Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Scoping Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Hepatitis B reactivation in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Infectious Diseases of Poverty volume 12, Article number: 87 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Immunotherapy shows promise as a treatment option for various cancers. However, there is growing concern over potential complications from hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation after checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Although most of the previous clinical trials on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) excluded patients with HBV, a few case reports and retrospective studies of HBV reactivation have been published. The aim of this study is to assess the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in patients receiving ICIs for advanced cancer.

Methods

English and Chinese language literature published prior to April 30, 2023, was searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, SinoMed, CNKI and Wanfang Data for studies reporting HBVr rates in cancer patients treated with ICIs. A pooled risk estimate was calculated for HBVr rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Data from 34 studies including 7126 patients were retrieved and analyzed. The pooled HBVr rate in cancer patients treated with ICIs was 1.3% (I2 = 90.44%, 95% CI: 0.2–2.9%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), HBV carriers, and patients from Asian regions or in developing countries have a higher rate of HBVr.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis demonstrated a low risk of HBVr in patients treated with ICIs for advanced cancer. ICI treatment may be safely used in patients with existing HBV infection or chronic hepatitis B, accompanied by regular monitoring and appropriate antiviral prophylaxis if necessary.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Immunotherapy has emerged as a popular therapeutic approach for cancer patients in recent years. However, the issue of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) has become a matter of increasing concern among some patients. Chronic hepatitis B represents a significant public health problem worldwide, with a high prevalence in East Asia. There are approximately 316 million hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-seropositive patients, and an estimated 1.5 million new infections annually, particularly in developing and impoverished countries [1]. Given the large number of HBV carriers, many cancer patients also have concurrent hepatitis virus infection, which presents a considerable challenge.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which target programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), have revolutionized cancer therapy. As an increasing number of patients are exposed to these agents, the population eligible for ICI treatment continues to expand. However, patients with special clinicopathological characteristics, such as those with viral hepatitis, have often been excluded from clinical trials in the past, leading to a lack of efficacy and safety data [1,2,3].

Recent studies have shown that HBVr may occur in chronic hepatitis B (HBsAg-positive) patients or even in patients with resolved HBV (HBsAg-negative/HBcAb-positive) infection during immunotherapy [4,5,6], which might cause a potentially fatal complication for cancer patients. Furthermore, HBVr could also cause interruption of antineoplastic therapy and impact overall survival. As the rate of HBVr and potential risk factors for HBVr in patients treated with ICI-based therapy remain undefined, there is a lack of consensus among various organizations regarding the optimal management strategies for this patient population [7, 8].

Evaluating the potential risk of viral reactivation during ICI-based therapy could assist medical professionals in assessing the suitability of immunotherapy and may be useful for budget and cost-effectiveness analysis in pharmacoeconomics studies. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to estimate the rate of HBVr in chronic carriers of HBsAg and patients with resolved hepatitis B who received ICI-based therapy for advanced cancer.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [9]. This study was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022330949.

Retrieval of studies

To retrieve relevant studies, we conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases, covering literature prior to April 30, 2023, limited to the English language. Additionally, we searched the SinoMed (http://www.sinomed.ac.cn/index.jsp), CNKI (https://www.cnki.net/) and Wanfang database (https://wanfangdata.com.cn/) prior to April 30, 2023, limited to the Chinese language. Our search terms included cancer, tumor, ICIs (anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, anti-CTLA-4), specific ICI names (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, ipilimumab, sintilimab, etc.), and relevant terms related to HBV flare or reactivation. The detailed search strategy is provided in Additional file 1: Table S1.

The studies that were included in this meta-analysis had to meet the following criteria: (1) the study was conducted on human subjects and was either interventional or observational; (2) the patients were diagnosed with a solid tumor and had received at least one cycle of ICI therapy; and (3) the study reported complete outcomes that measured the incidence of HBVr.

Studies published as case reports or series, editorials, comments, letters and review articles were excluded. Given the potential influence of other types of hepatitis, patients co-infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis D virus (HDV), or hepatitis E virus (HEV) were excluded. Additionally, as the presence of active HBV replication may further exacerbate HIV-induced immune deficiency, patients co-infected with HBV and HIV were also excluded from the literature review. Overlapping patient data were comprehensively reviewed, prioritizing the study with the most useful and detailed information [10,11,12,13,14,15,16].

The initial screening of citations was based on the evaluation of their titles and abstracts. Subsequently, the full texts of relevant citations were further assessed to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the systematic review. Any conflicts among the researchers regarding study selection were resolved through discussion, and by referring back to the original article until a consensus was reached between all authors.

Quality evaluation

We used the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the quality of each study based on patient selection, comparability of groups, and assessment of outcome [17]. Studies with less than six stars were considered relatively low quality and were excluded. Two independent investigators evaluated the risk of bias, and disagreements were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached.

Data extraction

Two independent investigators screened the titles and abstracts for eligible studies according to the inclusion criteria, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion among all authors. We extracted the following information from the eligible articles: country/region, author, publication year, study type, number of patients, median age, HBV infection, tumor type, ICIs type, HBVr status, and use of antiviral drugs. For missing data, we contacted the authors of the studies for unreported data or additional details.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome for this review was the rate of HBVr in patients with preexisting HBV infection or chronic hepatitis B who received ICI treatment for malignancies. HBVr was defined based on the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2018 hepatitis B guideline [18], the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2020 HBV guidance [8] and other references [19], which was a relatively loose definition to include those patients with mild HBV increase and/or HBsAg reappearance. It could be interpreted as follows: for HBsAg-positive patients, (1) a tenfold increase in HBV DNA from baseline levels; (2) a 2-log (100-fold) increase in HBV DNA compared with baseline levels; (3) HBV DNA ≥ 3 log (1000) IU/ml in a patient with previously undetectable levels (given that HBV-DNA levels fluctuate); or (4) HBV DNA ≥ 4 log (10,000) IU/ml if the baseline level was not available; for HBsAg-negative patients, (1) detectable HBV DNA; or (2) HBsAg seroreversion (reappearance of HBsAg).

Statistical analysis

The probabilities of HBVr were estimated using a random-effects model [20]. Cochran chi-square heterogeneity was adopted to determine whether there was statistically significant heterogeneity in the pooled estimates. The I2 statistic was calculated as a measure of the degree of heterogeneity among selected studies, where I2 values of 25%, 50% and 75% were considered low, moderate and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively. Significant heterogeneity was investigated by subgroup analysis. Publication bias assessment was not performed because the outcome measure was the single-group rate. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata software (Version 16.0, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Characteristics of the included studies

As illustrated in the flowchart of the literature search strategy (Fig. 1), a total of 12,384 articles were retrieved from the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, SinoMed, CNKI and Wanfang databases. After removing duplicates and scrutinizing abstracts, 471 potentially eligible studies were identified, of which 34 studies with a total number of 7126 patients were ultimately included in this meta-analysis (Table 1). HBVr events were reported in 16 of the included studies; but not in the remaining 18 studies. These selected studies were published between 2018 and 2023. In terms of geographical origin, 25 studies were conducted in Asia (17 from China, 3 from Singapore, 3 from the Republic of Korea, and 2 from Japan), 5 studies were from North America (United States), 3 were from Oceania (2 from Australia and 1 from New Zealand) and 1 was from Europe (Italy).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection procedure

Full size image
Table 1 Basic characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Pooled HBVr rate among cancer patients receiving ICIs

A total of 34 studies with a combined cohort of 7126 patients were analyzed to assess the incidence of HBVr in patients receiving ICI-based therapy for advanced cancer. As shown in Fig. 2, the pooled HBVr rate was 1.3% (123 reactivation cases out of 7126 patients). The risk estimates for HBVr varied from 0 to 30.0%, indicating considerable heterogeneity among the included studies (95% CI: 0.2–2.9%; I2 = 90.44%, P < 0.001).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Pooled risk of HBVr among cancer patients with ICIs treatment. HBVr hepatitis B virus reactivation, ICIs immune checkpoint inhibitors, ES effect size, CI confidence interval

Full size image

Subgroup analysis

In addition to the primary meta-analysis, various subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the sources of heterogeneity and the impact of multiple factors on the risk of HBVr in cancer patients receiving ICIs.

