-
Current Drug Delivery Nov 2023Liposomal Doxorubicin (Doxil®) was one of the first nanoformulations approved for the treatment of solid tumors. Although there is already extensive experience in its...
BACKGROUND
Liposomal Doxorubicin (Doxil®) was one of the first nanoformulations approved for the treatment of solid tumors. Although there is already extensive experience in its use for different tumors, there is currently no grouped evidence of its therapeutic benefits in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A systematic review of the literature was performed on the therapeutic effectiveness and benefits of Liposomal Doxil® in NSCLC.
METHODS
A total of 1022 articles were identified in publications up to 2020 (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus). After applying inclusion criteria, the number was restricted to 114, of which 48 assays, including in vitro (n=20) and in vivo (animals, n=35 and humans, n=6) studies, were selected.
RESULTS
The maximum inhibitory concentration (IC50), tumor growth inhibition rate, response and survival rates were the main indices for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of Liposomal DOX. These have shown clear benefits both in vitro and in vivo, improving the IC50 of free DOX or untargeted liposomes, depending on their size, administration, or targeting.
CONCLUSION
Doxil® significantly reduced cellular proliferation in vitro and improved survival in vivo in both experimental animals and NSCLC patients, demonstrating optimal safety and pharmacokinetic behavior indices. Although our systematic review supports its benefits for the treatment of NSCLC, additional clinical trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to obtain more precise clinical data on its activity and effects in humans.
PubMed: 38099532
DOI: 10.2174/0115672018272162231116093143 -
Cancers Aug 2023Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are treated with rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP).... (Review)
Review
Consolidative Radiotherapy after Complete Remission following R-CHOP Immunochemotherapy in Stage III-IV Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are treated with rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). The role of consolidative radiation therapy (RT) remains unclear among patients with advanced DLBCL who achieved complete remission (CR) after R-CHOP immunochemotherapy. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify the role of consolidative RT among these patients. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing RT to no RT following CR after R-CHOP immunochemotherapy in Ann Arbor stage III-IV DLBCL patients. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint, and disease-free survival (DFS) was the secondary endpoint. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the primary and secondary outcomes. Review Manager (version 5.4) was used to analyze the data. Six retrospective studies involving 813 patients who received R-CHOP ± consolidative RT were identified. OS was higher in the consolidative RT group, with an HR of 2.01 and a 95% CI of 1.30 to 3.12 ( = 0.002). DFS was also higher in the RT group, with an HR of 2.18 and a 95% CI of 1.47 to 3.24 ( < 0.0001). The results suggested that consolidative RT improved OS and DFS compared to no RT among advanced-stage DLBCL patients. Further research is needed to determine the optimal radiation fields and the appropriate indications for consolidative RT for advanced-stage DLBCL patients in the rituximab era.
PubMed: 37568756
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15153940 -
European Journal of Clinical... Nov 2023This study aimed to systematically review and critically appraise cost-effectiveness studies on Brentuximab vedotin (BV) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study aimed to systematically review and critically appraise cost-effectiveness studies on Brentuximab vedotin (BV) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).
METHODS
The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science core collection, and Embase databases were searched until July 3, 2022. We included published full economic evaluation studies on BV for treating patients with HL. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. Meanwhile, we used qualitative synthesis to analyze the findings. We converted the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to the value of the US dollar in 2022.
RESULTS
Eight economic evaluations met the study's inclusion criteria. The results of three studies that compared BV plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (BV + AVD) front-line therapy with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) showed that BV is unlikely to be cost-effective as a front-line treatment in patients advanced stage (III or IV) HL. Four studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of BV in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) HL after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). BV was not cost-effective in the reviewed studies at accepted thresholds. In addition, the adjusted ICERs ranged from $65,382 to $374,896 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The key drivers of cost-effectiveness were medication costs, hazard ratio for BV, and utilities.
CONCLUSION
Available economic evaluations show that using BV as front-line treatment or consolidation therapy is not cost-effective based on specific ICER thresholds for patients with HL or R/R HL. To decide on this orphan drug, we should consider other factors such as existence of alternative treatment options, clinical benefits, and disease burden.
Topics: Humans; Hodgkin Disease; Brentuximab Vedotin; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Doxorubicin; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bleomycin; Vinblastine; Dacarbazine; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 37656182
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-023-03557-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Cancer of ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal origin, referred to collectively as ovarian cancer, is the eighth most common cancer in women and is often diagnosed at... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer of ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal origin, referred to collectively as ovarian cancer, is the eighth most common cancer in women and is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) are less well and have a limited life expectancy, therefore maintaining quality of life with effective symptom control is an important aim of treatment. However, the unwanted effects of chemotherapy agents may be severe, and optimal treatment regimens are unclear. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), which contains a cytotoxic drug called doxorubicin hydrochloride, is one of several treatment modalities that may be considered for treatment of relapsed EOCs. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review which was published in Issue 7, 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PLD, with or without other anti-cancer drugs, in women with relapsed high grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) from 1990 to January 2022. We also searched online registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PLD in women diagnosed with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form and assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. Where possible, we pooled collected data in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
This is an update of a previous review with 12 additional studies, so this updated review includes a total of 26 RCTs with 8277 participants that evaluated the effects of PLD alone or in combination with other drugs in recurrent EOC: seven in platinum-sensitive disease (2872 participants); 11 in platinum-resistant disease (3246 participants); and eight that recruited individuals regardless of platinum sensitivity status (2079 participants). The certainty of the evidence was assessed for the three most clinically relevant comparisons out of eight comparisons identified in the included RCTs. Recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC PLD with conventional chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.04; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but likely increases progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; 5 studies, 2006 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may slightly improve quality of life at three months post-randomisation, measured using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (mean difference 4.80, 95% CI 0.92 to 8.68; 1 study, 608 participants; low-certainty evidence), but this may not represent a clinically meaningful difference. PLD in combination with another chemotherapy agent compared to alternative combination chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in the rate of overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.30; 2 studies, 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PLD with chemotherapy likely increases anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.85; 5 studies, 1961 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD with conventional chemotherapy on hand-foot syndrome (HFS)(grade ≥ 3) (RR 4.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 16.01; 2 studies, 1028 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74; 4 studies, 1900 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Recurrent platinum-resistant EOC PLD alone compared to another conventional chemotherapy likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 6 studies, 1995 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PLD on PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; 4 studies, 1803 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.61 to 0.97; 2 studies, 964 participants; very low-certainty evidence), anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 0.19 to 0.82; 5 studies, 1968 participants; very low-certainty evidence), HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR ranged from 15.19 to 109.15; 6 studies, 2184 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the rate of neurological events (grade ≥ 3)(RR ranged from 0.08 to 3.09; 3 studies, 1222 participants; very low-certainty evidence). PLD with conventional chemotherapy compared to PLD alone likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.21; 1 study, 242 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and it may result in little to no difference in PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22; 2 studies, 353 participants; low-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases overall severe adverse events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.98 to 3.09; 1 study, 663 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anaemia (grade ≥ 3) (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.87; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but likely results in a large reduction in HFS (grade ≥ 3) (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40; 2 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may result in little to no difference in neurological events (grade ≥ 3) (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.31; 1 study, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In platinum-sensitive relapsed EOC, including PLD in a combination chemotherapy regimen probably makes little to no difference in OS compared to other combinations, but likely improves PFS. Choice of chemotherapy will therefore be guided by symptoms from previous chemotherapy and other patient considerations. Single-agent PLD remains a useful agent for platinum-resistant relapsed EOC and choice of agent at relapse will depend on patient factors, e.g. degree of bone marrow suppression or neurotoxicity from previous treatments. Adding another agent to PLD likely increases overall grade ≥ 3 adverse events with little to no improvement in survival outcomes. The limited evidence relating to PLD in combination with other agents in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC does not indicate a benefit, but there is some evidence of increased side effects.
Topics: Female; Humans; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Ovarian Neoplasms; Recurrence; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37407274
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006910.pub3 -
BMC Cancer Jan 2024The use of taxanes following the first trimester of pregnancy is endorsed by current clinical guidelines. However, evidence regarding their safety in terms of obstetric...
