-
Medicine Aug 2018Treatments for advanced melanoma are associated with different adverse events (AEs), which may be costly to manage. This study aimed to evaluate direct costs associated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatments for advanced melanoma are associated with different adverse events (AEs), which may be costly to manage. This study aimed to evaluate direct costs associated with managing treatment-related AEs for advanced melanoma through a systematic literature review.
METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, BIOSIS, and EconLit medical literature databases to identify studies providing estimates of direct costs and health care resource utilization for the management of AEs of melanoma treatments, published between January 1, 2007, and February 23, 2017. Gray literature searches also were conducted. Studies reporting direct costs for patients with advanced melanoma that were published in English between 2007 and 2017 were eligible. Studies were systematically screened in 2 phases by 2 independent reviewers. Study design details and data on direct costs by country were extracted.
RESULTS
Seven studies evaluating the cost of AEs in patients with advanced melanoma were included; most estimated the costs for grade 3 or 4 events. In a United States study, monthly AE costs constituted 36.9% of overall health care costs for dacarbazine, 30.3% for paclitaxel, 9.2% for temozolomide, 6.4% for vemurafenib, and 4.0% for ipilimumab. A multicountry study found the greatest cost per event to be for grade 3 or 4 AEs associated with ipilimumab, including colitis (A$1471 [Australia]-&OV0556;3313 [France]) and diarrhea (£2836 [United Kingdom]), and chemotherapy (neutropenia/leukopenia in Germany [&OV0556;1744] and Italy [&OV0556;804]). Across studies, cost drivers for the most expensive AEs to manage were requiring hospitalization or use of expensive outpatient medications and/or procedures (eg, erythropoietin and blood transfusions for anemia). Some currently available therapies were not available during the research period, and their associated AEs are not reflected. Results may not be comparable across countries. For some studies, resource-use estimates reflect practice patterns from a limited number of centers, limiting generalizability.
CONCLUSION
Costs for managing each type of AE associated with the treatment of advanced melanoma are substantial. Effective treatments with improved safety profiles may help reduce total AE management costs.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Dacarbazine; Health Expenditures; Health Resources; Humans; Indoles; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Paclitaxel; Sulfonamides; Temozolomide; Vemurafenib
PubMed: 30075584
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011736 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2020Since 2011, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been effective treatment options for advanced melanoma. Little is known about how risks of immune-related adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Since 2011, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been effective treatment options for advanced melanoma. Little is known about how risks of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) vary by ICIs.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risk of irAEs across different treatment regimens for advanced melanoma using network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for all randomized clinical trial (RCT) articles published from January 1, 2010, through June 30, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies included phases 2 and 3 RCTs in the treatment of advanced melanoma that compared ICIs (ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab) with chemotherapy drugs (eg, dacarbazine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel) or different ICI regimens.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Different treatment regimens were compared using bayesian network meta-analysis with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation with noninformative prior distribution and random-effects generalized linear models.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes were the cumulative incidence of any irAEs (regardless of severity) and severe irAEs (grades 3-5). Based on the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrI), the probability of being associated with the lowest irAE risks was estimated for each treatment regimen.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with 8 different treatment regimens for advanced melanoma and involving a total of 5051 patients were included. Overall, the 3 ICI treatment regimens associated with the lowest risk of any or severe irAEs were pembrolizumab, 2 mg/kg, every 3 weeks; nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks; and pembrolizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks. Compared with ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks, only nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, was associated with a decreased risk for any irAEs (OR, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.94). A decreased risk for severe irAEs was observed for ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, every 3 weeks (OR, 0.35; 95% CrI, 0.14-0.74); pembrolizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks (OR, 0.22; 95% CrI, 0.05-0.95) and 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks (OR, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.06-0.68); and nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks (OR, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.07-0.48) compared with ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks. An increased risk for severe irAEs was associated with nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, every 3 weeks combined with ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, every 3 weeks compared with other ICI regimens (ORs ranging from 4.09 [95% CrI, 1.73-10.99] to 7.40 [95% CrI, 1.12-49.29]) except ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that for patients with advanced melanoma at high risk of irAEs, pembrolizumab, 2 mg/kg, every 3 weeks, nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, and pembrolizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks may be the preferred treatment regimens (with respect to irAE risks) among the ICI regimens reported, whereas ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks alone and nivolumab, 1 mg/kg, every 3 weeks combined with ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg, every 3 weeks should be used with caution. A network analysis may be valuable for clinical decision-making when evidence from head-to-head comparisons is lacking.
