-
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), defined as diagnosis before age 50, has increased in recent decades. Although more often diagnosed at advanced stage, associations...
BACKGROUND
Early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), defined as diagnosis before age 50, has increased in recent decades. Although more often diagnosed at advanced stage, associations with other histological and molecular markers that impact prognosis and treatment remain to be clarified. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the prevalence of prognostic and predictive tumor markers for early- vs. late-onset CRC, including oncogene mutations, microsatellite instability (MSI), and emerging markers including immune cells and the consensus molecular subtypes.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed for original research articles published between April 2013-January 2024. Included studies compared the prevalence of tumor markers in early- vs. late-onset CRC. A meta-analysis was completed and summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from a random effects model via inverse variance weighting. A sensitivity analysis was completed to restrict the meta-analysis to studies that excluded individuals with Lynch syndrome, a hereditary condition that influences the distribution of tumor markers for early-onset CRC.
RESULTS
In total, 149 articles were identified. Tumors from early-onset CRC are less likely to include mutations in (OR, 95% CI: 0.91, 0.85-0.98), (0.63, 0.51-0.78), (0.70, 0.58-0.84), and (0.88, 0.78-1.00) but more likely to include mutations in (1.68, 1.04-2.73) and (1.34, 1.24-1.45). After limiting to studies that excluded Lynch syndrome, the associations between early-onset CRC and (0.77, 0.64-0.92) and mutation (0.81, 0.67-0.97) were attenuated, while an inverse association with mutation was also observed (0.88, 0.78-0.99). Early-onset tumors are less likely to develop along the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype pathway (0.24, 0.10-0.57), but more likely to possess adverse histological features including high tumor grade (1.20, 1.15-1.25), and mucinous (1.22, 1.16-1.27) or signet ring histology (2.32, 2.08-2.57). A positive association with MSI status (1.31, 1.11-1.56) was also identified. Associations with immune markers and the consensus molecular subtypes are inconsistent.
DISCUSSION
A lower prevalence of mutations in and is consistent with extended survival and superior response to targeted therapies for metastatic disease. Conversely, early-onset CRC is associated with aggressive histological subtypes and and mutations, which may serve as therapeutic targets.
PubMed: 38737895
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1349572 -
Urologia Feb 2024The major barriers to phytonutrients in prostate cancer therapy are non-specific mechanisms and bioavailability issues. Studies have pointed to a synergistic combination... (Review)
Review
The major barriers to phytonutrients in prostate cancer therapy are non-specific mechanisms and bioavailability issues. Studies have pointed to a synergistic combination of curcumin (CURC) and ursolic acid (UA). We investigate this combination using a systematic review process to assess the most likely mechanistic pathway and human testing in prostate cancer. We used the PRISMA statement to screen titles, abstracts, and the full texts of relevant articles and performed a descriptive analysis of the literature reviewed for study inclusion and consensus of the manuscript. The most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of CURC ( = 173) in prostate cancer was NF-κB ( = 25, 14.5%). The most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of UA ( = 24) in prostate cancer was caspase 3/caspase 9 ( = 10, 41.6%). The three most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of both CURC and UA ( = 193) in prostate cancer was NF-κB ( = 28, 14.2%), Akt ( = 22, 11.2%), and androgen ( = 19, 9.6%). Therefore, we have identified the potential synergistic target pathways of curcumin and ursolic acid to involve NF-κB, Akt, androgen receptors, and apoptosis pathways. Our review highlights the limited human studies and specific effects in prostate cancer.
