-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.
Topics: Male; Female; Adult; Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Axitinib; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 37146227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013798.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A systematic review with frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of: cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + avelumab, and axitinib + pembrolizumab in previously untreated adult patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. Eligible studies were identified by two reviewers in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias for RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The P score was used to determine the treatment ranking. The mean probability of an event along with the relative measures of the NMA was considered with the treatment rankings. A total of 13 RCTs were included in the systematic review and NMA. Sorafenib and tivozanib used as monotherapy were the best treatment options. Sorafenib achieved the highest P score for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), fatigue, nausea, vomiting of any grade, and hypertension of any grade or grade ≥3. Tivozanib achieved the highest P score for AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, and grade ≥3 diarrhea. Sunitinib was the best treatment option in terms of diarrhea and dysphonia of any grade, while cabozantinib, pazopanib, and axitinib + pembrolizumab-in terms of grade ≥3 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. TKIs used in combination were shown to have a poorer safety profile than those used as monotherapy. Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab was considered the worst option in terms of any AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, treatment discontinuation due to AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, fatigue of any grade, nausea, vomiting, and grade ≥3 nausea. Axitinib + avelumab was the worst treatment option in terms of dysphonia, grade ≥3 diarrhea, and hypertension, while cabozantinib + nivolumab was the worst option in terms of grade ≥3 vomiting. Interestingly, among the other safety endpoints, cabozantinib monotherapy had the lowest P score for diarrhea and hypertension of any grade. The general safety profile, including common AEs, is better when TKIs are used as monotherapy vs. in combination with immunological agents. To confirm these findings, further research is needed, including large RCTs.
PubMed: 37745049
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1223929 -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Jun 2024Pazopanib, an anti-angiogenic multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and soft tissue sarcoma....
BACKGROUND
Pazopanib, an anti-angiogenic multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and soft tissue sarcoma. However, its recommended dose does not always produce consistent outcomes, with some patients experiencing adverse effects or toxicity. This variability is due to differences in the systemic exposure to pazopanib. This review aimed to establish whether sufficient evidence exists for the routine or selective therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib in adult patients with approved indications.
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases using search terms related to pazopanib and therapeutic drug monitoring yielded 186 and 275 articles, respectively. Ten articles associated with treatment outcomes or toxicity due to drug exposure were selected for review.
RESULTS
The included studies were evaluated to determine the significance of the relationship between drug exposure/Ctrough and treatment outcomes and between drug exposure and toxicity. A relationship between exposure and treatment outcomes was observed in 5 studies, whereas the trend was nonsignificant in 4 studies. A relationship between exposure and toxicity was observed in 6 studies, whereas 2 studies did not find a significant relationship; significance was not reported in 3 studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Sufficient evidence supports the therapeutic drug monitoring of pazopanib in adult patients to improve its efficacy and/or safety in the approved indications.
Topics: Indazoles; Humans; Sulfonamides; Pyrimidines; Drug Monitoring; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Sarcoma; Kidney Neoplasms; Angiogenesis Inhibitors
PubMed: 38723115
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000001206 -
International Urology and Nephrology Apr 2023Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second largest male tumor in the world and one of the most common malignant tumors in the urinary system. In recent years, the incidence... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second largest male tumor in the world and one of the most common malignant tumors in the urinary system. In recent years, the incidence rate of PCa in China has been increasing year by year. Meanwhile, refractory hormone resistance and adverse drug reactions of advanced PCa cause serious harm to patients.