BACKGROUND
The use of taxanes following the first trimester of pregnancy is endorsed by current clinical guidelines. However, evidence regarding their safety in terms of obstetric and neonatal outcomes is limited.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Sciences databases from their inception up to 12/16/2022. Eligibility criteria included gestational taxane use, presentation of original findings, and individual case data presented. A descriptive statistical analysis was undertaken.
RESULTS
A total of 159 patients treated with taxane-containing regimens during pregnancy were identified, resulting in 162 fetuses exposed in utero. The majority of patients had breast cancer (n = 88; 55.3%) or cervical cancer (n = 45; 28.3%). The most commonly employed taxane was paclitaxel (n = 131; 82.4%). A total of 111 (69.8%) patients were also treated with other cytotoxic drugs during pregnancy, including platinum salts (n = 70; 63.0%) and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (n = 20; 18.0%). While most patients received taxanes during the second trimester of pregnancy (n = 79; 70.0%), two were exposed to taxanes in the first trimester. Obstetric outcomes were reported in 105 (66.0%) cases, with the most frequent adverse events being preterm contractions or premature rupture of membranes (n = 12; 11.4%), pre-eclampsia/HELLP syndrome (n = 6; 5.7%), and oligohydramnios/anhydramnios (n = 6; 5.7%). All cases with pregnancy outcome available resulted in live births (n = 132). Overall, 72 (54.5%) neonates were delivered preterm, 40 (30.3%) were classified as small for gestational age (SGA), and 2 (1.5%) had an Apgar score of < 7 at 5 min. Perinatal complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 14; 10.6%), hyperbilirubinemia (n = 5; 3.8%), and hypoglycemia (n = 2; 1.5%). In addition, 7 (5.3%) cases of congenital malformations were reported. At a median follow-up of 16 months, offspring health status was available for 86 (65.2%), of which 13 (15.1%) had a documented complication, including delayed speech development, recurrent otitis media, and acute myeloid leukemia.
CONCLUSIONS
Taxanes appear to be safe following the first trimester of pregnancy, with obstetric and fetal outcomes being similar to those observed in the general obstetric population. Future studies should aim to determine the most effective taxane regimen and dosage for use during gestation, with a specific focus on treatment safety.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Taxoids; Paclitaxel; Pregnancy Outcome; Bridged-Ring Compounds; Oligohydramnios
PubMed: 38166767
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11704-6 -
The British Journal of Surgery May 2024Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases is associated with a dismal prognosis. Normothermic catheter-based intraperitoneal chemotherapy and normothermic pressurized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases is associated with a dismal prognosis. Normothermic catheter-based intraperitoneal chemotherapy and normothermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are methods to deliver chemotherapy intraperitoneally leading to higher intraperitoneal concentrations of cytotoxic drugs compared to intravenous administration. We reviewed the effectiveness and safety of different methods of palliative intraperitoneal chemotherapy.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for articles studying the use of repeated administration of palliative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases, published up to January 2024. The primary outcome was overall survival.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included, representing a total of 999 patients. The pooled median overall survival was 14.5 months. The pooled hazard ratio of the two RCTs using intraperitoneal paclitaxel and docetaxel favoured the intraperitoneal chemotherapy arm. The median overall survival of intraperitoneal paclitaxel, intraperitoneal docetaxel and PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin were respectively 18.4 months, 13.2 months and 9.0 months. All treatment methods had a relatively safe toxicity profile. Conversion surgery after completion of intraperitoneal therapy was performed in 16% of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, regardless of method of administration, is safe for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases. Conversion surgery after completion of the intraperitoneal chemotherapy is possible in a subset of patients.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Neoplasms; Stomach Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Antineoplastic Agents; Infusions, Parenteral; Palliative Care; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Paclitaxel
PubMed: 38722803
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znae116 -
Pharmaceutics Feb 2024The blood-brain barrier (BBB) regulates brain substance entry, posing challenges for treating brain diseases. Traditional methods face limitations, leading to the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The blood-brain barrier (BBB) regulates brain substance entry, posing challenges for treating brain diseases. Traditional methods face limitations, leading to the exploration of non-invasive intranasal drug delivery. This approach exploits the direct nose-to-brain connection, overcoming BBB restrictions. Intranasal delivery enhances drug bioavailability, reduces dosage, and minimizes systemic side effects. Notably, lipid nanoparticles, such as solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers, offer advantages like improved stability and controlled release. Their nanoscale size facilitates efficient drug loading, enhancing solubility and bioavailability. Tailored lipid compositions enable optimal drug release, which is crucial for chronic brain diseases. This review assesses lipid nanoparticles in treating neuro-oncological and neurodegenerative conditions, providing insights for effective nose-to-brain drug delivery.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted across major medical databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus) up to 6 January 2024. The search strategy utilized relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to "lipid nanoparticles", "intranasal administration", "neuro-oncological diseases", and "neurodegenerative disorders". This review consists of studies in vitro, in vivo, or ex vivo on the intranasal administration of lipid-based nanocarriers for the treatment of brain diseases.
RESULTS
Out of the initial 891 papers identified, 26 articles met the eligibility criteria after a rigorous analysis. The exclusion of 360 articles was due to reasons such as irrelevance, non-reporting selected outcomes, the article being a systematic literature review or meta-analysis, and lack of method/results details. This systematic literature review, focusing on nose-to-brain drug delivery via lipid-based nanocarriers for neuro-oncological, neurodegenerative, and other brain diseases, encompassed 60 studies. A temporal distribution analysis indicated a peak in research interest between 2018 and 2020 (28.3%), with a steady increase over time. Regarding drug categories, Alzheimer's disease was prominent (26.7%), followed by antiblastic drugs (25.0%). Among the 65 drugs investigated, Rivastigmine, Doxorubicin, and Carmustine were the most studied (5.0%), showcasing a diverse approach to neurological disorders. Notably, solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) were predominant (65.0%), followed by nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) (28.3%), highlighting their efficacy in intranasal drug delivery. Various lipids were employed, with glyceryl monostearate being prominent (20.0%), indicating preferences in formulation. Performance assessment assays were balanced, with in vivo studies taking precedence (43.3%), emphasizing the translation of findings to complex biological systems for potential clinical applications.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review reveals the transformative potential of intranasal lipid nanoparticles in treating brain diseases, overcoming the BBB. Positive outcomes highlight the effectiveness of SLNs and NLCs, which are promising new approaches for ailments from AD to stroke and gliomas. While celebrating progress, addressing challenges like nanoparticle toxicity is also crucial.
PubMed: 38543223
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics16030329 -
PloS One 2024Current treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of neoadjuvant treatment and surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Current treatment recommendations for resectable or borderline pancreatic carcinoma support upfront surgery and adjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy (NT) seems to increase prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma and come to everyone's attention gradually. Randomized controlled trials offering comparison with the NT are lacking and optimal neoadjuvant treatment regimen still remains uncertain. This study aims to compare both treatment strategies for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
The PRISMA checklist was used as a guide to systematically review relevant peer-reviewed literature reporting primary data analysis. We searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase and related reviews for randomized controlled trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic carcinoma. We estimated relative hazard ratios (HRs) for median overall survival and ratios risks (RRs) for microscopically complete (R0) resection among different neoadjuvant regimens and major complications. We assessed the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on R0 resection rate and median overall survival with Bayesian analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen eligible articles were included. Eight studies performed comparison neoadjuvant therapy with surgery first, and R0 resection rate was recorded in seven studies. Compared with surgery first, neoadjuvant therapy did increase the R0 resection rate (RR = 1.53, I2 = 0%, P< 0.00001), there was a certain possibility that gemcitabine + cisplatin (Gem+Cis) + Radiotherapy was the most favorable in terms of the fact that there was no significant difference concerning the results from the individual studies. In direct comparison, four studies were included and estimated that Neoadjuvant therapy improved mOS compared with upfront surgery (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.92; P = 0.012; I2 = 15%), after Bayesian analysis it seemed that regimen with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) was most likely the best with a relatively small sample size. The rate of major surgical complications was available for six studies and ranged from 11% to 56% with neoadjuvant therapy and 11% to 45% with surgery first. There was no significant difference between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery first, also with a high heterogeneity (RR = 0.96, 95%CI = 0.65-1.43; P = 0.85; I2 = 46%).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion neoadjuvant therapy might offer benefit over up-front surgery. Neoadjuvant therapy increased the R0 resection rate with gemcitabine + cisplatin + Radiotherapy that was the most favorable and improved mOS with Cisplatin/ Epirubicin then Gemcitabine/ Capecitabine (PEXG) that was most likely the best.
