-
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 -
Surgical Oncology Sep 2022Breast cancer (BC) is a common malignant tumor. Apatinib in combination with other treatments has been used for BC; however, its safety and efficacy are not well-known.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Breast cancer (BC) is a common malignant tumor. Apatinib in combination with other treatments has been used for BC; however, its safety and efficacy are not well-known. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of apatinib in the treatment of BC.
METHODS
Studies comparing the effects of apatinib-based therapy versus control among BC patients were included. On January 21, 2022, a systematic search was performed in 9 databases. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate efficacy and safety. The I square value (I) was used to assess heterogeneity. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was also conducted. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger's and Begg's tests.
RESULTS
A total of 31 studies including 2,258 BC patients were included. The results showed that apatinib group had a significant improvement in disease control rate (DCR, RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.35-1.52, I = 43.8%) and objective response rate (ORR, RR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.51-2.13, I = 61.8%) compared to the control group. Except for hemorrhage, hypertension, and hand-foot syndrome, the adverse events were similar between apatinib group and control group. Subgroup analyses found statistically significant differences in DCR in all subgroups except for apatinib combined with radiation therapy and with paclitaxel liposome plus S1. For ORR, there were statistically significant differences in all subgroups except for the radiation therapy, and apatinib monotherapy subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study shown apatinib showed good efficacy and acceptable safety in the treatment of BC patients. More high-quality randomized controlled trials from different regions and countries are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Liposomes; Paclitaxel; Pyridines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35930900
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2022.101818 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common kind, accounting for 90% of cases. First-line therapy for women with epithelial ovarian cancer consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy. However, more than 50% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer will experience a relapse and require further chemotherapy and at some point develop resistance to platinum-based drugs. Currently, guidance on the use of most chemotherapy drugs, including taxanes, is unclear for women whose epithelial ovarian cancer has recurred. Paclitaxel, topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, trabectedin and gemcitabine are all licensed for use in the UK at the discretion of clinicians, following discussion with the women as to potential adverse effects. Taxanes can be given in once-weekly regimens (at a lower dose) or three-weekly regimens (at a higher dose), which may have differences in the severity of side effects and effectiveness. As relapsed disease suggests incurable disease, it is all the more important to consider side effects and the impact of treatment schedules, as well as quality of life, and not only the life-prolonging effects of treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and toxicity of different taxane monotherapy regimens for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, up to 22 March 2022. Other related databases and trial registries were searched as well as grey literature and no additional studies were identified. A total of 1500 records were identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of taxane monotherapy for adult women diagnosed with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. We included trials comparing two or more taxane monotherapy regimens. Participants could be experiencing their first recurrence of disease or any line of recurrence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened, independently assessed studies, and extracted data from the included studies. The clinical outcomes we examined were overall survival, response rate, progression-free survival, neurotoxicity, neutropenia, alopecia, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models following standard Cochrane methodology. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Our literature search yielded 1500 records of 1466 studies; no additional studies were identified by searching grey literature or handsearching. We uploaded the search results into Covidence. After the exclusion of 92 duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 1374 records. Of these, we identified 24 studies for full-text screening. We included four parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All trials were multicentred and conducted in a hospital setting. The studies included 981 eligible participants with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer with a median age ranging between 56 to 62 years of age. All participants had a WHO (World Health Organization) performance status of between 0 to 2. The proportion of participants with serous histology ranged between 56% to 85%. Participants included women who had platinum-sensitive (71%) and platinum-resistant (29%) relapse. Some participants were taxane pre-treated (5.6%), whilst the majority were taxane-naive (94.4%). No studies were classified as having a high risk of bias for any of the domains in the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We found that there may be little or no difference in overall survival (OS) between weekly paclitaxel and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.33, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there may be little or no difference in response rate (RR of 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and progression-free survival (PFS) (RR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) between weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain. We found differences in the chemotherapy-associated adverse events between the weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel regimens. The weekly paclitaxel regimen may result in a reduction in neutropenia (RR 0.51, 95% 0.27 to 0.95, two studies, 260 participants, low-certainty evidence) and alopecia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73, one study, 205 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in neurotoxicity, but the evidence was very low-certainty and we cannot exclude an effect (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45, two studies, 260 participants). When examining the effect of paclitaxel dosage in the three-weekly regimen, the 250 mg/m paclitaxel regimen probably causes more neurotoxicity compared to the 175 mg/m regimen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, one study, 330 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life data were not extractable from any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fewer people may experience neutropenia when given weekly rather than three-weekly paclitaxel (low-certainty evidence), although it may make little or no difference to the risk of developing neurotoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). This is based on the participants receiving lower doses of drug more often. However, our confidence in this result is low and the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Weekly paclitaxel probably reduces the risk of alopecia, although the rates in both arms were high (46% versus 79%) (low-certainty evidence). A change to weekly from three-weekly chemotherapy could be considered to reduce the likelihood of toxicity, as it may have little or no negative impact on response rate (very low-certainty evidence), PFS (very low-certainty evidence) or OS (very low-certainty evidence). Three-weekly paclitaxel, given at a dose of 175 mg/m compared to a higher dose,probably reduces the risk of neurotoxicity.We are moderately confident in this result; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. A change to 175 mg/m paclitaxel (from a higher dose), if a three-weekly regimen is used, probably has little or no negative impact on PFS or OS (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Adult; Alopecia; Bridged-Ring Compounds; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neutropenia; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Taxoids
PubMed: 35866378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008766.pub3 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022The main objective of this systematic review was to examine the literature evaluating association of image-based body composition with chemotherapy-related toxicity in...
OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this systematic review was to examine the literature evaluating association of image-based body composition with chemotherapy-related toxicity in ovarian cancer patients. A secondary objective was to evaluate the different definitions of sarcopenia across studies.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA-DTA statement and the protocol was registered on Prospero. A comprehensive literature search of 3 electronic databases was performed by two authors. For each eligible article, information was collected concerning the clinical setting; basic study data; population characteristics; technical aspects; body composition features; chemotherapy drugs administered; association of body composition values and toxicities. The overall quality of the included studies was critically evaluated.
RESULTS
After the initial retrieval of 812 articles, the systematic review included 6 articles (5/6 studies were retrospective; one was prospective). The number of patients ranged between 69 and 239; mean/median age ranged between 55 and 65 years; the percentage of sarcopenic patients ranged between 25% and 54%. The cut-off values to define sarcopenia and the vertebral levels for evaluation of body composition were different. Five studies included chemotherapy based on carboplatin and paclitaxel, 1 included chemotherapy based on pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Among the studies including carboplatin and paclitaxel, 3/5 demonstrated an association with toxicity, whereas 2/5 did not. Altogether, 4/6 papers demonstrated an association between the body composition values and the development of chemotherapy-related toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a wide variability of results about the association of body composition and chemotherapy-related toxicity in ovarian cancer patients. Therefore further studies, possibly including a comprehensive assessment of body compartments and where the definition of body composition cut-offs is constant, are warranted to better understand this association.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022337753, identifier (CRD42022337753).
PubMed: 36408182
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1057631 -
European Review For Medical and... Mar 2020We reviewed studies comparing survival outcomes such as overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and toxicity profile between patients treated with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel plus carboplatin-based chemotherapy as first line treatment for patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
We reviewed studies comparing survival outcomes such as overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and toxicity profile between patients treated with Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin (PLD) combination and those treated with paclitaxel combination for ovarian cancer. We conducted systematic searches in various databases including Medline, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception until August 2019. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of published trials. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled Hazard ratios (HR) or Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, we analysed 7 studies including 3,676 participants. All the studies were randomized controlled trials, while majority of studies had low bias risks. We did not find significant evidence for any of these outcomes except progression free survival (favoured PLD combination therapy pooled HR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.77-0.98). Worst grade toxicities like allergy (pooled RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.06-3.24) and neurotoxicity (pooled RR: 5.59; 95% CI: 1.43-21.84) were significantly higher among patients receiving paclitaxel combination therapy when compared to patients receiving PLD combination therapy. To summarize, PLD combination therapy is non-inferior to paclitaxel combination therapy in the management of ovarian cancer with respect to survival outcomes and worst grade toxicity profile. However, clinical recommendations cannot be made, as the evidence is not conclusive or significant enough.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Disease-Free Survival; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32271409
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202003_20655 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Sep 2022Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. To improve the therapeutic outcomes, drug delivery systems, and particularly liposomes, have been widely... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. To improve the therapeutic outcomes, drug delivery systems, and particularly liposomes, have been widely investigated. Therefore, this review analyzed systematically the literature to inquire about the safety and efficacy of liposomal formulations in lung cancer treatment.
METHODS
Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL) were systematically searched until May 2020. Clinical trials containing information about the effects of liposomal formulations in lung cancer patients were considered eligible.
RESULTS
Twenty two selected studies present different treatment options for both small and non-small-cell lung cancers. After compiling and analyzing all the published information, we verified that combination of liposomal cisplatin and paclitaxel led to a statistically significant improvement of the evaluated outcomes. Moreover, tecemotide, a liposome-based immunotherapy, demonstrated lower toxicity compared to control groups. Evidences that other subgroups could benefit from this formulation were also provided.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review (registration number CRD42021246587) demonstrates that liposomal formulations are promising alternatives to overcome limitations of traditional cancer therapy. However, larger, longer, randomized and double-blinded clinical trials, selecting their patients' cohort considering more responsive subgroups would be beneficial to strengthen the scientific and clinical evidence of the results herein reported.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Humans; Liposomes; Lung Neoplasms; Paclitaxel
PubMed: 35660950
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-022-04079-x -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022The Platinum-based combination has been proven to have an outstanding effect on patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), but the best...
The Platinum-based combination has been proven to have an outstanding effect on patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), but the best scientific combination has not been established yet. The present study is aimed to seek the best treatment plan for PSROC. We did a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis, during which lite before March 2022 were retrieved on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled databases. We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing chemotherapy combinations with other treatments for patients with PSROC. The important outcomes concerned were progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary outcome), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and AEs-related discontinuation. All outcomes were ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. 26 trials involving 10441 patients were retrieved in this study. For the initial treatment of PSROC, carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus bevacizumab had the best PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.51-0.68]; Carboplatin plus paclitaxel plus bevacizumab resulted in the best OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.35) and ORR [odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.35]. For the maintenance therapy in PSROC, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) following platinum-based chemotherapy provided the best PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.61-0.68), the highest frequency of adverse events of grade three or higher (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.44) but the treatment discontinuation was generally low. Subgroup analysis suggested that trabectedin plus PLD was comparable to single platinum in prolonging PFS in the platinum-free interval (6-12 months). Both platinum-based chemotherapy plus PARPi and platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab had higher survival benefits than other treatments in PSROC. Trabectedin plus PLD might be a potential alternative treatment strategy for the partially platinum-sensitive subpopulation with intolerance to platinum. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?], identifier [CRD42022326573].
PubMed: 36438821
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1010626