Gadgeel, H. Borghaei et al., “Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1497–1508, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Awad, S. M. Gadgeel, H. Borghaei et al., “Long-term overall survival from KEYNOTE-021 cohort G: pemetrexed and carboplatin with or without pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 162–168, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Antonia, J. A. López-Martin, J. Bendell et al., “Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 883–895, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. L. Ferris, G. Blumenschein, J. Fayette et al., “Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 375, no. 19, pp. 1856–1867, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. S. Hodi, J. Chesney, A. C. Pavlick et al., “Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma: 2-year overall survival outcomes in a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1558–1568, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bellmunt, R. de Wit, D. J. Vaughn et al., “Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 376, no. 11, pp. 1015–1026, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. K. Kang, N. Boku, T. Satoh et al., “Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 390, no. 10111, pp. 2461–2471, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Schachter, A. Ribas, G. V. Long et al., “Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006),” The Lancet, vol. 390, no. 10105, pp. 1853–1862, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Antonia, A. Villegas, D. Daniel et al., “Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 377, no. 20, pp. 1919–1929, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Socinski, R. M. Jotte, F. Cappuzzo et al., “Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 24, pp. 2288–2301, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Paz-Ares, A. Luft, D. Vicente et al., “Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 21, pp. 2040–2051, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Horn, A. S. Mansfield, A. Szczęsna et al., “First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 23, pp. 2220–2229, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Antonia, A. Villegas, D. Daniel et al., “Overall survival with durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 24, pp. 2342–2350, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Gandhi, D. Rodríguez-Abreu, S. Gadgeel et al., “Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 22, pp. 2078–2092, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gadgeel, D. Rodríguez-Abreu, G. Speranza et al., “Updated analysis from KEYNOTE-189: pembrolizumab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum for previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 14, pp. 1505–1517, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Rodríguez-Abreu, S. F. Powell, M. J. Hochmair et al., “Pemetrexed plus platinum with or without pembrolizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: protocol-specified final analysis from KEYNOTE-189,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 881–895, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Hida, R. Kaji, M. Satouchi et al., “Atezolizumab in Japanese patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a subgroup Analysis of the phase 3 OAK study,” Clinical Lung Cancer, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. e405–e415, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. M. Eggermont, C. U. Blank, M. Mandala et al., “Adjuvant pembrolizumab versus placebo in resected stage III melanoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 19, pp. 1789–1801, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Schmid, S. Adams, H. S. Rugo et al., “Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 379, no. 22, pp. 2108–2121, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Emens, S. Adams, C. H. Barrios et al., “First-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: IMpassion130 final overall survival analysis,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 983–993, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Hellmann, T. E. Ciuleanu, A. Pluzanski et al., “Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 378, no. 22, pp. 2093–2104, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Reck, T. E. Ciuleanu, J. S. Lee et al., “First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with 1% or greater tumor PD-L1 expression: patient-reported outcomes from CheckMate 227 Part 1,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology: Official Publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 665–676, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Powles, I. Durán, M. S. van der Heijden et al., “Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 391, no. 10122, pp. 748–757, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Paz-Ares, M. Dvorkin, Y. Chen et al., “CASPIAN investigators. Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial,” Lancet, vol. 394, no. 10212, pp. 1929–1939, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Motzer, K. Penkov, J. Haanen et al., “Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 380, no. 12, pp. 1103–1115, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Motzer, P. B. Robbins, T. Powles et al., “Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial,” Nature Medicine, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1733–1741, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. West, M. McCleod, M. Hussein et al., “Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower130): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 924–937, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Kato, B. C. Cho, M. Takahashi et al., “Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma refractory or intolerant to previous chemotherapy (ATTRACTION-3): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1506–1517, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Motzer, B. I. Rini, D. F. McDermott et al., “Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1370–1385, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. I. Rini, T. Powles, M. B. Atkins et al., “Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (IMmotion151): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10189, pp. 2404–2415, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Sullivan, O. Hamid, R. Gonzalez et al., “Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib in BRAF-mutated melanoma patients,” Nature Medicine, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 929–935, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Hellmann, L. Paz-Ares, R. Bernabe Caro et al., “Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 381, no. 21, pp. 2020–2031, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. L. Wu, S. Lu, Y. Cheng et al., “Nivolumab versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced NSCLC: CheckMate 078 randomized phase III clinical trial,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 867–875, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. E. W. Cohen, D. Soulières, C. Le Tourneau et al., “KEYNOTE-040 investigators. Pembrolizumab versus methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab for recurrent or metastatic head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (KEYNOTE-040): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study,” Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10167, pp. 156–167, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. S. K. Mok, Y. L. Wu, I. Kudaba et al., “KEYNOTE-042 Investigators. