-
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 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Feb 2023Outcomes for patients with high-grade glioma remain poor. Temozolomide (TMZ) is the only drug approved for first-line treatment of glioblastoma multiforme, the most... (Review)
Review
Outcomes for patients with high-grade glioma remain poor. Temozolomide (TMZ) is the only drug approved for first-line treatment of glioblastoma multiforme, the most aggressive form of glioma. Chronotherapy highlights the potential benefit of timed TMZ administration. This is based on pre-clinical studies of enhanced TMZ-induced glioma cytotoxicity dependent on circadian, oscillating expression of key genes involved in apoptosis, DNA damage repair, and cell-cycle mediated cell death. The current systematic review's primary aim was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of TMZ chronotherapy. A systemic review of literature following PRISMA guidelines looking at clinical outcomes on TMZ chronotherapy on gliomas was performed. The search in the English language included three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and five conferences from 1946 to April 2022. Two independent reviewers undertook screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. A descriptive analysis was conducted due to limited data. Of the 269 articles screened, two unique studies were eligible and underwent abstraction for survival and toxicity findings. Both studies-one a retrospective cohort study (n = 166) and the other a prospective randomized feasibility study (n = 35)-were conducted by the same academic group and suggested a trend for improved overall survival, but possibly increased toxicity when TMZ was administered in the morning (vs. evening). There was limited evidence suggesting possible therapeutic value from administering TMZ in the morning, which may be consistent with the pre-clinical observations of the importance of the timing of TMZ administration in vitro. Larger, pragmatic, prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to ascertain the value of TMZ chronotherapy to provide optimized and equitable care for this population.
Topics: Humans; Temozolomide; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Brain Neoplasms; Glioma; Chronotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36826108
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30020147 -
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 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Jul 2023Neuroendocrine lung cancer constitutes a continuum from carcinoid tumours (CT) to large cell neuroendocrine (LCNEC) and small-cell carcinomas (SCLC). Except for SCLC,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Neuroendocrine lung cancer constitutes a continuum from carcinoid tumours (CT) to large cell neuroendocrine (LCNEC) and small-cell carcinomas (SCLC). Except for SCLC, there is no consensual agreement on systemic therapy. The aim of this study is to review our clinical experience among patients with CT and LCNEC in the light of a systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
A retrospective study of all patients with CT and LCNEC receiving a systemic therapy at Institut Jules Bordet and Erasme Hospital between 01/01/2000-31/12/2020. A systematic review of the literature was performed in Ovid Medline.
RESULTS
53 patients (21 CT and 32 LCNEC) were included. Despite limited response rates, patients with CT receiving a "carcinoid-like" 1st-line regimen (somatostatin analogues (SSA), everolimus, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT)) had a numerically longer survival compared to those receiving other type of regimens (median 51.4 vs 18.6 months, respectively; p = 0.17). We observed a similar survival between 1st line "SCLC-like" vs "non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-like" schemes in LCNEC (median 11.2 vs 12.6 months, respectively; p = 0.46). The systematic review identified 23 studies (12 prospective, 15 and 8 for CT and LCNEC respectively). For CT, everolimus and SSA led to prolonged disease control with an acceptable toxicity profile, while higher response rates but lower tolerance were associated with PRRT and chemotherapy regimens including oxaliplatine and dacarbazine. For LCNEC, no difference emerged when comparing "SCLC-like" and "NSCLC-like" regimens considering response rate, progression-free or overall survival.
