Impact of programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor therapy on the survival of patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cancers: a meta-analysis.

Introduction: No prior meta-analysis has investigated the impact of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor therapy on survival outcomes in patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cancers (including both corpus and cervical cancers). Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted, covering the past 10 years (up to August 2023) and encompassing all clinical research related to uterine cancer. Five randomized controlled trials and one cohort study met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, and survival outcomes were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as the relative risk of grade 3 or higher adverse events, were pooled using random-effects models. Results: Patients receiving PD-1 inhibitors had better OS (HR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.59-0.72; P<.001) and PFS (HR, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.49-0.70; P<.001) than those receiving variable non-PD-1 inhibitor therapies among 3452 uterine cancer patients. The leave-one-out meta-analysis of the HR of OS showed no individual study impact on the estimation of the overall effect size. Subgroup analysis revealed better OS in the PD-1 inhibitors use than the controls in cervical cancer (HR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.59-0.79), endometrial cancer (HR, 0.62, 95% CI, 0.54-0.72), and pembrolizumab use (HR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) subgroups. Patients with advanced cervical cancer, who had CPS > 1, receiving PD-1 inhibitors have statistically significant benefits in OS compared to controls (HR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.53-0.80). The pooled HR for overall survival was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60-0.82; P<.001) in patients who received PD-1 inhibitors as compared to those who did not receive PD-1 inhibitors in proficient mismatch repair (MMR) endometrial cancer patients. However, in deficient MMR patients, the HR was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.13-0.70). The relative risk of grade 3 or higher adverse events was not higher in the PD-1 inhibitor group (relative risk, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.98-1.27). Conclusion: Survival was significantly better using PD-1 inhibitor therapy than variable non-PD-1 inhibitor chemotherapies among patients with advanced or recurrent uterine cancers.

Dual trigger improves the pregnancy rate in fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles compared with the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PROPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the implementation of a "dual trigger" approach, utilizing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in the GnRH antagonist protocol for in vitro fertilization (IVF), leads to improved pregnancy outcomes compared to the conventional hCG trigger alone. Previous meta-analyses have not provided sufficient evidence to support the superiority of the dual trigger over the hCG trigger in fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials were conducted to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the dual trigger on pregnancy outcomes in fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted. We searched the Medline and Embase databases for articles up to 2023 by using search terms: "dual trigger," "GnRHa," "hCG," "IVF." Eligible RCTs comparing the dual trigger with the hCG trigger were included. The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR) per cycle. The secondary outcomes were the number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes retrieved, implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, CPR, miscarriage rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate per started cycle We compared the oocyte maturation and pregnancy outcomes in the dual trigger and hCG trigger groups. In patients undergoing fresh embryo transfer (ET) and frozen-thawed ET, we also conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate whether dual trigger improves the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). RESULTS: We included 10 randomised studies, with 825 participants in the dual trigger group and 813 in the hCG trigger group. Compared with the hCG trigger, dual trigger was associated with a significant increase in the LBR per cycle (odds ratio (OR) = 1.61[1.16, 2.25]), number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference [MD] = 1.05 [0.43, 1.68]), number of mature oocytes retrieved (MD = 0.82 [0. 84, 1.16]), and CPR (OR = 1.48 [1.08, 2.01]). Subgroup analyses revealed that dual trigger was associated with a significantly increased CPR in patients who received fresh ET (OR = 1.68 [1.14, 2.48]). By contrast, the dual trigger was not associated with an increased CPR in the patient group with frozen-thawed ET (OR = 1.15 [0.64, 2.08]). CONCLUSION: The dual trigger was associated with a significantly higher number of retrieved oocytes, number of mature oocytes, CPR, and LBR in IVF than the hCG trigger. The beneficial effect for fresh ET cycles compared with frozen-thawed ET might be associated with increased endometrial receptivity. RELEVANCE: After dual trigger, delaying ET due to the concern of endometrial receptivity might not be needed.