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial,” Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10183, pp. 1819–1830, 4 May 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. L. Wu, L. Zhang, Y. Fan et al., “Randomized clinical trial of pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy for previously untreated Chinese patients with PD-L1-positive locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: KEYNOTE-042 China Study,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 148, no. 9, pp. 2313–2320, 20211.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Burtness, K. J. Harrington, R. Greil et al., “KEYNOTE-048 Investigators. Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study,” Lancet, vol. 394, no. 10212, pp. 1915–1928, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Finn, S. Qin, M. Ikeda et al., “Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, no. 20, pp. 1894–1905, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Gutzmer, D. Stroyakovskiy, H. Gogas et al., “Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (IMspire150): primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10240, pp. 1835–1844, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. A. Mittendorf, H. Zhang, C. H. Barrios et al., “Neoadjuvant atezolizumab in combination with sequential nab-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus placebo and chemotherapy in patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (IMpassion031): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 396, no. 10257, pp. 1090–1100, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Ascierto, M. Del Vecchio, M. Mandalá et al., “Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage IIIB-C and stage IV melanoma (CheckMate 238): 4-year results from a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1465–1477, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Herbst, G. Giaccone, F. de Marinis et al., “Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with NSCLC,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 383, no. 14, pp. 1328–1339, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A. Emens, F. J. Esteva, M. Beresford et al., “Trastuzumab emtansine plus atezolizumab versus trastuzumab emtansine plus placebo in previously treated, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (KATE2): a phase 2, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 1283–1295, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Huang, J. Xu, Y. Chen et al., “Camrelizumab versus investigator’s choice of chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCORT): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 832–842, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Powles, S. H. Park, E. Voog et al., “Avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 383, no. 13, pp. 1218–1230, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. André, K. K. Shiu, T. W. Kim et al., “KEYNOTE-177 investigators. Pembrolizumab in microsatellite-instability-high advanced colorectal cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 383, no. 23, pp. 2207–2218, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Schmid, J. Cortes, L. Pusztai et al., “Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, no. 9, pp. 810–821, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Jotte, F. Cappuzzo, I. Vynnychenko et al., “Atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel in advanced squamous NSCLC (IMpower131): results from a randomized phase III trial,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 1351–1360, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zhou, G. Chen, Y. Huang et al., “Camrelizumab plus carboplatin and pemetrexed versus chemotherapy alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (CameL): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 305–314, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zimmer, E. Livingstone, J. C. Hassel et al., “Adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with resected stage IV melanoma with no evidence of disease (IMMUNED): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10236, pp. 1558–1568, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Galsky, J. Á. A. Arija, A. Bamias et al., “Atezolizumab with or without chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial cancer (IMvigor130): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10236, pp. 1547–1557, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Powles, M. S. van der Heijden, D. Castellano et al., “DANUBE study investigators. Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1574–1588, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Rudin, M. M. Awad, A. Navarro et al., “Pembrolizumab or placebo plus etoposide and platinum as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-604 study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 21, pp. 2369–2379, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Shitara, E. Van Cutsem, Y. J. Bang et al., “Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone for patients with first-line, advanced gastric cancer,” JAMA Oncology, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 1571–1580, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ribas, A. Algazi, P. A. Ascierto et al., “PD-L1 blockade in combination with inhibition of MAPK oncogenic signaling in patients with advanced melanoma,” Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 6262, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. P. Winer, O. Lipatov, S. A. Im et al., “Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (KEYNOTE-119): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 499–511, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Y. Lee, R. L. Ferris, A. Psyrri et al., “Avelumab plus standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 450–462, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Miles, J. Gligorov, F. André et al., “IMpassion131 investigators. Primary results from IMpassion131, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase III trial of first-line paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 994–1004, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Ren, J. Xu, Y. Bai et al., “Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 977–990, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Powles, T. Csőszi, M. Özgüroğlu et al., “KEYNOTE-361 Investigators. Pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (KEYNOTE-361): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 931–945, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Bajorin, J. A. Witjes, J. E. Gschwend et al., “Adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 384, no. 22, pp. 2102–2114, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Brufsky, S. B. Kim, Ž Zvirbule et al., “A phase II randomized trial of cobimetinib plus chemotherapy, with or without atezolizumab, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (COLET): primary analysis,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 652–660, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Motzer, B. Alekseev, S. Y. Rha et al., “Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 384, no. 14, pp. 1289–1300, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bellmunt, M. Hussain, J. E. Gschwend et al., “Adjuvant atezolizumab versus observation