-
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular... Jun 2015The clinical efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) has been demonstrated. The objective of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The clinical efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) has been demonstrated. The objective of this article is to provide comparative cost efficacy data for DCB angioplasty in various countries based on the original methodology of the Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP) at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2010.
STUDY DESIGN
Published and unpublished Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports were evaluated for comparison in selected countries. Furthermore, a systematic review of economic evaluations of DCB angioplasty versus standard treatments (uncoated balloon angioplasty or drug-eluting stent implantations) was conducted.
METHODS
National cost efficacy data were evaluated using Markov state transition models which were adapted to fit each country's device and procedure related costs. The clinical input for adverse events was defined with two relevant trials for in-stent restenosis of bare metal stents (BMS-ISR) and of drug-eluting stents (DES-ISR).
RESULTS
In the UK, Germany, Switzerland, South Africa, Japan and Brazil, DCB angioplasty is cost-effective when compared with drug-eluting stents to treat either BMS-ISR or DES-ISR.
CONCLUSIONS
DCB angioplasty ought to be the preferred treatment option for patients with BMS-ISR and DES-ISR from the payers' point of view.
Topics: Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Coronary Restenosis; Cost Savings; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Global Health; Humans; Paclitaxel; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Tubulin Modulators
PubMed: 25731186
DOI: 10.1177/1753944715574655 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) is a disabling side effect of paclitaxel with few effective preventive strategies. We aim to determine the efficacy of...
BACKGROUND
Paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) is a disabling side effect of paclitaxel with few effective preventive strategies. We aim to determine the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological neuroprotective interventions in preventing PIPN incidence.
METHODS
Biomedical literature databases were searched from years 2000 to 2021 for trials comparing neuroprotective interventions and control. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The primary outcome was the incidence of PIPN.
RESULTS
Of 24 relevant controlled trials, 14 were eligible for meta-analysis. Pooled results from seven non-pharmacological trials were associated with a statistically significant 48% relative reduction of PIPN risk with low heterogeneity. Conversely, pooled results from six pharmacological trials were associated with a significant 20% relative reduction of PIPN risk with moderate heterogeneity. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches appear effective in reducing PIPN incidence in the treatment arm compared to control (pooled RR < 1).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that both interventions may reduce PIPN risk. Non-pharmacological interventions appear more effective than pharmacological interventions.
PubMed: 35070969
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.763229 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2022EUS-guided ethanol ablation has emerged as an alternative method for pancreatic lesions. Recently, paclitaxel was added to ethanol to assess ablative effects in...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
EUS-guided ethanol ablation has emerged as an alternative method for pancreatic lesions. Recently, paclitaxel was added to ethanol to assess ablative effects in pancreatic lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on EUS-guided ethanol ablation (EUS E) versus EUS-guided ethanol with paclitaxel (EUS EP) ablation for the management of pancreatic lesions.
METHODS
Comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases (from inception to May 2020). The primary outcome evaluated complete ablation of the lesions radiologically and the secondary outcome evaluated adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies on 524 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled complete ablation rate was 58.89% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 38.72-77.80, I = 91.76%) and 55.99% (95% CI = 44.66-67.05, I = 0) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.796), respectively. The pooled AE rates were 13.92% (95% CI = 4.71-26.01, I = 83.43%) and 31.62% (95% CI = 3.36-68.95, I = 87.9%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.299), respectively. The most common AE was abdominal pain at 7.27% (95% CI = 1.97-14.6, I = 68.2%) and 12.44% (95% CI = 0.00-39.24, I = 81.1%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.583), respectively. Correlation coefficient (r) was ‒0.719 (P = 0.008) between complete ablation and lesion size.
CONCLUSION
Complete ablation rates were comparable among both groups. AE rates were higher in the EUS EP group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.
PubMed: 36255024
DOI: 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00185 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Aug 2022Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) is an innovative form of taxane that has superior antitumor effects; however, the safety profile between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adverse Event Profile for Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Compared With Solvent-Based Taxanes in Solid-Organ Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
BACKGROUND
Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) is an innovative form of taxane that has superior antitumor effects; however, the safety profile between nab-paclitaxel and traditional taxanes remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the burden of adverse events (AEs) in patients with multiple malignancies receiving nab-paclitaxel compared with that in patients receiving traditional taxanes.
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials comparing nab-paclitaxel with traditional taxanes (solvent-based paclitaxel [sb-paclitaxel] or docetaxel) in the treatment of primary solid-organ malignancies were included if AEs were reported as an outcome. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary odds ratio (OR) of the relevant adverse outcomes related to nab-paclitaxel and traditional taxanes. Prespecified subgroup analyses based on intervention and doses, primary tumor sites, and different ethnic groups were also performed.
