-
Chinese Medical Journal Sep 2023Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, evidence regarding their relative efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with or without PD-L1 selection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, evidence regarding their relative efficacy and safety is lacking. This study compared the efficacy and safety of all currently available ICI treatments in patients with advanced NSCLC to identify optimal treatment regimens.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 8, 2022. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Forty RCTs involving 22,526 patients were selected, and a total of 26 treatment regimens were identified. Treatment with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (anti-PD-1) provided superior OS compared with anti-programmed death ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) treatment. ICIs plus platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) were superior to ICIs treatment alone, although the addition of PBC increased treatment toxicity. Cemiplimab ranked first for OS and lowest for any-grade AEs in advanced NSCLC patients without PD-L1 selection. Regarding grade ≥3 AEs, the toxicity of ICI monotherapy or ICI-ICI combination was consistently lower than that of the other treatments. For patients without PD-L1 selection, cemiplimab showed the best OS, pembrolizumab plus docetaxel (Pem-DXT) showed the best PFS, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and PBC (Atezo-Beva-PBC) showed the best ORR. Pembrolizumab plus PBC and Atezo-Beva-PBC were the most likely optimal treatments for OS and PFS in patients with PD-L1 expression <1%, respectively. In patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%, treatment regimens containing anti-PD-1 provided superior OS benefits compared with those of anti-PD-L1 treatment, and sintilimab plus PBC (Sint-PBC) provided the best OS benefit; as for PFS, ICI plus PBC consistently showed greater PFS benefits than ICI or PBC alone. For patients with anti-PD-L1 expression of 1-49%, camrelizumab plus PBC provided the best benefit for OS and PFS among included treatment. Durvalumab-tremelimumab-PBC and Atezo-Beva-PBC respectively presented the highest OS and PFS for patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%. Moreover, cemiplimab and Atezo-Beva-PBC yielded the best OS and PFS benefits as first-line treatments for patients with advanced NSCLC, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Although ICI plus PBC likely resulted in superior survival outcomes compared to ICI treatment alone, it did increase toxicity. Cemiplimab presented a well-balanced efficacy and safety profile in advanced NSCLC treatment. Our findings with the current ICIs comparisons will aid future trials for cancer immunotherapy.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , CRD42022323879.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Network Meta-Analysis; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 37596898
DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002750 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Oct 2023Taxanes in the treatment of cancer are associated with a significant incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, which may preclude their use in patients in need of first... (Review)
Review
Taxanes in the treatment of cancer are associated with a significant incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, which may preclude their use in patients in need of first line therapy. Drug desensitization induces transient immunological tolerance and has allowed the reintroduction of taxanes in highly allergic patients. Increase the knowledge of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) during the administration of taxanes. A systematic review regarding the safety and efficacy of rapid drug desensitization (RDD) for taxanes HSR. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, was registered in PROSPERO(CRD42021242324) and a comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases. 25 studies encompassing 10 countries were identified and 976 patients with initial HSR to paclitaxel (n = 707) and docetaxel (n = 284), that underwent a total of 2,396 desensitizations. The most common symptoms were cutaneous (74.6%) with paclitaxel and respiratory (72.6%) with docetaxel. Severe initial hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis occurred in 39.6% and 13% of paclitaxel and docetaxel cases respectively and during the first (87.4%) or second exposure (81.5%). Patients tolerated well RDD and breakthrough reactions (BTR) occurred in 32.2% of paclitaxel-treated patients and in 20.6% of docetaxel treated patients. Premedications included corticosteroids, antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists. The most commonly used protocol was the BWH 3 bags 12 steps, all protocols showed a success rate between 95-100%, with no reported deaths. RDD is a safe and effective procedure in patients with HSR to taxanes and protocols should be standardized for wide range implementation.
PubMed: 37589840
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08968-y -
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between Immunotherapy and Docetaxel Monotherapy in NSCLC Patients.Frontiers in Oncology 2022Meta analysis was used to compare the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor and docetaxel in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.
OBJECTIVE
Meta analysis was used to compare the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor and docetaxel in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.
METHODS
CNKI, CBM, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, web of science and other databases were searched by computer, and the randomized controlled trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors and docetaxel in the treatment of NSCLC published as of February 2022 were collected. Two researchers searched independently, screened the literature and extracted the data according to the nanodischarge criteria, and used Revman5.4. The included studies were statistically analyzed, and publication bias was analyzed with Egger test in Stata12.