in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor010): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 525–537, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. K. Choueiri, T. Powles, M. Burotto et al., “Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 384, no. 9, pp. 829–841, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sezer, S. Kilickap, M. Gümüş et al., “Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial,” Lancet (London, England), vol. 397, no. 10274, pp. 592–604, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Paz-Ares, T. E. Ciuleanu, M. Cobo et al., “First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 198–211, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Baas, A. Scherpereel, A. K. Nowak et al., “First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (CheckMate 743): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 397, no. 10272, pp. 375–386, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Goldman, M. Dvorkin, Y. Chen et al., “CASPIAN investigators. Durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide alone in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): updated results from a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 51–65, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Pujade-Lauraine, K. Fujiwara, J. A. Ledermann et al., “Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1034–1046, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. J. Kelly, J. A. Ajani, J. Kuzdzal et al., “Adjuvant nivolumab in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 384, no. 13, pp. 1191–1203, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sugawara, J. S. Lee, J. H. Kang et al., “Nivolumab with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab for first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1137–1147, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yang, S. Qu, J. Li et al., “Camrelizumab versus placebo in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (CAPTAIN-1st): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1162–1174, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. V. Liu, M. Reck, A. S. Mansfield et al., “Updated overall survival and PD-L1 subgroup Analysis of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab, carboplatin, and etoposide (IMpower133),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 619–630, 20 Feb 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Monk, N. Colombo, A. M. Oza et al., “Chemotherapy with or without avelumab followed by avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated epithelial ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 100): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1275–1289, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. K. Choueiri, P. Tomczak, S. H. Park et al., “Adjuvant pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal-cell carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 385, no. 8, pp. 683–694, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. N. Moore, M. Bookman, J. Sehouli et al., “Atezolizumab, bevacizumab, and chemotherapy for newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer: placebo-controlled randomized phase III trial (IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 39, no. 17, pp. 1842–1855, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Gogas, B. Dréno, J. Larkin et al., “Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma: primary results from the randomized phase III IMspire170 study,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 384–394, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. K. Owonikoko, K. Park, R. Govindan et al., “Nivolumab and ipilimumab as maintenance therapy in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 451,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 1349–1359, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Luo, J. Lu, Y. Bai et al., “Effect of camrelizumab vs. placebo added to chemotherapy on survival and progression-free survival in patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,” JAMA, vol. 326, no. 10, pp. 916–925, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Colombo, C. Dubot, D. Lorusso et al., “Pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 385, no. 20, pp. 1856–1867, 11 Nov 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Fennell, S. Ewings, C. Ottensmeier et al., “Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1530–1540, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Pusztai, C. Yau, D. M. Wolf et al., “Durvalumab with olaparib and paclitaxel for high-risk HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer: results from the adaptively randomized I-SPY2 trial,” Cancer Cell, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 989–998, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhu, Y. Cao, W. Liu et al., “RETRACTION: stereotactic body radiotherapy plus pembrolizumab and trametinib versus stereotactic body radiotherapy plus gemcitabine for locally recurrent pancreatic cancer after surgical resection: an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1093–1102, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Sun, L. Shen, M. A. Shah et al., “Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study,” The Lancet, vol. 398, no. 10302, pp. 759–771, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Q. Mai, Q. Y. Chen, D. Chen et al., “Toripalimab or placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicenter randomized phase 3 trial,” Nature Medicine, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1536–1543, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Felip, N. Altorki, C. Zhou et al., “Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet, vol. 398, no. 10308, pp. 1344–1357, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Larkin, V. Chiarion-Sileni, R. Gonzalez et al., “Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 381, no. 16, pp. 1535–1546, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. D. Wolchok, V. Chiarion-Sileni, R. Gonzalez et al., “Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 377, no. 14, pp. 1345–1356, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. S. Hodi, V. Chiarion-Sileni, R. Gonzalez et al., “Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1480–1492, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Larkin, V. Chiarion-Sileni, R. Gonzalez et al., “Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 373, no. 1, pp. 23–34, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Tsimberidou, A. Drakaki, D. Khalil et al., “An exploratory study of nivolumab (nivo) with or without ipilimumab (ipi) according to the percentage of tumoral CD8 cells in advanced metastatic cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 39, no. 15, p. 2573, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Balagula, S. Wu, X. Su, and M. E. Lacouture, “The effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy on the risk of high-grade acneiform rash to cetuximab in cancer patients: a meta-analysis,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 2366–2374, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Van Cutsem, S. Tejpar, D. Vanbeckevoort et al., “Intrapatient cetuximab dose escalation in metastatic colorectal cancer according to the grade of early skin reactions: the randomized EVEREST study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 23, pp. 2861–2868, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Yuan Tian et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies