-
Journal of Neuro-oncology Aug 2023Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, an electric field-based cancer treatment, became FDA-approved for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) in 2015... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy, an electric field-based cancer treatment, became FDA-approved for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) in 2015 based on the randomized controlled EF-14 study. Subsequent approvals worldwide and increased adoption over time have raised the question of whether a consistent survival benefit has been observed in the real-world setting, and whether device usage has played a role.
METHODS
We conducted a literature search to identify clinical studies evaluating overall survival (OS) in TTFields-treated patients. Comparative and single-cohort studies were analyzed. Survival curves were pooled using a distribution-free random-effects method.
RESULTS
Among nine studies, seven (N = 1430 patients) compared the addition of TTFields therapy to standard of care (SOC) chemoradiotherapy versus SOC alone and were included in a pooled analysis for OS. Meta-analysis of comparative studies indicated a significant improvement in OS for patients receiving TTFields and SOC versus SOC alone (HR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.53-0.75; p < 0.001). Among real-world post-approval studies, the pooled median OS was 22.6 months (95% CI 17.6-41.2) for TTFields-treated patients, and 17.4 months (95% CI 14.4-21.6) for those not receiving TTFields. Rates of gross total resection were generally higher in the real-world setting, irrespective of TTFields use. Furthermore, for patients included in studies reporting data on device usage (N = 1015), an average usage rate of ≥ 75% was consistently associated with prolonged survival (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Meta-analysis of comparative TTFields studies suggests survival may be improved with the addition of TTFields to SOC for patients with newly diagnosed GBM.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Temozolomide; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Brain Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy
PubMed: 37493865
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04348-w -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2023Gliomas are aggressive malignant brain tumors, with poor prognosis despite available therapies, raising the necessity for finding new compounds with therapeutic action.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Gliomas are aggressive malignant brain tumors, with poor prognosis despite available therapies, raising the necessity for finding new compounds with therapeutic action. Numerous preclinical investigations evaluating resveratrol's anti-tumor impact in animal models of glioma have been reported; however, the variety of experimental circumstances and results have prevented conclusive findings about resveratrol's effectiveness. Several databases were searched during May 2023, ten publications were identified, satisfying the inclusion criteria, that assess the effects of resveratrol in murine glioma-bearing xenografts. To determine the efficacy of resveratrol, tumor volume and animal counts were retrieved, and the data were then subjected to a random effects meta-analysis. The influence of different experimental conditions and publication bias on resveratrol efficacy were evaluated. Comparing treated to untreated groups, resveratrol administration decreased the tumor volume. Overall, the effect's weighted standardized difference in means was -2.046 (95%CI: -3.156 to -0.936; -value < 0.001). The efficacy of the treatment was observed for animals inoculated with both human glioblastoma or rat glioma cells and for different modes of resveratrol administration. The combined administration of resveratrol and temozolomide was more effective than temozolomide alone. Reducing publication bias did not change the effectiveness of resveratrol treatment. The findings suggest that resveratrol slows the development of tumors in animal glioma models.
Topics: Humans; Rats; Mice; Animals; Temozolomide; Resveratrol; Cell Line, Tumor; Glioma; Brain Neoplasms; Models, Animal
PubMed: 38068922
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242316597 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat...
Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in patients with malignant melanoma: a systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-comparative clinical studies.
Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat malignant melanoma. We conducted the first meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with other drugs in malignant melanoma. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-comparative clinical studies of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy, targeted medicine, and interferon to treat malignant melanoma in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Meta-analysis of RCT was performed using Review Manager (version 5.4), and non-comparative meta-analysis was performed using R (version 4.0.3). The primary outcome was the objective response rate. Depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies, the pooled outcomes and 95% CI were calculated using either random-effects or fixed-effect models. Subgroup outcomes were calculated with possible relevant variables. Sensitivity analyses were carried out by excluding each study from the highly heterogeneous pooled results in turn. Funnel plot and Begg's test were used to test the included studies' potential publication bias. The level of significance was set at < 0.05. This meta-analysis included 20 trials: five RCTs and 15 non-comparative clinical studies with a total of 23 bevacizumab intervention arms. In 14 treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with chemotherapy drugs such as fotemustine, dacarbazine, carboplatin/paclitaxel, and temozolomide. In six treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with targeted medicines such as imatinib, everolimus, sorafenib, erlotinib, and temsirolimus. There were also six treatment arms that used bevacizumab in combination with interferon. The pooled objective response rate was 15.8% (95% CI, 11.4%-20.2%). Bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly increased the overall survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel (HR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.49-0.85, < 0.01). Fatigue, nausea, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were the most common adverse events. The pooled incidence of hypertension of all bevacizumab arms in malignant melanoma was 32.4% (95% CI, 24.5%-40.3%). This study showed that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy might be effective and well-tolerated in patients with stage III or IV unresectable malignant melanoma. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=304625], identifier [CRD42022304625].