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Male; Melanoma; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 32211869
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1611 -
Advances in Therapy Feb 2017Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have been achieved in recent years: immunotherapies and targeted therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Advances in the treatment of metastatic melanoma have been achieved in recent years: immunotherapies and targeted therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over older agents such as granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), dacarbazine, and glycoprotein peptide vaccine (gp100) in pivotal phase 3 trials. It is important to compare therapies to guide the treatment decision-making process, and establishing the relationship between older agents can strengthen the networks of evidence for newer therapies. We report the outcome of an indirect comparison of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 in metastatic melanoma through meta-analysis of absolute treatment effect.
METHODS
A systematic literature review identified trials for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A valid network meta-analysis was not feasible: treatment-specific meta-analysis was conducted. A published algorithm was used to adjust overall survival estimates from trials of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 for heterogeneity in baseline prognostic factors. Survival estimates were compared in three patient groups: stage IIIB-IV M1c, stage IIIB-IV M1a, and stage IV M1b/c.
RESULTS
One trial of GM-CSF, four of dacarbazine, and one of gp100 were included in the analysis. After adjusting for differences in baseline prognostic factors, median overall survival (OS) in all patient groups was longer for those receiving GM-CSF than for those receiving dacarbazine or gp100. The observed survival over time for GM-CSF was similar to the adjusted survival for dacarbazine and greater than for gp100 in all patient groups.
CONCLUSION
The relative treatment effect of GM-CSF, dacarbazine, and gp100 has been reliably estimated by adjusting for differences in baseline prognostic factors. Results suggest that OS with GM-CSF is at least as good as with dacarbazine and greater than with gp100. Given the role of these agents as controls in phase 3 trials of new immunotherapies and targeted agents, these results can be used to contextualize the efficacy of newer therapies.
FUNDING
Amgen Inc.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Cancer Vaccines; Dacarbazine; Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Melanoma; Neoplasm Metastasis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28000169
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-016-0464-9 -
Sarcoma 2016This systematic literature review describes adverse events (AEs) among patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) who received second-line or later anticancer therapies.... (Review)
Review
This systematic literature review describes adverse events (AEs) among patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) who received second-line or later anticancer therapies. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of adults with advanced or metastatic STS who received systemic anticancer therapy before enrollment in a randomized-controlled trial of pazopanib, another targeted cancer agent, or cytotoxic chemotherapy. Of 204 publications identified, seven articles representing six unique studies met inclusion criteria. Additional safety results for pazopanib were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov. Hematologic toxicities were common with all therapies evaluated (pazopanib, trabectedin, dacarbazine ± gemcitabine, gemcitabine ± docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, and ifosfamide). Studies differed in AE type, timing of assessment, and outcomes reported, although patient populations and AE assessment timing were relatively similar for pazopanib and trabectedin. AEs that were more common with trabectedin than pazopanib were anemia, neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase. An AE that was more common with pazopanib than trabectedin was anorexia. Only the pazopanib study reported AE frequencies versus placebo. A planned meta-analysis was not feasible, as there was no common comparator. More well-designed studies that include common comparators are needed for comparison of safety effects among treatments for STS.
PubMed: 27516726
DOI: 10.1155/2016/3597609 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP versus chemotherapy including ABVD for people with early unfavourable or advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma.
