-
International Journal of Colorectal... Mar 2023Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been found to be a potential treatment for Crohn's disease (CD). We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been found to be a potential treatment for Crohn's disease (CD). We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT in CD.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for studies until January 2023. Clinical remission was established as the primary outcome. The secondary outcome was clinical response, endoscopic remission, minor adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in disease activity indices, biochemical indicators, and microbial diversities. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated under the random effects model.
RESULTS
Eleven cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 228 patients were included. In a meta-analysis, the pooled proportion of adult patients with active CD that achieved clinical remission 2 to 4 weeks after FMT was 57% (95% CI = 49-64%) with a low risk of heterogeneity (I = 37%). Furthermore, our results showed that FMT significantly (standardized mean difference = -0.66; 95% CI = -1.12 to -0.20; I = 0) reduced Crohn's disease activity index scores 4 to 8 weeks after FMT. Subgroup analyses showed no difference between FMT methodologies, except for pre-FMT treatment with antibiotics (P = 0.02). Most adverse events were self-limiting and disappeared spontaneously within hours or days after FMT. Microbiota analysis showed an increased Shannon diversity and a shift toward donor-like microbiome after FMT.
CONCLUSION
FMT could be a promising therapy in the short-term treatment of active CD. More placebo-controlled randomized trials with a long-term follow-up treatment are necessary.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022322694 No. CRD42022322694.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Crohn Disease; Fecal Microbiota Transplantation; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Databases, Factual; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36882658
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04354-4 -
Cancers Jan 2022To systematically review the current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for cervical cancer (CC). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review the current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for cervical cancer (CC).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched for prospective trials assessing immunotherapy in CC patients in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Full-text articles in English and German reporting outcomes of survival, response rates or safety were eligible.
RESULTS
Of 4655 screened studies, 51 were included (immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) =20; therapeutic vaccines = 25; adoptive cell transfer therapy =9). Of these, one qualified as a phase III randomized controlled trial and demonstrated increased overall survival following treatment with pembrolizumab, chemotherapy and bevacizumab. A minority of studies included a control group ( = 7) or more than 50 patients ( = 15). Overall, response rates were low to moderate. No response to ICIs was seen in PD-L1 negative patients. However, few remarkable results were achieved in heavily pretreated patients. There were no safety concerns in any of the included studies.
CONCLUSION
Strong evidence on the efficacy of strategies to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer is currently limited to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, which substantiates an urgent need for large confirmatory trials on alternative immunotherapies. Overall, there is sound evidence on the safety of immunotherapy in CC.
PubMed: 35053603
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14020441 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
European Radiology Oct 2022The number of radiomics studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) is rapidly increasing. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The number of radiomics studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) is rapidly increasing. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the available evidence of radiomics for clinical outcome measures in GEP-NETs, to understand which applications hold the most promise and which areas lack evidence.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases were searched and a forward and backward reference check of the identified studies was executed. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with GEP-NETs and (2) radiomics analysis on CT, MRI or PET. Two reviewers independently agreed on eligibility and assessed methodological quality with the radiomics quality score (RQS) and extracted outcome data.
RESULTS
In total, 1364 unique studies were identified and 45 were included for analysis. Most studies focused on GEP-NET grade and differential diagnosis of GEP-NETs from other neoplasms, while only a minority analysed treatment response or long-term outcomes. Several studies were able to predict tumour grade or to differentiate GEP-NETs from other lesions with a good performance (AUCs 0.74-0.96 and AUCs 0.80-0.99, respectively). Only one study developed a model to predict recurrence in pancreas NETs (AUC 0.77). The included studies reached a mean RQS of 18%.
CONCLUSION
Although radiomics for GEP-NETs is still a relatively new area, some promising models have been developed. Future research should focus on developing robust models for clinically relevant aims such as prediction of response or long-term outcome in GEP-NET, since evidence for these aims is still scarce.
KEY POINTS
• The majority of radiomics studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours is of low quality. • Most evidence for radiomics is available for the identification of tumour grade or differentiation of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours from other neoplasms. • Radiomics for the prediction of response or long-term outcome in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours warrants further research.
