Skip to main content
Download PDF

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardio-Oncology volume 10, Article number: 37 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of lung cancer may precipitate cardiotoxic events. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the cardiotoxicity associated with ICIs in patients with lung cancer.

Methods

A literature search was conducted across four electronic databases (Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and Google Scholar) from inception through 31st May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of ICIs on cardiac outcomes in lung cancer patients were considered for inclusion. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled and analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was followed to assess confidence in the estimates of effect (i.e., the quality of evidence).

Results

A total of 30 studies including 16,331 patients, were included in the analysis. Pooled results showed that single ICI (RR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.13–4.12; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%) or a combination of single ICI plus chemotherapy (RR: 1.38 [1.05–1.82]; p = 0.02) significantly increased the risk of cardiac adverse events when compared with chemotherapy alone. No significant difference was noted when a dual ICI (RR: 0.48 [0.13–1.80]; p = 0.27) was compared with single ICI. In addition, there was no significant association between the use of ICIs and incidence of cardiac failure (RR: 1.11 [0.48–2.58]; p = 0.80), or arrhythmia (RR: 1.87; [0.69–5.08]; p = 0.22).

Conclusion

Compared with chemotherapy alone, use of a single ICI or a combination of single ICI plus chemotherapy significantly increased the risk of cardiotoxicity. However, employing dual immunotherapy did not result in a significant increase in the risk of cardiotoxicity when compared to the use of a single ICI.

Background

Lung cancer is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity, claiming around 127,000 lives (21% of all cancer fatalities) in the United States annually [1]. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly being used for the treatment of lung cancer and have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, including overall survival and progression-free survival [2]. Guidelines have been established to direct the appropriate use of ICIs for the treatment of lung cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines advocate the use of ICIs as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [3]. The United States Food and Drug Administration has also approved several ICIs including tremelimumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, avelumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and durvalumab [4]. While the benefits reaped with ICIs play a pivotal role in the treatment of lung cancer, recent studies have shown that ICIs may precipitate serious cardiotoxic events, such as myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, myocardial infarction (MI), and non-inflammatory left ventricular dysfunction [5,6,7,8,9,10]. Concern over poor cardiac outcomes is heightened by the extensive use of ICIs in lung cancer therapy [5]. NCCN recommendations have also recognized the potential cardiotoxicity associated with ICIs and advised vigilant monitoring and management of cardiovascular adverse events [3]. Although some meta-analyses have been conducted, current evidence regarding the cardiotoxicity of ICIs in patients with lung cancer remains largely inconclusive due to the inclusion of patients with different types of cancers and evaluation of limited types of ICIs in prior studies. Given the conflicting findings in recently published studies and the paucity of data related to cardiotoxicity assessment in patients with lung cancer, we decided to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the cardiotoxic effects of ICIs in patients with lung cancer (small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and NSCLC), when used in isolation, in conjunction with other ICIs or in conjunction with standard chemotherapy.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis has been reported in concordance with guidelines provided by preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) [11]. Approval from the institutional review board was not required since the data was publicly available.

Data sources and search strategy

An electronic search of Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and Google Scholar databases was conducted for Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the cardiotoxic effects associated with the use of ICIs in lung cancer patients, from their inception through 31st May 2023, without any time or language restrictions. Search strategy for each database which is provided in Supplementary Table 1. Moreover, we used generic, trade and pharmaceutical names of all ICIs to search for additional published trials on clinicaltrials.gov. In addition, we manually screened the reference list of retrieved trials, previous meta-analyses and review articles to identify any relevant studies.

Study selection and data extraction

All articles retrieved from the systematic search were exported to EndNote Reference Manager (Version X7.5; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2016) where duplicates were sought and removed. The remaining articles were then assessed at title and abstract level by two independent investigators (AZ and FA), after which full text were read to confirm relevance. Any disagreements were resolved by mutual discussion with a third investigator (AA). Studies were included if they (a) were published RCTs with a follow-up duration of at least 24 weeks; (b) included adult male or female (≥ 18 years of age) patients with lung cancer; (c) compared ICIs with placebo/chemotherapy/dual ICI; and (d) reported at least one cardiotoxic outcome. Single arm and observational studies were not considered.

