Next Article in Journal
Maintain Efficacy and Spare Toxicity: Traditional and New Radiation-Based Conditioning Regimens in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Previous Article in Journal
Lifestyle and Subsequent Malignant Neoplasms in Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Report from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/cancers16050860
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Efficacy and Safety of BTKis in Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Yan Zhang
1,†,
Jingjing Ye
2,†,
Hao Chen
3,
Daobin Zhou
1,* and
Chunyan Ji
2,*,‡
1
Department of Hematology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing 100730, China
2
Department of Hematology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China
3
College of Acupuncture and Chinese Tuina, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210023, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work and are co-first authors.
‡
The first corresponding author.
Cancers 2024, 16(5), 860; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050860
Submission received: 13 December 2023 / Revised: 31 January 2024 / Accepted: 7 February 2024 / Published: 21 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis in Cancer Research)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL) is a highly aggressive form of lymphoma. However, treatments such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy may be intolerable for older or specific patients due to the associated toxicity and severe neurotoxicity. Some studies have shown that Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are effective for CNSL. However, most of these studies were small-sample studies, so the efficacy and safety of BTKis in CNSL are not yet clearly defined. Furthermore, the existing reviews have mainly focused on patients with relapsed/refractory CNSL or primary CNSL, and there have been fewer studies on second-generation BTKis, with a lack of reviews on the evidence of BTKis for CNSL. Therefore, this systematic review aims to comprehensively and systematically elucidate the efficacy and safety of BTKis in the treatment of CNSL. The results indicate that BTKis are effective not only for relapsed/refractory cases but also for newly diagnosed CNSL, with an acceptable safety profile. However, high-quality clinical trials are still needed in the future.

Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) for central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL). Methods: A systematic review was carried out to identify relevant studies from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang, CNKI, and CBM databases. The studies included patients with CNSL who received BTKis and reported the overall response (OR), complete remission (CR), and partial response (PR). An overall effect analysis was performed using STATA 15.0. A random-effects model was utilized to calculate the pooled rates, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes. Results: A total of 21 studies involving 368 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For newly diagnosed CNSL, due to the small simple size, we conducted a quantitative description, and the ORR could reach up to 100%. For relapsed/refractory patients, the pooled ORR was 72% (95% CI: 64–80%, I2 = 54.89%, p = 0.00), with a pooled CR and PR of 43% (95% CI: 33–54%, I2 = 65.40%, p = 0.00) and 23% (95% CI: 13–35%, I2 = 78.05%, p = 0.00), respectively. Most adverse events were hematology-related and generally manageable. Conclusion: BTKis showed acceptable efficacy and safety in treating patients with CNSL. However, large and well-designed trials are still required to confirm BTKis as a treatment for CNSL.

1. Introduction

Central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL) is an aggressive lymphoma. The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System includes subtypes of primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the CNS (DLBCL), immunodeficiency-associated CNS lymphoma, lymphomatoid granulomatosis, and intravascular large B-cell lymphoma [1]. Furthermore, CNSL is also divided into primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) and secondary central nervous system lymphoma (SCNSL). PCNSL is characterized by involvement limited to the brain, spinal cord, cranial nerves, leptomeninges, and vitreo-retina [2,3], and DLBCL accounts for about 80–90% of cases [4]. SCNSL refers to CNS involvement secondary to systemic lymphoma at the time of initial diagnosis or relapse, and it is clinically divided into treatment-naive SCNSL (TN-SCNSL), relapsed isolated CNSL (RI-SCNSL), and relapsed concomitant systemic and CNS disease following treatment for systemic lymphoma (RC-SCNSL) [5]. The guidelines for the treatment of PCNSL mainly include systemic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, intrathecal chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and novel agents. The conventional treatment of RI-SCNSL is basically the same as that of PCNSL, and no guidelines have been formulated at present [6,7]. The backbone of first-line treatments for PCNSL patients is high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX)-based chemotherapy, with or without other a therapy such as cytarabine, thiotepa, and temozolomide. However, the existing first-line treatments may be unsuitable for older or specific patients, due to related toxicity and severe neurotoxicity. Patients with CNSL usually have a poor prognosis, and most of them may progress to relapse or refractory status. Therefore, the introduction of less toxic but effective targeted agents is needed as an alternative [8,9].
The main hallmark of PCNSL is the activation of nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB), while the activation of NF-κB is driven by B cell receptor (BCR) and Toll-like receptor (TLR) signaling pathways [8]. Both healthy and malignant B cells depend on BCR signaling for their growth and survival [10]. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are important regulators of the BCR pathway, which can participate in the survival and proliferation of malignant B lymphocytes and primarily function by controlling the oncogenic signal transduction downstream of BCR [11,12]. In recent years, BTKis have been suggested as a novel agent for CNSL [6,13]. Ibrutinib, the first BTKi, was granted a breakthrough drug designation by the FDA in 2013 and approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. In addition, a number of studies have shown that ibrutinib has a good effect on CNSL, especially for relapse/refractory CNSL [14,15].
At present, due to the safety issue of ibrutinib, second-generation BTKis are gradually emerging, such as tirabrutinib, zanubrutinib, acalabrutinib, and orelabrutinib. Currently, ibrutinib, zanubrutinib, acalabrutinib, and orelabrutinib have been marketed in China. Similar to the first-generation BTKis, second-generation BTKis inhibit BCR signaling by covalently binding to BTK C481 and inhibiting BTK kinase, thereby inhibiting the growth and metastasis of malignant proliferating B cells. But they are more selective than ibrutinib [16] and can induce higher concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Ibrutinib is less selective and can also target EGFR, BMX, and TEC in addition to BTK. However, second-generation BTKis have improved kinase selectivity overall, especially orelabrutinib. Compared to other second-generation BTKis, it has higher kinase selectivity and only targets BTK with >90% inhibition [17]. Narita et al. found that 480 mg (qd) of tirabrutinib resulted in longer PFS (11.1 vs. 2.1 months), higher ORR (100% vs. 60%), and higher CSF trough concentrations (16.3 ± 7.71 vs. 2.19 ± 0.476 ng/mL) than 320 mg (qd) [18]. This suggests that the choice of therapeutic drugs with good CSF penetration may lead to better efficacy to patients with CNSL. Meanwhile, the mean CSF concentrations were higher for tirabrutinib (320 mg, qd, 2.19 ng/mL; 480 mg, qd, 14.0 ng/mL) and zanubrutinib (160 mg, bid, 2.94 ng/mL) compared to ibrutinib (560 mg, qd, 0.62 ng/mL; 700 mg, qd, 0.87 ng/mL; 840 mg, qd, 0.59 ng/mL) [19]. Furthermore, as a novel, small-molecule, selective irreversible BTKi, orelabrutinib (150 mg, qd) has shown better blood–brain barrier permeability and could induce a median CSF concentration as high as 28.7 ng/mL [20]. Some evidence has revealed that orelabrutinib-containing treatment was well-tolerated and provided incremental benefits in Chinese CNSL patients [21,22].
In recent years, BTKis have been increasingly reported in CNSL, but they are more limited to small-sample studies. Furthermore, the existing reviews have mainly focused on the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory CNSL patients or PCNSL patients [14,15], and there is a lack of systematic studies regarding BTKis in the management of CNSL. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to elucidate the efficacy and safety of various BTKis in the treatment of CNSL more comprehensively and systematically.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [23]. A detailed PRISMA checklist is attached in Supplementary Materials S1. This study has not been registered in PROSPERO.

2.1. Search Strategy

A systematic search was performed in the Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) databases for the relevant studies before 8 June 2023. The search terms included “central nervous system lymphoma”, “CNS lymphoma”, “CNSL”, “Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors”, “Bruton tyrosine kinase”, “BTK inhibitor”, “BTKi”, “ibrutinib”, “acalabrutinib”, “zanubrutinib”, “orelabrutinib”, “pirtobrutinib”, and “tirabrutinib”. The detailed search strategy is shown in Supplementary Materials S2. In addition, the current clinical guidelines of CNSL and the relevant systematic review and meta-analysis were also identified to check the reference lists for relevant studies.

2.2. Study Selection and Data Extraction

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Prospective studies and retrospective studies. (2) Patients of any age who were diagnosed with CNSL, irrespective of primary or secondary. PCNSL refers to lymphoma that is limited to the brain, leptomeninges, spinal cord, and eyes at primary diagnosis and without involvement outside the CNS. For SCNSL, only patients with RI-SCNSL were included, which refers to CNS relapse without recurrent systemic lymphoma because the conventional treatment of RI-SCNSL is basically the same as that of PCNSL. (3) BTKis should be used as monotherapy or combination therapy for CNSL patients. (4) The primary outcome was the tumor response, which included the overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), and partial response (PR) according to the International Primary CNSL Collaborative Group criteria. Median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and adverse events (AEs) were also considered as the main outcomes in this meta-analysis. PFS was defined as time from initiation of BTKis to disease progression, death from any cause. OS was defined as time from initiation of BTKis to death from any cause.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Duplicated studies. (2) The sample size was smaller than 2 cases. (3) Studies that were published in neither English nor Chinese. (4) Studies from conference abstracts were also excluded because they lacked peer review.
Two reviewers screened the title, abstract, and full text of the identified studies independently, and any disagreements were resolved by the third reviewer. A pre-designed electronic form was created for the data extraction from each study, which included the authors, year of publication, number of patients, gender, age, study design, detail of the therapy, follow-up period, and outcomes.

2.3. Quality Assessment

We implemented the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias for the included randomized control trials (RCTs). The retrospective studies without a comparison group were evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist of Case Series [24].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The pooling procedure for the included studies was carried out in STATA 15.0 using the “Meta prop” command [25]. The effect size of all pooled results was presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. The random-effects model was used for pooling analysis in this study due to the potential heterogeneity among the included studies. A two-sided p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Characteristics

A total of 761 relevant studies were identified in the initial electronic search, and 3 additional relevant studies from the existing guidelines were conformed during the checking of the reference lists of the systematic reviews and guidelines. After screening the titles, abstracts, and the full texts, studies were excluded for different reasons. A total of 21 studies were included in the final analysis [9,18,19,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Figure 1 shows the literature evaluation and identification process. In this meta-analysis, 15 retrospective studies [9,19,21,22,26,28,29,31,33,34,36,37,38,40,41] and 6 prospective studies [18,27,30,32,35,39] were included. Together, 7 (7/21) studies [9,19,22,33,35,38,39] involved a total of 35 patients with newly diagnosed CNSL, while 18 (18/21) [18,19,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40,41] studies involved 333 patients with relapsed/refractory CNSL. The characteristics of each study included are summarized in Table 1.

3.2. Quality Assessment of the Included Studies

All of the included studies were assessed by the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist of Case Series. Most of the items were evaluated as “Yes” except Q9 (Table 2), which presented a moderate quality of included studies.

3.3. Efficacy

3.3.1. Tumor Response

For newly diagnosed CNSL, 7 studies [9,19,22,33,35,38,39] reported the ORR, CR, and PR. We did not perform a pooled analysis due to the small simple size. A quantitative description is shown in Table 3. The highest ORR and CR were both up to 100%. For relapsed/refractory CNSL patients, 18 studies [18,19,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40,41] reported the ORR, CR and PR. The pooled ORR (Figure 2A) was 72% (95% CI: 64–80%, I2 = 54.89%, p = 0.00), and the pooled CR (Figure 2B) and PR (Figure 2C) were 43% (95% CI: 33–54%, I2 = 65.40%, p = 0.00) and 23% (95% CI: 13–35%, I2 = 78.05%, p = 0.00), respectively.
For relapsed/refractory CNSL, BTKi monotherapy was provided in 10 studies [18,22,26,27,28,30,31,32,39,41], which involved 166 patients in total. Based on the analysis, the pooled ORR (Figure 3A) was 60% (95% CI: 50–71%, I2 = 24.93%, p = 0.21), and the pooled CR (Figure 3B) and PR (Figure 3C) were 27% (95% CI: 15–40%, I2 = 50.96%, p = 0.03) and 26% (95% CI: 13–42%, I2 = 61.88%, p = 0.00), respectively. Meanwhile, BTKi-based regimes were reported in 12 studies [19,21,22,27,28,29,33,34,35,36,40,41], with 176 patients. BKTis were used as a combination therapy with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or other therapies. The pooled ORR (Figure 4A) was 78% (95% CI: 68–86%, I2 = 38.06%, p = 0.09), and the pooled CR (Figure 4B) and PR (Figure 4C) were 48% (95% CI: 32–64%, I2 = 72.33%, p = 0.00) and 22% (95% CI: 8–40%, I2 = 81.24%, p = 0.00), respectively.

3.3.2. Survival

Nine [18,21,28,30,32,33,34,36,40] and three [30,36,40] studies reported the mPFS and mOS of relapsed/refractory patients treated by BTKis, respectively. The pooled mPFS was 5.17 months (95% CI: 3.96–6.37, I2 = 12.7%, p = 0.329, Figure 5A), and the pooled mOS was 10.21 months (95% CI: 6.82–13.60, I2 = 38.5%, p = 0.197, Figure 5B).
Based on the subgroup analysis, the mPFS of combination therapies was reported in seven studies [21,28,32,33,34,36,40], which involved 104 patients, and the pooled result was 5.36 months (95% CI: 4.08–6.65, I2 = 26.3%, p = 0.228). The mPFS of monotherapy [18,30] was 4.8 months (95% CI: 2.80, 12.7) and 2.9 months (95% CI: 1.80, 11.10) in two small studies with high heterogeneity.

3.4. Adverse Events (AEs)

A total of 12 studies [18,19,21,22,30,32,34,35,36,38,40,41] have reported 969 AEs in any grade. The main AEs in BTKi treatment were associated with hematological AEs, including neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, and febrile neutropenia (details in Supplementary Materials S3). The pooled rates of grade 3–5 hematological AEs, such as thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, and febrile neutropenia were 9% (2–18%), 12% (4–22%), 12% (5–20%), 10% (2–20%), 19% (0–56%), and 4% (0–19%), respectively. Meanwhile, the subgroup analysis showed the second-generation BTKi treatment resulted in a numerically lower incidence rate of grade 3–5 AEs compared to ibrutinib treatment (Table 4).