In the subgroup analysis comparing HBVr rates between HCC and non-HCC patients (Fig. 3), the reactivation rates in HCC and non-HCC patients were 1.9% (95% CI: 0–5.7%; I2 = 92.52%, P < 0.001) and 0.5% (95% CI: 0–2.2%; I2 = 72.37%, P < 0.001), respectively. There was a difference in the reported reactivation rate between HCC and non-HCC patients with significant heterogeneity.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Risk of HBVr between HCC patients and non-HCC patients. HBVr hepatitis B virus reactivation, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, ES effect size, CI confidence interval

Full size image

In the subgroup analysis comparing HBVr rates between HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative patients (Fig. 4), the reactivation rates in HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative patients were 1.3% (95% CI: 0–4.5%; I2 = 87.44%, P < 0.001) and 0 (95% CI: 0–0; I2 = 0, P = 0.796), respectively. Patients with positive HBsAg status had a higher risk of HBVr than those with negative HBsAg status.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Risk of HBVr between HBsAg positive patients and HBsAg negative patients. HBVr hepatitis B virus reactivation, HBsAg hepatitis B surface antigen, ES effect size, CI: confidence interval

Full size image

Our analysis included 34 studies, of which 21 studies reported cases of HBVr in HBsAg-positive cancer patients, as presented in Additional file 2: Table S2. Considering the potential risk of HBVr in HBsAg-positive individuals, we performed a subgroup analysis of antiviral therapy in this population. As shown in Fig. 5, in the comparison of HBVr rates between antiviral and no antiviral patients in HBsAg-positive patients, the reactivation rates in HBsAg-positive patients with or without antiviral prophylaxis were 0.1% (95% CI: 0–1.4%; I2 = 60.00%, P < 0.001) and 0.7% (95% CI: 0–7.2%; I2 = 0, P = 0.894), respectively. Patients on antiviral prophylaxis were found to have a lower risk of HBVr than those without antiviral prophylaxis.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Risk of HBVr among HBsAg positive patients with or without antiviral prophylaxis. HBVr hepatitis B virus reactivation, HBsAg hepatitis B surface antigen, ES effect size, CI confidence interval

Full size image

Given the regional variation in HBV patients distribution, we performed an analysis to determine whether the geographic origin of the included studies affected the reported rate of HBVr. (Fig. 6). Meta-analysis of the 23 Asian studies showed a pooled HBVr rate of 1.8% (95% CI: 0.3–3.9%; I2 = 92.77%, P < 0.001), whereas the reactivation rate in the 7 non-Asian studies was 0 (95% CI: 0–0; I2 = 0, P = 0.933). Our findings comparing HBVr rates between Asian and non-Asian patients indicate that the reported reactivation rate varied significantly between regions, with differences noted between Asian and non-Asian regions.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Risk of HBVr between Asian patients and non-Asian patients. HBVr hepatitis B virus reactivation, ES effect size, CI confidence interval

Full size image

To investigate the influence of socioeconomic factors on the variable HBVr rates reported in different studies, we further analyzed the included studies based on their level of regional economic development as classified by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (https://data.imf.org/documents/WEOGroups.pdf, accessed on 10 May 2023) (Fig. 7) comparison of HBVr rates between developing and developed countries/regions. The meta-analysis of the 14 studies in developing countries/regions showed a pooled HBVr rate of 2.9% (95% CI: 0.2–7.5%; I2 = 91.85%, P < 0.001), whereas the reactivation rate in the 20 studies in developed countries/regions was 0.2% (95% CI: 0–1.0%; I2 = 72.91%, P < 0.001).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Risk of HBVr between developing vs developed countries. HBVr hepatitis B virus reactivation, ES effect size, CI confidence interval

Full size image

Discussion

Our findings indicate that cancer patients exposed to ICIs have a measurable risk of HBV reactivation, which was estimated at 1.3%. ICI therapy can be considered close to a low risk factor, according to the threshold recommended by the AGA guideline for the prevention and management of HBVr, which defines an expected incidence of < 1% of cases as low risk. It is also lower than the reported spontaneous reactivation rate of HBV [21,22,23,24,25].

HBV can evade attack by HBV-specific immune cells and persist in the host through the presence of latent covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) or low-level replicating HBV following infection. This immune balance disruption can lead to HBVr. As ICIs target the immune evasion mechanisms of cancer cells, there is concern about the potential for ICIs to induce HBVr [26]. However, some reports indicate that ICIs may reduce the HBV viral load and maintain undetectable serum levels of HBV-DNA [26, 27]. Basic research in HBV carriers has shown that PD-1 is highly expressed on HBV-specific T cells and that PD-1 inhibitors may restore T-cell function. Additionally, studies have suggested that CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies can block regulatory T-cell activity and restore the ability of follicular helper T cells to clear HBV. In a phase I clinical study, PD-1 blockade was found to restore HBV-specific immune responses in patients with chronic HBV infection [28]. However, the underlying mechanisms of the effect of ICIs on HBV require further exploration.