Data extraction and outcomes of interest

Two investigators (AZ and FA) autonomously extracted data from the selected studies on pre-specified collection forms. Data were extracted, including first author, publication year, study ID, study design, trial phase, treatments, sample size in each arm, tumor type and stage, follow-up time, outcome measures. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was the presence of any adverse cardiac event between the treatment and control arms (Single-ICI vs. Chemotherapy, Single-ICI + Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy, and Single-ICI vs. Dual-ICl). The secondary outcomes were the incidence of cardiac adverse events following the use of ICI-related therapy such as myocarditis, arrhythmia, MI, cardiac failure and atrial fibrillation, when compared with control group. Risks of bias were assessed independently using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool [12].

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed by extracting Risk Ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) from each trial, focusing on cardiotoxicity events. More precisely, the RR was computed by extracting dichotomous outcomes as the number of participants who experienced an event and the total number of participants in each arm of the trial. Data was pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model in the Cochrane Review Manager software (RevMan version 5.4.1). Forest plots were created to assess visually the results of pooling. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using Higgins I2 and a value less than 50% for I2 was considered acceptable, while 50–75% indicates substantial heterogeneity, and greater than 75% indicates significant heterogeneity [13]. Sub-group analyses were performed based on the two types of lung cancer, SCLC and NSCLC and different combinations of chemotherapy. Additionally, we performed leave-one-out sensitivity analysis to evaluate if any single study disproportionately influenced the results of the primary outcome. A visual inspection of the funnel plot was conducted to assess the publication bias. To assess the confidence in the estimates of effect (i.e., quality of evidence) across studies, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation GRADE approach by making judgments about the risk of bias, publication bias, indirectness, imprecision, and inconsistency among different trials [14]. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases.

Results

Literature search

The initial literature search yielded 16,693 potentially relevant articles. After applying the pre-determined eligibility criteria, 30 studies (encompassing 31 trials) were included in this meta-analysis [2, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. The PRISMA flowchart summarizes the results of our literature search (Supplementary Fig. 1) [11].

Study characteristics and quality assessment

Our short-listed studies included 16,331 patients (70.2% males; mean age 63.35 years) over a median follow-up of 18.1 months. Ten of these were phase 2 studies, while 23 were phase 3 studies. Nine studies included patients with SCLC, while 22 trials included NSCLC. The characteristics of each study are shown in Table 1. Quality assessment showed an overall low risk of bias among studies (Supplementary Figs. 2 and 3). Visual inspection of funnel plot did not reveal any small study or publication bias. (Supplementary Fig. 4)

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Primary outcomes

Single ICI versus chemotherapy

Treatment with single ICI (n = 9 trials, 6,929 patients) significantly increased the risk of any cardiac adverse events when compared with chemotherapy (RR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.13–4.12; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). (Fig. 1) Our results stayed consistent upon sensitivity analysis. Overall, the quality of evidence was graded low. (Supplementary Table 2)

Fig. 1
figure 1

Forest plot of risk ratio of any cardiac adverse events among patients with lung cancer, Single immune checkpoint inhibitor vs. Chemotherapy

Full size image

Single ICI plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy

Treatment with single ICI plus chemotherapy (n = 12 trials, 6,391 patients) significantly increased the risk of any cardiac adverse events when compared with chemotherapy (RR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.05–1.82; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). (Fig. 2) Our results were consistent upon sensitivity analysis. Overall, the quality of evidence was graded high. (Supplementary Table 2)

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of risk ratio of any cardiac adverse events among patients with lung cancer, Single immune checkpoint inhibitor + Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy

Full size image

Single ICI versus dual ICI

Treatment with single ICI (n = 4 trials, 1,011 patients) did not significantly decrease the risk of any cardiac adverse events when compared with dual ICI (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13–1.80; p = 0.27; I2 = 0%). (Fig. 3) Our results were consistent upon sensitivity analysis. Overall, the quality of evidence was graded low. (Supplementary Table 2)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of risk ratio of any cardiac adverse events among patients with lung cancer, Single immune checkpoint inhibitor vs. Dual immune checkpoint inhibitors

Full size image

Secondary outcomes

Cardiac failure

The use of ICI had no significant effect on the occurrence of cardiac failure, when compared with control group (placebo or chemotherapy). (n = 9 studies, 5,574 patients) (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.48–2.58; p = 0.80; I2 = 0%). (Fig. 4)

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of risk ratio of cardiac failure in lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors vs. control

Full size image

Myocarditis

ICIs had no significant effect on the incidence of myocarditis when compared with control group (placebo or chemotherapy). (n = 11 studies, 6,878 patients) (RR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.67–4.16; p = 0.27; I2 = 0%). (Fig. 5)

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of risk ratio of myocarditis in lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors vs. control

Full size image

Arrhythmia

ICIs did not significantly increase the risk of arrhythmia when compared with control (chemotherapy or placebo) (n = 5 studies, 2,591 patients) (RR: 1.87; 95% CI: 0.69–5.08; p = 0.22; I2 = 16%). Supplementary Fig. 5.

Myocardial infarction

ICIs did not significantly increase the risk of MI when compared with control (chemotherapy or placebo) (n = 8 studies, 4,726 patients) (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.48–3.18; p = 0.66; I2 = 0%). Supplementary Fig. 6.

Atrial fibrillation

ICIs did not significantly increase the risk of atrial fibrillation when compared with control, however there appeared to be a trend (chemotherapy or placebo) (n = 7 studies, 3,535 patients) (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.40–3.55; p = 0.76; I2 = 24%). Supplementary Fig. 7.

Subgroup analyses

On subgroup analysis by type of chemotherapy, ICI with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CPA) significantly increased the risk of cardiotoxicity compared with CPA (n = 4 studies, 2,637 patients) (RR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.11–2.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). No significant difference in cardiotoxicity was reported between ICI with carboplatin and pemetrexed (CPE) and CPE (n = 4 studies, 1,307 patients) (RR: 1.84; 95% CI: 0.59–5.73; p = 0.29; I2 = 0%) and ICI with carboplatin and etoposide (CE) and CE (n = 9 studies, 2,926 patients) (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.83–1.66; p = 0.37; I2 = 0%). (Fig. 2)

In addition, subgroup analysis by type of lung cancer revealed that ICI-administered patients with NSCLC (n = 22 studies, 11,911 patients) reported a significantly higher risk of cardiac adverse events (RR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.24–2.60; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%) while patients with SCLC (n = 9 studies, 3,932 patients) did not have any significant risk of cardiac adverse events (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.84–1.61; p = 0.37; I2 = 0%) (P-interaction = 0.09). (Supplementary Fig. 8)

Discussion

Our meta-analysis including over 16,000 patients outlines various key findings. First, patients treated with either single ICI or a combination of single ICI plus chemotherapy exhibited significantly higher rates of cardiotoxicity, when compared with chemotherapy alone. Second, single ICI alone did not precipitate any significant risk of cardiotoxic events when compared with dual ICIs. Third, no significant association was found between the use of ICIs and the incidences of cardiac failure, cardiac arrhythmia, myocarditis, MI, and atrial fibrillation when compared with control group.

Our findings concur with a prior meta-analysis conducted by Zhang et al.. on lung cancer patients which demonstrated that there was no significantly increased risk of cardiotoxicity with dual ICI vs. single ICI groups [44]. However, in contrast with our findings, a recent network meta-analysis by Jin et al. showed that the administration of a single ICI (CTLA-4) plus chemotherapy compared with dual ICI therapy did not give rise to any significant cardiotoxic effects [45]. Other meta-analyses evaluating the cardiotoxicity of ICIs have also revealed conflicting findings [46, 47] However, these meta-analyses were not specific to patients with lung cancer and included patients with different types of malignancies. Our meta-analysis, based on a larger sample size, specifically evaluates the cardiotoxicity associated with the use of ICIs in patients with lung cancer.