BACKGROUND
There are two different international standards for the treatment of early unfavourable and advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): chemotherapy with escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin/etoposide/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide/vincristine/procarbazine/prednisone) regimen and chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastine/dacarbazine) regimen.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the advantages and disadvantages of chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP compared to chemotherapy including ABVD in the treatment of early unfavourable or advanced stage HL as first-line treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomised controlled trials in MEDLINE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings (January 1985 to July 2013 and for the update to March 2017) and Embase (1985 to November 2008). Moreover we searched trial registries (March 2017; www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search, clinicaltrials.gov, www.eortc.be, www.ghsg.org, www.ctc.usyd.edu.au, www.trialscentral.org/index.html) SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining chemotherapy including at least two cycles of escalated BEACOPP regimens compared with chemotherapy including at least four cycles of ABVD regimens as first-line treatment for patients with early unfavourable stage or advanced stage HL.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The effect measures we used were hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and freedom from first progression.We used risk ratios (RRs) relative risks to analyse harms: treatment-related mortality, secondary malignancies (including myeloid dysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute myeloid leukaemia (AML)), infertility and adverse events.Quality of life was not reported in any trial, therefore not analysed. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We screened 1796 records and identified five eligible trials in total i.e. one trial could be added on the previous review. These trials included only adults (16 to 65 years of age). We included all five trials with 3427 people in the meta-analyses: the HD9 and HD14 trials were co-ordinated in Germany, the HD2000 and GSM-HD trials were performed in Italy and the EORTC 20012 was conducted in Belgium. The overall risk of performance and detection bias was low for overall survival (OS), but was high for other outcomes, as therapy blinding was not feasible. The remaining 'Risk of bias' domains were low and unclear.All trials reported results for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In contrast to the our first published review (2011) the addition of results from the EORTC 20012 BEACOPP escalated increases OS (3142 participants; HR 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.97; high-quality evidence). This means that only 90 (70 to 117) patients will die after five years in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 120 in the ABVD arm. This survival advantage is also reflected in an increased PFS with BEACOPP escalated (3142 participants; HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64); moderate-quality evidence), meaning that after five years only 144 (121 to 168) patients will experience a progress, relapse or death in the BEACOPP escalated arm compared to 250 in the ABVD arm.There is no evidence for a difference for treatment-related mortality (2700 participants, RR 2.15 (95% CI = 0.93 to 4.95), low-quality evidence).Although the occurrence of MDS or AML may increase with BEACOPP escalated (3332 participants, RR 3.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 11.21); low-quality evidence)), there is no evidence for a difference between both regimens for overall secondary malignancies (3332 participants, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.48), low-quality evidence). However, the observation time of the studies included in the review is too short to be expected to demonstrate differences with respect to second solid tumours which would not be expected to show significance until around 15 years after treatment.We are very uncertain how many female patients will be infertile due to chemotherapy and which arm might be favoured (106 participants, RR 1.37 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.26), very low-quality evidence). This is a very small sample, and the age of the patients was not detailed. No analysis of male fertility was provided.Five trials reported adverse events and the analysis shows that the escalated BEACOPP regimens probably causes more haematological toxicities WHO grade III or IV ((anaemia: 2425 participants, RR 10.67 (95% CI 7.14 to 15.93); neutropenia: 519 participants, RR 1.80 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.13); thrombocytopenia: 2425 participants, RR 18.12 (95% CI 11.77 to 27.92); infections: 2425 participants, RR 3.73 (95% CI 2.58 to 5.38), all low-quality evidence).Only one trial (EORTC 20012) planned to assess quality of life, however, no results were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis provides moderate- to high-quality evidence that adult patients between 16 and 60 years of age with early unfavourable and advanced stage HL benefit regarding OS and PFS from first-line chemotherapy including escalated BEACOPP. The proven benefit in OS for patients with advanced HL is a new finding of this updated review due to the inclusion of the results from the EORTC 20012 trial. Furthermore, there is only low-quality evidence of a difference in the total number of secondary malignancies, as the follow-up period might be too short to detect meaningful differences. Low-quality evidence also suggests that people treated with escalated BEACOPP may have a higher risk to develop secondary AML or MDS. Due to the availability of only very low-quality evidence available, we are unable to come to a conclusion in terms of infertility. This review does for the first time suggest a survival benefit. However, it is clear from this review that BEACOPP escalated may be more toxic that ABVD, and very important long-term side effects of second malignancies and infertility have not been sufficiently analysed yet.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bleomycin; Cyclophosphamide; Dacarbazine; Disease Progression; Doxorubicin; Etoposide; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Middle Aged; Prednisone; Procarbazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vinblastine; Vincristine; Young Adult
PubMed: 28541603
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007941.pub3 -
BMJ Open Aug 2017To assess the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven new drugs (cobimetinib, dabrafenib, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, trametinib and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Multiple treatment comparison of seven new drugs for patients with advanced malignant melanoma: a systematic review and health economic decision model in a Norwegian setting.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven new drugs (cobimetinib, dabrafenib, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, trametinib and vemurafenib) used for treatment of patients with advanced malignant melanoma in the Norwegian setting.
DESIGN
A multiple technology assessment.
PATIENTS
Patients with advanced malignant melanoma aged 18 or older.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search for randomised controlled trials in relevant bibliographic databases.
METHODS
We performed network meta-analyses using both direct and indirect evidence with dacarbazine as a common comparator. We ranked the different treatments in terms of their likelihood of leading to the best results for each endpoint. The cost-utility analysis was based on a probabilistic discrete-time Markov cohort model. The model calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with different treatment strategies from a healthcare perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed by means of Monte Carlo simulation.