It is worth noting that among all HBsAg-positive patients, the pooled reactivation rate was 0.7% in the subgroup without antiviral drug intervention, while it was 0.1% in the subgroup with concomitant antiviral prophylaxis. These findings suggest that HBsAg-positive patients should not be excluded from eligibility to receive ICIs, as long as standardized antiviral prophylaxis is ensured throughout the entire course of therapy. Further research is necessary to determine the optimal antiviral prophylactic strategies for different patient populations.

Subgroup analysis revealed that patients from Asian regions or developing countries/regions had a higher rate of HBVr, which may be due to a higher prevalence of HBV carriers and lower socioeconomic status [29]. These findings are consistent with the results from the subgroup analysis, which confirmed that patients who were HBV carriers had a higher rate of HBVr than those who were HBsAg-negative. Due to the prolonged and resource-intensive nature of cancer and HBV treatment, particularly when expensive ICIs are involved in the antitumor regimen, patients in these countries may not be able to afford long-term monitoring and antiviral prophylaxis for HBV, even if recommended by health care professionals. However, studies are warranted with confounding factors controlled.

Subgroup analysis confirmed that patients with HCC have a higher risk of HBVr than those without HCC. However, due to insufficient data, subgroup analysis for solid tumors other than HCC was not performed. Further studies are needed to investigate whether patients with other types of solid tumors have different rates of HBVr when treated with ICIs.

This meta-analysis has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the study did not cover all types of ICIs and cancer types. Therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to all populations. Second, the majority of the included studies were retrospective, which may have led to high levels of selection bias. Third, significant heterogeneity among the existing studies made it difficult to accurately estimate the risk of HBVr in HBV carriers or patients with resolved hepatitis B who received ICI-based therapy for advanced cancer. Additionally, it is crucial to carefully consider individual patient characteristics and treatment regimens when evaluating the risk of HBVr in this population. Despite these limitations, given the severe situation surrounding hepatitis B prevention and control and the urgent need for evidence-based information, meta-analyses such as this are necessary. Further research is needed to expand upon these findings and better understand the risks associated with ICI-based therapy for advanced cancer in patients with hepatitis B.

Conclusions

This study shows a measurable and potentially low risk of HBVr in patients with ICI treatment for advanced cancer. For those who are HBsAg-positive, prophylactic use of anti-HBV agents should be seriously considered before immunotherapy starts. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to confirm the findings.

Availability of data and materials

Datasets are available through the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ICIs:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

HBV:

Hepatitis B virus

HBVr:

Hepatitis B Virus reactivation

CI :

Confidence intervals

ES:

Effect size

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

HBsAg:

Hepatitis B surface antigen

PD-1:

Programmed cell death protein 1

PD-L1:

Programmed cell death ligand 1

CTLA-4:

Cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

HCV:

Hepatitis C virus

HAV:

Hepatitis A virus

HDV:

Hepatitis D virus

HEV:

Hepatitis E virus

NOS:

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

AASLD:

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

ASCO:

American Society of Clinical Oncology

IMF:

International Monetary Fund

AGA:

American Gastroenterological Association

cccDNA:

Covalently closed circular DNA

TKIs:

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors

MM:

Malignant melanoma

GBM:

Glioblastoma multiforme

UTUC:

Upper tract urothelial carcinoma

NSCLC:

Non-small cell lung cancer

LC:

Lung cancer

NPC:

Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

UC:

Urologic cancer

HPBC:

Hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer

GC:

Gastric cancer

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

RCC:

Renal cell carcinoma

HNC:

Head and neck cancer

N.A.:

Not available

References

  1. Collaborators GBDHB. Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(9):796–829.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson DB, Sullivan RJ, Menzies AM. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in challenging populations. Cancer. 2017;123(11):1904–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Loomba R, Liang TJ. Hepatitis B reactivation associated with immune suppressive and biological modifier therapies: current concepts, management strategies, and future directions. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(6):1297–309.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mak LY, Wong DK, Pollicino T, Raimondo G, Hollinger FB, Yuen MF. Occult hepatitis B infection and hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology, virology, hepatocarcinogenesis and clinical significance. J Hepatol. 2020;73(4):952–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Papatheodoridi M, Tampaki M, Lok AS, Papatheodoridis GV. Risk of HBV reactivation during therapies for HCC: A systematic review. Hepatology. 2022;75(5):1257–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wong GL, Wong VW, Hui VW, Yip TC, Tse YK, Liang LY, et al. Hepatitis flare during immunotherapy in patients with current or past hepatitis B virus infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(6):1274–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang Y, Sun J, Wu M, Lau WY, Zheng S, Wang XH, et al. Chinese expert consensus on immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (2021 edition). Liver Cancer. 2022;11(6):511–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Hwang J, Feld J, Hammond S, Wang S, Alston-Johnson D, Cryer D, et al. Hepatitis B virus screening and management for patients with cancer prior to therapy ASCO provisional clinical opinion update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(31):3698–715. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.01757.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liberati AAD, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Yuan GSHW, Hu XY, Li Q, Zang MY, Cheng X, Huang W, Ruan J, Wang JJ, Hou JL, Chen JZ. Clinical efficacy and safety analysis of camrelizumab combined with apatinib as a second-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study. Chin J Hepatol. 2021;29(4):326–31 (In Chinese).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Yu YY, Wang CY, Tu B, Shen YJ, Qiu Q, Luan JS, et al. Effects of programmed death receptor-1 antibody in patients with hepatitis B-associated liver cancer. Chin J Hepatol. 2021;29(7):659–65 (In Chinese).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pan S, Yu Y, Wang S, Tu B, Shen Y, Qiu Q, et al. Correlation of HBV DNA and hepatitis b surface antigen levels with tumor response, liver function and immunological indicators in liver cancer patients with HBV infection undergoing PD-1 inhibition combinational therapy. Front Immunol. 2022;13: 892618.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wen X, Wang Y, Ding Y, Li D, Li J, Guo Y, et al. Safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in Chinese patients with melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2016;26(3):284–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. El-Khoueiry AB, Sangro B, Yau T, Crocenzi TS, Kudo M, Hsu C, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10088):2492–502.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Verset G, Borbath I, Karwal M, Verslype C, Van Vlierberghe H, Kardosh A, et al. Pembrolizumab monotherapy for previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Data from the open-label, phase II KEYNOTE-224 Trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28(12):2547–54.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kudo M, Finn RS, Edeline J, Cattan S, Ogasawara S, Palmer DH, et al. Updated efficacy and safety of KEYNOTE-224: a phase II study of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib. Eur J Cancer. 2022;167:1–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wells GA WG, Shea B, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2013. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