4. Discussion

In recent guidelines, BTKis were considered a novel agent for CNSL, especially for relapsed/refractory patients [6,13]. In this review, we systematically searched the latest evidence of BTKis for CNSL and included 21 studies that involved 368 patients in total. For newly diagnosed CNSL patients, a pooled analysis was not performed because of the small sample size. For relapsed/refractory patients, the pooled ORR was 72% (95% CI: 64–80%). In addition, BTKi monotherapy was shown to have a pooled ORR of 60% (95% CI: 50–71%) and BTKi-based regimes had a pooled ORR of 78% (95% CI: 68–86%). This suggests that BTK combination therapy may be more effective than monotherapy. In addition, the high recurrence rate and dismal prognosis are hallmarks of CNSL. Reducing the recurrence rate and prolonging the survival time of patients with cancer is still an important issue for clinicians to consider. Therefore, we also analyzed the mPFS and mOS of patients after BTKi therapy, which showed the pooled mPFS was 5.17 months and the mOS was 10.21 months for relapsed/refractory patients.
In relevant studies of patients with newly diagnosed CNSL, the ibrutinib/HD-MTX combination could achieve an ORR of 82% (9/11), including the CR (64%) and PR (18%) [38]. For the orelabrutinib-based regimens, the ORR were 100% (one CR, one unconfirmed complete response (uCR), and two PR) [22]. However, in a clinical trial without BTKis, the ORR of MTX/cytarabine/rituximab and MTX/cytarabine regimens for newly diagnosed PCNSL were 74% and 53%, respectively [42]. In addition, patients with newly diagnosed CNSL also showed better survival with the BTKi-containing regimens. In patients with PCNSL-DLBCL who were treated with ibrutinib/rituximab/MTX or zanubrutinib/rituximab/lenalidomide/temozolomide, the mPFS was 20 months and 5 months, respectively, and the mOS was 42 months and not reached, respectively. However, in the regimens with MTX or rituximab/cyclophosphamide/liposomal doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone, the mPFS was 7 and 1.5 months, respectively, and the mOS was 16.5 and 4.5 months, respectively. These durations were shorter than that of the regimen containing BTKis overall [37]. This demonstrates that treatment regimens containing BTKis have great potential for patients with newly diagnosed CNSL and further supports the use of BTKis in CNSL.
In addition to newly diagnosed CNSL, more studies have focused on the efficacy of BTKis for relapsed/refractory CNSL and have shown some efficacy of BTKi monotherapy, mainly including ibrutinib or tirabrutinib. In a prospective single-arm study, patients who received ibrutinib monotherapy achieved an ORR of 59% (26/44), an mPFS of 4.8 months, and an mOS of 19.2 months [30]. For patients treated with tirabrutinib monotherapy, the ORR was 63.6% (28/44), with an mPFS of 2.9 months, and the mOS was not reached [18]. A retrospective analysis showed that the use of ibrutinib monotherapy was associated with higher response rates (the ORR was 78% vs. 46%) and longer mPFS (13.1 months vs. 3 months) and mOS (16.8 months vs. 4.4 months) than chemotherapy regimens (MTX, cytarabine, and ifosfamide) [43]. Our study showed the pooled ORR, CR, and PR were 60%, 27%, and 26% for BTKi monotherapy, and the mPFS was 4.8 months (95% CI%: 2.80, 12.7) and 2.9 months (95% CI: 1.80, 11.10) in two small, simple studies with high heterogeneity [18,30].
In addition, for BTKi combination therapy in relapsed/refractory patients, our study showed the pooled ORR, CR, and PR were 78%, 48%, and 22%, respectively, and the mPFS was 5.36 months (95% CI: 4.08, 6.65). The above results suggest that BTKi combination therapy may be superior to monotherapy in the treatment of CNSL, which is similar to some other studies. BTKi combination therapy had a higher response rate and longer survival for CNSL patients compared to monotherapy [27,28,29,41]. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT), ifosfamide-based immunochemotherapy, and folate antimetabolites are also effective treatment options for relapsed/refractory patients [7,44]. Among relapsed/refractory CNSL patients who received rituximab, high-dose cytarabine, and thiotepa followed by HDT-ASCT consolidation with carmustine/rituximab/thiotepa conditioning, 56% of them achieved CR [45]. In a study of relapsed/refractory CNSL patients treated with rituximab, ifosfamide, and etoposide therapy, the ORR and CR were 41% and 37%, respectively [46]. In a phase I multicenter clinical trial, patients with recurrent or progressive CNSL were treated with pemetrexed (a folate antimetabolite chemically similar to MTX), without BTKis, and the results showed that the ORR was 57.1%, and the mPFS was 4.2 months [47]. Combining the results of our study, it can be concluded that BTKis combined with chemotherapy or other regimens may have better efficacy and may prolong the survival time of patients in the treatment of relapsed/refractory CNSL, which is an effective option, especially for patients who are not suitable for chemoimmunotherapy alone.
We performed a meta-analysis of grade 3–5 AEs from regimens containing BTKis and found that the main AEs for all types of BTKis were hematological. The pooled grade 3–5 hematological AEs mainly included thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, anemia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, and febrile neutropenia, with an incidence of 4–19%. In addition to the hematological AEs, the highest incidence was infection (12%). The results of our research also recommend that doctors should focus on the prevention of AEs, such as atrial fibrillation, bleeding, aspergillosis, and transaminase increase, although the incidence was 1–5%. For ibrutinib, the most common AE was lymphopenia (19%). Furthermore, the rates of infection, thrombocytopenia, and transaminase increase were 14%, 13%, and 13%, respectively. The second-generation BTKis mainly included neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, bleeding, and transaminase increase. Among these, neutropenia was the most common (11%). The common AEs in regimens containing orelabrutinib included leukopenia, fatigue, increased dehydrogenase, erythrocytopenia, and decreased hemoglobin. And the grade ≥ 3 AEs mainly included thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, decreased hemoglobin, and fatigue [21,22]. No atrial fibrillation and hemorrhage have been reported. In the treatment regimen of tirabrutinib, neutropenia was the most common grade ≥ 3 AE (9.1%), and no cardiovascular-related AEs were observed [18]. Yoshioka et al. showed that none of the five patients studied had serious AEs [26]. For the zanubrutinib combination regimen, the most common grade 3–4 AE was also neutropenia (38%); no bleeding or cardiac events happened while the patients were receiving treatment [19]. In general, although BTKis developed grade ≥ 3 AEs, the incidence was low and generally manageable, demonstrating the safety and effectiveness. Among the AEs of special interest for BTKis, the incidence of bleeding was 2% for both ibrutinib and the second-generation BTKis. However, the incidence rates of infection were 14% for ibrutinib and 3% for second-generation BTKis. In addition, atrial fibrillation was not observed in the second-generation BTKis, suggesting that the second-generation BTKis displayed a better safety profile than the first generation.
Although the data supporting BTKis in the treatment of CNSL have been previously reviewed, our study collected the most recent evidence. The existing reviews have mainly focused on relapsed/refractory CNSL patients or PCNSL patients, while our review performed the analysis for newly diagnosed CNSL as well as the relapsed/refractory CNSL, which can make the evidence more comprehensive. In addition, although we have come to a comprehensive result for BTKis, there are still several limitations. We did not perform a quantitative publication bias detection by Egger’s and Begg’s tests, but potential publication bias may still exist because of a lack of controlled groups and small sample sizes in the included studies. Therefore, more prospective studies, especially well-designed RCTs are still needed. Furthermore, we only included 35 newly diagnosed patients in this review, and more data are still needed for BTKis as a first-line treatment for CNSL.

5. Conclusions

According to the current evidence, we found that BTKis could be considered as an effective and safe treatment for relapsed/refractory CNSL, as well as newly diagnosed CNSL. Due to the potential bias of the evidence, it may lead to misunderstanding and instability in this review. In the future, large and well-designed trials are still needed to confirm the promising treatment of BTKis in CNSL.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers16050860/s1, S1: Detailed PRISMA checklist. S2: Detailed search strategy. S3: Any grade AEs of BTKis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.J. and D.Z.; methodology, H.C.; investigation, J.Y., Y.Z. and H.C.; data curation, J.Y., Y.Z. and H.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Y., Y.Z. and H.C.; writing—review and editing, C.J. and D.Z.; supervision, C.J. and D.Z.; project administration, J.Y. and Y.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding (2022-PUMCH-C-056, 2022-PUMCH-B-029), the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) (2021-I2M-1-041), the Distinguished Taishan Scholars Plan (NO. tspd20210321, NO. tstp20230653) and the horizontal subject of Shandong University (6010121004).

