-
Bioscience Reports Oct 2020Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths across the world. Irinotecan (IRI) is commonly used to treat CRC, and IRI-based chemotherapy is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths across the world. Irinotecan (IRI) is commonly used to treat CRC, and IRI-based chemotherapy is linked with adverse reaction and the efficacy of the treatment regimen. The gene UGT1A1 plays a central role in the IRI metabolic pathway. A polymorphism UGT1A1*6 has been widely researched which may be related to response of IRI-based chemotherapy in CRC. All relevant studies were strictly searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases to explore the associations between UGT1A1*6 and response of IRI-based chemotherapy with CRC. Nine articles comprising 1652 patients were included in the final combination. Meta-analysis showed G allele or GG had a lower risk of severe late-onset diarrhea compared with A/AA in allele model and homozygote model (G vs. A: OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.28-0.99, P=0.05; GG vs. AA: OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.23-0.99, P=0.05), no significant association was observed in other models. In addition, a significant association between UGT1A1*6 and neutropenia was observed in all models (G vs. A: OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46-0.71, P=0.00; GG vs. AA: OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17-0.45, P=0.01; GA vs. AA: OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26-0.70, P=0.00; GG+GA vs. AA: OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.20-0.52, P=0.00; GG vs. AA+GA: OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.71, P=0.00), whereas, no relationship was found between UGT1A1*6 and clinical response among the different genotypes. UGT1A1*6 may be considered as a biomarker for IRI-based chemotherapy in CRC.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Diarrhea; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Glucuronosyltransferase; Humans; Irinotecan; Neutropenia; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Polymorphism, Genetic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Topoisomerase I Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32936306
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20200576 -
BMC Cancer May 2021Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening...
Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety.
BACKGROUND
Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens.
METHODS
An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1-4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included.
RESULTS
The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators.
CONCLUSIONS
In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572 .
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Drug Administration Schedule; Filgrastim; Humans; Incidence; Polyethylene Glycols; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 34044798
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08258-w -
Medicine Feb 2021Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Meropenem monotherapy vs ceftazidime plus amikacin have been approved for use against febrile neutropenia. To assess the effectiveness and safety of them for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials on ceftazidime plus amikacin, or/and monotherapy with meropenem for the treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia were identified by searching Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Wiley Online, Science Citation Index, Google (scholar), National Center for Biotechnology Information, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Data on interventions, participants' characteristics and the outcomes of therapy, were extracted for statistical analysis. Seven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria.
RESULT
The treatment with ceftazidime plus amikacin was more effective than meropenem (OR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.93-1.46; 1270 participants). However, the treatment effects of the 2 therapy methods were almost parallel in adults (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.46; 1130 participants older than 16). Drug-related adverse effects afflicted more patients treated with ceftazidime plus amikacin (OR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.52-1.15; 1445 participants). The common responses were nausea, diarrhea, rash, and increased in serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase and bilirubin.
CONCLUSION
Ceftazidime plus amikacin should be the first choice for empirical treatment of cancer patients with febrile neutropenia, and meropenem may be chosen as a last defense against pathogenic bacteria.
Topics: Amikacin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Ceftazidime; Drug Therapy, Combination; Febrile Neutropenia; Humans; Meropenem; Neoplasms
PubMed: 33663117
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024883 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Jun 2020Empirical antifungal therapy is recommended in high-risk patients who have persistent febrile neutropenia (FN) despite broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Based on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Echinocandins versus non-echinocandins for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with hematological disease with febrile neutropenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Empirical antifungal therapy is recommended in high-risk patients who have persistent febrile neutropenia (FN) despite broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Based on high-quality evidence, most guidelines recommend caspofungin. The aim of this study was to clarify whether echinocandins, including micafungin, are associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with persistent FN. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of empirical therapy with echinocandins and non-echinocandins for FN in patients with hematological disease. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 7 days after completion of therapy. Secondary outcomes included treatment success, and discontinuation of therapy because of adverse events. For subgroup analysis, we compared RCTs of echinocandins with liposomal amphotericin B. Six RCTs (four that evaluated caspofungin and two that evaluated micafungin) were included in the meta-analysis. Mortality and adverse events in echinocandin-treated patients were significantly lower than in those treated with non-echinocandins [risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.99; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.71, respectively]. There was no significant difference in treatment success (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.87-1.36). Mortality and adverse events in echinocandin-treated patients were significantly lower than in those treated with liposomal amphotericin B (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.99; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.74, respectively). In conclusion, patients with persistent FN treated with echinocandins had decreased risk of death and adverse events. Both caspofungin and micafungin may be recommended as first-line empirical antifungal therapy in these patients. However, the small number of enrolled patients and the lack of RCTs involving pediatric patients should be considered when using micafungin.
Topics: Amphotericin B; Antifungal Agents; Echinocandins; Febrile Neutropenia; Humans; Mycoses; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Voriconazole
PubMed: 32171659
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2020.01.015 -
Jornal de Pediatria 2024to carry out a scoping review with the purpose of mapping the scientific evidence on the use of the neutropenic diet in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.
OBJECTIVE
to carry out a scoping review with the purpose of mapping the scientific evidence on the use of the neutropenic diet in neutropenic pediatric cancer patients.
SOURCE OF DATA
The scoping review protocol was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR and the checklist before the literature search was performed. Articles on nutritional management in adults or on the treatment of other diseases, and articles that were not in Portuguese or English and published before the year 2000, were excluded. Data were extracted based on the Cochrane Consumer and Communication Review Group form.
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
Three hundred and forty scientific articles were identified, with the final sample of this review consisting of nine studies. Although the neutropenic diet has been part of the nutritional management of pediatric cancer patients for more than 20 years, there is still great variation in the criteria for indicating use and starting and discontinuing it, as well as in the nutritional composition of the diet. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the impact of using a neutropenic diet on different clinical and nutritional outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In the absence of guidelines that standardize the use of a neutropenic diet in pediatric patients with neutropenia, there are heterogeneous approaches reported in the literature, even within the same institution. The available literature presents an absence of evidence on the use, viability, and effectiveness of the neutropenic diet in oncological children with neutropenia. More studies are needed to identify the real impact of the neutropenic diet on clinical and nutritional outcomes.
Topics: Child; Humans; Diet; Neoplasms; Neutropenia; Nutritional Support
PubMed: 37813344
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2023.07.009