Topics: Male; Humans; Ursolic Acid; Curcumin; NF-kappa B; Signal Transduction; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-akt; Apoptosis; Triterpenes; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37776274
DOI: 10.1177/03915603231202304 -
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Jan 2024Disinfection by-products (DBPs), including trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), have attracted attention due to their carcinogenic properties, leading to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Disinfection by-products (DBPs), including trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), have attracted attention due to their carcinogenic properties, leading to varying conclusions. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the dose-response relationship and the dose-dependent effect of DBPs on cancer risk. We performed a selective search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for articles published up to September 15th, 2023. Our meta-analysis eventually included 25 articles, encompassing 8 cohort studies with 6038,525 participants and 10,668 cases, and 17 case-control studies with 10,847 cases and 20,702 controls. We observed a positive correlation between increased cancer risk and higher concentrations of total trihalomethanes (TTHM) in water, longer exposure durations, and higher cumulative TTHM intake. These associations showed a linear trend, with relative risks (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) being 1.02 (1.01-1.03), 1.04 (1.02-1.06), and 1.02 (1.00-1.03), respectively. Gender-specific analyses revealed slightly U-shaped relationships in both males and females, with males exhibiting higher risks. The threshold dose for TTHM in relation to cancer risk was determined to be 55 µg/L for females and 40 µg/L for males. A linear association was also identified between bladder cancer risk and TTHM exposure, with an RR and 95 % CI of 1.08 (1.05-1.11). Positive linear associations were observed between cancer risk and exposure to chloroform, bromodichloromethane (BDCM), and HAA5, with RRs and 95 % CIs of 1.02 (1.01-1.03), 1.33 (1.18-1.50), and 1.07 (1.03-1.12), respectively. Positive dose-dependent effects were noted for brominated THMs above 35 µg/L and chloroform above 75 µg/L. While heterogeneity was observed in the studies for quantitative synthesis, no publication bias was detected. Exposure to TTHM, chloroform, BDCM, or HAA5 may contribute to carcinogenesis, and the risk of cancer appears to be dose-dependent on DBP exposure levels. A cumulative effect is suggested by the positive correlation between TTHM exposure and cancer risk. Bladder cancer and endocrine-related cancers show dose-dependent and positive associations with TTHM exposure. Males may be more susceptible to TTHM compared to females.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Disinfection; Chloroform; Trihalomethanes; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Water Pollutants, Chemical; Disinfectants
PubMed: 38183752
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.115925 -
Chemosphere Oct 2023Glyphosate was classified as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) partially due to strong mechanistic... (Review)
Review
Glyphosate was classified as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) partially due to strong mechanistic evidence in 2015. Since then, numerous studies of glyphosate and its formulations (GBF) have emerged. These studies can be evaluated for cancer hazard identification with the newly described ten key characteristics (KC) of carcinogens approach. Our objective was to assess all in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro mechanistic studies of human and experimental animals (mammals) that compared exposure to glyphosate/GBF with low/no exposure counterparts for evidence of the ten KCs. A protocol with our methods adhering to PRISMA guidelines was registered a priori (INPLASY202180045). Two blinded reviewers screened all in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro studies of glyphosate/GBF exposure in humans/mammals reporting any KC-related outcome available in PubMed before August 2021. Studies that met inclusion criteria underwent data extraction conducted in duplicate for each KC outcome reported along with key aspects of internal/external validity, results, and reference information. These data were used to construct a matrix that was subsequently analyzed in the program R to conduct strength of evidence and quality assessments. Of the 2537 articles screened, 175 articles met inclusion criteria, from which we extracted >50,000 data points related to KC outcomes. Data analysis revealed strong evidence for KC2, KC4, KC5, KC6, KC8, limited evidence for KC1 and KC3, and inadequate evidence for KC7, KC9, and KC10. Notably, our in-depth quality analyses of genotoxicity (KC2) and endocrine disruption (KC8) revealed strong and consistent positive findings. For KC2, we found: 1) studies conducted in humans and human cells provided stronger positive evidence than counterpart animal models; 2) GBF elicited a stronger effect in both human and animal systems when compared to glyphosate alone; and 3) the highest quality studies in humans and human cells consistently revealed strong evidence of genotoxicity. Our analysis of KC8 indicated that glyphosate's ability to modulate hormone levels and estrogen receptor activity is sensitive to both exposure concentration and formulation. The modulations observed provide clear evidence that glyphosate interacts with receptors, alters receptor activation, and modulates the levels and effects of endogenous ligands (including hormones). Our findings strengthen the mechanistic evidence that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen and provide biological plausibility for previously reported cancer associations in humans, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We identified potential molecular interactions and subsequent key events that were used to generate a probable pathway to lymphomagenesis.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Carcinogens; Herbicides; Neoplasms; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Mammals; Glyphosate
PubMed: 37474029
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139572 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Nicotinic Agonists; Smoking Cessation; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 34519354
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub6 -
Non-coding RNA Sep 2023Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) are often diagnosed at advanced stages, incurring significant high mortality and morbidity. Several microRNAs (miRs) have... (Review)
Review
Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs) are often diagnosed at advanced stages, incurring significant high mortality and morbidity. Several microRNAs (miRs) have been identified as pivotal players in the onset and advancement of HNSCCs, operating as either oncogenes or tumor suppressors. Distinctive miR patterns identified in tumor samples, as well as in serum, plasma, or saliva, from patients have significant clinical potential for use in the diagnosis and prognosis of HNSCCs and as potential therapeutic targets. The aim of this study was to identify previous systematic reviews with meta-analysis data and clinical trials that showed the most promising miRs in HNSCCs, enclosing them into a biomolecular signature to test the prognostic value on a cohort of HNSCC patients according to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct) and one registry (the Cochrane Library) were investigated, and a combination of keywords such as "signature microRNA OR miR" AND "HNSCC OR LSCC OR OSCC OR oral cancer" were searched. In total, 15 systematic literature reviews and 76 prognostic clinical reports were identified for the study design and inclusion process. All survival index data were extracted, and the three miRs (miR-21, miR-155, and miR-375) most investigated and presenting the largest number of patients included in the studies were selected in a molecular biosignature. The difference between high and low tissue expression levels of miR-21, miR-155, and miR-375 for OS had an HR = 1.28, with 95% CI: [0.95, 1.72]. In conclusion, the current evidence suggests that miRNAs have potential prognostic value to serve as screening tools for clinical practice in HNSCC follow-up and treatment. Further large-scale cohort studies focusing on these miRNAs are recommended to verify the clinical utility of these markers individually and/or in combination.