OBJECTIVE
The present study aims to systematically review the recent advances in molecularly targeted drugs for prostate cancer and to use the retrieval and analysis of the literature library to summarize the adverse effects of different drugs so as to maximize the treatment benefits of targeted therapies.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases up to March 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords such as (prostate cancer) AND (molecular target drugs) AND (side effect) were used. No language restrictions were set on the search process, and all these results were processed independently by two authors. Consensus was reached through discussion once met with any disagreements. The primary endpoint was differential features between different molecular targeted drugs. Secondary endpoints were side effects of different drugs on the body and corresponding prognostic values.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess the study quality in terms of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, the completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other biases. We retrieved 332 articles, of which 49 met the criteria for inclusion. Included studies show that prostatic tumor cells, tumor neovascularization and immune checkpoints are the main means for targeted therapy. Common drugs include 177 Lu-PSMA, Olaparib, Rucaparib, Bevacizumab, Pazopanib, Sorafenib, Cabozantinib, Aflibercept, Ipilimumab, Atezolizumab, Avelumab, Durvalumab. A series of publicly available data suitable for further analysis of side effects. An over-representation analysis of these datasets revealed reasonable dosage and usage is the key to controlling the side effects of targeted drugs. Important information such as the publication year, the first author, location and outcome observation of adverse effects was extracted from the original article. If the study data has some insufficient data, contacting the corresponding authors is necessary. All the studies included prospective nonrandomized and randomized research. Retrospective reviews were also screened according to the relevant to the purpose of this study. Meeting abstracts as well as letters to the editor and editorials were excluded.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data analysis was based on Cochrane's risk of bias tools to obtain the quality assessment. The included randomized studies used RoB2 and non-randomized ones corresponded to ROBINS-I. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to determine relative risk (RR) and side effects between groups. The eggers' test was used to check the publication bias from variable information in the included studies. All p < 0.05 were considered to be significant, and 95% was set as the confidence interval.
CONCLUSIONS
With the approval of a variety of targeted drugs, targeted therapy will be widely used in the treatment of advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Despite the existence of adverse reactions related to targeted drug treatment, it is still meaningful to adjust the drug dosage or treatment cycle to reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions, improving the treatment benefits of patients.
Topics: Humans; Male; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate
PubMed: 36719528
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03487-3 -
Musculoskeletal Surgery Mar 2023Approximately 80% of desmoid tumors (DTs) show spontaneous regression or disease stabilization during first-line active surveillance. Medical treatment can be considered... (Review)
Review
Approximately 80% of desmoid tumors (DTs) show spontaneous regression or disease stabilization during first-line active surveillance. Medical treatment can be considered in cases of disease progression. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of each medical treatment by reviewing only the studies that included progressive disease as the inclusion criterion. We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases to identify published studies for progressive DTs. The disease control rates of the medical treatments, such as low-dose chemotherapy with methotrexate plus vinblastine or vinorelbine, imatinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, nilotinib, anlotinib, doxorubicin-based agents, liposomal doxorubicin, hydroxyurea, and oral vinorelbine for progressive DTs were 71-100%, 78-92%, 67-96%, 84%, 88%, 86%, 89-100%, 90-100%, 75%, and 64%, respectively. Low-dose chemotherapy, sorafenib, pazopanib, nilotinib, anlotinib, and liposomal doxorubicin had similar toxicities. Sorafenib and pazopanib were less toxic than imatinib. Doxorubicin-based chemotherapy was associated with the highest toxicity. Hydroxyurea and oral vinorelbine exhibited the lowest toxicity. Stepwise therapy escalation from an initial, less toxic treatment to more toxic agents is recommended for progressive DTs. Sorafenib and pazopanib had limited on-treatment side effects but had the possibility to induce long-term treatment-related side effects. In contrast, low-dose chemotherapy has some on-treatment side effects and is known to have very low long-term toxicity. Thus, for progressive DTs following active surveillance, low-dose chemotherapy is recommended in young patients as long-term side effects are minor, whereas therapies such as sorafenib and pazopanib is recommended for older patients as early side effects are minor.
Topics: Humans; Vinorelbine; Sorafenib; Imatinib Mesylate; Hydroxyurea; Fibromatosis, Aggressive; Watchful Waiting; Methotrexate; Doxorubicin
PubMed: 35150408
DOI: 10.1007/s12306-022-00738-x -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Multiple targeted therapeutics are available for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC), but it remains unclear which treatment is optimal to...