The risk of cardiotoxicity significantly increased with single ICI therapy when compared with chemotherapy. This finding is supported by Salem et al., who conducted an analysis using data from cancer patients treated with ICI therapy sourced from Vigibase (The World Health Organization’s international database of case safety reports) and identified that the treatment with ICI monotherapy reported cardiac adverse events including myocarditis, pericardial diseases and temporal arteritis [48]. The prevailing hypothesis regarding the pathophysiology of ICI-induced cardiotoxicity suggests that ICI inhibit certain muscle specific antigens such as against troponin, myosin or desmin, that are commonly shared between the tumor cells and cardiomyocytes, triggering a cross-reactive response with T cells targeting both the tumor and the cardiac muscle, resulting in immune related adverse events [49]. Moreover, it’s noteworthy that the acute myocarditis that may occur with ICIs can be fatal and fulminant if not recognized early and managed appropriately [50]. Hence, patients using PD-1/PD-L1/CTLA-4 inhibitors should undergo routine clinic monitoring of heart function, including cardiac troponin, electrocardiogram (ECG), cardiac ultrasonography.

In addition, our results suggest that combination ICI plus chemotherapy poses a greater risk of cardiotoxicity compared with ICI monotherapy. A possible reason is that the ICI-accompanied impairment of immune regulation mechanisms and potential synergistic action of chemotherapy-related inflammation could lead to an overwhelming inflammatory response that may prove detrimental to the heart [51]. Our findings concur with a prior study by Zhang et al. which found that adding ICIs to chemotherapy increased the risk of cardiotoxicity by 67% compared with chemotherapy alone [44]. Similarly, a 7.3% incidence of cardiac disorders was observed in patients < 75 years receiving the combination of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in the IMpower132 trial [29]. The intensified cardiotoxic risk when these medications are administered together demands careful patient monitoring and a thorough assessment of heart health. When prescribing the combination regimen, clinicians should proceed with caution and consider the possibility of enhanced cardiotoxicity. Further investigation is needed to determine whether combination therapy increases the risk of serious cardiotoxicity (≥ grade III). This underscores the critical significance of customized patient evaluation and tailored treatment methods in proactively managing and mitigating the increased risk of cardiac adverse events associated with the concomitant use of ICIs and chemotherapy. Moreover, the direct cardiotoxic action of some chemotherapeutic drugs, such as anthracyclines, may be amplified by ICIs [6]. Although an analysis conducted by Rohit Bishnoi et al. based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database found a lower incidence of cardiotoxicity with combination ICI plus chemotherapy, the study was retrospective in nature and liable to inherent biases which may have modified the cardiac outcomes [52].

The use of dual ICIs did not significantly increase the risk of cardiotoxicity compared with a single ICI. Dual ICI therapy for lung cancer patients has demonstrated a manageable safety profile with no appreciable increase in the risk of cardiotoxicity [53]. The beneficial outcomes could be attributed to the synergistic effects of dual ICIs, which promote T-cell-mediated immune responses, thereby increasing anticancer activity, while maintaining cardiac safety [54]. Puzanov et al. found no significant difference in the incidence of myocarditis between dual ICI and single ICI groups, suggesting that the cardiotoxicity does not substantially increase with the addition of a second ICI [55].

Although there was no significant association with the use of ICIs and individual cardiac adverse events, our analysis, in alignment with the prior meta-analysis by Zhang et al. (incidence rate ratio: 0.014), revealed that cardiac arrhythmia was the most predominant adverse cardiac event associated with the usage of ICIs (RR: 1.87) [44]. Immunotherapy-induced arrhythmias have an uncertain underlying mechanism that has not yet been fully elucidated. Hence, it is important to monitor clinical symptoms, ECG and biomarkers till further evidence is available. On the other hand, while Zhang et al. reported that myocarditis is the least occurring cardiac adverse event (Incidence rate ratio: 0.003), our meta-analysis identified it as the second most frequent cardiac adverse event (RR: 1.67). Given that PD-L1, PD-1, and CTLA-4 play significant roles in the communication between the immune system and the heart, myocarditis has known immune linked etiology. Disruption of these pathways can result in autoimmune myocarditis and subsequent heart failure.

The number of patients exposed to ICIs is anticipated to rise significantly due to over 40 approved indications for their use and the possibility of new indications in the future [4]. This can potentially worsen the risk of fatal cardiac outcomes in patients with lung cancer. Refractory arrhythmias with ICI-associated myocarditis are the major cause of fatalities [5]. Fatal cardiac events are often noted earlier than non-fatal events due to the underlying cardiac inflammation that may rapidly unleash with the initiation of ICIs [47]. Moreover, decreased functional reserve predisposes the elderly population to detrimental events, and opportunistic infections due to long-term immunosuppression can complicate the clinical course [56]. Patients at high risk have a poor prognosis and must be monitored closely, with reassessment of immunotherapy if symptoms appear. Clinicians should take important predisposing factors such as age, concomitant medications, baseline cardiac function, and cardiac history into account when initiating ICI therapy especially in patients at low risk. Finding new risk factors and biomarkers is essential for preventing the incidence of cardiotoxicity as the number of patients continues to rise.

Some limitations must be kept in mind while interpreting the results of our study. Firstly, the inclusion of distinct lung cancer types (SCLC and NSCLC) across multiple stages (I to IV) and diverse chemotherapeutic drugs and dosing regimens (single ICI, dual ICI, ICI combined with chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone, placebo, and radiotherapy) leads to substantial heterogeneity. While subgroup analyses were performed to overcome these differences, the diverse study characteristics remain a limitation, affecting overall generalizability and uniformity of our findings. Secondly, variations in follow-up durations and sample sizes may have affected our results. Thirdly, this is a study-level meta-analysis since individual patient data were not available. Lastly, we may underestimate the risk of cardiac toxicity since some clinical trials only provided data for severe cardiovascular events.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the administration of a single ICI or a combination of single ICI plus chemotherapy led to an increased risk of cardiotoxicity when compared with chemotherapy. However, our results showed that dual immunotherapy did not have a higher risk of cardiotoxicity when compared with single ICI. Well-powered RCTs with longer follow up durations are required in future to confirm the current evidence of cardiotoxicity associated with ICIs.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its Supplementary Appendix.

Abbreviations

ICIs:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

RCTs:

Randomized clinical trials

MI:

Myocardial infarction

RRs:

Risk ratios

SCLC:

Small-cell lung cancer

NSCLC:

Non-small cell lung cancer

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A, Cancer statistics. 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan [cited 2023 Jun 18];73(1):17–48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36633525/

  2. Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, Felip E, Pérez-Gracia JL, Han JY et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016 Apr 9 [cited 2023 Jun 11];387(10027):1540–50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26712084/

  3. Ettinger DS, Wood DE, Aisner DL, Akerley W, Bauman JR, Bharat A, et al. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20(5):497–530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vaddepally RK, Kharel P, Pandey R, Garje R, Chandra AB. Review of Indications of FDA-Approved Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors per NCCN Guidelines with the Level of Evidence. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Mar 1 [cited 2023 Jun 18];12(3). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7140028/

  5. Mahmood SS, Fradley MG, Cohen JV, Nohria A, Reynolds KL, Heinzerling LM, et al. Myocarditis in patients treated with Immune Checkpoint inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(16):1755–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lyon AR, Yousaf N, Battisti NML, Moslehi J, Larkin J. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and cardiovascular toxicity. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Sep 1 [cited 2023 Jun 8];19(9):e447–58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30191849/