RESULTS
Monotherapies with a programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor had a higher probability of good performance for overall survival than monotherapies with ipilimumab or BRAF/MEK inhibitors. The combination treatments had all similar levels of effectiveness to the PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors.PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors are more effective and more costly compared with ipilimumab in monotherapy. Nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab had higher costs and the same level of effectiveness as the PD-1 immune-checkpoint-inhibitors in monotherapy.BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations (dabrafenib and trametinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib) had both similar effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; however, the combination therapies are more likely to give higher quality adjusted life year gains than BRAF or MEK inhibitor monotherapies, but to a higher cost.
CONCLUSIONS
None of the drugs investigated can be considered cost-effective at what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness-to-pay (WTP) in Norway. Price reductions (from the official list prices) in the region of 63%-84% would be necessary for these drugs to be cost-effective at a WTP of €55 850 per QALY.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dacarbazine; Drug Costs; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Ipilimumab; Melanoma; Models, Economic; Network Meta-Analysis; Nivolumab; Norway; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 28827234
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014880 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Aug 2016Since 2003, only two chemotherapeutic agents, evaluated in phase III trials, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of newly diagnosed... (Review)
Review
Gliadel wafer implantation combined with standard radiotherapy and concurrent followed by adjuvant temozolomide for treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a systematic literature review.
Since 2003, only two chemotherapeutic agents, evaluated in phase III trials, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma (HGG): Gliadel wafers (intracranially implanted local chemotherapy) and temozolomide (TMZ) (systemic chemotherapy). Neither agent is curative, but each has been shown to improve median overall survival (OS) compared to radiotherapy (RT) alone. To date, no phase III trial has tested these agents when used in sequential combination; however, a number of smaller trials have reported favorable results. We performed a systematic literature review to evaluate the combination of Gliadel wafers with standard RT (60 Gy) plus concurrent and adjuvant TMZ (RT/TMZ) for newly diagnosed HGG. A literature search was conducted for the period of January 1995 to September 2015. Data were extracted and categorized, and means and ranges were determined. A total of 11 publications met criteria, three prospective trials and eight retrospective studies, representing 411 patients who received Gliadel plus standard RT/TMZ. Patients were similar in age, gender, and performance status. The weighted mean of median OS was 18.2 months (ten trials, n = 379, range 12.7 to 21.3 months), and the weighted mean of median progression-free survival was 9.7 months (seven trials, n = 287, range 7 to 12.9 months). The most commonly reported grade 3 and 4 adverse events were myelosuppression (10.22 %), neurologic deficit (7.8 %), and healing abnormalities (4.3 %). Adverse events reflected the distinct independent safety profiles of Gliadel wafers and RT/TMZ, with little evidence of enhanced toxicity from their use in sequential combination. In the 11 identified trials, an increased benefit from sequentially combining Gliadel wafers with RT/TMZ was strongly suggested. Median OS tended to be improved by 3 to 4 months beyond that observed for Gliadel wafers or TMZ when used alone in the respective phase III trials. Larger prospective trials of Gliadel plus RT/TMZ are warranted.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Brain Neoplasms; Carmustine; Chemoradiotherapy; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Combined Modality Therapy; Dacarbazine; Decanoic Acids; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Implants; Glioblastoma; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Polyesters; Temozolomide; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 27557526
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-016-0975-5 -
Radiation Oncology (London, England) Mar 2024Treatment related lymphopenia is a known toxicity for glioblastoma (GBM) patients and several single-institution studies have linked lymphopenia with poor survival...
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)
Treatment related lymphopenia is a known toxicity for glioblastoma (GBM) patients and several single-institution studies have linked lymphopenia with poor survival outcomes. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to evaluate the association between lymphopenia and overall survival (OS) for GBM patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT).
MATERIALS/METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of the MEDLINE database and abstracts from ASTRO, ASCO, and SNO annual meetings was conducted. A pooled analysis was performed using inverse variance-weighted random effects to generate a pooled estimate of the hazard ratio of association between lymphopenia and OS.
