4.7 Review

The effect of antibiotics on clinical outcomes in immune-checkpoint blockade: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Journal

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages 343-354

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-019-02453-2

Keywords

Antibiotics; Immunotherapy; Immune checkpoint blockade; Cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Pre-clinical and early clinical data suggests the microbiome plays an important role in oncogenesis and influences response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether antibiotics affect overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with solid malignancies treated with ICB. Patients and methods A systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and conference proceedings was conducted for observational studies examining the effect of antibiotics on ICB. A random effects study-level meta-analysis was performed with pooling of the hazards ratio (HR) for OS and PFS. Meta-regression was used to determine the impact of the timing of antibiotic exposure on OS. Results 766 studies were identified, and 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 2889 patients included, 826 (28.6%) were exposed to antibiotics. The most common malignancies were lung (59%), renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or urothelial carcinoma (16.3%) and melanoma (18.7%). OS was prolonged in those without antibiotic exposure (pooled HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.37-2.68, p < 0.001). The effect of antibiotics on OS was greater in studies defining antibiotic exposure as 42 days prior to initiation of ICB (HR 3.43, 95% CI 2.29-5.14, p < 0.0001). PFS was also longer in patients who did not receive antibiotics (pooled HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.3-2.1, p < 0.0001). Conclusion In patients receiving ICB, OS and PFS are longer in patients who are not exposed to antibiotics. Antibiotic use in the 42 days before starting ICB appears to be most detrimental to outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available