  7. Suzuki Y, Kaneko H, Tamura Y, Okada A, Fujiu K, Michihata N et al. Cardiovascular events after the initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Heliyon. 2023 May 1 [cited 2023 Jun 8];9(5). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37251893/

  8. Andres MS, Ramalingam S, Rosen SD, Baksi J, Khattar R, Kirichenko Y et al. The spectrum of cardiovascular complications related to immune-checkpoint inhibitor treatment: Including myocarditis and the new entity of non inflammatory left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiooncology. 2022 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jun 8];8(1). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36424659/

  9. Cozma A, Sporis ND, Lazar AL, Buruiana A, Ganea AM, Malinescu TV et al. Cardiac Toxicity Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Sep 1 [cited 2023 May 15];23(18). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36142866/

  10. Sławiński G, Wrona A, Dabrowska-Kugacka A, Raczak G, Lewicka E. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Cardiac Toxicity in Patients Treated for Non-Small Lung Cancer: A Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Jun 8];21(19):1–19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33003425/

  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009 Jul 21 [cited 2023 Jun 11];339(7716):332–6. https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2535

  12. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18 [cited 2023 Jun 11];343(7829). https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5928

  13. 9.5.2. Identifying and measuring heterogeneity. [cited 2023 Jun 16]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_2_identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneity.htm

  14. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P et al. Rating Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2008 Apr 4 [cited 2024 Mar 6];336(7650):924. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC2335261/.

  15. Cheng Y, Han L, Wu L, Chen J, Sun H, Wen G et al. Effect of First-Line Serplulimab vs Placebo Added to Chemotherapy on Survival in Patients With Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: The ASTRUM-005 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022 Sep 27 [cited 2023 Jun 11];328(12):1223–32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36166026/

  16. Zhou C, Wang Z, Sun Y, Cao L, Ma Z, Wu R et al. Sugemalimab versus placebo, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (GEMSTONE-302): interim and final analyses of a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 Feb 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];23(2):220–33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35038432/

  17. Wang J, Zhou C, Yao W, Wang Q, Min X, Chen G et al. Adebrelimab or placebo plus carboplatin and etoposide as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CAPSTONE-1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 Jun 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];23(6):739–47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35576956/

  18. Taniguchi Y, Shimokawa T, Takiguchi Y, Misumi T, Nakamura Y, Kawashima Y et al. A Randomized Comparison of Nivolumab versus Nivolumab + Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced or Recurrent ICI-Naïve Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: TORG1630. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 Oct 15 [cited 2023 Jun 11];28(20):4402–9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35980349/

  19. O’Brien M, Paz-Ares L, Marreaud S, Dafni U, Oselin K, Havel L et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 Oct 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];23(10):1274–86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36108662/

  20. Antonia SJ, López-Martin JA, Bendell J, Ott PA, Taylor M, Eder JP et 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 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];17(7):883–95. http://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470204516300985/fulltext

  21. Altorki NK, McGraw TE, Borczuk AC, Saxena A, Port JL, Stiles BM et al. Neoadjuvant durvalumab with or without stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a single-centre, randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jun 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];22(6):824–35. http://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470204521001492/fulltext

  22. Boyer M, Şendur MAN, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Park K, Lee DH, Çiçin I et 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 Jul 20 [cited 2023 Jun 11];39(21):2327–38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33513313/

  23. Gettinger SN, Redman MW, Bazhenova L, Hirsch FR, Mack PC, Schwartz LH et 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 Sep 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];7(9):1368–77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34264316/

  24. Jotte R, Cappuzzo F, Vynnychenko I, Stroyakovskiy D, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Hussein M et al. Atezolizumab in Combination With Carboplatin and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Squamous NSCLC (IMpower131): Results From a Randomized Phase III Trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];15(8):1351–60. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302702/

  25. Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H, Papadimitrakopoulou VA, Patnaik A, Powell SF et 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 Nov 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];17(11):1497–508. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27745820/

