-
Kidney Cancer (Clifton, Va.) 2020There have been a number of recent advances in the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the majority of these studies excluded...
INTRODUCTION
There have been a number of recent advances in the management of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). However, the majority of these studies excluded patients with non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC), and optimal management of nccRCC remains unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to evaluate systemic treatment options in locally advanced or metastatic nccRCC between 2000-2019. Randomized controlled trials, single-arm phase II-IV trials, and prospective analyses of medication access programs were included. The primary outcome measures were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR).
RESULTS
A total of 31 studies were included in the final analysis. There was the highest level of evidence to support first-line treatment of nccRCC with sunitinib. Additional single-arm trials support the use of other vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors with axitinib and pazopanib, as well as mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition with temsirolimus or everolimus +/- bevacizumab. Immune checkpoint inhibition has an emerging role in nccRCC, but optimal sequencing of available options is not clear. Prospective data to support the use of newer immunotherapy combinations are lacking. Treatment for collecting duct carcinoma remains platinum-based chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The availability of randomized trials in nccRCC is limited, and most studies include outcomes for nccRCC as a group, making conclusions about efficacy by subtype difficult. This systematic review supports consensus guidelines recommending sunitinib or clinical trial enrollment as preferred first-line treatment options for nccRCC, but also suggests a more nuanced approach to management and new options for therapy such as immune checkpoint inhibition.
PubMed: 34435168
DOI: 10.3233/kca-190078 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2020Effective systemic treatment of non-clear cell renal carcinoma (nccRCC) is still an unmet clinical need, with few studies to support an evidence-based approach. To date,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Effective systemic treatment of non-clear cell renal carcinoma (nccRCC) is still an unmet clinical need, with few studies to support an evidence-based approach. To date, the only recommended standard first-line treatment is sunitinib. Pazopanib may also be used in nccRCC but its place in therapy is not clearly established. It has comparable efficacy and better tolerability than sunitinib in clear cell renal carcinoma. Our objective was to review the use of pazopanib in metastatic nccRCC.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. Any type of study reporting the use of pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma including cases with non-clear cell histology was eligible.
RESULTS
In all, 15 studies were included in our analysis, including a total of 318 nccRCC patients treated with pazopanib. Most studies were retrospective ( = 12); three were prospective trials. The specific outcomes of nccRCC patients were reported by four studies. Pazopanib alone as first-line treatment gave overall response rates ranging from 27% to 33%, disease control rates of 81-89%, median progression free survival of 8.1-16.5 months and median overall survival of 17.3-31.0 months. Grade 3-4 adverse events rates were 21-55%.
CONCLUSION
The present review provides for the first time a systematic summary of evidence about the possible use of pazopanib as first-line treatment for nccRCC, with a favorable outcome despite the low strength of evidence. Pazopanib could be considered as a possible therapeutic option in this setting.
PubMed: 32550862
DOI: 10.1177/1758835920915303 -
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aug 2021Low muscle mass has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in various cancers. This work investigated whether, during tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) therapy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Low muscle mass has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in various cancers. This work investigated whether, during tyrosine kinases inhibitors (TKIs) therapy, low muscle mass was associated with treatment toxicity and survival outcomes. A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to June 2020, based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Effect sizes were estimated with hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed by measuring inconsistency (I) based on the Chi squared test. A total of 24 retrospective studies were identified, enrolling patients treated with sorafenib (n = 12), sunitinib (n = 6), lenvatinib (n = 3), regorafenib (n = 2), gefitinib (n = 1), imatinib (n = 1), and pazopanib (n = 1). Thirteen studies were deemed eligible for pooled analyses. Meta-analyses found a significant effect of low muscle mass on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.26-4.58, p = 0.008, I = 51%) in patients treated with TKI therapy. A subgroup analysis by treatment showed an association between DLT and low muscle during sorafenib or sunitinib, although not significant. A significant association between low skeletal muscle index and poorer overall survival was observed in HCC patients treated with sorafenib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07-1.96, p = 0.02). For other TKIs, although some results showed an association between low muscle mass and worse outcomes, the number of studies for each TKI therapy was too small to reach conclusions. Skeletal muscle mass could influence the prognosis of some TKI-treated patients. This effect is demonstrated in sorafenib-treated HCC patients but remains almost unexplored in other cancer patients undergoing TKI therapy. Further prospective studies with large sample size and sufficient follow-up are needed to clarify the role of muscle mass in the metabolism of TKI-based cancer treatment, and its association with toxicity and survival.