Data Availability Statement

The data generated in this study are included in this article and its Supplementary Materials. Additional enquiries are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the authors of the included studies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Louis, D.N.; Perry, A.; Wesseling, P. The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: A summary. Neuro-Oncology 2021, 23, 1231–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Deckert, M.; Engert, A.; Brück, W.; Ferreri, A.J.; Finke, J.; Illerhaus, G.; Klapper, W.; Korfel, A.; Küppers, R.; Maarouf, M.; et al. Modern concepts in the biology, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma. Leukemia 2011, 25, 1797–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Yuan, Y.; Ding, T.; Wang, S.; Chen, H.; Mao, Y.; Chen, T. Current and emerging therapies for primary central nervous system lymphoma. Biomark. Res. 2021, 9, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Grommes, C.; DeAngelis, L.M. Primary CNS Lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35, 2410–2418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cwynarski, K.; Cummin, T.; Osborne, W.; Lewis, J.; Chaganti, S.; Smith, J.; Linton, K.; Greaves, P.; McKay, P.; Fox, C.P.; et al. Management of secondary central nervous system lymphoma. Br. J. Haematol. 2023, 200, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hoang-Xuan, K.; Deckert, M.; Ferreri, A.J.M.; Furtner, J.; Gallego Perez-Larraya, J.; Henriksson, R.; Hottinger, A.F.; Kasenda, B.; Lefranc, F.; Lossos, A.; et al. European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guidelines for treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL). Neuro-Oncology 2023, 25, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Saad, T.; Tuck, A.; Golestani, F.; Smith, P.; McCulloch, R. Primary central nervous system lymphoma: A practical guide for neurologists. Pract. Neurol. 2023, 23, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shen, J.; Liu, J. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of primary central nervous system lymphoma: A mini-review. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 1034668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yu, H.; Kong, H.; Li, C.; Dong, X.; Wu, Y.; Zhuang, Y.; Han, S.; Lei, T.; Yang, H. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors in primary central nervous system lymphoma-evaluation of anti-tumor efficacy and brain distribution. Transl. Cancer Res. 2021, 10, 1975–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Robak, T.; Witkowska, M.; Smolewski, P. The Role of Bruton’s Kinase Inhibitors in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Current Status and Future Directions. Cancers 2022, 14, 771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wen, T.; Wang, J.; Shi, Y.; Qian, H.; Liu, P. Inhibitors targeting Bruton’s tyrosine kinase in cancers: Drug development advances. Leukemia 2021, 35, 312–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Grommes, C.; Nayak, L.; Tun, H.W.; Batchelor, T.T. Introduction of novel agents in the treatment of primary CNS lymphoma. Neuro-Oncology 2019, 21, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, T.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chang, Q.; Wu, J.; Wang, Z.; Geng, D.; Yu, J.T.; Li, Y.; Li, X.Q.; et al. Evidence-based expert consensus on the management of primary central nervous system lymphoma in China. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2022, 15, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lv, L.; Sun, X.; Wu, Y.; Cui, Q.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Y. Efficacy and Safety of Ibrutinib in Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A PRISMA-Compliant Single-Arm Meta-Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 707285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Nepal, G.; Khurana, M. Ibrutinib in Refractory or Relapsing Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Systematic Review. Neurol. Int. 2022, 14, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Burger, J.A. Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: Present and Future. Cancer J. 2019, 25, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zhang, B.; Zhao, R.; Liang, R.; Gao, Y.; Cui, J. Abstract CT132: Orelabrutinib, a potent and selective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor with superior safety profile and excellent PK/PD properties. In Proceedings of the AACR Annual Meeting 2020, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 22–24 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
  18. Narita, Y.; Nagane, M.; Mishima, K.; Terui, Y.; Arakawa, Y.; Yonezawa, H.; Asai, K.; Fukuhara, N.; Sugiyama, K.; Shinojima, N.; et al. Phase I/II study of tirabrutinib, a second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in relapsed/refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma. Neuro-Oncology 2021, 23, 122–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhuang, Z.; Wang, W.; Wei, C.; Zhao, D.; Zhou, D.; Zhang, W. Preliminary Evaluation of Zanubrutinib-Containing Regimens in DLBCL and the Cerebrospinal Fluid Distribution of Zanubrutinib: A 13-Case Series. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 760405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Zhao, D.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, D. S224: Preliminary Results of a Phase II Study of Orelabrutinib in Combination with Anti-Pd-1 Monoclonal Antibody in Refractory or Relapsed Primary Cns Lymphoma. HemaSphere 2022, 6, 125–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yang, C.; Cui, Y.; Ren, X.; Li, M.; Yu, K.; Shen, S.; Jiang, H.; Li, M.