RESULTS
Twelve clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Grade 3/4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neurotoxicity were more frequent with nab-paclitaxel than with traditional taxanes. Nab-paclitaxel at 100 or 125 mg/m/w dosage was associated with fewer or similar grade 3/4 specific AEs. Allergy was less common with nab-paclitaxel. The median recovery times of neurotoxicity were 25, 64, and 37 days in patients receiving nab-paclitaxel, sb-paclitaxel, and docetaxel, respectively. Elevated incidences of specific AEs were more common in breast cancer and non-Asian patients than in other malignancies and ethnic groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
Nab-paclitaxel increased the risk of hematologic and non-hematologic AEs in general, but anaphylaxis was less common, and the recovery duration of neurotoxicity was shorter. Weekly administration of nab-paclitaxel at a lower dosage provided better tolerance.
Topics: Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel; Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Female; Humans; Nanoparticles; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Solvents; Taxoids
PubMed: 34963337
DOI: 10.1177/10600280211058385 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Epirubicin; Fluorouracil; Humans; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 29557103
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011044.pub2 -
Medicine Dec 2022This paper aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line for patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This paper aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line for patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer.
METHODS
By searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid, any randomized clinical study comparing the effectiveness of paclitaxel and pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced gastroesophageal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the 23 eligible studies that were fully reviewed were eligible for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The total number of patients included in the meta-analysis was 635 in the pembrolizumab group and 596 in the paclitaxel group. In terms of objective response rate, there was no statistically significant difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel (relative risk = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.80-1.50, P = .57). Furthermore, Pembrolizumab and paclitaxel did not differ in terms of the rate of partial response statistically significantly from one another, according to the overall analysis (relative risk = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.57-1.52, P-value = .78).
CONCLUSION
There is no difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel in objective response rate. The objective response rate shows that doctors may consider either treatment for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, given the time to response is comparable across therapies.
Topics: Humans; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36482610
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031940 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common kind, accounting for 90% of cases. First-line therapy for women with epithelial ovarian cancer consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy. However, more than 50% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer will experience a relapse and require further chemotherapy and at some point develop resistance to platinum-based drugs. Currently, guidance on the use of most chemotherapy drugs, including taxanes, is unclear for women whose epithelial ovarian cancer has recurred. Paclitaxel, topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, trabectedin and gemcitabine are all licensed for use in the UK at the discretion of clinicians, following discussion with the women as to potential adverse effects. Taxanes can be given in once-weekly regimens (at a lower dose) or three-weekly regimens (at a higher dose), which may have differences in the severity of side effects and effectiveness. As relapsed disease suggests incurable disease, it is all the more important to consider side effects and the impact of treatment schedules, as well as quality of life, and not only the life-prolonging effects of treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and toxicity of different taxane monotherapy regimens for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, up to 22 March 2022. Other related databases and trial registries were searched as well as grey literature and no additional studies were identified. A total of 1500 records were identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of taxane monotherapy for adult women diagnosed with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. We included trials comparing two or more taxane monotherapy regimens. Participants could be experiencing their first recurrence of disease or any line of recurrence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened, independently assessed studies, and extracted data from the included studies. The clinical outcomes we examined were overall survival, response rate, progression-free survival, neurotoxicity, neutropenia, alopecia, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models following standard Cochrane methodology. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Our literature search yielded 1500 records of 1466 studies; no additional studies were identified by searching grey literature or handsearching. We uploaded the search results into Covidence. After the exclusion of 92 duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 1374 records. Of these, we identified 24 studies for full-text screening. We included four parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All trials were multicentred and conducted in a hospital setting. The studies included 981 eligible participants with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer with a median age ranging between 56 to 62 years of age. All participants had a WHO (World Health Organization) performance status of between 0 to 2. The proportion of participants with serous histology ranged between 56% to 85%. Participants included women who had platinum-sensitive (71%) and platinum-resistant (29%) relapse. Some participants were taxane pre-treated (5.6%), whilst the majority were taxane-naive (94.4%). No studies were classified as having a high risk of bias for any of the domains in the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We found that there may be little or no difference in overall survival (OS) between weekly paclitaxel and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.33, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there may be little or no difference in response rate (RR of 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and progression-free survival (PFS) (RR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) between weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain. We found differences in the chemotherapy-associated adverse events between the weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel regimens. The weekly paclitaxel regimen may result in a reduction in neutropenia (RR 0.51, 95% 0.27 to 0.95, two studies, 260 participants, low-certainty evidence) and alopecia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73, one study, 205 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in neurotoxicity, but the evidence was very low-certainty and we cannot exclude an effect (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45, two studies, 260 participants). When examining the effect of paclitaxel dosage in the three-weekly regimen, the 250 mg/m paclitaxel regimen probably causes more neurotoxicity compared to the 175 mg/m regimen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, one study, 330 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life data were not extractable from any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fewer people may experience neutropenia when given weekly rather than three-weekly paclitaxel (low-certainty evidence), although it may make little or no difference to the risk of developing neurotoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). This is based on the participants receiving lower doses of drug more often. However, our confidence in this result is low and the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Weekly paclitaxel probably reduces the risk of alopecia, although the rates in both arms were high (46% versus 79%) (low-certainty evidence). A change to weekly from three-weekly chemotherapy could be considered to reduce the likelihood of toxicity, as it may have little or no negative impact on response rate (very low-certainty evidence), PFS (very low-certainty evidence) or OS (very low-certainty evidence). Three-weekly paclitaxel, given at a dose of 175 mg/m compared to a higher dose,probably reduces the risk of neurotoxicity.We are moderately confident in this result; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. A change to 175 mg/m paclitaxel (from a higher dose), if a three-weekly regimen is used, probably has little or no negative impact on PFS or OS (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Adult; Alopecia; Bridged-Ring Compounds; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neutropenia; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Taxoids
PubMed: 35866378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008766.pub3 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Oct 2023Although platinum-based chemotherapy can improve pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the impact on survival of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although platinum-based chemotherapy can improve pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the impact on survival of platinum-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is still controversial. Our meta-analysis aimed at analyzing survival with platinum-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with TNBC. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and several major conferences up to January 2021. Fixed and random models were used for our meta-analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and side effects data were extracted from the included literature in addition to the corresponding pooled hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of nine studies involving 3247 patients were included. The pooled analysis suggested that compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy could further improve DFS (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.45-0.67, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.70, p < 0.01) in patients with TNBC. The subgroup analysis showed that platinum-based chemotherapy could further improve DFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.74, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.83, p < 0.01) in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and DFS (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.69, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.69, p < 0.01) in adjuvant chemotherapy compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with TNBC. In addition, compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy without anthracycline chemotherapy could further improve DFS (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.70, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.46, 95%CI 0.19-0.72, p < 0.01) in patients with TNBC. Compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, all-grade diarrhea, fatigue, and grade ≥ 3 anemia were higher in platinum-based chemotherapy. In contrast, all-grade anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, myalgia/arthralgia, cardiac toxicity were lower in platinum-based chemotherapy; grade ≥ 3 leukopenia, neutropenia and myalgia/arthralgia were also lower. Compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy was more associated with improved DFS and OS in TNBC patients. The benefit of survival is consistent with platinum-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. The side effects of platinum-based chemotherapy are tolerable.
Topics: Humans; Female; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms; Platinum; Myalgia; Breast Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Prognosis; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Neutropenia; Anthracyclines; Arthralgia; Anemia; Neoadjuvant Therapy
PubMed: 36422737
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-022-00940-y -
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2022Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant Folfirinox and Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for BRPC and LAPC is still controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The eligible studies including prospective, retrospective, and randomized controlled trial related to Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for patients with BRPC or LAPC up to March 2022 were searched and assessed. Pooled analysis for chemotherapy response rate, resection rate, R0 resection rate, progress free survival, overall survival, and grade 3/4 events of toxicity were performed in the study.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with GNP, Folfirinox had higher resection rate (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.59-1.14) and R0 resection rate (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), better PFS (HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.55-1.12) and OS (HR=0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99), and without increasing severe toxicity rate (HR=0.95; 95% CI 0.71-1.28). There are no differences in rate of stable disease (HR=1.06; 95% CI 0.92-1.22) and partial/complete regression (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.59-1.23) between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher resection and R0 resection rate and better PFS and OS results were obtained in Folfirinox group compared with GNP group for patients with BRPC and LAPC. There was no increased severe toxicity rate for Folfirinox compared with GNP.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 36111933
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202209_29656 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat...
Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in patients with malignant melanoma: a systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-comparative clinical studies.
Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat malignant melanoma. We conducted the first meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with other drugs in malignant melanoma. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-comparative clinical studies of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy, targeted medicine, and interferon to treat malignant melanoma in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Meta-analysis of RCT was performed using Review Manager (version 5.4), and non-comparative meta-analysis was performed using R (version 4.0.3). The primary outcome was the objective response rate. Depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies, the pooled outcomes and 95% CI were calculated using either random-effects or fixed-effect models. Subgroup outcomes were calculated with possible relevant variables. Sensitivity analyses were carried out by excluding each study from the highly heterogeneous pooled results in turn. Funnel plot and Begg's test were used to test the included studies' potential publication bias. The level of significance was set at < 0.05. This meta-analysis included 20 trials: five RCTs and 15 non-comparative clinical studies with a total of 23 bevacizumab intervention arms. In 14 treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with chemotherapy drugs such as fotemustine, dacarbazine, carboplatin/paclitaxel, and temozolomide. In six treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with targeted medicines such as imatinib, everolimus, sorafenib, erlotinib, and temsirolimus. There were also six treatment arms that used bevacizumab in combination with interferon. The pooled objective response rate was 15.8% (95% CI, 11.4%-20.2%). Bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly increased the overall survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel (HR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.49-0.85, < 0.01). Fatigue, nausea, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were the most common adverse events. The pooled incidence of hypertension of all bevacizumab arms in malignant melanoma was 32.4% (95% CI, 24.5%-40.3%). This study showed that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy might be effective and well-tolerated in patients with stage III or IV unresectable malignant melanoma. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=304625], identifier [CRD42022304625].
PubMed: 37521468
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1163805