Topics: Humans; Intestinal Neoplasms; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 35882634
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08996-w -
Journal of Radiation Oncology 2017The purpose of this study was to review the role of radioactive microparticles (1-100 μm) for the treatment of solid tumors and provide a comprehensive overview of the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to review the role of radioactive microparticles (1-100 μm) for the treatment of solid tumors and provide a comprehensive overview of the feasibility, safety, and efficacy.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (January 2017) by combining synonyms for the determinants "tumor," "injection," and "radionuclide." Data on injection technique, toxicity, tumor response, and survival were collected.
RESULTS
The search yielded 7271 studies, and 37 were included for analysis. Twelve studies were performed in human patients and 25 animal studies. The studies were heterogeneous in patient population, tumors, follow-up time, and treatment characteristics. The direct intratumoral injection of radioactive microparticles resulted in a response rate of 71% in a variety of tumors and uncomplicated procedures with high cumulative doses of >19,000 Gy were reported.
CONCLUSION
The large variety of particles, techniques, and treated tumors in the studies provided an important insight into issues concerning efficacy, safety, particle and isotope choice, and other concepts for future research. Animal studies showed efficacy and a dose response. Most studies in humans concluded that intratumoral treatment with radioactive beta-emitting microparticles is relatively safe and effective. Conflicting evidence about safety and efficacy might be explained by the considerable variation in the treatment characteristics. Larger particles had a better retention which resulted in higher anti-tumor effect. Leakage seems to follow the path of least resistance depending on anatomical structures. Subsequently, a grid-like injection procedure with small volume depots is advised over a single large infusion. Controlled image-guided treatment is necessary because inadequate local delivery and inhomogeneous dose distribution result in reduced treatment efficacy and in potential complications.
PubMed: 29213358
DOI: 10.1007/s13566-017-0315-6 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Previous studies revealed that Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/Programmed cell death-Ligand protein 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents had extensive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The benefit and risk of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents as second or later-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Previous studies revealed that Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/Programmed cell death-Ligand protein 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents had extensive anti-tumor activities. However, almost all studies on the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents as second or later-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer are non-randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes, which might lead to a lack of effective metrics to assess the effectiveness and safety of the therapeutic regimen. Here, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents as second or later-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
METHODS
A single-arm meta-analysis was performed, and published literature from PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases as of January 13, 2023, was systematically retrieved. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) Methodological items to evaluate the quality of eligible clinical trials. Outcomes including overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were extracted for further analysis. The random effect model is used to calculate the pooled parameters.
RESULTS
19 studies (16 were non-comparative single-arm clinical trials and 3 were randomized controlled trials) were enrolled in this meta-analysis. In terms of tumor response, the pooled ORR and DCR were 22.4% (95% CI, 16.6-28.1%) and 76.8% (95% CI, 72.6-81.1%), respectively. With regard to survival analysis, the pooled PFS and OS were 5.20 (95% CI, 4.46-5.93) months and 14.09 (95% CI, 13.20-14.97) months, respectively. The pooled grade ≥3 adverse effect (AE) rate was 47.6% (95% CI, 33.1-62.0%).
CONCLUSION
PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus anti-angiogenic agents has promising efficacy and safety as second or later-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023407559.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Prospective Studies; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37614237
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1218258 -
Journal of the International AIDS... Jul 2023Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an important HIV prevention option. Two randomized trials have provided efficacy evidence for long-acting injectable cabotegravir... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an important HIV prevention option. Two randomized trials have provided efficacy evidence for long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) as PrEP. In considering CAB-LA as an additional PrEP modality for people at substantial risk of HIV, it is important to understand community response to injectable PrEP. We conducted a systematic review of values, preferences and perceptions of acceptability for injectable PrEP to inform global guidance.
METHODS
We searched nine databases and conference websites for peer-reviewed and grey literature (January 2010-September 2021). There were no restrictions on location. A two-stage review process assessed references against eligibility criteria. Data from included studies were organized by constructs from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.
RESULTS
We included 62 unique references. Most studies were observational, cross-sectional and qualitative. Over half of the studies were conducted in North America. Men who have sex with men were the most researched group. Most studies (57/62) examined injectable PrEP, including hypothetical injectables (55/57) or placebo products (2/57). Six studies examined CAB-LA specifically. There was overall interest in and often a preference for injectable PrEP, though there was variation within and across groups and regions. Many stakeholders indicated that injectable PrEP could help address adherence challenges associated with daily or on-demand dosing for oral PrEP and may be a better lifestyle fit for individuals seeking privacy, discretion and infrequent dosing. End-users reported concerns, including fear of needles, injection site pain and body location, logistical challenges and waning or incomplete protection.
DISCUSSION
Despite an overall preference for injectable PrEP, heterogeneity across groups and regions highlights the importance of enabling end-users to choose a PrEP modality that supports effective use. Like other products, preference for injectable PrEP may change over time and end-users may switch between prevention options. There will be a greater understanding of enacted preference as more end-users are offered anti-retroviral (ARV)-containing injectables. Future research should focus on equitable implementation, including real-time decision-making and how trained healthcare providers can support choice.
CONCLUSIONS
Given overall acceptability, injectable PrEP should be included as part of a menu of prevention options, allowing end-users to select the modality that suits their preferences, needs and lifestyle.
Topics: Male; Humans; Cross-Sectional Studies; Homosexuality, Male; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Sexual and Gender Minorities; HIV Infections
PubMed: 37439057
DOI: 10.1002/jia2.26107 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Apr 2017The most appropriate design of Phase-II trials evaluating new therapies in osteosarcoma remains poorly defined. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The most appropriate design of Phase-II trials evaluating new therapies in osteosarcoma remains poorly defined.
OBJECTIVE
To study consistency in phase-II clinical trials evaluating new therapies for osteosarcoma recurrences with respect to eligibility criteria, response assessment, end-points, statistical design and reported results.
METHODS
Systematic review of clinical trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov, clinicaltrialsregister.eu and French National Cancer Institute website or referenced in PubMed and American Society of Clinical Oncology websites, between 2003 and 2016, using the following criteria: (osteosarcoma OR bone sarcoma) AND (Phase-II).
RESULTS
Among the 99 trials identified, 80 were Phase-II, 17 I/II and 2 II/III, evaluating mostly targeted therapy (n = 40), and chemotherapy alone (n = 26). Results were fully (n = 28) or partially (abstract, n = 6) published. Twenty-four trials were dedicated to osteosarcoma, 22 had an osteosarcoma stratum. Twenty-eight out of 99 trials refer to the age range observed at recurrence (28%). Overall, 65 trials were run in multicentre settings, including 17 international trials. Only 9 trials were randomised. The primary end-point was tumour response in 71 trials (response rate, n = 40 or best response, n = 31), with various definitions (complete + partial ± minor response and stable disease), mainly evaluated with RECIST criteria (n = 69); it was progression-free survival in 24 trials and OS in 3. In single-arm trials evaluating response rate, the null hypothesis tested (when available, n = 12) varied from 5% to 25%.
CONCLUSION
No robust historical data can currently be derived from past efficacy Phase-II trials. There is an urgent need to develop international randomised Phase-II trials across all age ranges with standardised primary end-point.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Humans; Immunotherapy; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Middle Aged; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Osteosarcoma; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28219023
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.005 -
Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) Nov 2016Electrochemotherapy, the combination of electroporation and chemotherapy, is mainly used in the palliative setting for treatment of cutaneous and subcutaneous... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electrochemotherapy, the combination of electroporation and chemotherapy, is mainly used in the palliative setting for treatment of cutaneous and subcutaneous metastases; however, new applications are continuously being explored. Patients with head and neck cancer are primarily treated with surgery and/or radio-chemotherapy. In the setting of local recurrence with no further curative treatment options available, electrochemotherapy could be of value. We therefore performed a systematic search of the present literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eligible studies presented data from patients with head and neck cancer treated across the mucosal surface with electrochemotherapy. The search resulted in 11 studies with a total of 72 patients.
RESULTS
Overall complete response was reported as good, especially in primary small tumors. Side effects were minor in primary tumors whereas large, recurrent tumors displayed more frequent side effects and some serious adverse events. Design and structure of the studies differed considerably, making general comparisons difficult.
CONCLUSION
Few studies concerning electrochemotherapy on mucosal head and neck tumors are available and they are not easily comparable. Overall response to treatment is good; nonetheless, further systematic studies are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Electrochemotherapy; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 27705053
DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2016.1207803