-
Oncotarget Mar 2017The value of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer remains uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The value of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer remains uncertain.
METHODS
Both electronic databases and proceedings of oncologic meetings were included in systematic literature search. Pooled rates of pathological complete response (pCR), odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect model to determine the effect of neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies with 2357 patients were included, 3 of which were randomized clinical trials. The aggregate pCR(ypT0/is ypN0) rate was 32% (95% CI 25-38%) in unselected breast cancer patients and variated in different subtypes. Within randomized clinical trials, the probability of achieving pCR was significantly higher in the nab-paclitaxel group than in the conventional taxanes group (OR = 1.383, 95%CI 1.141-1.676, p = 0.001). For non-hematological toxic effect, any grade and grade 3-4 peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred more frequently with nab-paclitaxel compared to paclitaxel (any grade, OR = 2.090, 95%CI 1.016-4.302, p = 0.045; grade3-4, OR = 3.766, 95%CI 2.324-6.100, p < 0.001). Hypersensitivity was more common with paclitaxel than nab-paclitaxel at any grade and grade 3-4.
CONCLUSION
nab-paclitaxel is an effective cytotoxic drug in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer, especially for aggressive tumors in terms of pCR. Exchange of nab-paclitaxel for conventional taxanes could significantly improve pCR rate with reasonable toxicities.
Topics: Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel; Albumins; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Leukopenia; Nanoparticles; Nausea; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neutropenia; Paclitaxel; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28061451
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14477 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Mar 2016Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors have dramatically changed management of multiple myeloma (MM). While MM remains incurable, consolidation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors have dramatically changed management of multiple myeloma (MM). While MM remains incurable, consolidation and maintenance therapy aimed at improving duration of response can potentially improve survival outcomes. A majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated benefit of IMiD-based maintenance therapy in delaying disease progression; however, whether this therapy can lead to improved survival remains controversial.
METHODS
PubMed and abstract databases of major hematology and/or oncology meetings were searched for RCTs that studied maintenance therapy with IMiDs in MM. A meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the impact of IMiD-based maintenance therapy on survival outcomes and serious adverse events associated with the therapy. All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
Eighteen phase 3 RCTs enrolling 7730 patients were included. IMiD-based maintenance therapy statistically significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.57 to 0.67, P < .001) but failed to improve overall survival (OS; HR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.01, P = .082). Stratified analyses demonstrated that both thalidomide and lenalidomide provided PFS but not OS benefit in transplantation as well as nontransplantation settings. IMiD-based maintenance therapy in MM led to a higher risk of grade 3-4 thromboembolism (risk ratio = 2.52, 95% CI = 1.41 to 4.52, P = .002). Thalidomide maintenance therapy increased the risk of peripheral neuropathy; lenalidomide maintenance therapy increased the risks of myelosuppression and second primary hematological malignancies.
CONCLUSIONS
Thalidomide- or lenalidomide-based maintenance therapy improves PFS but not OS in MM and increases risks of grade 3-4 adverse events, including thromboembolism, peripheral neuropathy, neutropenia, and infection.
Topics: Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Infections; Lenalidomide; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Multiple Myeloma; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Neutropenia; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Severity of Illness Index; Survival Analysis; Survival Rate; Thalidomide; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 26582244
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv342 -
International Journal of Clinical... May 2024Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF after induction therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan society of clinical oncology.
Although granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the incidence, duration, and severity of neutropenia, its prophylactic use for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains controversial due to a theoretically increased risk of relapse. The present study investigated the effects of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for AML with remission induction therapy. A detailed literature search for related studies was performed using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. A qualitative analysis of pooled data was conducted, and the risk ratio with corresponding confidence intervals was calculated in the meta-analysis and summarized. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, nine of which were examined in the meta-analysis. Although G-CSF significantly shortened the duration of neutropenia, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not correlate with infection-related mortality. Moreover, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF did not affect disease progression/recurrence, overall survival, or adverse events, such as musculoskeletal pain. However, evidence to support or discourage the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis for adult AML patients with induction therapy remains limited. Therefore, the use of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis can be considered for adult AML patients with remission induction therapy who are at a high risk of infectious complications.