  26. Malhotra J, Nikolinakos P, Leal T, Lehman J, Morgensztern D, Patel JD et al. A Phase 1–2 Study of Rovalpituzumab Tesirine in Combination With Nivolumab Plus or Minus Ipilimumab in Patients With Previously Treated Extensive-Stage SCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Sep 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];16(9):1559–69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652156/

  27. Mazieres J, Rittmeyer A, Gadgeel S, Hida T, Gandara DR, Cortinovis DL et al. Atezolizumab Versus Docetaxel in Pretreated Patients With NSCLC: Final Results From the Randomized Phase 2 POPLAR and Phase 3 OAK Clinical Trials. J Thorac Oncol. 2021 Jan 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];16(1):140–50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33166718/

  28. Mok TSK, Wu YL, Kudaba I, Kowalski DM, Cho BC, Turna HZ et 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 May 4 [cited 2023 Jun 11];393(10183):1819–30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30955977/

  29. Nishio M, Saito H, Goto K, Watanabe S, Sueoka-Aragane N, Okuma Y et al. IMpower132: Atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy vs chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC in Japanese patients. Cancer Sci. 2021 Apr 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];112(4):1534–44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33462883/

  30. Pakkala S, Higgins K, Chen Z, Sica G, Steuer C, Zhang C et al. Durvalumab and tremelimumab with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy in relapsed small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II study. J Immunother Cancer. 2020 Dec 21 [cited 2023 Jun 11];8(2). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33428583/

  31. Rodríguez-Abreu D, Powell SF, Hochmair MJ, Gadgeel S, Esteban E, Felip E et al. Pemetrexed plus platinum with or without pembrolizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: protocol-specified final analysis from KEYNOTE-189. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];32(7):881–95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33894335/

  32. Schoenfeld JD, Giobbie-Hurder A, Ranasinghe S, Kao KZ, Lako A, Tsuji J et al. Durvalumab plus tremelimumab alone or in combination with low-dose or hypofractionated radiotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer refractory to previous PD(L)-1 therapy: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022 Feb 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];23(2):279–91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35033226/

  33. Sezer A, Kilickap S, Gümüş M, Bondarenko I, Özgüroğlu M, Gogishvili M et 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 Feb 13 [cited 2023 Jun 11];397(10274):592–604. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33581821/

  34. Welsh JW, Heymach JV, Guo C, Menon H, Klein K, Cushman TR et al. Phase 1/2 Trial of Pembrolizumab and Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Limited-Stage SCLC. J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];15(12):1919–27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32916308/

  35. Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, Vicente D, Murakami S, Hui R et al. Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 16 [cited 2023 Jun 11];377(20):1919–29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28885881/

  36. Barlesi F, Vansteenkiste J, Spigel D, Ishii H, Garassino M, de Marinis F et 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 Nov 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];19(11):1468–79. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30262187/

  37. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22 [cited 2023 Jun 11];373(17):1627–39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26412456/

  38. Horn L, Mansfield AS, Szczęsna A, Havel L, Krzakowski M, Hochmair MJ et al. First-Line Atezolizumab plus Chemotherapy in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 6 [cited 2023 Jun 11];379(23):2220–9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30280641/

  39. Paz-Ares L, Dvorkin M, Chen Y, Reinmuth N, Hotta K, Trukhin D et 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 Nov 23 [cited 2023 Jun 11];394(10212):1929–39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31590988/

  40. Socinski MA, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, Orlandi F, Stroyakovskiy D, Nogami N et al. Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 14 [cited 2023 Jun 11];378(24):2288–301. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29863955/

  41. Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L, Creelan B, Horn L, Steins M et al. First-Line Nivolumab in Stage IV or Recurrent Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 22 [cited 2023 Jun 11];376(25):2415–26. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28636851/

  42. West H, McCleod M, Hussein M, Morabito A, Rittmeyer A, Conter HJ et 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 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];20(7):924–37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31122901/

