-
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2023The prognosis for patients with ovarian cancer is bleak. Clinical trials have shown the efficacy of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer treatment. However, life-threatening...
BACKGROUND
The prognosis for patients with ovarian cancer is bleak. Clinical trials have shown the efficacy of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer treatment. However, life-threatening strokes may limit the usage of bevacizumab and require specific follow-up strategies. This study aims to systematically evaluate the risk of stroke of bevacizumab treatment in ovarian cancer.
METHODS
We retrieved all relevant articles published up to December 4th, 2022, from Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The risk of stroke in patients with ovarian cancer treated with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy was analyzed. Meta-analysis was performed using the Stata 17 software and R 4.2.1 program.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy or chemotherapy for ovarian cancer and six single-experimental-arm trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis showed a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 2.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-7.99] for patients with ovarian cancer treated with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses showed that the incidence of stroke-related adverse events in the carboplatin + paclitaxel + bevacizumab group was 0.01% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01, < 0.01). The incidence of stroke-related adverse events was 0.01% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01, < 0.01) in patients aged ≥60. The incidence of stroke caused by cerebral ischemia and cerebral hemorrhage was 0.01% (95% CI: 0.01-0.02, = 0.27) and 0.01% (95% CI: 0.00-0.01, < 0.01), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicates that chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab may not increase the incidence of stroke in patients with ovarian cancer. However, stroke-related adverse events may be higher in older patients. Cerebral hemorrhage might cause the incidence of stroke more than cerebral ischemia.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42022381003).
PubMed: 37360160
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1187957 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2020There are no randomized data to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma following first-line FOLFIRINOX. We performed a systematic...
BACKGROUND
There are no randomized data to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma following first-line FOLFIRINOX. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX to assess treatment efficacy and toxicity.
METHODS
We included studies published between 2011 and 2018 that evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), any grade 3/4 toxicity rate, and progression-free survival (PFS). We used the random-effects model to generate pooled estimates for proportions.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, ORR was 10.8%, DCR was 41.1%, and any grade 3/4 toxicity rate was 28.6%. In subgroup analyses, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was associated with superior ORR (14.4 8.4%; = 0.038) and DCR (53.5 30.5%; < 0.001) compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Median PFS ranged from 1.9 to 6.4 months and numerically favored gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests gemcitabine-based chemotherapy likely outperforms best supportive care after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer. Also, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel seems to be more active than single-agent gemcitabine (CRD42018100421).
PubMed: 32165927
DOI: 10.1177/1758835920905408 -
Endoscopic Ultrasound 2022EUS-guided ethanol ablation has emerged as an alternative method for pancreatic lesions. Recently, paclitaxel was added to ethanol to assess ablative effects in...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
EUS-guided ethanol ablation has emerged as an alternative method for pancreatic lesions. Recently, paclitaxel was added to ethanol to assess ablative effects in pancreatic lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on EUS-guided ethanol ablation (EUS E) versus EUS-guided ethanol with paclitaxel (EUS EP) ablation for the management of pancreatic lesions.
METHODS
Comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases (from inception to May 2020). The primary outcome evaluated complete ablation of the lesions radiologically and the secondary outcome evaluated adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies on 524 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled complete ablation rate was 58.89% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 38.72-77.80, I = 91.76%) and 55.99% (95% CI = 44.66-67.05, I = 0) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.796), respectively. The pooled AE rates were 13.92% (95% CI = 4.71-26.01, I = 83.43%) and 31.62% (95% CI = 3.36-68.95, I = 87.9%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.299), respectively. The most common AE was abdominal pain at 7.27% (95% CI = 1.97-14.6, I = 68.2%) and 12.44% (95% CI = 0.00-39.24, I = 81.1%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.583), respectively. Correlation coefficient (r) was ‒0.719 (P = 0.008) between complete ablation and lesion size.
CONCLUSION
Complete ablation rates were comparable among both groups. AE rates were higher in the EUS EP group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.
PubMed: 36255024
DOI: 10.4103/EUS-D-20-00185 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore,...
BACKGROUND
There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore, this Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the optimal treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published until 15 June 2022. The outcome measures for this meta-analysis were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) of Grade 3-4. The Cochrane assessment tool for risk of bias was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included original studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022347273).
RESULTS
Our systematic review included 11 RCTs involving 1871 patients and 11 treatments other than chemotherapy. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall survival (OS) was the highest in adavosertib + gemcitabine compared with conventional chemotherapy, (HR=0.56,95%CI:0.35-0.91), followed by sorafenib + topotecan (HR=0.65, 95%CI:0.45-0.93). In addition, Adavosertib + Gemcitabine regimen had the highest PFS (HR=0.55,95%CI:0.34-0.88), followed by Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen (HR=0.48,95%CI:0.38-0.60) and the immunotherapy of nivolumab was the safest (HR=0.164,95%CI:0.312-0.871) with least adverse events of Grades 3-4.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicated that Adavosertib (WEE1 kinase-inhibitor) + gemcitabine regimen and Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen would be significantly beneficial to patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and could be preferred for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The immunotherapeutic agent, Nivolumab, is of considerable safety, with a low risk for grade-III or IV adverse events. Its safety is comparable to Adavosertib + gemcitabine regimen. Pazopanib + Paclitaxel (weekly regimen), Sorafenib + Topotecan/Nivolumab could be selected if there are contraindications of the above strategies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022347273.
PubMed: 37114128
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1114484 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat...
Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in patients with malignant melanoma: a systematic review and PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and non-comparative clinical studies.
Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat malignant melanoma. We conducted the first meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with other drugs in malignant melanoma. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-comparative clinical studies of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy, targeted medicine, and interferon to treat malignant melanoma in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Meta-analysis of RCT was performed using Review Manager (version 5.4), and non-comparative meta-analysis was performed using R (version 4.0.3). The primary outcome was the objective response rate. Depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies, the pooled outcomes and 95% CI were calculated using either random-effects or fixed-effect models. Subgroup outcomes were calculated with possible relevant variables. Sensitivity analyses were carried out by excluding each study from the highly heterogeneous pooled results in turn. Funnel plot and Begg's test were used to test the included studies' potential publication bias. The level of significance was set at < 0.05. This meta-analysis included 20 trials: five RCTs and 15 non-comparative clinical studies with a total of 23 bevacizumab intervention arms. In 14 treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with chemotherapy drugs such as fotemustine, dacarbazine, carboplatin/paclitaxel, and temozolomide. In six treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with targeted medicines such as imatinib, everolimus, sorafenib, erlotinib, and temsirolimus. There were also six treatment arms that used bevacizumab in combination with interferon. The pooled objective response rate was 15.8% (95% CI, 11.4%-20.2%). Bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly increased the overall survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel (HR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.49-0.85, < 0.01). Fatigue, nausea, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were the most common adverse events. The pooled incidence of hypertension of all bevacizumab arms in malignant melanoma was 32.4% (95% CI, 24.5%-40.3%). This study showed that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy might be effective and well-tolerated in patients with stage III or IV unresectable malignant melanoma. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=304625], identifier [CRD42022304625].
PubMed: 37521468
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1163805 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Epithelial ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide: 295,414 new cases were diagnosed in 2018, with 184,799 deaths. The lack of an effective screening... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epithelial ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide: 295,414 new cases were diagnosed in 2018, with 184,799 deaths. The lack of an effective screening strategy has led to the majority of women being diagnosed at an advanced stage. For these women, intravenous carboplatin combined with paclitaxel for six cycles is widely accepted as the standard first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, in combination with debulking surgery. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the optimal dosing schedule of paclitaxel when combined with carboplatin in this setting.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous weekly paclitaxel with that of tri-weekly paclitaxel, in combination with intravenous carboplatin, as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (defined as epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for relevant studies up to 15 November 2021, using keywords and MeSH terms. We additionally handsearched conference libraries, online clinical trial databases and screened through lists of retrieved references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus tri-weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin, for treatment of newly-diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the hazard ratio (HR) to estimate the primary efficacy outcomes progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We used the risk ratio (RR) to estimate the primary toxicity outcome of severe neutropenia and secondary outcomes of quality of life (QoL) and treatment-related adverse events. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We included individual participant data (IPD) from one of the included studies, ICON-8, provided by the study team. We analysed data using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.4 software. Additionally, we reconstructed IPD for PFS and OS data from published Kaplan-Meier curves from all studies and subsequently pooled these to analyse the two primary efficacy outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
From 2469 records, we identified four eligible RCTs with data for 3699 participants. All eligible studies were included in the main meta-analysis and reported on PFS and OS. There was likely a slight improvement in PFS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.98; 4 studies, 3699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little to no improvement in OS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06; 4 studies, 3699 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference in high-grade (grade 3 or 4) neutropenia when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43; 4 studies, 3639 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, weekly paclitaxel increased high-grade (grade 3 or 4) anaemia when compared to tri-weekly dosing (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.20; 4 studies, 3639 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in high-grade neuropathy when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.94; 4 studies, 3639 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall risk of detection bias and performance bias was low for OS, but was unclear for other outcomes, as treatments were not blinded. The risk of bias in other domains was low or unclear. We note that OS data were immature for three of the included studies (GOG-0262, ICON-8 and MITO-7).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for first-line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer likely improves PFS slightly (moderate-certainty evidence) but not OS (high-certainty evidence), compared to tri-weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin. However, this was associated with increased risk for high-grade anaemia, treatment discontinuation, dose delays and dose omissions (high- to low-certainty evidence). Our findings may not apply to women receiving bevacizumab in first-line therapy, those receiving treatment in the neo-adjuvant setting, or those with rare subtypes of clear cell or mucinous ovarian cancer.
Topics: Bevacizumab; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel
PubMed: 35188221
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012007.pub2 -
The British Journal of Surgery May 2024Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases is associated with a dismal prognosis. Normothermic catheter-based intraperitoneal chemotherapy and normothermic pressurized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastases is associated with a dismal prognosis. Normothermic catheter-based intraperitoneal chemotherapy and normothermic pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) are methods to deliver chemotherapy intraperitoneally leading to higher intraperitoneal concentrations of cytotoxic drugs compared to intravenous administration. We reviewed the effectiveness and safety of different methods of palliative intraperitoneal chemotherapy.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for articles studying the use of repeated administration of palliative intraperitoneal chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases, published up to January 2024. The primary outcome was overall survival.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included, representing a total of 999 patients. The pooled median overall survival was 14.5 months. The pooled hazard ratio of the two RCTs using intraperitoneal paclitaxel and docetaxel favoured the intraperitoneal chemotherapy arm. The median overall survival of intraperitoneal paclitaxel, intraperitoneal docetaxel and PIPAC with cisplatin and doxorubicin were respectively 18.4 months, 13.2 months and 9.0 months. All treatment methods had a relatively safe toxicity profile. Conversion surgery after completion of intraperitoneal therapy was performed in 16% of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, regardless of method of administration, is safe for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases. Conversion surgery after completion of the intraperitoneal chemotherapy is possible in a subset of patients.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Neoplasms; Stomach Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Antineoplastic Agents; Infusions, Parenteral; Palliative Care; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Paclitaxel
PubMed: 38722803
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znae116 -
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 -
International Journal of Nanomedicine 2020Paclitaxel is wildly used in chemotherapy, however, the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred frequently. Various novel nano-based paclitaxel delivery systems were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Paclitaxel is wildly used in chemotherapy, however, the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred frequently. Various novel nano-based paclitaxel delivery systems were developed. The aim performed systemically review and meta-analyses to evaluate the effect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of paclitaxel and its nano-based delivery systems.
METHODS
Systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Clinicalkey, Clinicaltrial.com, ASCO and ESMO. Data of adverse effect were analyzed to odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of studies was assessed with CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist. Statistical analysis was used WinBUGS software (version 1.4.3) with the NetMetaXL interface (version 1.6.1).
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies, including 7011 patients and 6 paclitaxel formulations fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all grade hypersensitivity reactions, comparing to SB-P, people with Lip-P had 0.19 times (95% CI= 0.02, 1.3) of chance, with Nab-P had 0.47 times (95% CI= 0.11, 1.40) of chance, with PPX had 0.44 times (95% CI= 0.03, 5.7) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In All grad neutropenia, comparing to Lip-P, people with SB-P had 0.83 times (95% CI= 0.15, 4.81) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.73 times (95% CI= 0.22, 2.42) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In leucopenia, comparing to Nab-P, people with SB-P had 0.66 times (95% CI= 0.50, 0.87) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.64 times (95% CI= 0.32, 1.16) of chance for all grade adverse effect. The rate of incidence in peripheral sensory neuropathy, myalgias and arthralgias tend to no significant differences between different formulations.
CONCLUSION
Nano-based paclitaxel delivery resulted in fewer hypersensitivity reactions than solvent-based delivery. However, the incidence of neutropenia and leucopenia was higher in nano-based than solvent-based paclitaxel delivery. Dose-dependent ADRs were more frequent in paclitaxel anticancer treatment.
Topics: Drug Delivery Systems; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Male; Middle Aged; Nanoparticles; Network Meta-Analysis; Paclitaxel
PubMed: 32210563
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S231407 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have been used in dialysis patients with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis, but whether DCBs have advantages over ordinary balloons is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have been used in dialysis patients with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis, but whether DCBs have advantages over ordinary balloons is still controversial. A meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of DCBs and common balloons (CBs) in the treatment of AVF stenosis. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the comparison of DCB angioplasty versus CB angioplasty for AVF stenosis in dialysis patients and reported at least one outcome of interest. The results showed that the DCB group had a higher first-stage patency rate of the target lesion 6 months [odds ratio, OR = 2.31, 95% confidence interval, CI: (1.69, 3.15), p < .01] and 12 months [OR = 2.09, 95% CI: (1.50, 2.91), p < .01] after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups at 6 months [OR = 0.85, 95% CI: (0.47, 1.52), p = .58] and 12 months [OR = 0.99, 95% CI: (0.60, 1.64), p = .97]. Compared with CB, DCBs as a new endovascular treatment for AVF stenosis have a higher primary patency rate of target lesions and can delay the occurrence of restenosis. There is no evidence that DCB can increase the mortality of patients.
Topics: Humans; Vascular Patency; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Constriction, Pathologic; Treatment Outcome; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Time Factors; Angioplasty, Balloon; Arteriovenous Fistula; Paclitaxel
PubMed: 37417371
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24078