-
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jun 2022To report the pregnancy outcomes of women with prior endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia managed with fertility-sparing treatments. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To report the pregnancy outcomes of women with prior endometrial cancer and endometrial hyperplasia managed with fertility-sparing treatments.
METHODS
Medline and Embase databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting the pregnancy outcomes of women who had undergone fertility-sparing treatments for endometrial hyperplasia or early endometrioid endometrial cancer. Outcomes explored were pregnancy, miscarriage and livebirth rates according to the type of progestin treatment used. Subgroup analyses according to the type of diagnostic follow-up were also performed. Meta-analyses of proportions using a random effects model were used to combine data.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies (1036 women) were included, and 82.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 72.3-91.2] of women achieved complete remission. Pregnancy rates were 56.3% (95% CI 41.6-70.5) with megestrol (MA) or medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), 63.1% (95% CI 37.0-85.6) with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD), 57.9% (95% CI 37.7-76.8) with MA or MPA and metformin, 59.8% (95% CI 48.3-70.7) with MPA and LNG-IUD, 15.4% (95% CI 4.3-42.2) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) combined with LNG-IUD or letrozole, and 40.7% (95% CI 24.5-59.3) with LNG-IUD and GnRHa. Miscarriage rates were 17.4% (95% CI 12.2-23.4), 14.3% (95% CI 6.4-24.7), 57.9% (95% CI 37.7-76.8), 26.9% (95% CI 14.6-39.3), 100% (95% CI 34.0-100) and 18.2% (95% CI 5.1-47.7), respectively, and livebirth rates were 68.8% (95% CI 56.0-80.3), 80.8% (95% CI 69.5-90.0), 69.9% (95% CI 56.1-82.0), 25.97 (95% CI 14.6-39.3), 0% (95% CI 0-66.0) and 81.8% (95% CI 52.3-94.8), respectively. Finally, stratifying the analysis considering the endometrial sampling method alone, the pregnancy rate was 68.6% (95% CI 51.2-83.6; 10 studies, I = 83.5%) in women who underwent hysteroscopy and 60.5% (95% CI 53.4-67.5; 13 studies, I = 39.8%) in women managed with dilatation and curettage biopsy; the miscarriage and livebirth rates were 13.2% (95% CI 8.0-19.5; I = 0%) and 81.2% (95% CI 67.4-91.8; I = 67.3%), respectively, for hysteroscopy, and 25.2% (95% CI 17.8-33.3; I = 15.5%) and 67.5% (95% CI 58.8-75.5; I = 0%), respectively, for dilatation and curettage biopsy.
CONCLUSION
Fertility-sparing treatment in women with endometrial cancer or hyperplasia is associated with an overall good response to therapy, good chance of achieving pregnancy and a good livebirth rate. Diagnostic follow-up with hysteroscopy was associated with a higher pregnancy rate, although this requires confirmation in adequately powered randomized trials.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Fertility Preservation; Humans; Hyperplasia; Intrauterine Devices, Medicated; Levonorgestrel; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Precancerous Conditions; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 35526471
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.04.019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in the world. Rates of endometrial cancer are rising, in part because of rising obesity rates. Endometrial hyperplasia is a precancerous condition in women that can lead to endometrial cancer if left untreated. Endometrial hyperplasia occurs more commonly than endometrial cancer. Progesterone tablets that are currently used to treat women with endometrial hyperplasia are associated with adverse effects in up to 84% of women. A levonorgestrel intrauterine device may improve compliance, but it is invasive, is not acceptable to all women, and is associated with irregular vaginal bleeding in 82% of cases. Therefore, an alternative treatment for women with endometrial hyperplasia is needed. Metformin, a drug that is often used to treat people with diabetes, has been shown, in some human studies, to reverse endometrial hyperplasia. However, the effectiveness and safety of metformin for treatment of endometrial hyperplasia remain uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin in treating women with endometrial hyperplasia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, LILACS, and two trials registers from inception to 5 September 2022. We searched the bibliographies of all relevant studies, and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trials comparing metformin (used alone or in combination with other medical therapies) versus placebo, no treatment, any conventional medical treatment, or any other active intervention for women with histologically confirmed endometrial hyperplasia of any type.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by deferring to a third review author. When study details were missing, review authors contacted the study authors. The primary outcome of this review was regression of endometrial hyperplasia histology (with or without atypia) towards normal histology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven RCTs, in which a total of 387 women took part. In the comparison, Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol alone, we rated the certainty of the evidence as low for the outcome, regression of endometrial hyperplasia. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the rest of the outcomes, in all three comparisons. Although there was a low risk of selection bias, there was a high risk of bias in the blinding of personnel and outcome assessment (performance bias and detection bias) in many studies. This update identified four new RCTs and six ongoing RCTs. Metformin versus megestrol We are uncertain whether metformin increases the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology over megestrol (odds ratio (OR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 15.32; P = 0.006; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol is 61%, the rate of regression with metformin would be between 71% and 96%. It is unresolved whether metformin results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding or hysterectomy compared to megestrol. No study in this comparison reported progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, health-related quality of life, or adverse effects during treatment. Metformin plus megestrol versus megestrol monotherapy The combination of metformin and megestrol may enhance the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology more than megestrol alone (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.51; P = 0.0007; 4 RCTs, 258 participants; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the rate of regression with megestrol monotherapy is 54%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 66% and 84%. In one study, 3/8 (37.5%) of participants who took metformin had nausea that settled without further treatment. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and megestrol results in different rates of recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of endometrial hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or hysterectomy compared to megestrol monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported abnormal uterine bleeding, or health-related quality of life. Metformin plus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) versus levonorgestrel (intrauterine system) monotherapy We are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in the regression of endometrial hyperplasia towards normal histology (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.56; 1 RCT, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This evidence suggests that if the rate of regression with levonorgestrel monotherapy is 96%, the rate of regression with the addition of metformin would be between 73% and 100%. It is unresolved whether the combination of metformin and levonorgestrel results in different rates of abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy, or the development of adverse effects during treatment compared to levonorgestrel monotherapy. No study in this comparison reported recurrence of endometrial hyperplasia, progression of hyperplasia to endometrial cancer, or health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Review authors found insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of metformin, specifically megestrol acetate, given alone or in combination with standard therapy, for the treatment of women with endometrial hyperplasia. Robustly designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials, yielding long-term outcome data are still needed to address this clinical question.
Topics: Female; Humans; Endometrial Hyperplasia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Metformin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38695827
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012214.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Chronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic anorexia attain optimal body mass index (BMI) and nutritional status. However, these may have adverse effects on clinical status. This is an updated version of the original review.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically search for and evaluate the evidence on the beneficial effects of appetite stimulants in the management of cystic fibrosis-related anorexia and synthesise reports of any side effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and online trials registries; handsearched reference lists; and contacted local and international experts to identify relevant trials. Last search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 23 May 2022. Last search of online trial registries: 10 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of appetite stimulants compared to placebo, control, no treatment or different appetite stimulants, or to the same appetite stimulants at different doses or regimens for at least one month in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and performed meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials (70 participants) comparing appetite stimulants (cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate) to placebo; the numbers of adults or children within each trial were not always reported. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low due to the small number of participants, incomplete or selective outcome reporting, and unclear risk of selection bias. Regarding our primary outcomes, a meta-analysis of two trials (42 participants) showed that appetite stimulants may produce a larger increase in weight (kg) at three months (mean difference (MD) 1.25 kg, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.45 to 2.05), and one trial (17 participants) showed a similar result at six months (MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI 1.27 to 6.33) (both low-certainty evidence). Results also showed that weight z score may increase with appetite stimulants compared to placebo at three months (MD 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; 3 studies; 40 participants; P < 0.001) and at six months (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.22; 1 trial; 17 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in effect between cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate for either outcome. Only one trial (25 participants) reported analysable data for body composition (BMI), with results favouring cyproheptadine hydrochloride compared to placebo; a further trial (16 participants) narratively agreed with this result. All four trials reported on lung function at durations ranging from two to nine months. Considering analysable data, two trials (42 participants) found that appetite stimulants may make little or no difference in forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV) % predicted at three months, and one trial (17 participants) found similar results at six months. Two further three-month trials narratively agreed with these results. Limited information was reported for secondary outcomes. Two trials (23 participants) reported results showing that appetite stimulants may increase appetite compared to placebo at three months (odds ratio 45.25, 95% CI 3.57 to 573.33; low-certainty evidence). Only one study reported on quality of life, finding that cyproheptadine reduced fatigue in two participants compared with none with placebo. One study (25 participants) found no difference in energy intake between appetite stimulant or placebo at three months. Insufficient reporting of adverse effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Two studies (33 participants) narratively reported similar requirements for additional antibiotics between appetite stimulants and placebo at three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At six months in adults and children, appetite stimulants improved only two of the outcomes of this review: weight (or weight z score) and subjectively reported appetite. Insufficient reporting of side effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Whilst the data may suggest the potential use of appetite stimulants in treating anorexia in adults and children with cystic fibrosis, this is based upon low-certainty evidence from a small number of trials, therefore firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential adverse effects of appetite stimulants and actively monitor any individuals prescribed these medications accordingly. Research is required to determine meaningful surrogate measures for appetite and to define what constitutes quality weight gain. Future trials of appetite stimulants should use a validated measure of symptoms including a disease-specific instrument for measuring poor appetite. This review highlights the need for multicentred, adequately powered, and well-designed trials to evaluate agents to safely increase appetite in people with cystic fibrosis and to establish the optimal mode of treatment.
Topics: Adult; Anorexia; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appetite Stimulants; Child; Cyproheptadine; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Megestrol Acetate; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36149378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008190.pub3 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Apr 2018We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We provide a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids in palliative medicine. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and http://clinicaltrials.gov, and a selection of cancer journals were searched up until 15th of March 2017. Of the 108 screened studies, nine studies with a total of 1561 participants were included. Overall, the nine studies were at moderate risk of bias. The quality of evidence comparing cannabinoids with placebo was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation as low or very low because of indirectness, imprecision, and potential reporting bias. In cancer patients, there were no significant differences between cannabinoids and placebo for improving caloric intake (standardized mean differences [SMD]: 0.2 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.66, 1.06] P = 0.65), appetite (SMD: 0.81 95% CI: [-1.14, 2.75]; P = 0.42), nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.21 [-0.10, 0.52] P = 0.19), >30% decrease in pain (risk differences [RD]: 0.07 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.16]; P = 0.07), or sleep problems (SMD: -0.09 95% CI: [-0.62, 0.43] P = 0.72). In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, cannabinoids were superior to placebo for weight gain (SMD: 0.57 [0.22; 0.92]; P = 0.001) and appetite (SMD: 0.57 [0.11; 1.03]; P = 0.02) but not for nausea/vomiting (SMD: 0.20 [-0.15, 0.54]; P = 0.26). Regarding side effects in cancer patients, there were no differences between cannabinoids and placebo in symptoms of dizziness (RD: 0.03 [-0.02; 0.08]; P = 0.23) or poor mental health (RD: -0.01 [-0.04; 0.03]; P = 0.69), whereas in HIV patients, there was a significant increase in mental health symptoms (RD: 0.05 [0.00; 0.11]; P = 0.05). Tolerability (measured by the number of withdrawals because of adverse events) did not differ significantly in cancer (RD: 1.15 [0.80; 1.66]; P = 0.46) and HIV patients (RD: 1.87 [0.60; 5.84]; P = 0.28). Safety did not differ in cancer (RD: 1.12 [0.86; 1.46]; P = 0.39) or HIV patients (4.51 [0.54; 37.45]; P = 0.32) although there was large uncertainty about the latter reflected in the width of the CI. In one moderate quality study of 469 cancer patients with cancer-associated anorexia, megestrol was superior to cannabinoids in improving appetite, producing >10% weight gain and tolerability. In another study comparing megestrol to dronabinol in HIV patients, megestrol treatment led to higher weight gain without any differences in tolerability and safety. We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids are of value for anorexia or cachexia in cancer or HIV patients.
Topics: Cannabinoids; Humans; Palliative Medicine
PubMed: 29400010
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12273 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Mar 2021Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.
METHODS
PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.
RESULTS
80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Androgens; Appetite; Appetite Stimulants; Cachexia; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Agents; Ghrelin; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone; Megestrol Acetate; Minimal Clinically Important Difference; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terminal Care; Weight Gain
PubMed: 33246937
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002601 -
Contemporary Oncology (Poznan, Poland) 2018Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. There is as yet no standard therapy for inoperable HCC. We aimed to systematically... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. There is as yet no standard therapy for inoperable HCC. We aimed to systematically review all health-related evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of megestrol in HCC patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic computerised search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. All original human studies reporting the efficacy of megestrol in HCC patients were included in our review.
RESULTS
Six studies including 357 patients were finally eligible. The overall mean survival time of 87 megestrol-treated patients, was 9.187 (95% CI 1.134-17.239) months. Eight patients had tumour size enlargement, and eight patients had tumour size reduction. From three studies including 76 patients, 42 patients reported having improvement of appetite and food intake after receiving megestrol. Diverse adverse events were noticed between studies; however, they were tolerable in most of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
To summarise, no conclusive evidence should be declared regarding the effectiveness of megestrol in patients with inoperable HCC. However, previous studies have shown promising results at the level of prolonging the survival rate, tumour size reduction, and improving the quality of life. Therefore, we recommend that future research studies must examine the role of megestrol in large-population, randomised studies.
PubMed: 30783383
DOI: 10.5114/wo.2018.82641 -
Pharmacotherapy Aug 2014Pharmacologic interventions for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) wasting have been studied since the 1990s, but the results of these interventions have been difficult... (Review)
Review
Pharmacologic interventions for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) wasting have been studied since the 1990s, but the results of these interventions have been difficult to compare because the studies used different HIV wasting definitions and assessed various patient outcomes. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the current literature to identify studies that evaluated pharmacologic management of HIV wasting and to compare and contrast treatment options. Further, we provide a comprehensive review of these treatment options and describe the definition of HIV wasting used in each study, the outcomes assessed, and whether antiretroviral therapy was used during the HIV wasting treatment. Literature searches of the PubMed/Medline (1946-2014) and Google Scholar databases were performed, and a review of the bibliographies of retrieved articles was performed to identify additional references. Only English-language articles pertaining to humans and HIV-infected individuals were evaluated. Thirty-six studies were identified that assessed pharmacologic interventions to treat HIV wasting. Appetite stimulants, such as megestrol acetate, have been shown to increase total body weight (TBW) and body mass index in HIV-infected patients with wasting. Studies evaluating dronabinol showed conflicting data on TBW increases, but the drug may have minimal benefit on body composition compared with other appetite stimulants. Testosterone has been shown to be effective in HIV wasting for those who suffer from hypogonadism. Recombinant human growth hormone has been evaluated for HIV wasting and has shown promising results for TBW and lean body mass increases. Thalidomide has been studied; however, its use is limited due to its toxicities. Although megestrol acetate and dronabinol are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of HIV wasting, it is important to recognize other comorbidities such as depression or hypogonadism that may contribute to the patient's appetite and weight loss. If a patient is diagnosed with hypogonadism and HIV wasting, testosterone would be a good therapeutic option. Although mirtazapine is not FDA approved for the management of HIV wasting, it has been shown to promote weight gain while treating depression symptoms. Mirtazapine may be a promising pharmacologic option in the management of HIV wasting and depression, but further research is needed.
Topics: Appetite Stimulants; Body Weight; Depression; HIV Infections; HIV Wasting Syndrome; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Research Design; Weight Gain
PubMed: 24782295
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1431 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2022Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia is known to be associated with worsened quality of life and survival; however, limited treatment options exist. Although megestrol... (Review)
Review
Cancer-related anorexia/cachexia is known to be associated with worsened quality of life and survival; however, limited treatment options exist. Although megestrol acetate (MA) is often used off-label to stimulate appetite and improve anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancers, the benefits are controversial. The present meta-analysis aimed to better elucidate the clinical benefits of MA in patients with cancer-related anorexia/cachexia. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, OVID Medline, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases found 23 clinical trials examining the use of MA in cancer-related anorexia. The available randomized, controlled trials were appraised using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and they had moderate-to-high risk of bias. A total of eight studies provided sufficient data on weight change for meta-analysis. The studies were divided into high-dose treatment (>320 mg/day) and low-dose treatment (≤320 mg/day). The overall pooled mean change in weight among cancer patients treated with MA, regardless of dosage was 0.75 kg (95% CI = −1.64 to 3.15, τ2 = 9.35, I2 = 96%). Patients who received high-dose MA tended to have weight loss rather than weight gain. There were insufficient studies to perform a meta-analysis for the change in tricep skinfold, midarm circumference, or quality of life measures. MA was generally well-tolerated, except for a clear thromboembolic risk, especially with higher doses. On balance, MA did not appear to be effective in providing the symptomatic improvement of anorexia/cachexia in patients with advanced cancer.
PubMed: 35807039
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11133756 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jan 2023Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fifteen percent of patients with endometrial cancer (EC) have advanced stage disease or develop a recurrence. Progestins have been applied as systemic treatment for decades, but there is limited evidence on response prediction with biomarkers and toxicity.
OBJECTIVES
To review the response and toxicity of progestin therapy and stratify response to progesterone receptor (PR) expression and tumour grade.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We used the search terms 'Endometrial cancer', 'Progestins', 'Disease progression', 'Recurrence' and related terms in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies on patients with advanced stage or recurrent EC treated with progestin monotherapy were included. Studies on adjuvant therapy, with fewer than ten cases and with sarcoma histology were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Evaluation for bias was performed with the Revised Cochrane RoB2 tool for randomised studies and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with the overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate and toxicity as primary outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-six studies (1639 patients) were included. The ORR of progestin therapy was 30% (95% CI 25-36), the clinical benefit rate was 52% (95% CI 42-61). In PR-positive EC, the ORR was 55%, compared with 12% in PR-negative disease (risk difference 43%, 95% CI 15-71). Severe toxicity occurred in 6.5%.
CONCLUSIONS
Progestin therapy is a viable treatment option in patients with advanced stage and recurrent EC with low toxicity and high ORR in PR-positive disease. The role of PR expression in relation to progression-free survival and overall survival is unclear.
Topics: Female; Humans; Progestins; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Endometrial Neoplasms
PubMed: 36264251
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17331 -
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and... Oct 2023In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function...
In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6-min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) or patient-reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ-C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise-based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG-PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.
Topics: Humans; Cachexia; Hand Strength; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Research Design
PubMed: 37671529
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13321