  18. Terrault NA, Lok ASF, McMahon BJ, Chang KM, Hwang JP, Jonas MM, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Hepatology. 2018;67(4):1560–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hwang JP, Lok AS. Management of patients with hepatitis B who require immunosuppressive therapy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11(4):209–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sun G, Wang A, Wang Y, Pu Z, Fu T, Wang Y, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of the spontaneous reactivation of HBV carriers in community population in Wuwei City. Chin J Dis Control Prev. 2017;21(4):332–5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gupta S, Govindarajan S, Fong T, Redeker A. Spontaneous reactivation in chronic hepatitis B: patterns and natural history. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1990;12(5):562–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. El Jamaly H, Eslick GD, Weltman M. Meta-analysis: hepatitis B reactivation in patients receiving biological therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;56(7):1104–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paul S, Saxena A, Terrin N, Viveiros K, Balk EM, Wong JB. Hepatitis B virus reactivation and prophylaxis during solid tumor chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(1):30–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Reddy KR, Beavers KL, Hammond SP, Lim JK, Falck-Ytter YT, American Gastroenterological Association I. American Gastroenterological Association Institute guideline on the prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(1):215–9; quiz e216-217.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dumolard L, Aspord C, Marche PN, Macek JZ. Immune checkpoints on T and NK cells in the context of HBV infection: landscape, pathophysiology and therapeutic exploitation. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1148111.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu J, Zhang E, Ma Z, Wu W, Kosinska A, Zhang X, et al. Enhancing virus-specific immunity in vivo by combining therapeutic vaccination and PD-L1 blockade in chronic hepadnaviral infection. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10(1): e1003856.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Gane E, Verdon DJ, Brooks AE, Gaggar A, Nguyen AH, Subramanian GM, et al. Anti-PD-1 blockade with nivolumab with and without therapeutic vaccination for virally suppressed chronic hepatitis B: a pilot study. J Hepatol. 2019;71(5):900–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu Z, Li M, Hutton DW, Wagner AL, Yao Y, Zhu W, et al. Impact of the national hepatitis B immunization program in China: a modeling study. Infect Dis Poverty. 2022;11(1):106.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhu AX, Finn RS, Edeline J, Cattan S, Ogasawara S, Palmer D, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib (KEYNOTE-224): a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(7):940–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tio M, Rai R, Ezeoke OM, McQuade JL, Zimmer L, Khoo C, et al. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in patients with solid organ transplant, HIV or hepatitis B/C infection. Eur J Cancer. 2018;104:137–44.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Yau T, Hsu C, Kim TY, Choo SP, Kang YK, Hou MM, et al. Nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib-experienced Asian cohort analysis. J Hepatol. 2019;71(3):543–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Finn RS, Ryoo BY, Merle P, Kudo M, Bouattour M, Lim HY, et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: a randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(3):193–202.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shah NJ, Al-Shbool G, Blackburn M, Cook M, Belouali A, Liu SV, et al. Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer patients with HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C viral infection. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):353.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang X, Zhou Y, Chen C, Fang W, Cai X, Zhang X, et al. Hepatitis B virus reactivation in cancer patients with positive Hepatitis B surface antigen undergoing PD-1 inhibition. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):322.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Qin S, Ren Z, Meng Z, Chen Z, Chai X, Xiong J, et al. Camrelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(4):571–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pertejo-Fernandez A, Ricciuti B, Hammond SP, Marty FM, Recondo G, Rangachari D, et al. Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection. Lung Cancer. 2020;145:181–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee PC, Chao Y, Chen MH, Lan KH, Lee IC, Hou MC, et al. Risk of HBV reactivation in patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(2): e001072.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Byeon S, Cho JH, Jung HA, Sun JM, Lee SH, Ahn JS, et al. PD-1 inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer patients with special issues: real-world evidence. Cancer Med. 2020;9(7):2352–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan GH, Gwee YX, Low JL, Huang Y, Chan ZY, Choo JR, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibition for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis or Hepatitis B: experience from a single Asian centre. Lung Cancer. 2020;146:145–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ng KYY, Wong LWJ, Ang AJS, Tan SH, Choo SP, Tai DW, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: experience of a tertiary Asian Center. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2021;17(5):e249–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen J, Hu X, Li Q, Dai W, Cheng X, Huang W, et al. Effectiveness and safety of toripalimab, camrelizumab, and sintilimab in a real-world cohort of hepatitis B virus associated hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(18):1187.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Saw H JF, Megan L, Natalie R, Andrew L, Ritwik P. Retrospective study on Hepatitis B screening and risk of HBV reactivation in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced cancer patients. COSA's 47th Annual Scientific Meeting, Quality and Safety, Implementation Science, Cardio-Oncology, Virtual, Australia, 11-13 November 2020. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13498.

  44. Zhong L, Zhong P, Liu H, Li Z, Nie Q, Peng W. Hepatitis B virus infection does not affect the clinical outcome of anti-programmed death receptor-1 therapy in advanced solid malignancies: real-world evidence from a retrospective study using propensity score matching. Medicine (Baltimore). 2021;100(49): e28113.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Xu F, Zeng Z, Yan B, Fu Y, Sun Y, Yang G, et al. Safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 inhibitors in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer and hepatitis B virus infection: a retrospective single-center study. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021;10(4):1819–28.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang K, Xia Y, Zhu Y, Yu W, Guo Y, Liu L. Virological breakthrough after immune checkpoint inhibitor and nucleos(t)ide analog treatment in patients with hepatitis B surface antigen positive hepatocellular carcinoma: a real-world study. J ImmunoTher Cancer. 2021;9:e003195. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2021-003195.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. He MK, Peng C, Zhao Y, Liang RB, Lai ZC, Kan A, et al. Comparison of HBV reactivation between patients with high HBV-DNA and low HBV-DNA loads undergoing PD-1 inhibitor and concurrent antiviral prophylaxis. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2021;70(11):3207–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yoo S, Lee D, Shim JH, Kim KM, Lim YS, Lee HC, et al. Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients treated with immunotherapy for anti-cancer treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(4):898–907.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lee JJX, Tan SH, Hennedige TP, Loke KSH, Gogna A, Ng DCE, et al. 947P Updated survival and secondary safety and efficacy analyses from CA 209–678: a phase II open-label single-centre study of Y90-radioembolisation (Y90) in combination with nivolumab in Asian patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Ann Oncol. 2021;32(25):S825.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zhang X, Tian D, Chen Y, Chen C, He LN, Zhou Y, et al. Association of hepatitis B virus infection status with outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer patients undergoing anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021;10(7):3191–202.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee DW, Cho EJ, Lee JH, Yu SJ, Kim YJ, Yoon JH, et al. Phase II study of avelumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(3):713–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhao Z, Hu R, Chen Y, Zhou G, Yu S, Feng J. Efficacy and Safety of PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors in locally advanced and advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with chronic infection. Oncol Res Treat. 2022;45(6):366–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hagiwara S, Nishida N, Ida H, Ueshima K, Minami Y, Takita M, et al. Clinical implication of immune checkpoint inhibitor on the chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Hepatol Res. 2022;52(9):754–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Cheng YK, Chen P, Chen DW, Lin ZS, Ye SB, Lan P. Comparative safety, efficacy and survival outcome of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in colorectal cancer patients with vs without hepatitis B virus infection: a multicenter cohort study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2022;13(5): e00475.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Nakabori T, Abe Y, Higashi S, Hirao T, Kawamoto Y, Maeda S, et al. Feasibility of immunotherapy in cancer patients with persistent or past hepatitis B or C virus infection. JGH Open. 2022;6(5):309–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Lu S, Cheng Y, Zhou J, Wang M, Zhao J, Wang B, et al. An open label, safety study of Asian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving second-line nivolumab monotherapy (CheckMate 870). Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2022;14:17588359221138380.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hu X, Li R, Li Q, Zang M, Yuan G, Chen J. Interaction between baseline HBV loads and the prognosis of patients with HCC receiving anti-PD-1 in combination with antiangiogenic therapy undergoing concurrent TAF prophylaxis. BMC Infect Dis. 2022;22(1):614. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07602-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Lei J, Yan T, Zhang L, Chen B, Cheng J, Gao X, et al. Comparison of hepatitis B virus reactivation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who received tyrosine kinase inhibitor alone or together with programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors. Hepatol Int. 2023;17(2):281–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lasagna A, Albi G, Maserati R, Zuccarini A, Quaccini M, Baldanti F, et al. Occult hepatitis B in patients with cancer during immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a real-life retrospective single-center cohort study. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1044098.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Nardo M, Yilmaz B, Nelson BE, Torres HA, Wang LS, Granwehr BP, et al. Safety and efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer and viral hepatitis: The MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Oncologist. 2023;28(8):714–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyad039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Chen H. The prognostic role of HBV-DNA in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor plus multityrosine kinase inhibitor: a real-world study. Liver Cancer. 2022;11:39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work is supported by Shenzhen High-level Hospital Construction Fund, Wu Jieping Medical Foundation (Grant no. 320.6750.2022.20-24), and National Cancer Center Pandeng Foundation Grant no. NCC201919B03). The sponsors had no roles in the study process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

    Zhengzheng Xia, Haiyan Zhou & Jun Yang

  2. Department of Pharmacy, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital and Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, China

    Zhengzheng Xia, Jianyu Zhang, Wenjun Chen & Jun Meng

  3. Department of Pharmacy, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

    Di Du

  4. Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Youan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Kongcai Zhu

  5. Department of Pharmacy, Tangshan Central Hospital, Tangshan, China

    Hui Chen

Authors
  1. Zhengzheng Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jianyu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wenjun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haiyan Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Di Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kongcai Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ZX, HZ, DD and KZ conceived and designed the study protocol. JZ, WC and ZX retrieved and collected the data. ZX, JZ and JY wrote the manuscript, solved all disagreements and revised the manuscript. ZX, JY and JM supervised the study and approved the final manuscript. All authors have agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jun Meng or Jun Yang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Full search strategies.

Additional file 2: Table S2.

Subgroup data of HBsAg positive patients.

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

Xia, Z., Zhang, J., Chen, W. et al. Hepatitis B reactivation in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Dis Poverty 12, 87 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-023-01128-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-023-01128-6

Keywords

Infectious Diseases of Poverty

ISSN: 2049-9957

Contact us