CONCLUSIONS
SSA, everolimus and PRRT present a good therapeutic index for CT, while the role of chemotherapy remains limited to aggressive and rapidly evolving CT. The best type of chemotherapy regimen remains an open question in LCNEC.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Everolimus; Prospective Studies; Carcinoma, Large Cell; Carcinoma, Small Cell; Carcinoma, Neuroendocrine; Carcinoid Tumor
PubMed: 37216840
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107232 -
Dermatologic Therapy Mar 2020The current systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib with those of other therapeutic alternatives in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced/metastatic melanoma with BRAF-V600 mutation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
The current systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib with those of other therapeutic alternatives in the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced/metastatic melanoma with BRAF-V600 mutation. The search was carried out on four databases up to July 2018. Two separate network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed using the frequentist method (random effects): one with an exclusive population with BRAF-V600 mutation (NMA-pBRAFV600) and another with mixed population (with or without the mutation: NMA-pMixed). An evidence profile was included using the GRADE method for NMA. The validity of the final estimator in the NMA-pMixed was assessed via a sensitivity analysis. Nine clinical trials were included in the NMA-pBRAFV600. Dabrafenib-trametinib was found to have a favorable effect on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with dabrafenib, vemurafenib, and dacarbazine and on partial response rate (PRR) and overall response rate compared with dacarbazine and vemurafenib. In the NMA-pMixed, dabrafenib-trametinib was found to have a positive effect on OS versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and on PFS and PRR versus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. However, dabrafenib-trametinib and vemurafenib-cobimetinib significantly differed in terms of efficacy. In addition, dabrafenib-trametinib has a favorable effect on Grades 3 and 4 adverse events.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Imidazoles; Melanoma; Mutation; Network Meta-Analysis; Oximes; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Pyridones; Pyrimidinones; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 31664762
DOI: 10.1111/dth.13145 -
Dermatologic Therapy Aug 2020The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib (dabrafenib-trametinib) with those of other therapeutic... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib (dabrafenib-trametinib) with those of other therapeutic alternatives in the treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The search was carried out on four databases up to July-2018. Two separate network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed using the frequentist method (random effects): one with an exclusive population with BRAF V600 mutation (NMA-pBRAFV600) and another with a mixed population (with or without the mutation: NMA-pMixed). An evidence profile was included using the GRADE method for NMA. The validity of the final estimator in the NMA-pMixed was assessed via sensitivity analysis. Five clinical trials were included in the NMA-pBRAFV600. In the NMA-pBRAFV600 population, dabrafenib-trametinib had a favorable effect on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with dabrafenib, vemurafenib, and dacarbazine, and on partial response rate (PRR) and overall response rate (ORR) compared with dacarbazine and vemurafenib. In the NMA-pMixed population, dabrafenib-trametinib had a positive effect on OS vs ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and on PFS and PRR vs ipilimumab (3 and 10 mg/kg), nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. However, dabrafenib-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib were comparable in terms of clinical efficacy. In addition, dabrafenib-trametinib was associated with less grades 3 and 4 adverse events.
PubMed: 32761749
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14135 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Dec 2019Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments.
RESULTS
The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57).
CONCLUSIONS
Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Azetidines; Benzimidazoles; Cancer Vaccines; Carboplatin; Dacarbazine; Humans; Hydrazines; Imidazoles; Interleukin-2; Ipilimumab; Lenalidomide; Melanoma; Network Meta-Analysis; Nitrosourea Compounds; Nivolumab; Organophosphorus Compounds; Oximes; Paclitaxel; Piperidines; Progression-Free Survival; Proportional Hazards Models; Pyridones; Pyrimidinones; Skin Neoplasms; Sorafenib; Survival Rate; Temozolomide; Treatment Outcome; Vemurafenib; gp100 Melanoma Antigen
PubMed: 31670077
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.032 -
Nitric Oxide : Biology and Chemistry Sep 2023Gliomas represent the most prevalent form of brain tumors, among which glioblastomas are the most malignant subtype. Despite advances in comprehending their biology and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Gliomas represent the most prevalent form of brain tumors, among which glioblastomas are the most malignant subtype. Despite advances in comprehending their biology and treatment strategies, median survival remains disappointingly low. Inflammatory processes involving nitric oxide (NO), critically contribute to glioma formation. The inducible isoform of NO synthase (iNOS) is highly overexpressed in gliomas and has been linked to resistance against temozolomide (TMZ) treatment, neoplastic transformation, and modulation of immune response. While both in vitro and in vivo studies showed the potential of iNOS inhibitors as effective treatments for gliomas, no clinical trials on gliomas have been published. This review aims to summarize the available evidence regarding iNOS as a target for glioma treatment, focusing on clinically relevant data.