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, X.; et al. Orelabrutinib Combined with Lenalidomide and Immunochemotherapy for Relapsed/Refractory Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Retrospective Analysis of Case Series. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 901797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, J.J.; Wang, W.H.; Dong, M.; Ma, S.S.; Zhang, X.D.; Zhu, L.N.; Niu, S.T.; Ding, M.J.; Zhang, J.M.; Zhang, L.; et al. Orelabrutinib-bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based regimens in the treatment of central nervous system lymphoma: A retrospective study. Investig. New Drugs 2022, 40, 650–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zeng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Kwong, J.S.; Zhang, C.; Li, S.; Sun, F.; Niu, Y.; Du, L. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. J. Evid.-Based Med. 2015, 8, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Nyaga, V.N.; Arbyn, M.; Aerts, M. Metaprop: A Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch. Public Health 2014, 72, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yoshioka, H.; Okuda, T.; Nakao, T.; Fujita, M.; Takahashi, J.C. Experience with Tirabrutinib in the Treatment of Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma that Is Difficult to Treat with Standard Treatment. Anticancer Res. 2022, 42, 4173–4178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lewis, K.L.; Chin, C.K.; Manos, K. Ibrutinib for central nervous system lymphoma: The Australasian Lymphoma Alliance/MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Br. J. Hematol. 2021, 192, 1049–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Lauer, E.M.; Waterhouse, M.; Braig, M.; Mutter, J.; Bleul, S.; Duque-Afonso, J.; Duyster, J.; Marks, R.; Reinacher, P.C.; Prinz, M.; et al. Ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory central nervous system lymphoma: A retrospective single-centre analysis. Br. J. Hematol. 2020, 190, e110–e114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Deak-Mihaly, D.; Iluta, S.; Pasca, S.; Jitaru, C.; Roman, A. Ibrutinib Monotherapy as Bridge-to-Transplant for Relapsed/Refractory Primary Oculo-Cerebral Lymphoma. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 4483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Soussain, C.; Choquet, S.; Blonski, M.; Leclercq, D.; Houillier, C.; Rezai, K.; Bijou, F.; Houot, R.; Boyle, E.; Gressin, R.; et al. Ibrutinib monotherapy for relapse or refractory primary CNS lymphoma and primary vitreoretinal lymphoma: Final analysis of the phase II ‘proof-of-concept’ iLOC study by the Lymphoma study association (LYSA) and the French oculo-cerebral lymphoma (LOC) network. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 117, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chamoun, K.; Choquet, S.; Boyle, E.; Houillier, C.; Larrieu-Ciron, D.; Al Jijakli, A.; Delrieu, V.; Delwail, V.; Morschhauser, F.; Hoang-Xuan, K.; et al. Ibrutinib monotherapy in relapsed/refractory CNS lymphoma: A retrospective case series. Neurology 2017, 88, 101–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Grommes, C.; Pastore, A.; Palaskas, N.; Tang, S.S.; Campos, C.; Schartz, D.; Codega, P.; Nichol, D.; Clark, O.; Hsieh, W.Y.; et al. Ibrutinib Unmasks Critical Role of Bruton Tyrosine Kinase in Primary CNS Lymphoma. Cancer Discov. 2017, 7, 1018–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lionakis, M.S.; Dunleavy, K.; Roschewski, M.; Widemann, B.C.; Butman, J.A.; Schmitz, R.; Yang, Y.; Cole, D.E.; Melani, C.; Higham, C.S.; et al. Inhibition of B Cell Receptor Signaling by Ibrutinib in Primary CNS Lymphoma. Cancer Cell 2017, 31, 833–843.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, S.; Zhu, Y.; Qian, X.; Ding, T.; Yuan, Y.; Li, Y.; Wu, H.; Chen, T. The outcome of ibrutinib-based regimens in relapsed/refractory central nervous system lymphoma and the potential impact of genomic variants. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2023, 32, 855–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Grommes, C.; Tang, S.S.; Wolfe, J.; Kaley, T.J.; Daras, M.; Pentsova, E.I.; Piotrowski, A.F.; Stone, J.; Lin, A.; Nolan, C.P.; et al. Phase 1b trial of an ibrutinib-based combination therapy in recurrent/refractory CNS lymphoma. Blood 2019, 133, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Renaud, L.; Bossard, J.B. Treatment with temozolomide and ibrutinib in recurrent/refractory primary (PCNSL) and secondary CNS lymphoma (SCNSL). Eur. J. Haematol. 2021, 107, 370–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Song, J.; Liu, H.; Shen, H. Clinical features and prognostic analysis of 49 cases of newly diagnosed primary central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Chin. J. Hematol. 2021, 42, 917–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, F.; Pang, D.; Guo, H.; Ou, Q. Clinical outcomes of newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma treated with ibrutinib-based combination therapy: A real-world experience of off-label ibrutinib use. Cancer Med. 2020, 9, 8676–8684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Guan, W.; Wang, L.; Peng, X. Targeting Bruton’s tyrosine kinase in vitreoretinal lymphoma: An open-label, prospective, single-center, phase 2 study. Exp. Hematol. Oncol. 