Topics: Gefitinib; Humans; Imatinib Mesylate; Indazoles; Muscle, Skeletal; Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Prognosis; Pyrazoles; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quinolines; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 33337518
DOI: 10.1007/s11739-020-02589-5 -
Journal of the Chinese Medical... Jan 2024Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) are a common cancer treatment. However, the pharmacologic characteristics of VEGF-TKIs may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Major adverse cardiovascular events of vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors among patients with different malignancy: A systemic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGF-TKIs) are a common cancer treatment. However, the pharmacologic characteristics of VEGF-TKIs may influence cardiovascular risks. The relative risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) associated with VEGF-TKIs are poorly understood.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until August 31, 2021, for phase II/III randomized controlled trials of 11 VEGF-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, ponatinib, ripretinib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, and vandetanib). The endpoints were heart failure, thromboembolism, and cardiovascular death. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the risk of VEGF-TKI among users by comparing it to nonusers. Pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model were used to estimate the risks of the various VEGF-TKIs. We estimated ranked probability with a P-score and assessed credibility using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.
RESULTS
We identified 69 trials involving 30 180 patients with cancer. The highest risk of MACEs was associated with high-potency tivazonib (odds ratio [OR]: 3.34), lenvatinib (OR: 3.26), and axitinib (OR: 2.04), followed by low-potency pazopanib (OR: 1.79), sorafenib (OR: 1.77), and sunitinib (OR: 1.66). The risk of heart failure significantly increased in association with less-selective sorafenib (OR: 3.53), pazopanib (OR: 3.10), and sunitinib (OR: 2.65). The risk of thromboembolism significantly increased in association with nonselective lenvatinib (OR: 3.12), sorafenib (OR: 1.54), and sunitinib (OR: 1.53). Higher potency (tivozanib, axitinib) and lower selectivity (sorafenib, vandetanib, pazopanib, sunitinib) were associated with a higher probability of heart failure. Low selectivity (lenvatinib, cabozantinib, sorafenib, sunitinib) was associated with a higher probability of thromboembolism.
CONCLUSION
Higher-potency and lower-selectivity VEGF-TKIs may influence the risks of MACEs, heart failure, and thromboembolism. These findings may facilitate evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Sunitinib; Antineoplastic Agents; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Sorafenib; Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors; Axitinib; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Neoplasms; Heart Failure; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 37991373
DOI: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000001026 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Nov 2016Sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, axitinib and bevacizumab are the five recommended antiangiogenic agents in first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, axitinib and bevacizumab are the five recommended antiangiogenic agents in first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Because these drugs underwent simultaneous clinical development, no direct efficacy and safety comparison was ever conducted, thus preventing optimal therapy choices.
METHODS
We performed a traditional and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mRCC-recommended first-line antiangiogenic agents. After a systematic review of Medline and Embase up to July 2014, we identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the outcomes of mRCC patients treated with sunitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, axitinib and bevacizumab as first-line treatment. Endpoints of interest were response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS
We screened 769 abstracts and included nine RCTs with a total of 4282 patients. In the weighted pooled analysis, first-line antiangiogenic agents showed significant improvement in PFS (HR=0.6; 95% IC, 0.51-0.72) and OS (HR=0.85; 95% IC, 0.78-0.93) compared to control (placebo or interferon-alpha2a (INF)). Network meta-analysis showed no significant differences among antiangiogenic drugs in 6-month PFS, 1-year OS, disease control rate and drug-related safety for all-grade hypertension, diarrhea, weight-loss, nausea or anorexia. However, pazopanib showed a lower incidence of fatigue, anemia and hand foot skin reaction.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis confirms the benefits of first-line antiangiogenic therapy in mRCC, with an improvement in OS. Sunitinib, pazopanib, axitinib and bevacizumab + INF offer similar efficacy but different safety profiles which can help clinicians to better personalize treatment decisions in patients with mRCC.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Disease Progression; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27823651
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.08.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons. 1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants. 2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants. 3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib Sunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants. 4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab Sunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Axitinib; Bevacizumab; Bias; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Everolimus; Humans; Indazoles; Ipilimumab; Kidney Neoplasms; Phenylurea Compounds; Progression-Free Survival; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Sirolimus; Sorafenib; Sulfonamides; Sunitinib