Topics: Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Gemcitabine; Capecitabine; Cisplatin; Epirubicin; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Deoxycytidine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 38451955
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295983 -
Urology Jun 2024To determine whether neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) vs dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC) before radical cystectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) vs dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC) before radical cystectomy improves overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and pathologic complete response (pCR) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer with secondary analyses of pathological downstaging and toxicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis identified studies of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated with neoadjuvant GC compared to ddMVAC from PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Random-effect models for pooled log-transformed hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS and pooled odds ratios for pCR and downstaging were developed using the generic inverse variance method and Mantel-Haenszel method, respectively.
RESULTS
Ten studies were identified (4 OS, 2 PFS, and 6 pCR clinical endpoints). Neoadjuvant ddMVAC improved OS (HR 0.71 [95% confidence intervals 0.56; 0.90]), PFS (HR 0.76 [95% confidence intervals 0.60; 0.97]), and pathological downstaging (odds ratio 1.34 [95% confidence interval 1.01; 1.78]) as compared to GC. There was no significant difference between regimens for pCR rates (odds ratio 1.38 [95% confidence interval 0.90; 2.12]). Treatment toxicity was greater with ddMVAC. Limitations result from differences in number of ddMVAC cycles and patient selection between studies.
CONCLUSION
Neoadjuvant ddMVAC is associated with improved OS and PFS vs gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. Although rates of pathological complete response were not significantly different, pathological downstaging correlated with OS. ddMVAC should be preferred over gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who can tolerate its greater toxicity.
Topics: Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Humans; Cisplatin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Gemcitabine; Deoxycytidine; Cystectomy; Doxorubicin; Vinblastine; Methotrexate; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
PubMed: 38685388
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.04.034 -
Clinical Oncology (Royal College of... Dec 2023Extraskeletal osteosarcoma (ESOS) is a malignant tumour developing in soft tissues, characterised by the production of osteoid or bone matrix by tumour cells. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Survival Differences of Patients with Resected Extraskeletal Osteosarcoma Receiving Two Different (Neo)Adjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
AIMS
Extraskeletal osteosarcoma (ESOS) is a malignant tumour developing in soft tissues, characterised by the production of osteoid or bone matrix by tumour cells. The standard treatment for localised ESOS is wide resection. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are usually incorporated into the management of patients. Two types of chemotherapy regimen are mostly used: an osteosarcoma-type chemotherapy, based on cisplatin, and a soft-tissue sarcoma (STS)-type chemotherapy, using the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide. To investigate the difference in survival between these two chemotherapy regimens, a systematic review of studies reporting the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates among patients with ESOS submitted to surgery and who received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with osteosarcoma-type or STS-type chemotherapy was carried out.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Of the 401 articles identified by systematically searching the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, six retrospective studies were included in the final analysis. In total, 319 patients with localised/resected ESOS were included in the study.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis showed a benefit in 5-year DFS favouring the use of osteosarcoma-type chemotherapy (relative risk = 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.69; P = 0.54); I heterogeneity was 0%. The 5-year DFS rate was 56.3% (95% confidence interval 48.3-64.3) with osteosarcoma-type chemotherapy and 45.2% (95% confidence interval 34.5-55.9) with STS-type chemotherapy, with I heterogeneity of 27% and 0%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests that there may be a difference regarding the type of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen used in the treatment of patients with resected ESOS in favour of osteosarcoma-type chemotherapy. Future studies evaluating the role of this treatment modality in this scenario need to consider the type of chemotherapy regimen when comparing with an arm of surgery with/without radiotherapy alone.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Osteosarcoma; Soft Tissue Neoplasms; Doxorubicin; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Bone Neoplasms
PubMed: 37777356
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.09.009