PubMed: 37521468
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1163805 -
Radiation Oncology (London, England) Mar 2024Treatment related lymphopenia is a known toxicity for glioblastoma (GBM) patients and several single-institution studies have linked lymphopenia with poor survival...
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)
Treatment related lymphopenia is a known toxicity for glioblastoma (GBM) patients and several single-institution studies have linked lymphopenia with poor survival outcomes. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to evaluate the association between lymphopenia and overall survival (OS) for GBM patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT).
MATERIALS/METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of the MEDLINE database and abstracts from ASTRO, ASCO, and SNO annual meetings was conducted. A pooled analysis was performed using inverse variance-weighted random effects to generate a pooled estimate of the hazard ratio of association between lymphopenia and OS.
RESULTS
Ten of 104 identified studies met inclusion criteria, representing 1,718 patients. The lymphopenia cutoff value varied (400-1100 cells/uL) and as well as the timing of its onset. Studies were grouped as time-point (i.e., lymphopenia at approximately 2-months post-RT) or time-range (any lymphopenia occurrence from treatment-start to approximately 2-months post-RT. The mean overall pooled incidence of lymphopenia for all studies was 31.8%, and 11.8% vs. 39.9% for time-point vs. time-range studies, respectively. Lymphopenia was associated with increased risk of death, with a pooled HR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.46-2.17, P < 0.00001) for the time-point studies, and a pooled HR of 1.38 (95% CI 1.24-1.55, P < 0.00001) for the time-point studies. There was no significant heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSION
These results strengthen observations from previous individual single-institution studies and better defines the magnitude of the association between lymphopenia with OS in GBM patients, highlighting lymphopenia as a poor prognostic factor.
Topics: Humans; Glioblastoma; Temozolomide; Brain Neoplasms; Lymphopenia
PubMed: 38481255
DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02393-3 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2024Recent advances in the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) highlight the potential benefits of temozolomide, an alkylating agent, for these patients.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recent advances in the management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) highlight the potential benefits of temozolomide, an alkylating agent, for these patients. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the outcome of temozolomide, alone or in combination with other anticancer medications in patients with advanced pNET.
METHODS
Online databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched systematically for clinical trials that reported the efficacy and safety of temozolomide in patients with advanced pNET. Random-effect model was utilized to estimate pooled rates of outcomes based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, biochemical response, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies, providing details of 441 individuals with advanced pNET, were included. The quantitative analyses showed a pooled objective response rate (ORR) of 41.2% (95% confidence interval, CI, of 32.4%-50.6%), disease control rate (DCR) of 85.3% (95% CI of 74.9%-91.9%), and a more than 50% decrease from baseline chromogranin A levels of 44.9% (95% CI of 31.6%-49.0%). Regarding safety, the results showed that the pooled rates of nonserious AEs and serious AEs were 93.8% (95% CI of 88.3%-96.8%) and 23.7% (95% CI of 12.0%-41.5%), respectively. The main severe AEs encompassed hematological toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that treatment with temozolomide, either as a monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer treatments might be an effective and relatively safe option for patients with advanced locally unresectable and metastatic pNET. However, additional clinical trials are required to further strengthen these findings. This study has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023409280).
Topics: Humans; Temozolomide; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Neuroectodermal Tumors, Primitive
PubMed: 38347461
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-11926-2