Topics: Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Remission Induction; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Induction Chemotherapy; Japan; Neutropenia
PubMed: 38494578
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-023-02465-0 -
Targeted Oncology Jan 2024PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting abstracts for clinical trials concerning the use of PARPis, both as single agents and in combination, in patients with mCRPC. The search deadline was 30 June, 2023. We analyzed the pooled incidence of all grades of and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. We subsequently calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all grades of and ≥ G3 AEs of PARPis versus non-PARPis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
RESULTS
Eleven phase 2/3 trials with olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib administered as single agents or combined with ARTA were selected. Anemia was the most common all grades (38.6%) and ≥ G3 AE (24.9%). In the analysis of relative risk, six RCTs were included. The administration of PARPis significantly increased the risk of developing all grades of anemia (RR = 2.44), neutropenia (RR = 3.15), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66) compared with non-PARPis. Similarly, a significant increase in the risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44), and a not significant increased risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.41), were detected.
CONCLUSIONS
In mCRPC, PARPis increase the risk of hematological toxicity compared with other treatments, both as single agents or combined with ARTA (high-quality evidence). Clinicians should be aware of this risk and the correct management, especially with the expected increased PARPis use in mCRPC.
Topics: Male; Humans; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Anemia; Mutation; Neutropenia; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 37993604
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-023-01016-x -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology May 2022Acute neutropenia induced by antibiotics is a rare side effect of this frequently prescribed class of drugs. We aim to find similarities and differences between reported... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Acute neutropenia induced by antibiotics is a rare side effect of this frequently prescribed class of drugs. We aim to find similarities and differences between reported cases.
METHODS
Through a database search (PubMed, 1968-2020), we identified published case reports and extracted, among other data, patient demographics, duration of treatment with the respective agent, and duration of recovery.
RESULTS
Overall, 83 cases were included. Neutropenia developed after a median (min-max) of 21 (17.5-28.5) days of treatment and was resolved after a median (min-max) of 6 (3.0-8.75) days. Vancomycin and ceftaroline emerged as the two most commonly described antibiotics. In 51.8% of cases, the suspected antibiotic was discontinued; in 37.4% of cases, it was substituted by another agent. Only three case reports mentioned death as a result of neutropenia. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating growth factors (CSFs) shortened the duration of neutropenia and improved outcome for patients' health.
CONCLUSION
Neutropenia induced by antibiotics remains a rare or rarely reported side effect. Long-term and high-dose treatment regimens expose a higher risk of development. Thus, regular full blood counts are advised during therapy.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Neutropenia
PubMed: 34897762
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15170 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jul 2019Neutropenia is associated with an increased risk of mortality and hospitalisation. Strategies, including the prescribing of colony-stimulating growth factors (CSFs), are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neutropenia is associated with an increased risk of mortality and hospitalisation. Strategies, including the prescribing of colony-stimulating growth factors (CSFs), are adopted when a high risk (> 20%) of neutropenic complications are seen in the clinical trial setting. With a diverse treatment population that may differ from the patient groups recruited to studies, appropriate prescribing decisions by clinicians are essential. At present, results are conflicting from studies evaluating the risks of certain patient attributes on neutropenic events; we aimed to aggregate these associations to guide future management.
DESIGN
A systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Studies were identified through a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases from inception to December 1, 2017. Studies were included into a meta-analysis if they adjusted for confounders; analyses were conducted in STATA v 15.1 SE.
RESULTS
A total of 4415 articles were retrieved by the search with 37 meeting the inclusion criteria and 12 eligible for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted for increasing age and yielded a pooled odds ratio of 1.39 (1.11, 1.76, I = 24.1%), in our subgroup analysis of 4814 patients. Odds ratios for studies were pooled that reported associations for one co-morbidity compared to none and resulted in an overall odds of 1.54 (CI 1.09-2.09, I = 13.1%), including 9189 patients in total.
CONCLUSIONS
Results can enhance current guidance in prescribing primary prophylaxis for treatments that either fall marginally under the internationally recognised 20% neutropenia risk.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Neutropenia
PubMed: 30993453
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-04773-6 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Apr 2016Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for patients above a febrile neutropenia (FN) risk threshold of 20%.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Interpreting febrile neutropenia rates from randomized, controlled trials for consideration of primary prophylaxis in the real world: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for patients above a febrile neutropenia (FN) risk threshold of 20%. Practitioners often use FN rates of regimens based on data from randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), which are often comprised of highly selected patients. Patients in the community setting may be at higher risk of FN.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted for full-length articles reporting FN rates for breast cancer-related chemotherapies between January 1996 and February 2014. A regimen was included if there was at least one RCT and one observational study. Meta-regression was used to model the odds of FN.
RESULTS
130 studies involving 29 regimens and 50 069 patients were identified. Sixty-five observational study (n = 7812) and 110 RCT (n = 42 257) cohorts were included. The unadjusted FN rate was 11.7% in observational and 7.9% in RCT cohorts. The univariable odds ratio (OR) for FN in the observational study compared with RCT cohorts was 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.28; P = 0.017]. The FN rates remained significantly higher in the observational study compared with RCT cohorts (OR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.15-2.62; P = 0.012) after adjusting for age, chemotherapy intent, and regimen; this meant that a 13% (95% CI 8.7% to 17.9%) FN rate in RCT would translate into 20% FN rate in observational study.
CONCLUSIONS
FN rates in the observational studies are significantly higher than suggested by RCTs. Guidelines should clarify how FN rates from RCTs should be applied in clinical practice. Large population-based studies are needed to confirm FN rates in the real world.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Febrile Neutropenia; Female; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26712901
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv619 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Despite modern antimicrobials and supportive therapy bacterial and fungal infections are still major complications in people with prolonged disease-related or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite modern antimicrobials and supportive therapy bacterial and fungal infections are still major complications in people with prolonged disease-related or treatment-related neutropenia. Transfusions of granulocytes have a long history of usage in clinical practice to support and treat severe infection in high-risk groups of patients with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction. However, there is considerable current variability in therapeutic granulocyte transfusion practice, and uncertainty about the beneficial effect of transfusions given as an adjunct to antibiotics on mortality. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of granulocyte transfusions compared to no granulocyte transfusions as adjuncts to antimicrobials for treating infections in people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function aimed at reducing mortality and other adverse outcomes related to infection.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 2). MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to 11 February 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil dysfunction receiving granulocyte transfusions to treat infection with a control group receiving no granulocyte transfusions. Neonates are the subject of another Cochrane review and were excluded from this review. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 trials that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 587 participants. We also identified another ongoing trial. These trials were conducted between 1975 and 2015. None of the studies included people with neutrophil dysfunction. The studies differed in the type of infections they included. Six studies included both children and adults, however data were not reported separately for children and adults. The two newest studies gave granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to donors; both were stopped early due to lack of recruitment. Three studies re-randomised participants and therefore quantitative analysis was unable to be performed.Overall the quality of the evidence was very low to low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to many of the studies being at high risk of bias, and many of the outcomes being imprecise.There may be no difference in all-cause mortality over 30 days between participants receiving therapeutic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (six studies; 321 participants; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.04; very low-quality evidence). There were no differences between the granulocyte dose subgroups (< 1 x 10(10) per day versus ≥ 1 x 10(10) per day) (test for subgroup differences P = 0.39). There was a difference in all-cause mortality between the studies based on the age of the study (published before 2000 versus published 2000 or later) (test for subgroup differences P = 0.03). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between participants receiving granulocyte transfusions and those that did not in the newest study (one study; 111 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.73, low-quality evidence). There may be a reduction in all-cause mortality in participants receiving granulocyte transfusions compared to those that did not in studies published before the year 2000 (five studies; 210 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.85; low-quality evidence).There may be no difference in clinical reversal of concurrent infection between participants receiving therapeutic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (five studies; 286 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-quality evidence).There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference in pulmonary serious adverse events (1 study; 24 participants; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.88; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported number of days on therapeutic antibiotics, number of adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, or quality of life.Six studies reported their funding sources and all were funded by governments or charities.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people who are neutropenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether granulocyte transfusions affect all-cause mortality. To be able to detect a decrease in all-cause mortality from 35% to 30% would require a study containing at least 2748 participants (80% power, 5% significance). There is low-grade evidence that therapeutic granulocyte transfusions may not increase the number of participants with clinical resolution of an infection.
Topics: Adult; Cause of Death; Child; Granulocytes; Humans; Infections; Leukocyte Transfusion; Neutropenia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27128488
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005339.pub2 -
The Journal of International Medical... Aug 2021To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination regimens containing daratumumab in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination regimens containing daratumumab in patients with multiple myeloma (MM).
METHODS
A systematic search of publications listed on electronic databases (PubMed®, The Cochrane Library, Science Direct and Web of Science) between inception and 13 November 2020 was conducted to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included patients with MM that were treated with combination regimens containing daratumumab.
RESULTS
A total of seven RCTs were included ( = 4268 patients). Meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, the group containing daratumumab showed a significantly better overall response rate and a complete response or better. Daratumumab improved efficacy in both standard-risk and cytogenetically high-risk patients with MM. The prevalence of neutropenia (≥grade 3) and pneumonia was significantly higher in the daratumumab group compared with the control group.
CONCLUSION
The available evidence demonstrated that the clinical application of combination regimens containing daratumumab improved the efficacy in patients with MM and had acceptable safety.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Neutropenia
PubMed: 34433331
DOI: 10.1177/03000605211038135 -
Blood Advances Feb 2024Venetoclax is a small molecule inhibitor of BCL-2 used in the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Recent postmarketing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Venetoclax is a small molecule inhibitor of BCL-2 used in the treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Recent postmarketing studies of ibrutinib, another small molecule inhibitor, suggested that these agents may predispose to opportunistic infections. We sought to systematically review the randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence of venetoclax to assess whether it predisposes patients to infectious adverse events (IAEs) and neutropenia. We systematically reviewed RCTs comparing venetoclax therapy with active or placebo controls for patients with hematologic malignancies. Data on IAEs and neutropenia were pooled by Bayesian meta-analysis, and we computed the probability of any increased risk (P[risk ratio (RR) > 1]) of IAEs or neutropenic complications. Seven RCTs were included, comprising 2067 patients. In CLL (n = 1032), there was a low probability of increased risk of high-grade (P[RR > 1] = 71.2%) and fatal IAEs (P[RR > 1] = 64.5%) and high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 63.4%). There were insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of IAEs in AML; however, 1 trial suggested an increased risk of IAEs with venetoclax. Furthermore, in AML (n = 642), venetoclax was associated with a high probability of increased risk of high-grade neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 94.6%) and febrile neutropenia (P[RR > 1] = 90.6%). Our results suggest that venetoclax has a low probability of increased risk of IAEs or neutropenia in CLL. By contrast, there is likely increased risk of high-grade neutropenia and febrile neutropenia in AML. Importantly, our analyses did not identify any specific IAEs that would benefit from routine antimicrobial prophylaxis or pre-emptive testing.
Topics: Humans; Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell; Hematologic Neoplasms; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Communicable Diseases; Febrile Neutropenia; Sulfonamides; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic
PubMed: 38154071
DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011964