-
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
Urologic Oncology Apr 2024Nanocarriers (NCs) are a form of nanotechnology widely investigated in cancer treatment to improve the safety and efficacy of systemic therapies by increasing tumor... (Review)
Review
Nanocarriers (NCs) are a form of nanotechnology widely investigated in cancer treatment to improve the safety and efficacy of systemic therapies by increasing tumor specificity. Numerous clinical trials have explored the use of NCs in urologic cancers since the approval of the first NCs for cancer treatment over 20 years ago. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness and safety of NCs in treating urological cancers. This paper summarizes the state of the field by investigating peer-reviewed, published results from 43 clinical trials involving the use of NCs in bladder, prostate, and kidney cancer patients with a focus on safety and efficacy data. Among the 43 trials, 16 were phase I, 20 phase II, and 4 phase I/II. No phase III trials have been reported. While both novel and classic NCs have been explored in urologic cancers, NCs already approved for the treatment of other cancers were more widely represented. Trials in prostate cancer and mixed trials involving both urologic and non-urologic cancer patients were the most commonly reported trials. Although NCs have demonstrable efficacy with adequate safety in non-urologic cancer patient populations, current clinical stage NC options appear to be less beneficial in the urologic cancer setting. For example, nab-paclitaxel and liposomal doxorubicin have proven ineffective in the treatment of urologic cancers despite successes in other cancers. However, several ongoing pre-clinical studies using targeted and locally applied improved NCs may eventually improve their utility.
Topics: Male; Humans; Urologic Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 38161104
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.11.022