  43. Reck M, Luft A, Szczesna A, Havel L, Kim SW, Akerley W et al. Phase III Randomized Trial of Ipilimumab Plus Etoposide and Platinum Versus Placebo Plus Etoposide and Platinum in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Nov 1 [cited 2023 Jun 11];34(31):3740–8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27458307/

  44. Zhang XT, Ge N, Xiang ZJ, Liu T. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse cardiac events in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Cell Int. 2022 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jun 10];22(1):1–12. https://cancerci.biomedcentral.com/articles/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-022-02760-2

  45. Jin C, Qi J, Wang Q, Pu C, Tan M. Cardiotoxicity of lung cancer-related immunotherapy versus chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Oncol. 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 10];13:1158690. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10141653/

  46. Liu S, Gao W, Ning Y, Zou X, Zhang W, Zeng L, et al. Cardiovascular Toxicity with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in Cancer patients: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:908173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang DY, Salem JE, Cohen JV, Chandra S, Menzer C, Ye F et al. Fatal Toxic Effects Associated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jun 18];4(12):1721–8. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2701721

  48. Salem JE, Manouchehri A, Moey M, Lebrun-Vignes B, Bastarache L, Pariente A et al. Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jun 8];19(12):1579–89. http://www.thelancet.com/article/S1470204518306089/fulltext

  49. Arangalage D, Degrauwe N, Michielin O, Monney P, Özdemir BC. Pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of cardiac toxicity induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Nov 1 [cited 2024 Mar 6];100. http://www.cancertreatmentreviews.com/article/S0305737221001304/fulltext

  50. Moslehi J, Lichtman AH, Sharpe AH, Galluzzi L, Kitsis RN. Immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated myocarditis: manifestations and mechanisms. J Clin Invest. 2021 Mar 1 [cited 2023 Jun 10];131(5). https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI145186

  51. Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Apr [cited 2023 Jun 18];12(4):252–64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22437870/

  52. Bishnoi R, Shah C, Blaes A, Bian J, Hong YR. Cardiovascular toxicity in patients treated with immunotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A SEER-medicare study: CVD outcomes with the use of ICI in mNSCLC. Lung Cancer. 2020 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jun 18];150:172–7. http://www.lungcancerjournal.info/article/S0169500220306681/fulltext

  53. Gettinger SN, Horn L, Gandhi L, Spigel DR, Antonia SJ, Rizvi NA et al. Overall Survival and Long-Term Safety of Nivolumab (Anti-Programmed Death 1 Antibody, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in Patients With Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun 20 [cited 2023 Jun 18];33(18):2004–12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25897158/

  54. Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQM, Hwu WJ, Topalian SL, Hwu P et al. Safety and Activity of Anti–PD-L1 Antibody in Patients with Advanced Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012 Jun 28 [cited 2023 Jun 18];366(26):2455–65. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1200694

  55. Puzanov I, Diab A, Abdallah K, Bingham CO, Brogdon C, Dadu R et 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 Nov 21 [cited 2023 Jun 18];5(1). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29162153/

  56. Johnson DB, Nebhan CA, Moslehi JJ, Balko JM. Immune-checkpoint inhibitors: long-term implications of toxicity. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 2022 19:4. 2022 Jan 26 [cited 2023 Jul 2];19(4):254–67. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41571-022-00600-w

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Banner University Medical Center, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Naser Yamani, Gabriel Ruiz & Farouk Mookadam

  2. Department of Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

    Aymen Ahmed, Amraha Zubair & Fariha Arif

Authors
  1. Naser Yamani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aymen Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriel Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amraha Zubair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fariha Arif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Farouk Mookadam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NY, AA, GR and FM contributed to conception and design of the manuscript. Analysis and interpretation of the data were conducted by NY, AA, GR, AZ and FA. All authors contributed to the drafting of the manuscript and NY, AA and FM critically revised it for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the manuscript submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naser Yamani.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yamani, N., Ahmed, A., Ruiz, G. et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardio-Oncology 10, 37 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40959-024-00229-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40959-024-00229-x

Keywords

Cardio-Oncology

ISSN: 2057-3804

Contact us