RESULTS
Ten of 104 identified studies met inclusion criteria, representing 1,718 patients. The lymphopenia cutoff value varied (400-1100 cells/uL) and as well as the timing of its onset. Studies were grouped as time-point (i.e., lymphopenia at approximately 2-months post-RT) or time-range (any lymphopenia occurrence from treatment-start to approximately 2-months post-RT. The mean overall pooled incidence of lymphopenia for all studies was 31.8%, and 11.8% vs. 39.9% for time-point vs. time-range studies, respectively. Lymphopenia was associated with increased risk of death, with a pooled HR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.46-2.17, P < 0.00001) for the time-point studies, and a pooled HR of 1.38 (95% CI 1.24-1.55, P < 0.00001) for the time-point studies. There was no significant heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSION
These results strengthen observations from previous individual single-institution studies and better defines the magnitude of the association between lymphopenia with OS in GBM patients, highlighting lymphopenia as a poor prognostic factor.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Temozolomide; Brain Neoplasms; Lymphopenia
PubMed: 38481255
DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02393-3 -
Journal of Neuro-oncology Nov 2022Shorter hypofractionated radiation therapy (HF-RT) schedules may have radiobiological, patient convenience and healthcare resource advantages over conventionally... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Moderately hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy with temozolomide for young and fit patients with glioblastoma: an institutional experience and meta-analysis of literature.
PURPOSE
Shorter hypofractionated radiation therapy (HF-RT) schedules may have radiobiological, patient convenience and healthcare resource advantages over conventionally fractionated radiation therapy (CF-RT) in glioblastoma (GBM). We report outcomes of young, fit GBM patients treated with HF-RT and CF-RT during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a meta-analysis of HF-RT literature in this patient subgroup.
METHODS
Hospital records of patients with IDH-wildtype GBM treated with HF-RT (50 Gy/20 fractions) and CF-RT (60 Gy/30 fractions) between January 2020 and September 2021 were reviewed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariable analysis was performed using Cox regression analysis. A systematic search and meta-analysis of studies from January 2000 to January 2022 was performed.
RESULTS
41 patients were treated (HF-RT:15, CF-RT:26). For both HF-RT and CF-RT groups, median age was 58 years and 80-90% were ECOG 0-1. There were more methylated tumours in the HF-RT group. All patients received concurrent/adjuvant temozolomide. At 19.2 months median follow-up, median OS was 19.8 months and not-reached for HF-RT and CF-RT (p = 0.5), and median PFS was 7.7 and 5.8 months, respectively (p = 0.8). HF-RT or CF-RT did not influence OS/PFS on univariable analysis. Grade 3 radionecrosis rate was 6.7% and 7.7%, respectively. 15 of 1135 studies screened from a systematic search were eligible for meta-analysis. For studies involving temozolomide, pooled median OS and PFS with HF-RT were 17.5 and 9.9 months (927 and 862 patients). Studies using shortened HF-RT schedules reported 0-2% Grade 3 radionecrosis rates.
CONCLUSION
HF-RT may offer equivalent outcomes and reduce treatment burden compared to CF-RT in young, fit GBM patients.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Brain Neoplasms; COVID-19; Glioblastoma; Pandemics; Temozolomide
PubMed: 36355260
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-022-04151-z -
Clinical & Translational Oncology :... Jun 2021Considering the increased cancer patient survivorship, the focus is now on addressing the impacts of treatment on quality of life. In young people, altered reproductive...
PURPOSE
Considering the increased cancer patient survivorship, the focus is now on addressing the impacts of treatment on quality of life. In young people, altered reproductive function is a major issue and its effects in young males are largely neglected by novel research. To improve clinician awareness, we systematically reviewed side effects of chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in young males.
METHODS
The review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO N. CRD42019122868). Three databases (Medline via PUBMED, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library) were searched for studies featuring males aged 13-51-years who underwent chemotherapy for HL using ABVD (Adriamycin® (doxorubicin), bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) or BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisolone) regimens. These chemotherapy regimens were compared against each other using sperm characteristics, FSH, and inhibin B levels to measure fertility levels.
RESULTS
Data were extracted from five studies featuring 1344 patients. 6 months post-ABVD saw marked deterioration in sperm count, further reduced by more cycles (P = 0.05). Patients treated with BEACOPP rather than ABVD were more prone to oligospermia. Receiving fewer cycles of both regimens increased the likelihood of sperm production recovering. Patients treated with 6-8 cycles of BEACOPP did not recover spermiogenesis.
CONCLUSIONS
ABVD and BEACOPP regimens significantly reduce fertility function to varying effects depending on treatment duration. ABVD temporarily causes significant reductions in male fertility, whereas BEACOPP's effects are more permanent. Therefore, clinicians should discuss fertility preservation with male patients receiving infertility-inducing gonadotoxic therapy. Further high-quality studies are required to more adequality describe the risk to fertility by chemotherapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bleomycin; Cyclophosphamide; Dacarbazine; Doxorubicin; Etoposide; Fertility; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Infertility, Male; Male; Prednisone; Procarbazine; Vinblastine; Vincristine
PubMed: 32944834
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-020-02483-8