2022, 11, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Chen, Y.; Liu, H.; Sun, X.; Bai, X. A preliminary study of ibrutinib in combination with chemotherapy for relapsed refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma. Chin. J. Neurosurg. 2020, 36, 1047–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, W.; Ma, S.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, M. Therapeutic role and safety analysis of BTK inhibitors in central nervous system lymphoma. Chin. J. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 50, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ferreri, A.J.; Cwynarski, K.; Pulczynski, E.; Ponzoni, M.; Deckert, M.; Politi, L.S.; Torri, V.; Fox, C.P.; Rosée, P.L.; Schorb, E.; et al. Chemoimmunotherapy with methotrexate, cytarabine, thiotepa, and rituximab (MATRix regimen) in patients with primary CNS lymphoma: Results of the first randomisation of the International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. 2016, 3, e217–e227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rusconi, C.; Cheah, C.Y. Ibrutinib improves survival compared with chemotherapy in mantle cell lymphoma with central nervous system relapse. Blood 2022, 140, 1907–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ambady, P.; Doolittle, N.D.; Fox, C.P. Relapsed and refractory primary CNS lymphoma: Treatment approaches in routine practice. Ann. Lymphoma 2021, 5, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kasenda, B.; Ihorst, G.; Schroers, R.; Korfel, A.; Schmidt-Wolf, I.; Egerer, G.; von Baumgarten, L.; Röth, A.; Bloehdorn, J.; Möhle, R.; et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous haematopoietic stem cell support for relapsed or refractory primary CNS lymphoma: A prospective multicentre trial by the German Cooperative PCNSL study group. Leukemia 2017, 31, 2623–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mappa, S.; Marturano, E.; Licata, G.; Frezzato, M.; Frungillo, N.; Ilariucci, F.; Stelitano, C.; Ferrari, A.; Sorarù, M.; Vianello, F.; et al. Salvage chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab, ifosfamide and etoposide (R-IE regimen) in patients with primary CNS lymphoma relapsed or refractory to high-dose methotrexate-based chemotherapy. Hematol. Oncol. 2013, 31, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Dietrich, J.; Versmee, L.; Drappatz, J.; Eichler, A.F.; Nayak, L.; Norden, A.; Wong, E.; Pisapia, M.R.; Jones, S.S.; Gordon, A.B.; et al. Pemetrexed in Recurrent or Progressive Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Phase I Multicenter Clinical Trial. Oncologist 2020, 25, 747–e1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 16 00860 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection.
Cancers 16 00860 g001
Cancers 16 00860 g002
Figure 2. The pooled ORR (A), CR (B), and PR (C) for relapsed/refractory patients [18,19,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40,41].
Figure 2. The pooled ORR (A), CR (B), and PR (C) for relapsed/refractory patients [18,19,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,39,40,41].
Cancers 16 00860 g002
Cancers 16 00860 g003
Figure 3. The pooled ORR (A), CR (B), and PR (C) with BTKi monotherapy for relapsed/refractory patients [18,22,26,27,28,30,31,32,39,41].
Figure 3. The pooled ORR (A), CR (B), and PR (C) with BTKi monotherapy for relapsed/refractory patients [18,22,26,27,28,30,31,32,39,41].
Cancers 16 00860 g003
Cancers 16 00860 g004
Figure 4. The pooled ORR (A), CR (B), and PR (C) with BTKi combination therapy for relapsed/refractory patients [19,21,22,27,28,29,33,34,35,36,40,41].
Figure 4. The pooled ORR (A), CR (B), and PR (C) with BTKi combination therapy for relapsed/refractory patients [19,21,22,27,28,29,33,34,35,36,40,41].
Cancers 16 00860 g004
Cancers 16 00860 g005
Figure 5. The pooled mPFS (A) and mOS (B) for relapsed/refractory patients [18,21,28,30,32,33,34,36,40].
Figure 5. The pooled mPFS (A) and mOS (B) for relapsed/refractory patients [18,21,28,30,32,33,34,36,40].
Cancers 16 00860 g005
Table 1. Information of the included studies.
Table 1. Information of the included studies.
No.
Study		CountryStudy DesignNo. of PatientsMale/
Female		Median (Range) Age, YearsCNSL StatusType of CNSLInterventionOutcomes
ORR (%)CR (%)PR (%)mPFS (Month)mOS (Month)
1Chamoun K 2016 [31]USRetrospective case series149/568 (48–79)Relapsed/refractoryPrimaryIbrutinib monotherapy502129--
2Grommes C 2017 [32]USProspective208/1269 (21–85)Relapsed/refractoryPrimary/secondaryIbrutinib monotherapy7045254.6-
3Lionakis MS 2017 [33]USRetrospective1811/7066 (49–87)Newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractoryPrimaryIbrutinib/DA-TEDDi-R combination9386715.3NR
4Soussain C 2019 [30]FranceProspective5224/2867.5 (47–82)Relapsed/refractoryPrimaryIbrutinib monotherapy5219334.819.2
5Grommes C 2019 [35]USProspective158/762 (23–74)Newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractoryPrimary/secondaryIbrutinib-based combination therapy8053279.2NR
6Chen F 2020 [38]ChinaRetrospective117/456 (41–68)Newly diagnosedPrimaryIbrutinib/MTX combination8264187.4NR
7Lauer EM 2020 [28]UKRetrospective9NA63 (53–82)Relapsed/refractoryPrimary/secondaryIbrutinib monotherapy or in combination with other regimens 666609.2NR
8Chen YD 2020 [40]ChinaRetrospective1810/858.5 (18–76)Relapsed/refractoryPrimaryIbrutinib-based regimen835528615
9Lewis KL 2020 [27]AustraliaProspective3323/1064 (22–85)Relapsed/refractoryPrimary/secondaryIbrutinib monotherapy or in combination with other regimens58553--
10Narita Y 2020 [18]JapanProspective4424/2060 (29–86)Relapsed/refractoryPrimaryTirabrutinib6434302.9NR
11Dalma DM 2021 [29]RomaniaRetrospective case series31/260 (53–64)Relapsed/refractoryPrimaryIbrutinib monotherapy or in combination with other regimens67670--