RESULTS
A total of 8 RCTs were included, including 2444 cases treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2097 cases treated with docetaxel. Compared with docetaxel, the overall survival (HR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.30-1.50, P < 0.00001) and progression free survival (HR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.13-1.32, P < 0.00001) of NSCLC treated with ICIs were longer. The risk ratio of any grade of adverse reactions (HR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.32-0.52, P < 0.00001) and above grade III adverse reactions (HR = 0.27, 95%CI: 0.18-0.41, P < 0.00001) in the treatment of NSCLC with ICIs was lower. There was no publication bias in Egger test.
CONCLUSION
Compared with docetaxel, immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment can improve the clinical efficacy of NSCLC patients and has a lower incidence of adverse reactions. This treatment may be a promising treatment for NSCLC patients.
PubMed: 36033487
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.883514 -
BJU International Oct 2023To evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapies in patients with worse performance status (PS) treated for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapies in patients with worse performance status (PS) treated for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (mHSPC), and non-metastatic/metastatic castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC/mCRPC), as there is sparse pooled data showing the effect of PS on oncological outcomes in patients with PCa.
METHODS
Three databases were queried in June 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing patients with PCa treated with systemic therapy (i.e., adding androgen receptor signalling inhibitor [ARSI] or docetaxel [DOC] to androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT]). We analysed the oncological outcomes of patients with PCa with worse PS, defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS ≥ 1, treated with combination therapies and compared these to patients with good PS. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and progression-free survival.
RESULTS
Overall, 25 and 18 RCTs were included for systematic review and meta-analyses/network meta-analyses, respectively. In all clinical settings, combination systemic therapies significantly improved OS in patients with worse PS as well as in those with good PS, while the MFS benefit from ARSI in the nmCRPC setting was more pronounced in patients with good PS than in those with worse PS (P = 0.002). Analysis of treatment ranking in patients with mHSPC revealed that triplet therapy had the highest likelihood of improved OS irrespective of PS; specifically, adding darolutamide to DOC + ADT had the highest likelihood of improved OS in patients with worse PS. Analyses were limited by the small proportion of patients with a PS ≥ 1 (19%-28%) and that the number of PS 2 was rarely reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Among RCTs, novel systemic therapies seem to benefit the OS of patients with PCa irrespective of PS. Our findings suggest that worse PS should not discourage treatment intensification across all disease stages.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Androgen Antagonists; Progression-Free Survival; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 37395151
DOI: 10.1111/bju.16106 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Nov 2022The current standard of care for the systemic treatment of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with either... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The current standard of care for the systemic treatment of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) includes androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with either docetaxel or advanced androgen blockage (AAB). Recently, two studies have tested the combination of ADT, docetaxel and AAB (triplet therapy) relative to docetaxel and ADT in this setting. Herein, we aimed to compare the effect on survival outcomes of available systemic treatments for mHSPC.
METHODS
A comprehensive search for all published phase III randomized control trials on first line mHSPC that evaluated AAB (TITAN, ARCHES, STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, ENZAMET) or docetaxel (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, STAMPEDE) or their combination (ARASENS, PEACE-1) was conducted PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to 15/04/2022. We reconstructed survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves on overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) and meta-analyzed docetaxel versus AAB versus triplet therapy (grouping together abiraterone/darolutamide and docetaxel). The outcomes of interest were assessed using differences in restricted mean survival time (ΔRMST) at different time points and Cox regression.
RESULTS
Ten trials were included involving 5,544 patients for assessing OS and 5,725 for PFS. Triplet therapy was associated with longer OS when compared to docetaxel (48-month ΔRMST: 2.6; 95 %CI: 1.8,3.4; p < 0.001) but yielded similar OS when compared to AAB (48-month ΔRMST: -0.8; 95 % CI: -1.8, 0.2; p = 0.1). Similarly, triplet therapy was associated with longer PFS when compared to docetaxel (48-month ΔRMST: 10.3; 95 %CI: 9.0,11.6; p < 0.001) but yielded similar PFS when compared to AAB (48-month ΔRMST: 1.1; 95 %CI: -0.2,2.3; p = 0.1).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we found no OS nor PFS benefit for patients with mHSPC treated with triplet therapy compared to AAB alone, while an advantage emerged for both AAB or triplet therapy relative to docetaxel.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Androgens; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Docetaxel; Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 35939976
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102441 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2022The potential of gossypol and of its R-(-)-enantiomer (R-(-)-gossypol acetic acid, AT-101), has been evaluated for treatment of cancer as an independent agent and in... (Review)
Review
The potential of gossypol and of its R-(-)-enantiomer (R-(-)-gossypol acetic acid, AT-101), has been evaluated for treatment of cancer as an independent agent and in combination with standard chemo-radiation-therapies, respectively. This review assesses the evidence for safety and clinical effectiveness of oral gossypol/AT-101 in treating various types of cancer. The databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were examined. Phase I and II trials as well as single arm and randomized trials were included in this review. Results were screened to determine if they met inclusion criteria and then summarized using a narrative approach. A total of 17 trials involving 759 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, orally applied gossypol/AT-101 at low doses (30 mg daily or lower) was determined as well tolerable either as monotherapy or in combination with chemo-radiation. Adverse events should be strictly monitored and were successfully managed by dose-reduction or treating symptoms. There are four randomized trials, two performed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, one in subjects with head and neck cancer, and one in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Thereby, standard chemotherapy (either docetaxel (two trials) or docetaxel plus cisplatin or docetaxel plus prednisone) was tested with and without AT-101. Within these trials, a potential benefit was observed in high-risk patients or in some patients with prolongation in progression-free survival or in overall survival. Strikingly, the most recent clinical trial combined low dose AT-101 with docetaxel, fluorouracil, and radiation, achieving complete responses in 11 of 13 patients with gastroesophageal carcinoma (median duration of 12 months) and a median progression-free survival of 52 months. The promising results shown in subsets of patients supports the need of further specification of AT-101 sensitive cancers as well as for the establishment of effective AT-101-based therapy. In addition, the lowest recommended dose of gossypol and its precise toxicity profile need to be confirmed in further studies. Randomized placebo-controlled trials should be performed to validate these data in large cohorts.
PubMed: 35215257
DOI: 10.3390/ph15020144 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2023Immune checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly important in the treatment algorithm for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. Numerous ongoing studies are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly important in the treatment algorithm for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. Numerous ongoing studies are investigating these agents as first- and second-line therapies, both alone and in combination with chemotherapy or in a maintenance therapy setting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to chemotherapy as first- and second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, several trial registers, other sources of gray literature, and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on language of publication. We limited the search period to run from 2000 until August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using immunotherapy versus chemotherapy and would have considered non-randomized trials in the absence of randomized trial data. Participants had locally advanced inoperable (cT4b or N+, or both) or metastatic (M1) (or both) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder or upper urinary tract. We excluded studies of people in whom immunotherapy was used in combination with chemotherapy or in a surveillance setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion and abstracted data from included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence on a per-outcome basis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs and identified seven single-armed studies. The RCTs included 3572 participants comparing immunotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. First-line therapy Immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy compared to chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.07; I = 0%; 3 studies, 2068 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 750 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 11 fewer (45 fewer to 26 more) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) 4.10, 95% CI 3.83 to 4.37; 1 study, 393 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), when assuming a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least 6 points (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Bladder [FACT-BL] tool; scale 0 to 156 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy probably reduces adverse events grade 3 to 5 (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.75; I = 97%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 908 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy, with 481 fewer (644 fewer to 227 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy. We found no evidence for the outcome time to death from bladder cancer. Immunotherapy probably increases the risk of time to disease progression (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.50; I = 0%; 2 studies, 1349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 660 events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 102 more (57 more to 152 more) events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10; I = 94%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 338 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 179 fewer (271 fewer to 34 more) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy. Second-line therapy Immunotherapy may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81; I = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 920 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy (vinflunine, paclitaxel, docetaxel) and 59 fewer (95 fewer to 28 fewer) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life when compared to chemotherapy (MD 4.82, 95% CI -3.11 to 12.75; I = 85%; 2 studies, 727 participants; low-certainty evidence), assuming an MCID of at least 10 points (using the EORTC QLQ tool; scale 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I = 9%; 2 studies, 1423 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 630 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 76 fewer (126 fewer to 25 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy. We found no evidence for the outcome of time to death from bladder cancer. We are very uncertain if immunotherapy reduces the risk of disease progression (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; I = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse events in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.72; I = 69%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 110 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 72 fewer (91 fewer to 31 fewer) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to chemotherapy, immunotherapy for treating advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy. Still, it may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy. Health-related quality of life for participants receiving first- and second-line therapy does not appear to be affected by immunotherapy. Immunotherapy probably reduces or may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 when used as first- and second-line therapy, respectively.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell; Disease Progression; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
PubMed: 37811690
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013774.pub2 -
European Urology Oncology May 2024Mutations in the speckle-type POZ (SPOP) gene are frequently identified in prostate cancer (PC); yet, prognostic implications for affected patients remain unclear.... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Mutations in the speckle-type POZ (SPOP) gene are frequently identified in prostate cancer (PC); yet, prognostic implications for affected patients remain unclear. Limited consensus exists regarding tailored treatments for SPOP-mutant (SPOPmut) PC.
OBJECTIVE
To elucidate the prognostic and predictive significance of SPOP mutations across distinct PC stages and treatments.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted up to January 29, 2024. The meta-analysis included studies comparing survival outcomes between SPOPmut and SPOP wild-type (SPOPwt) PC.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
From 669 records, 26 studies (including five abstracts) were analyzed. A meta-analysis of metastasis-free survival in localized (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.88; p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic PC (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53-0.76; p < 0.01) showed a favorable prognosis for patients with SPOPmut PC. In metastatic settings, SPOP mutations correlated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy ± androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76, p < 0.01, and HR: 0.60, 95% CI:0.46-0.79, p < 0.01, respectively). In metastatic castration-resistant PC, only abiraterone provided improved PFS and OS to patients with SPOP mutations compared with patients with SPOPwt, but data were limited. SPOP mutations did not correlate with improved PFS (p = 0.80) or OS (p = 0.27) for docetaxel.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with SPOPmut PC seem to exhibit superior oncological outcomes compared with patients with SPOPwt. Tailored risk stratification and treatment approaches should be explored in such patients.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Speckle-type POZ (SPOP) mutations could be a favorable prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer (PC) and may also predict better progression-free and overall survival than treatment with hormonal agents. Therefore, less intensified treatments omitting chemotherapy for patients with SPOP-mutant PC should be explored in clinical trials.
PubMed: 38704358
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.011 -
Cureus May 2023Patients diagnosed with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer require treatment upfront because of the aggressive nature of this type of... (Review)
Review
Pathologic Complete Response Achieved in Early-Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy With Trastuzumab and Chemotherapy vs. Trastuzumab, Chemotherapy, and Pertuzumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
Patients diagnosed with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer require treatment upfront because of the aggressive nature of this type of cancer. Patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer are usually treated with neoadjuvant therapy. This neoadjuvant therapy comprises targeted therapy and chemotherapy. Targeted therapy is given with trastuzumab. Pertuzumab is either administered or not with trastuzumab as a targeted therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to find out and compare the benefit achieved in terms of pathologic complete response (pCR) by adding pertuzumab to the neoadjuvant treatment regimen for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Various databases were searched to find out relevant clinical trials. After going through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, three clinical trials were shortlisted for this systematic review and meta-analysis. These three clinical trials were double-armed. Pertuzumab was present in one arm while being absent in one arm to assess the benefit of adding pertuzumab in terms of pCR achieved. Data were analyzed using RevMan Web (Cochrane, London, UK). The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated for the outcome. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effect model were used for analysis. The risk of bias in studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (ROB2). The summary statistics showed that the incidence of pCR was more in the experimental group (having pertuzumab) as compared to the control group (without pertuzumab) with an odds ratio of 2.10 (95% CI: 1.56-2.83) with I2 = 0%. In three double-arm trials, there were 840 participants, 445 in the experimental group and 395 in the control group. A total of 203 (45%) patients out of 445 in the experimental group achieved pCR, whereas 127 (32%) patients out of 395 in the control group achieved pCR. Through the results of this study, it can be concluded that the rate of pCR achieved was higher in that arm in which pertuzumab was present compared to the study arm in which only trastuzumab was given as targeted therapy. Thus, it can be suggested that pertuzumab be added to the neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer patients. This would result in achieving a better pCR. And by improving pCR rates, the survival outcomes of patients can be significantly improved.
PubMed: 37398703
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39780 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2023: Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported on the survival benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported on the survival benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) compared to standard-of-care (SOC) treatment (enzalutamide, abiraterone, or docetaxel) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is a limited integrated analysis of high-quality evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of PARPi and SOC treatments in this context. : This study aims to comprehensively analyze the survival benefits and adverse events associated with PARPi and SOC treatments through a head-to-head meta-analysis in mCRPC. : A systematic review search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Clinical trials, and the Central Cochrane Registry in July 2023. RCTs were assessed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023441034). : A total of 8 studies, encompassing 2341 cases in the PARPi treatment arm and 1810 cases in the controlled arm, were included in the qualitative synthesis. The hazard ratio (HR) for radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61-0.90) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.99), respectively, in the intention-to-treatment patients. For subgroup analysis, HRs for rPFS and OS in the BRCA-mutated subgroup were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.28-0.55) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.38-0.99), while in the HRR-mutated subgroup, HR for rPFS was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48-0.69) and for OS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.93). The odds ratio (OR) for all grades of adverse events (AEs) and AEs with severity of at least grade 3 were 3.86 (95% CI, 2.53-5.90) and 2.30 (95% CI, 1.63-3.26), respectively. : PARP inhibitors demonstrate greater effectiveness than SOC treatments in HRR/BRCA-positive patients with mCRPC. Further research is required to explore ways to reduce adverse event rates and investigate the efficacy of HRR/BRCA-negative patients.
Topics: Male; Humans; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Ribose; Disease-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38138301
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59122198