PubMed: 33058158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012796.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in women. Historically, women with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer have had limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in women. Historically, women with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer have had limited treatment options. New anti-angiogenesis therapies, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting agents, offer an alternative strategy to conventional chemotherapy; they act by inhibiting the growth of new blood vessels, thereby restricting tumour growth by blocking the blood supply.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of VEGF targeting agents in the management of persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, online registers of clinical trials, and abstracts of scientific meetings up until 27 May 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We examined randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of VEGF targeting agents alone or in combination with conventional chemotherapy or other VEGF targeting agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently screened the results of search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to the standard methods expected by Cochrane. The certainty of evidence was assessed via the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 1634 records were identified. From these, we identified four studies with a total of 808 participants for inclusion. We also identified two studies that were awaiting classification and nine ongoing studies. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy Treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy may result in lower risk of death compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.95; 1 study, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there are probably more specific adverse events when compared to chemotherapy alone, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (risk ratio (RR) 18.00, 95% CI 2.42 to 133.67; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); serious thromboembolic events (RR 4.5, 95% CI 1.55 to 13.08; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and hypertension (RR 13.75, 95% CI 5.07 to 37.29; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be a higher incidence of serious haemorrhage (RR 5.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 22.56; 1 study, 440 participants; low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of serious adverse events is probably higher (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.79; 1 study, 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 295,164 per quality-adjusted life-year (1 study, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cediranib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy Treatment with cediranib plus chemotherapy may or may not result in similar risk of death when compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.65; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.57; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious haemorrhage (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 109.49; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious thromboembolic events (RR 3.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 80.59; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and serious hypertension (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.62; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, there may or may not be a similar incidence of serious adverse events compared to chemotherapy alone (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.78; 1 study, 67 participants; low-certainty evidence). Apatinib plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy versus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy Treatment with apatinib plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy may or may not result in similar risk of death compared to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy/brachytherapy alone (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.60; 1 study, 52 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, hypertension events may occur at a higher incidence as compared to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy/brachytherapy alone (RR 5.14, 95% CI 1.28 to 20.73; 1 study, 52 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pazopanib plus lapatinib versus lapatinib Treatment with pazopanib plus lapatinib may result in higher risk of death compared to lapatinib alone (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.31; 1 study, 117 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.58; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and thromboembolic events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.50; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of hypertension events is probably higher (RR 12.00, 95% CI 2.94 to 49.01; 1 study, 152 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may or may not be a similar incidence of serious adverse events as compared to lapatinib alone (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.26; 1 study, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pazopanib versus lapatinib Treatment with pazopanib may or may not result in similar risk of death as compared to lapatinib (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38; 1 study, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.12; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.40; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and thromboembolic events (RR 3.08, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.42; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of hypertension events is probably higher (RR 11.81, 95% CI 2.89 to 48.33; 1 study, 150 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of serious adverse events may or may not be similar as compared to lapatinib (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty evidence in favour of the use of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. However, bevacizumab probably increases specific adverse events (gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae, thromboembolic events, hypertension) and serious adverse events. We found low-certainty evidence that does not support the use of cediranib plus chemotherapy, apatinib plus chemotherapy, apatinib plus chemotherapy/brachytherapy, or pazopanib monotherapy. We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that pazopanib plus lapatinib worsens outcomes. The VEGF inhibitors apatinib and pazopanib may increase the probability of hypertension events.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Bevacizumab; Bias; Brachytherapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Confidence Intervals; Female; Gastric Fistula; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Hypertension; Indazoles; Intestinal Fistula; Intestinal Perforation; Lapatinib; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Thromboembolism; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Young Adult
PubMed: 33661538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013348.pub2 -
European Archives of... Apr 2024To evaluate literature evidences about the efficacy and safety of anti-angiogenesis agents plus chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of locally... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate literature evidences about the efficacy and safety of anti-angiogenesis agents plus chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
METHODS
The relevant literature was systematically searched from the date of establishment to April 2023 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biological Medicine, Wanfang and VIP database. Search terms included: Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms, Angiogenesis inhibitors, Endostar, Anlotinib, Apatinib, Bevacizumab, Sunitinib, Pazopanib, Chemoradiotherapy. The literature was strictly screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 8 eligible studies were finally included in our meta-analysis (4 randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective studies).