12Yu HF 2021 [9]ChinaRetrospective31/276 (45–79)Newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractoryPrimaryIbrutinib monotherapy or in combination with other regimens1006733--
13Zhang Y 2021 [19]ChinaRetrospective case series133/1053 (52–69)Newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractoryPrimaryZanubrutinib-based regimens88880--
14Renaud L 2021 [36]FranceRetrospective2212/1071 (44–89)Relapsed/refractoryPrimary/secondaryIbrutinib and temozolomide5514415.38.9
15Song J 2021 [37]ChinaRetrospective4932/1763 (33–81)Newly diagnosedPrimaryibrutinib or zanubrutinib in combination with other regimens---i: 20
z: 5		i: 42
z: NR
16Yoshioka H 2022 [26]JapanRetrospective case series51/476 (62–77)Relapsed/refractoryPrimaryTirabrutinib-based regimens1000100--
17Wu JJ 2022 [22]ChinaRetrospective2315/855 ± 13.78 (mean)Newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractoryPrimary/secondaryOrelabrutinib monotherapy or orelabrutinib-based regimens683137--
18Yang C 2022 [21]ChinaRetrospective155/1062 (33–78)Relapsed/refractoryPrimaryCombination of rituximab, HD-MTX, temozolomide, orelabrutinib, and lenalidomide8673139.8NR
19Guan WX 2022 [39]ChinaProspective103/752 (41–74)Newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractoryPrimaryBTKi (ibrutinib zanubrutinib or orelabrutinib) monotherapy treatment907020--
20Wang WH 2022 [41]ChinaRetrospective4322/2153 (52–69)Relapsed/refractoryPrimary/SecondaryIbrutinib-based regimens741856--
21Wang S 2023 [34]ChinaRetrospective1410/458 (37–80)Relapsed/refractoryPrimary/SecondaryIbrutinib-based regimens7857214-
NA = not applicable; NR = not reached; i = ibrutinib; z = zanubrutinib.
Table 2. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist of Case Series for included studies.
Table 2. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist of Case Series for included studies.
StudiesQ1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10
Chamoun K 2016 [31]YesNoUnclearUnclearYesNoYesYesNoNA
Grommes C 2017 [32]YesYesUnclearUnclearUnclearNoYesYesNoYes
Lionakis MS 2017 [33]YesNoUnclearUnclearNoNoYesYesNoYes
Soussain C 2019 [30]YesYesUnclearYesYesNoYesYesNoYes
Grommes C 2019 [35]YesNoUnclearUnclearNoNoYesYesNoYes
Chen F 2020 [38]YesYesUnclearNoNoNoYesYesNoYes
Lewis KL 2020 [27]YesYesUnclearUnclearYesNoYesYesNoYes
Lauer EM 2020 [28]YesYesYesNoNoNoYesYesNoYes
Narita Y 2020 [18]YesNoUnclearUnclearYesNoYesYesNoYes
Chen YD 2020 [40]YesNoUnclearNoNoNoYesYesNoYes
Dalma DM 2021 [29]YesNoUnclearNoNoNoYesYesNoNA
Renaud L 2021 [36]YesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesNoYes
Yoshioka H 2021 [26]YesNoUnclearUnclearNoNoYesYesNoNA
Zhang Y 2021 [19]YesNoUnclearUnclearNoNoYesYesNoYes
Yu HF 2021 [9]YesNoUnclearYesNoNoYesYesNoNA
Song J 2021 [37]YesNoUnclearUnclearNoNoYesYesNoYes
Yang C 2022 [21]YesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesNoYes
Wu JJ 2022 [22]YesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesNoYes
Guan WX 2022 [39]YesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesNoYes
Wang WH 2022 [41]YesNoUnclearUnclearNoNoYesYesNoYes
Wang S 2023 [34]YesYesUnclearUnclearNoNoYesYesNoYes
NA = not applicable.
Table 3. Quantitative description of newly diagnosed CNSL.
Table 3. Quantitative description of newly diagnosed CNSL.
StudyORRCRPR
Event NumberTotalEffect SizeLower CIUpper CIEvent NumberTotalEffect SizeLower CIUpper CIEvent NumberTotalEffect SizeLower CIUpper CI
Chen F [38]9110.820.520.957110.640.350.852110.180.050.48
Wu JJ [22]441.000.511.00240.500.150.85240.500.150.85
Guan WX [39]661.000.611.00460.670.300.90260.330.100.70
Zhang Y [19]441.000.511.00441.000.511.00040.000.000.49
Yu HF [9]221.000.341.00120.500.090.91120.500.090.91
Lionakis MS [33]551.000.571.00050.000.000.43551.000.571.00
Grommes C [35]331.000.441.00130.530.230.82230.430.130.76
Table 4. Grade 3–5 AEs of BTKis.
Table 4. Grade 3–5 AEs of BTKis.
Adverse Event in DetailAll Types of BTKis (95% CI)I2Ibrutinib (95% CI)I2Second-Generation BTKis (95% CI)I2
Thrombocytopenia0.09 (0.02, 0.18)55.82%0.13 (0.07, 0.21)0.00%0.04 (0.00, 0.19)68.06%
Neutropenia0.12 (0.04, 0.22)67.96%0.12 (0.03, 0.26)68.64%0.11 (0.00, 0.34)77.83%
Anemia0.12 (0.05, 0.20)0.00%0.12 (0.05, 0.20)0.00%NA
Leukopenia0.10 (0.02, 0.20)74.96%0.10 (0.01, 0.25)78.61%0.09 (0.00, 0.30)76.17%
Lymphopenia0.19 (0.00, 0.56)92.37%0.19 (0.00, 0.56)92.37%NA
Febrile neutropenia0.04 (0.00, 0.19)53.85%0.04 (0.00, 0.19)53.85%NA
Aspergillosis0.03 (0.00, 0.8)0.00%0.03 (0.00, 0.8)0.00%NA
Infection0.12 (0.04, 0.22)72.33%0.14 (0.05, 0.27)75.07%0.03 (0.00, 0.10)0.00%
Bleeding0.02 (0.00, 0.06)0.00%0.02 (0.00, 0.06)0.00%0.02 (0.00, 0.14)0.00%
Atrial fibrillation0.01 (0.00, 0.04)0.00%0.01 (0.00, 0.04)0.00%NA
Transaminase increase0.05 (0.00, 0.14)66.13%0.13 (0.01, 0.31)75.96%0.01 (0.0, 0.06)0.00%
NA = not applicable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Y.; Ye, J.; Chen, H.; Zhou, D.; Ji, C. Efficacy and Safety of BTKis in Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2024, 16, 860. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050860

AMA Style

Zhang Y, Ye J, Chen H, Zhou D, Ji C. Efficacy and Safety of BTKis in Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2024; 16(5):860. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Yan, Jingjing Ye, Hao Chen, Daobin Zhou, and Chunyan Ji. 2024. "Efficacy and Safety of BTKis in Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cancers 16, no. 5: 860. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16050860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop