Immune checkpoint inhibitors related respiratory disorders in patients with lung cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background:

In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) had extremely rapid growth in anti-cancer and improved outcomes of many malignancies, specifically lung cancer. However, the incidence of ICIs-related adverse events also raised. Using this meta-analysis, ICIs-related respiratory disorders were investigated in lung cancer patients.

Methods:

Using Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases, we performed an integrated search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare respiratory disorders among different regimens. The data was prepared with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, and the quality of included studies was evaluated based on the Cochrane manual.

Results:

In total, 22 RCTs were involved in this meta-analysis. Compared with ICIs, chemotherapy reduced the risk of interstitial lung disease (p = 0.03; SMD: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.08, 7.27), pleural effusion (p = 0.002; SMD: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.32, 3.42), and pneumonitis (p < 0.00001; SMD: 9.23; 95% CI: 4.57, 18.64). ICIs plus chemotherapy could provide a higher probability for patients to suffer pneumonitis than chemotherapy (p = 0.01; SMD: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.28). In addition, single ICI brought a lower likelihood for patients suffering pneumonitis than double ICIs (p = 0.004; SMD: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.27, 3.69).

Conclusion:

ICIs-based treatment, such as ICIs alone, ICIs plus chemotherapy and double ICIs, can raise the incidences of some respiratory disorders in patients with lung cancer. It suggests that ICIs should be conducted based on a comprehensive consideration to prevent ICIs-related respiratory disorders. To a certain degree, this study might be provided to the clinician as a reference for ICIs practice.

Systematic review registration:

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022378901, identifier (CRD42022378901).

Introduction

In most countries, cancer is currently the first or second most frequent cause of premature death. In 2022, the USA has experienced more than 1,900,000 new cancer cases and 600,000 cancer deaths, with lung cancer being the leading cause of these deaths (1). Fortunately, the survival rate of patients with lung cancer has improved, which may be related to the early screening of lung cancer. Furthermore, a significant progress in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment with the advent of targeted drugs, coupled with the approval of immunotherapy by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015, has also contributed to the population-level improvement in lung cancer-specific survival (2).

Many treatments to control malignancies by mobilizing the immune system are under investigation, including cytokines, T cells (checkpoint inhibitors, co-stimulatory receptor agonists), T cell engineering, oncolytic viruses, and vaccines. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy includes programmed death-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1/2 (PD-L1/2), cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG3), and other potential targets. PD-1 is a transmembrane protein expressed in T, B, and NK cells and an inhibitory molecule that binds to PD-L1 and PD-L2. PD-L1 is represented on the cell surface of various tissue types, including many tumor and hematopoietic cells. Contrarily, PD-L2 is more restricted to hematopoietic cells. The combination of PD-1 and PD-L1/2 can directly inhibit tumor cell apoptosis and promote peripheral effector T cell depletion and conversion of effector T cells into Treg cells (3, 4). To date, the results of many large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PD-1 inhibitors against lung cancer have confirmed the concept of durable antitumor responses and improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) (5). CTLA-4 was recognized as a negative regulator of T cell activation in the mid-1990s (6–8). CTLA-4 on the surface of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells can play a role by binding to the co-stimulatory receptors CD80 and CD86 on the surface of APCs with a higher affinity than the co-stimulatory receptor CD28 on the surface of T cells (9). Scientists believe CTLA-4 to be APC-triggered, acting as a brake on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell activation. LAG3 is expressed on B cells, specific T cells, NK cells, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, where it regulates immune checkpoint pathways (10). With the deepening of the understanding of the immune mechanism, several other potential targets of immune checkpoint inhibition have been discovered, one after another, such as B and T lymphocyte attenuator, V-domain Ig suppressor of T cell activation, T cell immunoglobulin, and mucin domain-3. ICIs have become first-line treatments for various malignancies, with the addition of immunotherapy to surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy (11, 12).

Despite the favorable clinical benefits of checkpoint inhibition, it has side effects known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (13, 14). IrAEs include skin diseases, diarrhea, hepatotoxicity, and cardiotoxicity (15–19). Checkpoint inhibition may also cause fulminant or fatal toxic reactions (20). However, there is no comparative research to comprehensively discuss respiratory disorders caused by ICIs in lung cancer. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to identify potential respiratory diseases during ICI therapy for lung cancer to guide the selection of patients who should benefit from ICIs.

Materials and methods

Reporting standards

The meta-analysis for ICIs-related respiratory disorders in patients with lung cancer was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline (21).

Search strategy

A competent information specialist (HL) conducted an integrated search for RCTs between January 2000 and October 2022 using the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases. According to the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design) guidelines (22), “ICIs,” “PD-1,” “PD-1 inhibitors,” “PD-L1,” “PD-L1 inhibitors,” “CTLA-4,” “CTLA-4 inhibitor,” “atezolizumab,” “avelumab,” “camrelizumab,” “cemiplimab,” “durvalumab,” “ipilimumab,” “nivolumab,” “pembrolizumab,” “sintilimab,” “tislelizumab,” “toripalimab,” “tremelimumab,” “lung cancer,” “lung carcinoma,” “neoplasms,” “adverse reactions,” “adverse events,” and “randomized controlled trial” were entered as the Medical Subject Heading terms.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) RCT on lung cancer (phase II or III clinical trials); (2) ICI intervention, including PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA-4 inhibitors; and (3) comparison between single-agent ICI plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy, single-agent ICI and chemotherapy, as well as single-agent and double-agent ICIs. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) no report of ICIs-related respiratory disorders; (2) publications not written in English; (3) abstracts, case reports, comments, editorials, letters, and reviews; and (4) duplicate, missing, and overlapping datasets.

Study selection

Two investigators (SL and JJ) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the articles to obtain the qualified studies. Furthermore, two investigators (SW and LS) identified the potentially relevant studies to determine if they were eligible based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements as regards the study’s selection were resolved through discussion and compromise.

Data extraction

Two investigators (HL and JJ) independently extracted the characteristic data, including publication year, first author name, number of clinical trial, drug name, clinical trial phase, lung cancer type, regiment of intervention, enrollment, and serious adverse events (SAEs), from the eligible studies. According to the analysis of SAEs, the top 10 most frequent ICIs-related respiratory disorders, including pneumonitis, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure, hemoptysis, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary hemorrhage, and pneumothorax, were conducted as the main outcomes (Figure 1). Disagreements as regards data extraction were resolved through discussion and compromise.

Figure 1

Quality assessment

Based on the Cochrane manual, the bias risk of eligible studies, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blindness to outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, random sequence generation, selective outcome reporting, and other bias, was independently evaluated by two investigators (SW and SL) (23). Funnel plot were performed to assess publication bias (24). Disagreements regarding quality assessment were resolved through discussion and compromise.

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were calculated using Review Manager (RevMan v5.3). ICIs-related respiratory disorders, including pneumonitis, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure, hemoptysis, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary hemorrhage, and pneumothorax, were evaluated using the mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Based on the Cochrane collaboration network, a fixed-effects model was used to pool studies, and the inconsistency index was used to access heterogeneity as low (I² < 30%), moderate (30% ≤ I² < 50%), or high (I² ≥ 50%) (25, 26). Subanalyses of the effects of the different intervention on ICIs-related respiratory disorders were conducted. A two-tailed P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Study selection

In total, 3884 potentially relevant studies were retrieved from databases as a result of the strategy performed in searching. 453 studies were recorded after duplicates removed. Then, 369 studies were excluded due to irrelevant topic, non ICIs-related or retrospective studies. The investigators removed 62 studies after screening the full texts. Four released updated results (27–30), and three did not report respiratory disorders (31–33). Finally, 22 studies were included as the flow diagram described in Figure 2 (34–55).

Figure 2

Study characteristics

The characteristics of 22 RCTs from the 22 included studies are presented in Table 1. The studies ranged in year of publication from 2015 to 2021. Enrollment of 22 RCTs was 11460. Eighteen RCTs included NSCLC and four included small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PD-1 inhibitors were administered in 16 RCTs, PD-L1 inhibitors in 6, and CTLA-4 inhibitors in 4. In the treatment regimens, 9 RCTs were conducted to compare ICIs plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy, 10 RCTs about ICIs vs. chemotherapy, and 3 RCTs about double ICIs vs. single ICI.

Quality assessment

The quality assessment of the included studies is presented in Figure 3. In sum, all studies were randomized, with five presenting a high risk of bias in allocation concealment (selection bias). All studies showed low risks of blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), and selective reporting (reporting bias), with five studies demonstrating high risks of incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Overall, the risk of other bias was low. The potential publication bias was evaluated through visual inspection of a funnel plot (Supplementary material).

Figure 3

Risk of ICIs-related respiratory disorders

The incidence of ICIs-related respiratory disorders in different treatment regimens is presented in Table 2. In total, the incidence rates of pneumonitis (2.14%), dyspnea (1.62%), and pulmonary embolism (1.51%) were the three highest than other respiratory disorders. Especially in double ICI treatment regimens, the incidence rates of pneumonitis and dyspnea were 6.43% and 3.65%, respectively. Compared with chemotherapy treatment regimens, the incidence rates of pneumonitis, interstitial lung disease, and pleural effusion increased by more than two-fold in ICI treatment regimens (2.84% vs. 0.22%, 0.69% vs. 0.15%, 1.68% vs. 0.83%).

Risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The different treatment regimens on the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were presented for 18 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 1969] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1411]; ICIs [n = 3118] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2627]; double ICIs [n = 560] vs. single ICI [n = 560]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.67; SMD: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.64) or ICIs (P = 0.14; SMD: 1.52; 95% CI: 0.87, 2.64) did not significantly change the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 10%). Double ICIs (P = 0.34; SMD: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.15, 1.30) did not significantly change the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease when compared with single ICI with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%) (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Risk of dyspnea

The different treatment regimens on the risk of dyspnea were presented for 19 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 2235] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1542]; ICIs [n = 3301] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2633]; double ICIs [n = 684] vs. single ICI [n = 683]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.29; SMD: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.38, 1.34) or ICIs (P = 0.36; SMD: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.87) did not significantly change the incidence of dyspnea with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 0%). Double ICIs (P = 0.90; SMD: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.87) did not significantly change the incidence of dyspnea when compared with single ICI with moderate evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 41%) (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Risk of hemoptysis

The different treatment regimens on the risk of hemoptysis were presented for 20 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 2235] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1542]; ICIs [n = 3455] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2783]; double ICIs [n = 560] vs. single ICI [n = 560]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.88; SMD: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.53, 2.10) or ICIs (P = 0.99; SMD: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.55, 1.83) did not significantly change the incidence of hemoptysis with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 11%). Double ICIs (P = 1.00; SMD: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.14, 7.12) did not significantly change the incidence of hemoptysis compared with single ICI (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Risk of interstitial lung disease

The different treatment regimens on the risk of interstitial lung disease were presented for 15 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 1573] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1082]; ICIs [n = 2622] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2005]; double ICIs [n = 560] vs. single ICI [n = 560]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.82; SMD: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.37, 3.57) did not significantly change the incidence of interstitial lung disease with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%). ICIs (P = 0.03; SMD: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.08, 7.27) significantly increased the risk of suffering interstitial lung disease with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%). Double ICIs (P = 1.00; SMD: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.17, 5.79) did not significantly change the incidence of interstitial lung disease when compared with single ICI with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%) (Figure 7).

Figure 7

Risk of pleural effusion

The different treatment regimens on the risk of pleural effusion were presented for 20 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 2235] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2542]; ICIs [n = 3455] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2783]; double ICIs [n = 684] vs. single ICI [n = 683]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.31; SMD: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.72, 2.75) did not significantly change the incidence of pleural effusion with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%). ICIs (P = 0.002; SMD: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.32, 3.42) significantly increased the risk of suffering pleural effusion with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%). Double ICIs (P = 0.82; SMD: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.44, 2.84) did not significantly change the incidence of pleural effusion when compared with single ICI with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%) (Figure 8).

Figure 8

Risk of pneumonitis

The different treatment regimens on the risk of pneumonitis were presented for 22 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 2275] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1580]; ICIs [n = 3455] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2783]; double ICIs [n = 684] vs. single ICI [n = 683]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.01; SMD: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.17, 3.28) and ICIs (P < 0.00001; SMD: 9.23; 95% CI: 4.57, 18.64) significantly increased the risk of suffering pneumonitis with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 0%). Double ICIs (P = 0.004; SMD: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.27, 3.69) significantly increased the risk of suffering pneumonitis with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%) (Figure 9).

Figure 9

Risk of pneumothorax

The different treatment regimens on the risk of pneumothorax were presented for 19 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 2235] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1542]; ICIs [n = 3168] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2515]; double ICIs [n = 406] vs. single ICI [n = 404]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.28; SMD: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.24, 1.51) or ICIs (P = 0.90; SMD: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.43, 2.11) did not significantly change the incidence of pneumothorax with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 0%). Double ICIs (P = 0.99; SMD: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.17, 5.77) did not significantly change the incidence of pneumothorax when compared with single ICI with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%) (Figure 10).

Figure 10

Risk of pulmonary embolism

The different treatment regimens on the risk of pulmonary embolism were presented for 19 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 1969] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1411]; ICIs [n = 3455] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2783]; double ICIs [n = 560] vs. single ICI [n = 560]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.94; SMD: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.80) or ICIs (P = 0.06; SMD: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98, 2.25) did not significantly change the incidence of pulmonary embolism with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 0%). Double ICIs (P = 0.21; SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.46) did not significantly change the incidence of pulmonary embolism when compared with single ICI with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%) (Figure 11).

Figure 11

Risk of pulmonary hemorrhage

The different treatment regimens on the risk of pulmonary hemorrhage were presented for 15 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 1029] vs. chemotherapy [n = 671]; ICIs [n = 2776] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2155]; double ICIs [n = 684] vs. single ICI [n = 683]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.70; SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.09, 4.82) or ICIs (P = 0.52; SMD: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.34, 1.71) did not significantly change the incidence of pulmonary hemorrhage with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 0%). Double ICIs (P = 0.34; SMD: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.14, 1.97) did not significantly change the incidence of pulmonary hemorrhage when compared with single ICI with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%) (Figure 12).

Figure 12

Risk of respiratory failure

The different treatment regimens on the risk of respiratory failure were presented for 20 datasets (ICIs plus chemotherapy [n = 2235] vs. chemotherapy [n = 1559]; ICIs [n = 3455] vs. chemotherapy [n = 2783]; double ICIs [n = 684] vs. single ICI [n = 683]). Compared with chemotherapy, ICIs plus chemotherapy (P = 0.97; SMD: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.45, 2.14) or ICIs (P = 0.52; SMD: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.70, 2.02) did not significantly change the incidence of respiratory failure with low evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0% and 0%). Double ICIs (P = 0.80; SMD: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.40, 3.32) did not significantly change the incidence of respiratory failure when compared with single ICI with high evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 78%) (Figure 13).

Figure 13

Discussion

As the first FDA-approved ICI on anti-cancer, ipilimumab was used to treat advanced melanoma in 2011 (56). In the next decade, the use of ICIs in cancer treatment rapidly increased, including numerous breakthroughs, expanded treatment landscape for many malignancies, and improved outcomes, specifically NSCLC (57–59). Nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, brought a promising outcome when it was effectively used as a second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. In the next phase III trials on advanced squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, nivolumab achieved inspiring results of OS and objective response rate (ORR) (37, 39). In recent years, several phase III clinical trials demonstrated a superior improvement in OS and more durable responses with ICIs or ICIs plus chemotherapy than chemotherapy (27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 44, 60, 61). The clinical choice mainly depends on disease burden, PD-L1 expression, and tumor mutation profile of the tumor. In comparison, the growth of ICIs in SCLC could be more satisfactory. ICIs merely had an achievement that PD-L1 inhibitors plus platinum-based chemotherapy conducted as first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC (46, 62).

Based on the extremely rapid growth of ICIs, various irAEs were reported. In general, irAEs are usual due to nonspecific immunostimulation, leading to autoimmunity, tissue damage, and organ-specific inflammation (63). They can be divided into cytokine release syndrome and cardiac, pulmonary, dermatologic, endocrine, neurologic, ocular, renal, rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, and hepatic toxicities (64, 65). Dermatologic, endocrine, gastrointestinal, and hepatic toxicities are shared among ICI-treated patients (65, 66). Cardiac and pulmonary toxicities are rare but potentially fatal (20, 67–70). In particular, pulmonary toxicity is rapidly progressive (71). Most of the irAEs caused by pulmonary toxicity occur during 10–12 weeks after ICI therapy, and the early symptoms are mild and nonspecific, such as cough (72). However, some ICI-treated patients may suffer severe ICIs-related respiratory disorders (SAE grade ≥ 3), such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hemoptysis, interstitial lung disease, pleural effusion, pneumonitis, pulmonary embolism, and respiratory failure. Therefore, a broad range of diagnostic processes, including X-ray imaging, angiography, and laboratory analyses, are necessary for ICI-treated patients to distinguish pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, pneumonitis, pneumothorax, and cancer progression.

In recent years, some researchers analyzed certain ICIs-related respiratory disorders in digestic and urologic cancer (73, 74). However, a study on comprehensive ICIs-related respiratory disorders in lung cancer is still warranted. In this study, we extracted 22 RCTs and analyzed the risk of top 10 most frequent ICIs-related respiratory disorders in patients with lung cancer. Overall, the analysis revealed that ICIs raise the risk of interstitial lung disease, pleural effusion, and pneumonitis compared with chemotherapy. Furthermore, ICIs plus chemotherapy brought a higher incidence of pneumonitis than chemotherapy. single ICI could provide a lower probability for patients to suffer pneumonitis than double ICIs. Also, other ICIs-related respiratory disorders, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnea, hemoptysis, pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hemorrhage, and respiratory failure, were analyzed in this study. Still, no significant difference was observed among the different treatment regimens.

Previous studies have demonstrated that the incidence of ICIs-related interstitial lung disease ranges from 14.5% to 18.6% (75, 76). This study showed that ICIs were more likely to cause interstitial lung disease than chemotherapy. This is similar to other studies showing that ICIs cause interstitial lung disease more frequently than other drugs used to treat NSCLC, such as pemetrexed, erlotinib, gefitinib, docetaxel, gemcitabine, or crizotinib (77–83). However, the mechanisms regulating the occurrence of ICIs-related interstitial lung disease have not been fully elucidated so far. Elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines may be involved in the pathophysiology of irAEs (84, 85). The inflammatory cytokine interleukin 6 (IL-6) induces the differentiation of naive CD4 T cells into Th17 cells, which may be related to irAE occurrence (86). Th17 cells are critical mediators of various autoimmune diseases by producing IL-17 (87, 88). Likewise, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) has been associated with irAEs, and anti-TNF-α antibodies were found to improve severe irAEs (89). Patients with poorer performance score and cancer cachexia status have higher levels of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 and TNF-α, and may be more prone to irAE-related diseases, such as ICIs-related interstitial lung disease (90, 91). PD-L1 inhibitors should be less toxic than PD1 inhibitors as they do not prevent the interaction between PD-L2 and PD1 (92). Still, we could not confirm this difference in our study due to data limitations.

In this study, a total of 81 pleural effusion events occurred in the ICIs vs. chemotherapy group, among which 58 and 23 patients developed pleural effusion after applying ICIs and using chemotherapy, respectively; ICIs significantly increased the risk of pleural effusion compared with chemotherapy (P < 0.05). Pleural effusion has been reported as an irAE, but there are few studies on ICIs-related pleural effusion, most of which are case reports (93–95). Two patients were reported to develop recurrent pleural effusions that accumulated rapidly within days after each puncture and required multiple thoracentesis for the first 8 weeks after administration of nivolumab (95). In another study, a patient was not initially diagnosed with pleural dissemination or malignant pleural effusion. However, cytology and radiography or thoracoscopy did not find evidence of malignancy in the pleural effusion and malignant nodules, respectively. Hypoalbuminemia and cardiac insufficiency, which may cause pleural effusion, were also excluded. And the pleural effusion responded well after corticotherapy, suggesting that this may be an irAE (94). Pleural effusion is considered to be related to the pseudo-progression of the disease (95). However, so far, there is no detailed research to explain this. Moreover, the mechanism still needs to be elucidated, and further research is warranted.

In some RCTs, the incidence of ICIs-related pneumonitis was approximately 1.06% (95% CI: 0.53–2.11) for CTLA-4 inhibitors, 3.02% (95% CI: 2.31–3.93) for PD-1 inhibitors, and 7.09% (95% CI: 5.52–7.16) for PD-1 combined with CTLA-4 inhibitors (28, 30, 37, 39, 96–114). ICIs-related pneumonitis is hypothesized to be a chronic inflammatory state (114). Its symptoms are nonspecific and usually present with cough, dyspnea, shortness of breath, and hypoxia (115, 116). This study demonstrated that the risk of pneumonitis after treatment of PD-1 combined with CTLA-4 was higher than that of PD-1 alone, which is similar to the previous study (116) showing that the risks of pneumonitis (3.47-fold) and severe pneumonitis (3.48-fold) were higher with ipilimumab combined with nivolumab than nivolumab or ipilimumab alone. Therefore, the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 may cause a higher incidence of pneumonitis than either drug (110–112). CTLA-4 inhibitors attenuate T cell activation early in the immune response. PD-1 inhibitors can inhibit T cells later in peripheral tissue immune response. Therefore, we assumed that the combined application of PD-1 and CTLA-4 may be more prone to lung toxicity than either treatment alone; however, further studies are needed to reveal this molecular mechanism. In this study, we also found that ICIs with or without chemotherapy increased the risk of pneumonitis compared with chemotherapy alone. Interestingly, studies have demonstrated that patients with NSCLC treated with PD-L1 inhibitors have a higher incidence of pneumonitis than those with other cancer types. In a study that compared data from patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors, pneumonitis was more common in patients with lung cancer (26.4% vs. 10.3%) (117). Therefore, tumor damage to lung tissue may make the lungs more prone to side effects after treatment. With the increasing use of ICIs in more neoplastic diseases, the total burden of pneumonitis and mortality will undoubtedly increase.

This study has several limitations. First, NSCLC and SCLC were both investigated in the analysis. A retrospective study demonstrated that squamous cell cancer was a risk factor for ICIs-related pneumonitis (17). As a confounding factor, SCLC might increase heterogeneity to a certain degree. Second, there needed to be more datasets to build single-drug subgroups for certain drug analysis, such as avelumab and sintilimab. Third, the study did not involve LAG3, PD-L2, and other ICIs.

In conclusion, this study showed that ICI-based treatment, such as ICIs alone, ICIs plus chemotherapy, and double ICIs, can raise the incidences of some respiratory disorders in patients with lung cancer. It suggests that ICIs should be conducted based on a comprehensive consideration to prevent ICIs-related respiratory disorders. To a certain degree, this study might be provided to the clinician as a reference for ICI practice. Of course, more prospective and well-designed clinical trials, and larger sample size real-world studies on various ICIs are still needed to further evaluate therapeutic effects and ICIs-related adverse events.

References

• 1

  SiegelRLMillerKDFuchsHEJemalA. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin (2022) 72(1):7–33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21708

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  HowladerNForjazGMooradianMJMezaRKongCYCroninKAet al. The effect of advances in lung-cancer treatment on population mortality. N Engl J Med (2020) 383(7):640–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1916623

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AmarnathSMangusCWWangJCWeiFHeAKapoorVet al. The PDL1-PD1 axis converts human TH1 cells into regulatory T cells. Sci Transl Med (2011) 3(111):111ra20. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  FranciscoLMSalinasVHBrownKEVanguriVKFreemanGJKuchrooVKet al. PD-L1 regulates the development, maintenance, and function of induced regulatory T cells. J Exp Med (2009) 206(13):3015–29. doi: 10.1084/jem.20090847

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  KaenDLMinattaNRussoAMalapelleUde Miguel-PérezDRolfoC. Immunotherapy in lung cancer: Are the promises of long-term benefit finally met? Adv Exp Med Biol (2021) 1342:113–42. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-79308-1_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  TivolEABorrielloFSchweitzerANLynchWPBluestoneJASharpeAH. Loss of CTLA-4 leads to massive lymphoproliferation and fatal multiorgan tissue destruction, revealing a critical negative regulatory role of CTLA-4. Immunity (1995) 3(5):541–7. doi: 10.1016/1074-7613(95)90125-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ChambersCASullivanTJAllisonJP. Lymphoproliferation in CTLA-4-deficient mice is mediated by costimulation-dependent activation of CD4+ T cells. Immunity (1997) 7(6):885–95. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80406-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  WaterhousePPenningerJMTimmsEWakehamAShahinianALeeKPet al. Lymphoproliferative disorders with early lethality in mice deficient in ctla-4. Science (1995) 270(5238):985–8. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5238.985

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  WalkerLSSansomDM. The emerging role of CTLA4 as a cell-extrinsic regulator of T cell responses. Nat Rev Immunol (2011) 11(12):852–63. doi: 10.1038/nri3108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  KisielowMKisielowJCapoferri-SollamiGKarjalainenK. Expression of lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3) on b cells is induced by T cells. Eur J Immunol (2005) 35(7):2081–8. doi: 10.1002/eji.200526090

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  WangYHouKJinYBaoBTangSQiJet al. Lung adenocarcinoma-specific three-integrin signature contributes to poor outcomes by metastasis and immune escape pathways. J Transl Int Med (2021) 31;9(4):249–63. doi: 10.2478/jtim-2021-0046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Giroux LeprieurEDumenilCJulieCGiraudVDumoulinJLabruneSet al. Immunotherapy revolutionises non-small-cell lung cancer therapy: Results, perspectives and new challenges. Eur J Cancer (2017) 78:16–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.12.041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  NaidooJPageDBLiBTConnellLCSchindlerKLacoutureMEet al. Toxicities of the anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint antibodies. Ann Oncol (2015) 26(12):2375–91. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv383

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  ChampiatSLambotteOBarreauEBelkhirRBerdelouACarbonnelFet al. Management of immune checkpoint blockade dysimmune toxicities: a collaborative position paper. Ann Oncol (2016) 27(4):559–74. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv623

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BishayKTandonPBourassa-BlanchetteSLaurieSAMcCurdyJD. The risk of diarrhea and colitis in patients with lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Oncol (2020) 27(5):e486–e94. doi: 10.3747/co.27.6251

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  HuoGLiuWChenP. Inhibitors of PD-1 in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of clinical and molecular features. Front Immunol (2022) 13:875093. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.875093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  ZhouPZhaoXWangG. Risk factors for immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis in cancer patients: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Respiration (2022) 101(11):1035–50. doi: 10.1159/000526141

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  KouLWenQXieXChenXLiJLiY. Adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with digestive system cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol (2022) 13:1013186. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1013186

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  LiuSGaoWNingYZouXZhangWZengLet al. Cardiovascular toxicity with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol (2022) 13:908173. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.908173

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  WangDYSalemJECohenJVChandraSMenzerCYeFet al. Fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol (2018) 4(12):1721–8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3923

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPMBoutronIHoffmannTCMulrowCDet al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev (2021) 10(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg (2010) 8(5):336–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  HigginsJPAltmanDGGøtzschePCJüniPMoherDOxmanADet al. The cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj (2011) 343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  IrwigLMacaskillPBerryGGlasziouP. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Graphical test is itself biased Bmj (1998) 316(7129):470.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  DerSimonianRLairdN. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials (1986) 7(3):177–88. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (2003) 327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  GandhiLRodríguez-AbreuDGadgeelSEstebanEFelipEDe AngelisFet al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2018) 378(22):2078–92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HerbstRSBaasPKimDWFelipEPérez-GraciaJLHanJYet al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2016) 387(10027):1540–50. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01281-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Paz-AresLLuftAVicenteDTafreshiAGümüşMMazièresJet al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2018) 379(21):2040–51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1810865

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  ReckMRodríguez-AbreuDRobinsonAGHuiRCsősziTFülöpAet al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-Positive non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2016) 375(19):1823–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606774

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  FelipEAltorkiNZhouCCsősziTVynnychenkoIGoloborodkoOet 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. Lancet (2021) 398(10308):1344–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02098-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HellmannMDPaz-AresLBernabe CaroRZurawskiBKimSWCarcereny CostaEet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2019) 381(21):2020–31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  SezerAKilickapSGümüşMBondarenkoIÖzgüroğluMGogishviliMet 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 (2021) 397(10274):592–604. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00228-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  ArrietaOBarrónFRamírez-TiradoLAZatarain-BarrónZLCardonaAFDíaz-GarcíaDet al. Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel vs docetaxel alone in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: The PROLUNG phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol (2020) 6(6):856–64. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0409

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  AwadMMGadgeelSMBorghaeiHPatnaikAYangJCPowellSFet 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. J Thorac Oncol (2021) 16(1):162–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.09.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  BarlesiFVansteenkisteJSpigelDIshiiHGarassinoMde MarinisFet al. Avelumab versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (JAVELIN lung 200): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol (2018) 19(11):1468–79. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30673-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  BorghaeiHPaz-AresLHornLSpigelDRSteinsMReadyNEet al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(17):1627–39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507643

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  BoyerMŞendurMANRodríguez-AbreuDParkKLeeDHÇiçinIet al. Pembrolizumab plus ipilimumab or placebo for metastatic non-Small-Cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 50%: Randomized, double-blind phase III KEYNOTE-598 study. J Clin Oncol (2021) 39(21):2327–38. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  BrahmerJReckampKLBaasPCrinòLEberhardtWEPoddubskayaEet al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(2):123–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504627

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  CarboneDPReckMPaz-AresLCreelanBHornLSteinsMet al. First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2017) 376(25):2415–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613493

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  GadgeelSRodríguez-AbreuDSperanzaGEstebanEFelipEDómineMet al. Updated analysis from KEYNOTE-189: Pembrolizumab or placebo plus pemetrexed and platinum for previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-Small-Cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol (2020) 38(14):1505–17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  GettingerSNRedmanMWBazhenovaLHirschFRMackPCSchwartzLHet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab for previously treated patients with stage IV squamous cell lung cancer: The lung-MAP S1400I phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol (2021) 7(9):1368–77. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  GoldmanJWDvorkinMChenYReinmuthNHottaKTrukhinDet al. 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. Lancet Oncol (2021) 22(1):51–65. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30539-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  HerbstRSGiacconeGde MarinisFReinmuthNVergnenegreABarriosCHet al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of PD-L1-Selected patients with NSCLC. N Engl J Med (2020) 383(14):1328–39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1917346

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  HerbstRSGaronEBKimDWChoBCPerez-GraciaJLHanJYet al. Long-term outcomes and retreatment among patients with previously treated, programmed death-ligand 1−Positive, advanced Non−Small-cell lung cancer in the KEYNOTE-010 study. J Clin Oncol (2020) 38(14):1580–90. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02446

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  HornLMansfieldASSzczęsnaAHavelLKrzakowskiMHochmairMJet al. First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2018) 379(23):2220–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MokTSKWuYLKudabaIKowalskiDMChoBCTurnaHZet al. 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 (2019) 393(10183):1819–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32409-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  NishioMBarlesiFWestHBallSBordoniRCoboMet al. Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC: Results from the randomized phase 3 IMpower132 trial. J Thorac Oncol (2021) 16(4):653–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.11.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  OwonikokoTKParkKGovindanRReadyNReckMPetersSet al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab as maintenance therapy in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 451. J Clin Oncol (2021) 39(12):1349–59. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02212

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Paz-AresLVicenteDTafreshiARobinsonASoto ParraHMazièresJet al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC: Protocol-specified final analysis of KEYNOTE-407. J Thorac Oncol (2020) 15(10):1657–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.06.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ReckMRodríguez-AbreuDRobinsonAGHuiRCsősziTFülöpAet al. Updated analysis of KEYNOTE-024: Pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-Small-Cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. J Clin Oncol (2019) 37(7):537–46. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00149

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  SpigelDRVicenteDCiuleanuTEGettingerSPetersSHornLet al. Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331(☆). Ann Oncol (2021) 32(5):631–41. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.01.071

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  WestHMcCleodMHusseinMMorabitoARittmeyerAConterHJet 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. Lancet Oncol (2019) 20(7):924–37. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30167-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  WuYLLuSChengYZhouCWangJMokTet al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in a predominantly Chinese patient population with previously treated advanced NSCLC: CheckMate 078 randomized phase III clinical trial. J Thorac Oncol (2019) 14(5):867–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.01.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  YangYWangZFangJYuQHanBCangSet al. Efficacy and safety of sintilimab plus pemetrexed and platinum as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (Oncology pRogram by InnovENT anti-PD-1-11). J Thorac Oncol (2020) 15(10):1636–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.07.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  HodiFSO'DaySJMcDermottDFWeberRWSosmanJAHaanenJBet al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med (2010) 363(8):711–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1003466

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SharmaPAllisonJP. The future of immune checkpoint therapy. Science (2015) 348(6230):56–61. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa8172

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  SunJYLuXJ. Cancer immunotherapy: Current applications and challenges. Cancer Lett (2020) 480:1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.03.024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  PardollDM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer (2012) 12(4):252–64. doi: 10.1038/nrc3239

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  SocinskiMAJotteRMCappuzzoFOrlandiFStroyakovskiyDNogamiNet al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. N Engl J Med (2018) 378(24):2288–301. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716948

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Paz-AresLCiuleanuTECoboMSchenkerMZurawskiBMenezesJet 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. Lancet Oncol (2021) 22(2):198–211. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30641-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Paz-AresLDvorkinMChenYReinmuthNHottaKTrukhinDet al. 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 (2019) 394(10212):1929–39. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32222-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  KroschinskyFStölzelFvon BoninSBeutelGKochanekMKiehlMet al. New drugs, new toxicities: Severe side effects of modern targeted and immunotherapy of cancer and their management. Crit Care (2017) 21(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1678-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  HaanenJCarbonnelFRobertCKerrKMPetersSLarkinJet al. Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol (2017) 28(suppl_4):iv119–iv42. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ChhabraNKennedyJ. A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity: Immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Med Toxicol (2021) 17(4):411–24. doi: 10.1007/s13181-021-00833-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  MacdonaldJBMacdonaldBGolitzLELoRussoPSekulicA. Cutaneous adverse effects of targeted therapies: Part II: Inhibitors of intracellular molecular signaling pathways. J Am Acad Dermatol (2015) 72(2):221–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.07.033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  YangSAsnaniA. Cardiotoxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Curr Probl Cancer (2018) 42(4):422–32. doi: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2018.07.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  GanatraSParikhRNeilanTG. Cardiotoxicity of immune therapy. Cardiol Clin (2019) 37(4):385–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ccl.2019.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LalJCBrownSACollierPChengF. A retrospective analysis of cardiovascular adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Cardiooncology (2021) 7(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s40959-021-00106-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  PuzanovIDiabAAbdallahKBinghamCOBrogdonCDaduRet al. Managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: consensus recommendations from the society for immunotherapy of cancer (SITC) toxicity management working group. J Immunother Cancer (2017) 5(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s40425-017-0300-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  HryniewickiATWangCShatskyRACoyneCJ. Management of immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: A review and clinical guideline for emergency physicians. J Emerg Med (2018) 55(4):489–502. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2018.07.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  FessasPPossamaiLAClarkJDanielsEGuddCMullishBHet al. Immunotoxicity from checkpoint inhibitor therapy: clinical features and underlying mechanisms. Immunology (2020) 159(2):167–77. doi: 10.1111/imm.13141

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  YuanHDuanDDZhangYJ. Comprehensive analysis of treatment-related adverse events of immunotherapy in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol (2022) 46(10):102031. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2022.102031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  WuZChenQQuLLiMWangLMirMCet al. Adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy for urologic cancer patients in clinical trials: A collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol (2022) 81(4):414–25. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  OkadaNMatsuokaRSakuradaTGodaMChumaMYagiKet al. Risk factors of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related interstitial lung disease in patients with lung cancer: a single-institution retrospective study. Sci Rep (2020) 10(1):13773. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70743-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  SuzukiYKarayamaMUtoTFujiiMMatsuiTAsadaKet al. Assessment of immune-related interstitial lung disease in patients with NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A multicenter prospective study. J Thorac Oncol (2020) 15(8):1317–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.04.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  LiuVWhiteDAZakowskiMFTravisWKrisMGGinsbergMSet al. Pulmonary toxicity associated with erlotinib. Chest (2007) 132(3):1042–4. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-0050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  KonishiJYamazakiKKinoshitaIIsobeHOguraSSekineSet al. Analysis of the response and toxicity to gefitinib of non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res (2005) 25(1B):435–41.

  • Google Scholar

• 79

  GrandeCVillanuevaMJHuidobroGCasalJ. Docetaxel-induced interstitial pneumonitis following non-small-cell lung cancer treatment. Clin Transl Oncol (2007) 9(9):578–81. doi: 10.1007/s12094-007-0106-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  RoychowdhuryDFCassidyCAPetersonPArningM. A report on serious pulmonary toxicity associated with gemcitabine-based therapy. Invest New Drugs (2002) 20(3):311–5. doi: 10.1023/A:1016214032272

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  HochstrasserABenzGJoergerMTempletonABrutscheMFrühM. Interstitial pneumonitis after treatment with pemetrexed: A rare event? Chemotherapy (2012) 58(1):84–8. doi: 10.1159/000336131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  LoriotYFerteCGomez-RocaCMoldovanCBahledaRWislezMet al. Pemetrexed-induced pneumonitis: A case report. Clin Lung Cancer (2009) 10(5):364–6. doi: 10.3816/CLC.2009.n.050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  CréquitPWislezMFeithJFRozensztajnNJabotLFriardSet al. Crizotinib associated with ground-glass opacity predominant pattern interstitial lung disease: A retrospective observational cohort study with a systematic literature review. J Thorac Oncol (2015) 10(8):1148–55. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000577

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  YoshinoKNakayamaTItoASatoEKitanoS. Severe colitis after PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in advanced melanoma patients: Potential role of Th1-dominant immune response in immune-related adverse events: two case reports. BMC Cancer (2019) 19(1):1019. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6138-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  LimSYLeeJHGideTNMenziesAMGuminskiACarlinoMSet al. Circulating cytokines predict immune-related toxicity in melanoma patients receiving anti-PD-1-Based immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res (2019) 25(5):1557–63. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2795

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  TanakaROkiyamaNOkuneMIshitsukaYWatanabeRFurutaJet al. Serum level of interleukin-6 is increased in nivolumab-associated psoriasiform dermatitis and tumor necrosis factor-α is a biomarker of nivolumab recativity. J Dermatol Sci (2017) 86(1):71–3. doi: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2016.12.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  AbrahamCChoJ. Interleukin-23/Th17 pathways and inflammatory bowel disease. Inflammation Bowel Dis (2009) 15(7):1090–100. doi: 10.1002/ibd.20894

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  TarhiniAAZahoorHLinYMalhotraUSanderCButterfieldLHet al. Baseline circulating IL-17 predicts toxicity while TGF-β1 and IL-10 are prognostic of relapse in ipilimumab neoadjuvant therapy of melanoma. J Immunother Cancer (2015) 3:39. doi: 10.1186/s40425-015-0081-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  FriedmanCFProverbs-SinghTAPostowMA. Treatment of the immune-related adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A review. JAMA Oncol (2016) 2(10):1346–53. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.1051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Grim-StiegerMKeilaniMMaderRMMarosiCSchmidingerMZielinskiCCet al. Serum levels of tumour necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 and their correlation with body mass index, weight loss, appetite and survival rate–preliminary data of Viennese outpatients with metastatic cancer during palliative chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) (2008) 17(5):454–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00874.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  PennaFMineroVGCostamagnaDBonelliGBaccinoFMCostelliP. Anti-cytokine strategies for the treatment of cancer-related anorexia and cachexia. Expert Opin Biol Ther (2010) 10(8):1241–50. doi: 10.1517/14712598.2010.503773

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  DelaunayMCadranelJLusqueAMeyerNGounantVMoro-SibilotDet al. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors associated interstitial Lung Dis Cancer patients. Eur Respir J (2017) 50(2):1700050. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00050-2017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  ShenCIYehYCChiuCH. Progressive pleural effusion as an immune-related adverse event in NSCLC: A case report. JTO Clin Res Rep (2021) 2(5):100156. doi: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100156

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  SawadaRMatsuiYUchinoJOkuraNMorimotoYIwasakuMet al. Late-onset pleural and pericardial effusion as immune-related adverse events after 94 cycles of nivolumab. Intern Med (2021) 60(22):3585–8. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.7219-21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  KollaBCPatelMR. Recurrent pleural effusions and cardiac tamponade as possible manifestations of pseudoprogression associated with nivolumab therapy- a report of two cases. J Immunother Cancer (2016) 4:80. doi: 10.1186/s40425-016-0185-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  RittmeyerABarlesiFWaterkampDParkKCiardielloFvon PawelJet al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2017) 389(10066):255–65. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32517-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  FehrenbacherLSpiraABallingerMKowanetzMVansteenkisteJMazieresJet al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2016) 387(10030):1837–46. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00587-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  AntoniaSJVillegasADanielDVicenteDMurakamiSHuiRet al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-Small-Cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2017) 377(20):1919–29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709937

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  FerrisRLBlumenscheinGJr.FayetteJGuigayJColevasADLicitraLet al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med (2016) 375(19):1856–67. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602252

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  WeberJSD'AngeloSPMinorDHodiFSGutzmerRNeynsBet al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol (2015) 16(4):375–84. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70076-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  RobertCLongGVBradyBDutriauxCMaioMMortierLet al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med (2015) 372(4):320–30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1412082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  BellmuntJde WitRVaughnDJFradetYLeeJLFongLet al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med (2017) 376(11):1015–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613683

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  RibasAPuzanovIDummerRSchadendorfDHamidORobertCet al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): A randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol (2015) 16(8):908–18. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00083-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  MaioMScherpereelACalabròLAertsJPerezSCBearzAet al. Tremelimumab as second-line or third-line treatment in relapsed malignant mesothelioma (DETERMINE): A multicentre, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet Oncol (2017) 18(9):1261–73. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30446-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  EggermontAMChiarion-SileniVGrobJJDummerRWolchokJDSchmidtHet al. Adjuvant ipilimumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma (EORTC 18071): A randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol (2015) 16(5):522–30. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70122-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KwonEDDrakeCGScherHIFizaziKBossiAvan den EertweghAJet al. Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol (2014) 15(7):700–12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70189-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  GovindanRSzczesnaAAhnMJSchneiderCPGonzalez MellaPFBarlesiFet al. Phase III trial of ipilimumab combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced squamous non-Small-Cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol (2017) 35(30):3449–57. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7629

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  RobertCThomasLBondarenkoIO'DaySWeberJGarbeCet al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med (2011) 364(26):2517–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1104621

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  LangerCJGadgeelSMBorghaeiHPapadimitrakopoulouVAPatnaikAPowellSFet 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. Lancet Oncol (2016) 17(11):1497–508. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30498-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  WolchokJDChiarion-SileniVGonzalezRRutkowskiPGrobJJCoweyCLet al. Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med (2017) 377(14):1345–56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709684

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  AntoniaSJLópez-MartinJABendellJOttPATaylorMEderJPet al. Nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in recurrent small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 032): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol (2016) 17(7):883–95. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30098-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  HodiFSChesneyJPavlickACRobertCGrossmannKFMcDermottDFet 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. Lancet Oncol (2016) 17(11):1558–68. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30366-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  RobertCSchachterJLongGVAranceAGrobJJMortierLet al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med (2015) 372(26):2521–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503093

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  ChowLQ. Exploring novel immune-related toxicities and endpoints with immune-checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book (2013) 33:e280. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e280

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  NishinoMGiobbie-HurderAHatabuHRamaiyaNHHodiFS. Incidence of programmed cell death 1 inhibitor-related pneumonitis in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol (2016) 2(12):1607–16. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2453

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  SuQZhuECWuJBLiTHouYLWangDYet al. Risk of pneumonitis and pneumonia associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors for solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol (2019) 10:108. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  CuppJCulakovaEPoniewierskiMSDaleDCLymanGHCrawfordJ. Analysis of factors associated with in-hospital mortality in lung cancer chemotherapy patients with neutropenia. Clin Lung Cancer (2018) 19(2):e163–e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.10.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar