| Literature DB >> 33787569 |
Xin Yuan1, An Zhi Zhang1, Yi Lin Ren1, Xue Li Wang1, Chen Hao Jiang1, Lan Yang1, Chun Xia Liu1,2, Wei Hua Liang1, Li Juan Pang1, Wen Yi Gu3, Feng Li1,2, Jian Ming Hu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis was designed to systematically evaluate whether autologous cytokine-induced killer cells (CIK) or dendritic cells and cytokine-induced killer cells (DC-CIK) immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy can improve the therapeutic effect and safety of chemotherapy in esophageal cancer (EC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33787569 PMCID: PMC8021386 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024519
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Figure 1Articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Study (y) | Tumor stage | Patients, exp/cont groups | Age (mean ± SD or median) (treatment/con) | Sex (male/female) | Exp regimens | Immunotherapy method | |
| Chang et al 2013 | III–IV | 33/33 | 66 (median) | 66 (median) | 43/23 | CT, CIK | 1 × 109 CIK cells |
| Hu et al 2012 | III–IV | 37/25 | ND | ND | 34/28 | CM, CT, CIK | >1 × 109 CIK cell |
| Liu et al 2011 | III–IV | 20/20 | 62 (median) | 62 (median) | 23/17 | CT, CIK | 0.6–1.6 × 1010 CIK cells |
| Qu et al 2015 | IV | 100/100 | 56.3 ± 7.5 (mean) | 56.3 ± 7.5 (mean) | ND | CT, CIK | ND |
| Shu et al 2015 | II–III | 30/30 | 57 (median) | 59 (median) | 39/21 | RT, CT, CIK | 5 × 1010 CIK cells |
| Wang et al 2014 | I–IV | 62/62 | ND | ND | 92/32 | CT, DC-CIK | 2 × 1010 DC-CIK cells |
| Wen et al 2015 | I–II | 41/35 | 59 (median) | 59 (median) | 43/33 | RT, CT, DC-CIK | ND |
| Xi et al 2015 | II–IIIB | 26/26 | 60 (median) | 62 (median) | 30/22 | Surgery, CT, DC-CIK | 3–4 × 109 DC-CIK cells |
| Xu et al 2018 | IV | 28/28 | 58 (median) | 56 (median) | 36/20 | CT, DC-CIK | ND |
| Xu et al 2010 | III–IV | 21/25 | 45 (median) | 42 (median) | 27/19 | CT, CIK | >5 × 109 CIK cells |
| Yan et al 2015 | I–IV | 34/34 | 70.5 ± 2.9 (mean) | 71.6 ± 2.2 (mean) | 45/23 | RT, DC-CIK | 5 × 109 CIK cells 5 × 107 DC cells |
| Yang et al 2016 | ND | 35/35 | 64.9 ± 1 (mean) | 65.3 ± 1.3 (mean) | 35/35 | CT, DC-CIK | 1.5 × 1010 DC-CIK cells |
| Yang et al 2015 | ND | 100/100 | 70.2 ± 7.3 (mean) | 72.3 ± 6.9 (mean) | 147/53 | CT, DC-CIK | ND |
| Zhang et al 2017 | II–IIIB | 30/30 | 64 ± 5.7 (mean) | 64.2 ± 5.9 (mean) | 35/25 | Surgery, CT, DC-CIK | 3–4 × 109 DC-CIK cells |
| Zhang et al 2016 | IV | 32/28 | 56.9 ± 8.9 (mean) | 56 ± 10.4 (mean) | 37/23 | CT, DC-CIK | >6 × 109 DC-CIK cells |
| Zhao et al 2015 | IIIB–IV | 50/50 | 55.9 ± 6.3 (mean) | 56.5 ± 5.5 (mean) | 62/38 | CT, DC-CIK | ND |
| Zhu et al 2014 | ND | 38/38 | 59.6 ± 1.3 (mean) | 59.8 ± 1.4 (mean) | 43/33 | CT, CIK | ND |
The table summarizes patients’ basic information regarding the tumor stage, treatment, regimens, cases, age and cell doses of the immunotherapy.
CIK = cytokine-induced killer cell, CM = Chinese medicine (Huisheng oral liquid), Cont = control group, CT = chemotherapy, DC = dendritic cell, Exp = experimental group, ND = not determined, RT = radiotherapy.
Figure 2A. Risk of bias summary: a review of authors’ judgments for each risk of bias item for included studies. B. Risk of bias graph: a review of authors’ judgments for each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 3Forest plot of immunophenotype assessment before and after treatment with CIK/DC-CIK. The random-effects meta-analysis model was used. CI = confidence interval, CIK/DC-CIK = immunotherapy with cytokine-induced killer cells or a combination of dendritic cells and cytokine-induced killer cells.
Figure 4Forest plots of the comparisons of (A) overall survival (OS) and (B) overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (Mantel–Haenszel method) was used. CI = confidence interval, CIK/DC-CIK = immunotherapy with cytokine-induced killer cells or combination of dendritic cells and cytokine-induced killer cells; cont = conventional therapy, M–H = Mantel–Haenszel method.
Figure 5Forest plots of the comparisons of quality-of-life improved rate (QIR). The fixed-effects meta-analysis model (Mantel–Haenszel method) was used.
Figure 6Forest plots of the comparisons of immunoglobulin levels in serum.
Figure 7Forest plots of the comparisons of cytokine levels.
Figure 8Forest plots of the comparisons of tumor marker levels in serum.
Side effects of CIK/DC-CIK treatment and myelosuppression.
| Gastrointestinal adverse reaction | Myelosuppression | |||||||
| Study and year | Fever | Chills | Rash | Headache | Chemo/CIT | Control | Chemo/CIT | Control |
| Chang et al 2013 | – | – | – | – | 48.5% | 54.5% | 24.2% | 39.4% |
| Shu et al 2015 | 74.6% | – | – | Mild | – | – | – | – |
| Wen et al 2015 | – | – | – | – | 82.9% | 80% | 78% | 80% |
| Xi et al 2015 | 11.5% | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Yan et al 2015 | 8.8% | Mild | – | – | 55.9% | 73.5% | 11.8% | 44.1% |
| Zhao et al 2015 | 64% | 20% | 10% | – | 62% | 88% | 52% | 74% |
| Zhang et al 2016 | 65.6% | 3.1% | – | – | Mild | Mild | 1–2 degree | 1–2 degree |
CIK = cytokine-induced killer cell, CIT = chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia, DC/CIK = dendritic cell–cytokine-induced killer cell.
Figure 9Forest plots of the comparisons of side effects.
Figure 10Analysis of publication bias.