본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

메타분석 1/5 보강
Clinical genitourinary cancer 2026 Vol.24(2) p. 102491
Retraction 확인
출처

PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)

유사 논문
P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
488 patients) were included in the analysis.
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
ICB, particularly when combined with chemotherapy, shows signals of clinical activity in LA/mPC. However, due to high inter-study variability and the single-arm nature of the analysis, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require prospective, randomized, biomarker-driven validation.

Noronha MM, de Almeida LFC, Passos PRC, da Silva LFL, Cappellaro AP, Filho VOC, Santana LG, Park CL, Saldanha EF

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

Locally advanced or metastatic penile cancer (LA/mPC) is an aggressive and rare malignancy with limited treatment options.

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • p-value P < .01
  • 연구 설계 systematic review

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Noronha MM, de Almeida LFC, et al. (2026). Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Clinical genitourinary cancer, 24(2), 102491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2025.102491
MLA Noronha MM, et al.. "Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.." Clinical genitourinary cancer, vol. 24, no. 2, 2026, pp. 102491.
PMID 41571538

Abstract

Locally advanced or metastatic penile cancer (LA/mPC) is an aggressive and rare malignancy with limited treatment options. While promising, the role of Immune Checkpoint Blockade (ICB) in LA/mPC remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICB in patients with LA/mPC. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane (up to June 2025). The analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (CRD420251070583). Proportional outcomes were pooled using a random-effects proportional meta-analysis, and hazard ratios (HR) were pooled using a random-effects model. We used the available Kaplan-Meier curves to recreate time-to-event data from the studies considered. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using the I metric and Cochran's Q test. A total of 12 cohorts (488 patients) were included in the analysis. The pooled Objective Response Rate in patients treated with ICB was 34.13% (95% CI, 20.62%-56.48%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated marked variability by treatment strategy, with an ORR of 60.7% for ICB plus chemotherapy versus 16.7% for ICB monotherapy (P < .01). At 12 months, pooled Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) rates were 62.64% (95% CI, 55.55%-70.63%) and 80.21% (95% CI, 74.11%-86.83%), respectively. The median PFS and OS were 5.7 months and 13.6 months, respectively. The pooled incidence of Immune-related Adverse Events was 40.36% (95% CI, 26.82%-60.74%) for any grade and 13.79% (95% CI, 7.67%-24.80%) for grade ≥ 3 events. ICB, particularly when combined with chemotherapy, shows signals of clinical activity in LA/mPC. However, due to high inter-study variability and the single-arm nature of the analysis, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require prospective, randomized, biomarker-driven validation.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Penile Neoplasms; Male; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome

같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (3)