METHODS
Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed/Medline, and Embase databases in May 2023. We included studies that investigated the impact of NOS inhibitors on glioma cells using L-NMMA, CM544, PBN, 1400W or l-NAME either alone or combined with TMZ. We extracted data on the NOS inhibitor used, subtype, study setting, animal model or cell lines employed, obtained results, and safety profile. Our inclusion criteria encompassed original articles in English or Spanish, studies with an untreated control group, and a primary outcome focused on the biological effects on glioma cells.
RESULTS
Out of 871 articles screened from the aforementioned databases, 37 reports were assessed for eligibility. After excluding studies that did not utilize glioma cells or address the designated outcome, 11 original articles satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Although no NOS inhibitor has been tested in a published clinical trial, three inhibitors have been evaluated using in vivo models of intracranial gliomas. l-NAME, 1400W, and CM544 were tested in vitro. Co-administration of l-NAME, or CM544 with TMZ showed superior results in vitro compared to individual agent testing.
CONCLUSION
Glioblastomas remain a challenging therapeutic target. iNOS inhibitors exhibit substantial potential as treatment options for oncologic lesions, and they have demonstrated a safe toxicity profile in humans for other pathological conditions. Research endeavors should be focused on investigating their potential effects on brain tumors.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Glioblastoma; NG-Nitroarginine Methyl Ester; Glioma; Temozolomide; Brain Neoplasms; Enzyme Inhibitors; Nitric Oxide Synthase; Nitric Oxide
PubMed: 37279819
DOI: 10.1016/j.niox.2023.06.002 -
Hematology/oncology and Stem Cell... Apr 2023The PARP inhibitors (PARPis) olaparib and talazoparib are currently approved for the treatment of deleterious germline BRCA1/2-mutated (gBRCA+) metastatic breast cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The PARP inhibitors (PARPis) olaparib and talazoparib are currently approved for the treatment of deleterious germline BRCA1/2-mutated (gBRCA+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). These approvals were based on improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) observed in two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Other PARPis, such as veliparib and niraparib, have also been studied. We conducted this meta-analysis of RCTs to assess the PFS and overall survival (OS) benefits of PARPis in gBRCA + MBC.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search for RCTs using the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to March 2021. Only phase II and III RCTs evaluating PFS and OS for PARPis alone or in combination with chemotherapy (CT) and comparing the findings with standard CT were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of the hazard ratio (HR) was performed with RevMan v5.4 using a random effects method.
RESULTS
Five RCTs with a total of 1563 BRCA-mutated MBC patients were included in this meta-analysis. Temozolomide was used in the treatment arm in the BROCADE trial. Since temozolomide has limited effects on breast cancer, this arm was excluded from our meta-analysis. A statistically significant increase in PFS was observed in the PARPi group compared to the standard CT group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74; P < 0.00001). However, the differences in OS did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.02; P = 0.09). Moreover, differences were not observed in the adverse event profile between the two groups (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84-1.64; P = 0.33).
CONCLUSION
The results of our meta-analysis confirm the previously reported PFS benefit of PARPis over standard CT. PARPis lead to superior PFS in gBRCA + MBC when used alone or in combination with standard CT. The OS benefit is similar between PARPis and standard CT. Ongoing trials are evaluating the benefits of PARPis in early stage gBRCA + BC.
Topics: Female; Humans; BRCA1 Protein; Breast Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Temozolomide; BRCA2 Protein
PubMed: 37023220
DOI: 10.56875/2589-0646.1033 -
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