-
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jan 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Eligible studies reported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Eligible studies reported differences in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by cfDNA status. The random effect model yielded the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Detection of circulant-tumor DNA (ctDNA), KRAS mutations and other cfDNA alterations constitute detectable cfDNA biomarkers. Altogether, 38 studies (3,318 patients) were eligible. Progression-free and overall survival were decreased with detectable ctDNA (HR = 1.92, 95 %CI:(1.29,2.86); HR = 2.25, 95 %CI:(1.73,2.92)) and KRAS mutations (HR = 1.88, CI:1.22,2.92,); HR = 1.52, 95 %CI:(1.22,1.90)) respectively, across various stages. In unresectable cases, ctDNA (HR = 2.50, 95 %CI:(1.94,3.23)), but not KRAS mutations (HR = 1.16, 95 %CI:(0.46,2.94)) signaled risk for progression. Detectable cfDNA biomarkers correlated with worse prognosis in resectable cases and if detected during treatment. In conclusion, cfDNA biomarkers indicate accelerated progression and decreased survival in PDAC. Significance of KRAS mutations detection in unresectable cases is to be determined.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Biomarkers, Tumor; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids; DNA, Neoplasm; Humans; Mutation; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
PubMed: 34843928
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103548 -
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 -
JPMA. the Journal of the Pakistan... Oct 2021To focus mainly on the role of proto-oncogene Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (K-Ras) and tumour-suppressor gene p53 which are among the most commonly...
OBJECTIVE
To focus mainly on the role of proto-oncogene Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (K-Ras) and tumour-suppressor gene p53 which are among the most commonly mutated genes in biliary tract carcinomas.
METHODS
The systematic review comprised research articles published between 2002 and 2019 on PubMed and Google Scholar databases which were searched using the terms 'TP53', 'K-Ras', 'mutation', 'biliary tract carcinoma', 'cholangiocarcinoma', and 'murine model'. Repetitions, duplicates and irrelevant articles were excluded. No data was retrieved from posters, presentations and symposiums, and experiments involving bile aspirations were also excluded.
RESULTS
Of the 72 articles reviewed, 11(15.3%) were included. Of them, 3(27.3%) studies, conducted in China, Japan and Taiwan, reported a positive correlation between K-Ras mutation and biliary tract carcinoma. Only 1(9%) study, conducted in China, showed the sole correlation between p53 inactivation and biliary tract carcinoma. Also, 4(36.4%) studies, conducted in China, Japan and Europe, showed a positive association of both K-Ras mutation and p53 inactivation with biliary tract carcinoma.
CONCLUSIONS
K-Ras and p53 mutation both contribute to biliary tract carcinoma. K-Ras mutation, however, has a much higher frequency compared to p53 inactivation in such cancers.
Topics: Animals; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Cholangiocarcinoma; Genes, ras; Mice; Mutation; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Tumor Suppressor Protein p53
PubMed: 34974575
DOI: 10.47391/JPMA.11-1322 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of gefitinib for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is evolving. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the available evidence from all randomised trials.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of gefitinib as first-line, second-line or maintenance treatment for advanced NSCLC.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 17 February 2017. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, clinical trial registries and references lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials assessing gefitinib, alone or in combination with other treatment, compared to placebo or other treatments in the first- or successive-line treatment of patients with NSCLC, excluding compassionate use.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed the search results to select those with sound methodological quality. We carried out all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We recorded the following outcome data: overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, tumour response and quality of life. We also collected data for the following subgroups: Asian ethnicity and positive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which examined 12,089 patients.General populationGefitinib did not statistically improve overall survival when compared with placebo or chemotherapy in either first- or second-line settings. Second-line gefitinib prolonged time to treatment failure (TTF) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90, P < 0.0001) when compared with placebo. Maintenance gefitinib improved progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91, P = 0.007) after first-line therapy.Studies in patients of Asian ethnicity or that conducted subgroup analysesSecond-line gefitinib prolonged overall survival over placebo (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P = 0.01). In the first-line setting, progression-free survival was improved with gefitinib over chemotherapy alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98, P = 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Gefitinib given in combination with a chemotherapy regimen improved progression-free survival versus either gefitinib alone or chemotherapy alone (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.96, P = 0.03; HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77, P < 0.00001, respectively). In the second-line setting, progression-free survival was superior in patients given gefitinib over placebo or chemotherapy (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, P = 0.009; HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88, P = 0.002; moderate quality of evidence, respectively). Combining gefitinib with chemotherapy in the second-line setting was superior to gefitinib alone (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97, P = 0.04). As maintenance therapy, gefitinib improved progression-free survival when compared with placebo (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.54, P < 0.00001).Patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumoursStudies in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumours showed an improvement in progression-free survival in favour of gefitinib over first-line and second-line chemotherapy (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.61, P < 0.00001; HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47, P < 0.0001, respectively). Gefitinib as maintenance therapy following chemotherapy improved overall and progression-free survival (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.98, P = 0.05; HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.41, P < 0.0001, respectively) in one phase III study when compared to placebo.Toxicities from gefitinib included skin rash, diarrhoea and liver transaminase derangements. Toxicities from chemotherapy included anaemia, neutropenia and neurotoxicity.In terms of quality of life, gefitinib improved Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) (standardised mean difference (SMD) 10.50, 95% CI 9.55 to 11.45, P < 0.000001), lung cancer subscale (SMD 3.63, 95% CI 3.08 to 4.19, P < 0.00001) and Trial Outcome Index (SMD 9.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 18.48, P < 0.00001) scores when compared with chemotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review shows that gefitinib, when compared with standard first- or second-line chemotherapy or maintenance therapy, probably has a beneficial effect on progression-free survival and quality of life in selected patient populations, particularly those with tumours bearing sensitising EGFR mutations.Patients with EGFR mutations lived longer when given maintenance gefitinib than those given placebo.One study conducted subgroup analysis and showed that gefitinib improved overall survival over placebo in the second-line setting in patients of Asian ethnicity. All other studies did not detect any benefit on overall survival. The data analysed in this review were very heterogenous. We were limited in the amount of data that could be pooled, largely due to variations in study design. The risk of bias in most studies was moderate, with some studies not adequately addressing potential selection, attrition and reporting bias. This heterogeneity may have an impact on the applicability of the resultsCombining gefitinib with chemotherapy appears to be superior in improving progression-free survival to either gefitinib or chemotherapy alone, however further data and phase III studies in these settings are required.Gefitinib has a favourable toxicity profile when compared with current chemotherapy regimens. Although there is no improvement in overall survival, gefitinib compares favourably with cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with EGFR mutations with a prolongation of progression-free survival and a lesser side effect profile.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Disease-Free Survival; Gefitinib; Genes, erbB-1; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mutation; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 29336009
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006847.pub2 -
Journal of the Chinese Medical... Mar 2015A systematic review of genetic studies of thyroid disorders in Taiwan identified studies of gene mutations involved in the synthesis and binding of thyroid hormone, as... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of genetic studies of thyroid disorders in Taiwan identified studies of gene mutations involved in the synthesis and binding of thyroid hormone, as well as mutations of proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in thyroid cancer. Studies related to gene polymorphisms in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) and thyroid cancer were also reviewed. The most prevalent mutations in the Han-Chinese population were c.2268insT in the thyroid peroxidase (TPO) gene and c.919-2A>G in the Pendred syndrome (PDS) gene. Additional mutations have also been revealed in the genes encoding TPO (n = 5), thyroglobulin (TG; n = 6), pendrin (n = 2), and thyroxine-binding globulin (TBG; n = 2), which were novel at the time they were reported. The prevalence of various somatic mutations in differentiated thyroid cancer was similar in Taiwan and Western countries, with the RAS kinase mutation and tyrosine receptor kinase (TRK) and rearranged during transfection (RET) proto-oncogenes being detected in lower frequencies and the B-type RAF kinase (BRAF) mutation accounting for the majority of cases. Recent microRNA analysis revealed an association between miR146b and the BRAF mutation, which was associated with poor prognosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). Susceptibility to Graves' disease (GD) was linked to the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region. The associated alleles were different in Han-Chinese and Caucasians; HLA-DPB1*0501, the major allele in Taiwan, has a low frequency in the West. By contrast, a high frequency of HLA-DRB1*0301 was detected in Caucasians but not Han-Chinese. In addition to the HLA region, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated molecule-4 (CTLA4) gene polymorphisms +49G>A and +6230G>A (CT60) were positively associated with GD. The GG genotype and G allele of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) +49G>A were also related to relapse of Graves' hyperthyroidism after antithyroid drug withdrawal. Differences in the genetic patterns between Han-Chinese and Caucasians for some thyroid disorders suggest the importance of variable genetic influences in different populations.
Topics: Congenital Hypothyroidism; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; HLA Antigens; Humans; Iodide Peroxidase; Membrane Transport Proteins; Mutation; PTEN Phosphohydrolase; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Receptors, Thyrotropin; Sulfate Transporters; Thyroid Diseases
PubMed: 25455162
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2014.09.010 -
Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research May 2022Acral melanoma (AM) tumors arise on the palms, soles, fingers, toes, and nailbeds. A comprehensive systematic meta-analysis of AM genomic aberrations has not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Acral melanoma (AM) tumors arise on the palms, soles, fingers, toes, and nailbeds. A comprehensive systematic meta-analysis of AM genomic aberrations has not been conducted to date. A literature review was carried out to identify studies sequencing AM. Whole-genome/exome data from 181 samples were identified. Targeted panel sequencing data from MSK-IMPACT were included as a validation cohort (n = 92), and studies using targeted hot spot sequencing were also collated for BRAF (n = 26 studies), NRAS (n = 21), and KIT (n = 32). Statistical analysis indicated BRAF, NRAS, PTEN, TYRP1, and KIT as significantly mutated genes. Frequent copy-number aberrations were also found for important cancer genes, such as CDKN2A, KIT, MDM2, CCND1, CDK4, and PAK1, among others. Mapping genomic alterations within the context of the hallmarks of cancer identified four components frequently altered, including (i) sustained proliferative signaling and (ii) evading growth suppression, (iii) genome instability and mutation, and (iv) enabling replicative immortality. This analysis provides the largest analysis of genomic aberrations in AM in the literature to date and highlights pathways that may be therapeutically targetable.
Topics: Genomics; Humans; Melanoma; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Skin Neoplasms; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 35229492
DOI: 10.1111/pcmr.13034 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Nov 2022The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints.
CONCLUSIONS
This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bayes Theorem; Benzimidazoles; Carbamates; Humans; Melanoma; Mutation; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Network Meta-Analysis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Skin Neoplasms; Sulfonamides; Vemurafenib
PubMed: 36099854
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102463 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2022Papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) is the most common endocrine malignancy with a rising incidence. There is a need for a non-invasive preoperative test to enable better... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) is the most common endocrine malignancy with a rising incidence. There is a need for a non-invasive preoperative test to enable better patient counselling. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the potential role of circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) in the diagnosis and prognosis of PTC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases (last search date was December 1, 2021). Studies investigating the expression of miRNAs in the serum or plasma of patients with PTC were deemed eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
Among the 1,533 screened studies, 39 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 108 miRNAs candidates were identified in the serum, plasma, or exosomes of patients suffering from PTC. Furthermore, association of circulating miRNAs with thyroid cancer-specific clinicopathological features, such as tumor size (13 miRNAs), location (3 miRNAs), extrathyroidal extension (9 miRNAs), pre- vs. postoperative period (31 miRNAs), lymph node metastasis (17 miRNAs), TNM stage (9 miRNAs), BRAF V600E mutation (6 miRNAs), serum thyroglobulin levels (2 miRNAs), I avid metastases (13 miRNAs), and tumor recurrence (2 miRNAs) was also depicted in this study.
CONCLUSION
MiRNAs provide a potentially promising role in the diagnosis and prognosis of PTC. There is a correlation between miRNA expression profiles and specific clinicopathological features of PTC. However, to enable their use in clinical practice, further clinical studies are required to validate the predictive value and utility of miRNAs as biomarkers.
Topics: Carcinoma; Carcinoma, Papillary; Circulating MicroRNA; Humans; MicroRNAs; Mutation; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Thyroid Cancer, Papillary; Thyroid Neoplasms
PubMed: 35738604
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12866