RESULTS
A total of 642 patients were included, with 316 in the anti-angiogenesis agents plus chemoradiotherapy group and 326 in the chemoradiotherapy group. The results of our meta-analysis showed that compared with chemoradiotherapy group, the complete response rate (RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.74, P = 0.02), objective response rate (RR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.12-1.43, P = 0.0002) in the anti-angiogenesis agents plus chemoradiotherapy group were significantly improved. In terms of safety, there was a higher incidence of cardiac arrhythmia (RR = 3.63, 95% CI 1.16-11.37, P = 0.03) and hypertension (RR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.04-3.27, P = 0.004) in the anti-angiogenesis agents plus chemoradiotherapy group, while no statistically significant differences were reported in other adverse reactions (all P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Compared with chemoradiotherapy, anti-angiogenesis agents plus chemoradiotherapy could bring more benefits in terms of short-term efficacy, particularly by notably improving both complete response rate and objective response rate, and overall adverse reactions were acceptable. Anti-angiogenesis agents plus chemoradiotherapy may provide a promising direction for the treatment of locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-8-0076/ , registration number INPLASY202380076.
PubMed: 38625559
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-024-08545-9 -
Endocrine-related Cancer Sep 2018In the last few years, the therapeutic approach for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has changed dramatically following the approval of several novel targeted treatments....
In the last few years, the therapeutic approach for neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has changed dramatically following the approval of several novel targeted treatments. The multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor (MTKI), sunitinib malate, has been approved by Regulatory Agencies in pancreatic NENs. The MTKI class, however, includes several other molecules (approved for other conditions), which are currently being studied in NENs. An in-depth review on the studies published on the MTKIs in neuroendocrine tumors such as axitinib, cabozantinib, famitinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, pazopanib, sorafenib and sulfatinib was performed. Furthermore, we extensively searched on the Clinical Trial Registries databases worldwide, in order to collect information on the ongoing clinical trials related to this topic. Our systematic analysis on emerging MTKIs in the treatment of gastroenteropancreatic and lung NENs identifies and studies, which demonstrate anti-tumor activity of diverse MTKIs on neuroendocrine cells and tumors. Moreover, for the first time in the literature, we report an updated view concerning the upcoming clinical trials in this field: presently, phase I, II and III clinical trials are ongoing and will include, overall, a staggering 1667 patients. This fervid activity underlines the increasing interest of the scientific community in the use of emerging MTKIs in NEN treatment.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases
PubMed: 29769293
DOI: 10.1530/ERC-17-0531 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Aug 2021The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative evaluation of cardiovascular risks among nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs in patients with solid tumors: a Bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) as anticancer drugs in patients with solid tumors.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials. We have included 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) associated with nine VEGFR-TKIs Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs used to treat patients with solid tumors. To evaluate the trials' risk of bias, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was assessed. A direct comparison was assessed by RevMan5.3 software, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was tested by the I statistic and Chi-square test for P value. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0 and GeMTC 0.14.3 software, calculated OR along with corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI). The model's convergence was evaluated by the potential scale reduced factor (PSRF). Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons was assessed by the "node-splitting" method.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 20,027 patients from 45 randomized controlled trials and associated with nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib), were enrolled. Findings indicated that lenvatinib had the most significant probability of provoking all grades cardiovascular incident and hypertension, followed by vandetanib, cabozantinib, axitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, regorafenib and nintedanib. The nine agent's severe cardiovascular and severe hypertension risk was probably similar. The ranking probability of cardiac toxicity shows that vandetanib ranked most likely to have the highest risk for cardiotoxicity among all the VEGFR-TKIs reviewed, followed by pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, sunitinib. In contrast, regorafenib and nintedanib did not exhibit an increased risk of cardiac damage.
CONCLUSIONS
The association between the nine VEGFR-TKIs with potential cardiotoxicity occurrence was reviewed. Both the regorafenib and nintedanib did not display detectable signs of cardiotoxic damage. In contrast, lenvatinib and vandetanib are ranked to have the most severe cardiotoxicity side impacts. These results may provide information for clinical practice guidelines, implementing strategies in selecting the adequate VEGFR-TKIs, and understanding the cardiovascular toxicity inflicted by the VEGFR-TKIs.
PROSPERO IDENTIFIER
CRD 42,020,167,307.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Cardiotoxicity; Cardiovascular Diseases; Drug Approval; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 33725154
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03521-w