Multiple targeted therapeutics are available for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC), but it remains unclear which treatment is optimal to achieve long-term survival. A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of targeted treatments for patients with RAIR-DTC from inception to April, 2022. Data were extracted by following the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR), its corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to indicate ranking probability using Bayesian network meta-analyses. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events. A total of 12 eligible RCTs involved 1,959 patients and 13 treatments: apatinib, cabozantinib, anlotinib, nintedanib, lenvatinib, lenvatinib with low dose (LD), sorafenib, sorafenib plus everolimus, donafenib (200 mg), donafenib (300 mg), pazopanib (continuous), pazopanib (intermittent), and vandetanib. Pooled analyses indicated that targeted therapeutics significantly prolonged PFS and OS in patients with RAIR-DTC (0.31, 0.21-0.41; 0.69, 0.53-0.85, respectively) compared with placebo. Network meta-analyses indicated that lenvatinib showed the most favorable PFS, with significant differences versus sorafenib (0.33, 0.23-0.48), vandetanib (0.31, 0.20-0.49), nintedanib (0.30, 0.15-0.60), and placebo (0.19, 0.15-0.25), while apatinib was most likely to be ranked first for prolonging OS with a SUCRA of 0.90. Lenvatinib showed the highest ORR (66%, 61%-70%), followed by anlotinib (59%, 48%-70%) and apatinib (54%, 40%-69%). Lenvatinib caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher, followed by lenvatinib (LD) and apatinib. Different toxicity profiles of individual treatment were also revealed. This network meta-analysis suggests that lenvatinib and apatinib were associated with the best progression-free survival and overall survival benefits, respectively, for patients with RAIR-DTC, compared with other targeted therapeutics. Patients who received lenvatinib or apatinib also had more grade 3 or higher adverse events. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=302249], identifier [CRD42022302249].
PubMed: 36091770
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.933648 -
Cancers Oct 2022Cancer is a clinical condition that can benefit from anti-angiogenic drugs (AADs). Given the low prevalence and the heterogeneity of childhood cancers, information about... (Review)
Review
Cancer is a clinical condition that can benefit from anti-angiogenic drugs (AADs). Given the low prevalence and the heterogeneity of childhood cancers, information about the safety of these drugs in pediatric patients is partially assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of AADs in pediatric patients with solid tumors. Clinical trials and observational studies were searched in PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials database For each included study, adverse events (AEs) were extracted. A meta-analysis was conducted by pooling proportions of AEs using a random intercept logistic regression model. Seventy studies were retrieved. Most part were clinical trials (55 out of 70), and only fifteen observational studies were found. Overall, proportion of serious and non-serious AEs of AADs used as monotherapy was 46% and 89%, respectively. Proportions of serious AEs varied among drugs: sunitinib, 79%; lenvatinib, 64%; sorafenib, 48%; ramucirumab, 41%; pazopanib, 30%; and vandetanib, 27%. A higher proportion of non-serious hematological AEs was found in the patients receiving pazopanib with respect to sunitinib and lenvatinib. The safety profile of AADs has been extensively investigated for mostly drugs in phase I and II trials and is limited to acute toxicities. Overall, one out of two patients using AAD drugs in monotherapy experienced a serious AE despite proportions varied per single drugs. When AADs were combined with standard chemotherapy, the proportion of AEs varied in relation to the single combinations.
PubMed: 36358734
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215315 -
American Journal of Clinical Oncology Jun 2023Patients with recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer often have poor prognoses, and their optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. Inhibition of angiogenesis is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer often have poor prognoses, and their optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. Inhibition of angiogenesis is a valuable strategy for treating ovarian cancer, and the drug pazopanib is a potent, multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor. However, treatment with pazopanib in combination with chemotherapy remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy and side effects of pazopanib combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials published up to September 2, 2022. The primary outcomes of eligible studies included overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate, 2-year PFS rate, 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, 2-year OS rate, and adverse events.
RESULT
Outcomes from a total of 518 recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer patients from 5 studies were analyzed in this systematic review. Pooled results showed that pazopanib plus chemotherapy, when compared with chemotherapy alone, significantly improved the ORR (pooled risk ratio=1.400; 95% CI, 1.062-1.846; P = 0.017) but not the disease control rate, 1-year PFS, 2-year PFS, 1-year OS, or 2-year OS. Moreover, pazopanib increased the risk of neutropenia, hypertension, fatigue, and liver dysfunction.
CONCLUSION
Pazopanib plus chemotherapy improved patient ORR but did not improve survival; it also increased the occurrence of several adverse events. Further large-sample clinical trials are needed to verify these results to guide pazopanib use in patients with ovarian cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Ovarian Neoplasms; Pyrimidines; Sulfonamides; Indazoles; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36877187
DOI: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000999 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020Several phase-II trials have been designed to evaluate tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), in particular, pazopanib in neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN), but its efficacy...
Several phase-II trials have been designed to evaluate tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), in particular, pazopanib in neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN), but its efficacy has not yet been demonstrated in a randomised-controlled Phase III trial. A systematic review of the published clinical trials of metastatic NEN patients could reduce the possible bias of single phase II studies. The present systematic review focuses on the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with metastatic and locally advanced NEN. A systematic search in the major databases Medline/PubMed, Cochrane and Embase and in supplementary material from important international Meetings was performed to identify publications on pazopanib for the treatment of neuroendocrine neoplasia. English language was defined as a restriction. Four authors of the present review independently performed the study selection, assessed the risk of bias and extracted study data. Four published clinical trials and 2 abstracts were identified. One trial was excluded because the topic was Von-Hippel Landau disease and one abstract was eliminated because of the lack of information on meeting proceedings. In all of the trials pazopanib was orally administered at a dose of 800 mg daily continuously with a 28-day cycle. The intention-to-treat population for efficacy was composed of 230 patients with a median age of 62 years. The partial response rate was 10.7% (95% confidence interval 2.6-20.5). The rate for stable disease was 79.6% (range: 61.7-92.1%) with a disease control rate (DCR) of 90.3%. Progressive disease was reported in 9.7% (range 5.2-17.6) of patients. No complete responses were observed. Median progression-free survival was 11.6 months (95% CI: 9.2-13.9). Overall survival from all the trials was 24.6 (95% CI: 18.7-40.8) months. Severe adverse events (grade III-IV) included hypertension 31%, 16% increase in AST/ALT, diarrhoea 10% and fatigue 10%. Pazopanib monotherapy achieved a DCR of 90.3% in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasia, with an overall response rate comparable to other TKIs and mTOR inhibitors and a safety profile similar to that of drugs of the same class.
PubMed: 32318336
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00414 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022The aim of this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
METHODS
Studies eligible for the efficacy of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic RCC published before December 2021 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched for (1) patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who received adjuvant postoperative targeted therapy versus those not receiving active treatment; (2) primary endpoint outcomes of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs); and (3) design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) as inclusion criteria. Data on DFS and OS were extracted or recalculated by meta-analysis as hazard ratios (HRs), and AEs were compared using a dominance ratio (OR).
RESULT
This systematic evaluation will provide evidence on the effectiveness and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy in patients with advanced RCC. The results of meta-analysis showed that all of the three adjuvant targeted therapeutic drugs (sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib) did not benefit from the adjuvant targeted therapy for DFS and OS and even increase the incidence of AEs compared to the placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this study was to summarize data on DFS, OS, and AEs in patients with advanced RCC treated with targeted therapies. The evidence provided by this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis will help guide clinical decision-making and provide insight into the future management of patients with advanced RCC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms
PubMed: 35392587
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7341294