PubMed: 37736900
DOI: 10.3390/ncrna9050054 -
Cancer Treatment and Research... 2022Accumulating evidence suggests the critical role of miR-590-5p in various aspects of cellular homeostasis, including cancer. Furthermore, we and others have recently... (Review)
Review
Accumulating evidence suggests the critical role of miR-590-5p in various aspects of cellular homeostasis, including cancer. Furthermore, we and others have recently demonstrated that miRNA-590-5p acts as an oncogene in some cancers while it acts as a tumor-suppressor in others. However, the role of miR-590-5p in oncogenesis is more complex, like a double-edged sword. Thus, this systematic review introduces the concept, mechanism, and biological function of miR-590-5p to resolve this apparent paradox. We have also described the involvement of miR-590-5p in crucial cancer-hallmarks processes like proliferation, invasion, metastasis, and chemo radioresistance. Finally, we have presented the possible genes/pathways targets of miR-590-5p through bioinformatics analysis. This review may help in designing better biomarkers and therapeutic targets for cancers.
Topics: Carcinogenesis; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Proliferation; Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic; Humans; MicroRNAs
PubMed: 35752082
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100593 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2023Studying primary melanoma and its corresponding metastasis has twofold benefits. Firstly, to better understand tumor biology, and secondly, to determine which sample... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Studying primary melanoma and its corresponding metastasis has twofold benefits. Firstly, to better understand tumor biology, and secondly, to determine which sample should be examined in assessing drug targets. This study systematically analyzed all the literature on primary melanoma and its matched metastasis. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched multiple medical databases for relevant publications from January 2000 to December 2022, assessed the quality of the primary-level studies using the QUIPS tool, and summarized the concordance rate of the most reported genes using the random-effects model. Finally, we evaluated the inter-study heterogeneity using the subgroup analysis. Thirty-one studies investigated the concordance of and in 1220 and 629 patients, respectively. The pooled concordance rate was 89.4% [95% CI: 84.5; 93.5] for and 97.8% [95% CI: 95.8; 99.4] for . When high-quality studies were considered, only mutation status consistency increased. Five studies reported the concordance status of c (93%, 44 patients) and promoter (64%, 53 patients). Lastly, three studies analyzed the concordance of cancer genes involved in the signaling pathways, apoptosis, and proliferation, such as (25%, four patients), (44%, nine patients), and (20%, five patients). Our study found that the concordance of known drug targets (mainly ) during melanoma progression is higher than in previous meta-analyses, likely due to advances in molecular techniques. Furthermore, significant heterogeneity exists in the genes involved in the melanoma genetic makeup; although our results are based on small patient samples, more research is necessary for validation.
Topics: Humans; Melanoma; Skin Neoplasms; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Mutation; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 38003476
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242216281 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; CTLA-4 Antigen; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Immunotherapy; Interferon-alpha; Interleukin-2; Male; Melanoma; Middle Aged; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 29405038
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2020The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between exposure to residential radon and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by means of a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between exposure to residential radon and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by means of a systematic review.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was conducted in PubMed and OVID for papers making reference to the radon-COPD relationship. No search filters were applied, whether by date of publication, study type or sample size. All studies not written in English or Spanish were discarded.
RESULTS
A total of 174 and 57 papers were found in PubMed and OVID, respectively: of these, 13 (11 on miners and 2 on the general population) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only four of the studies on cohorts of miners analysed COPD as a specific disease, and only one reported statistically significant results. In addition, many of these studies lacked information on tobacco use among miners. In contrast, studies conducted on the general public showed an association between mortality and hospital admissions, on the one hand, and residential radon on the other.
CONCLUSION
There are not enough studies to provide a basis for confirming or ruling out an association between radon exposure and COPD. Nonetheless, the most recent general population studies point to evidence of a possible association. In view of the heterogeneity of available studies, it is impossible to say whether this gas may or may not affect COPD morbidity and mortality, until such a time as further studies are carried out.
Topics: Hospitalization; Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Radon
PubMed: 32425519
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S245982