-
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 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Dec 2015Taxanes, including paclitaxel and docetaxel, are indispensable for treatment of cancer. Development of toxicity frequently necessitates dose reduction or discontinuation... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Taxanes, including paclitaxel and docetaxel, are indispensable for treatment of cancer. Development of toxicity frequently necessitates dose reduction or discontinuation of therapy, despite clinical response.
OBJECTIVE
Pharmacogenetic studies were reviewed for identification of genetic variants possibly underlying individual susceptibility to adverse events.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic search in Pubmed and Embase for pharmacogenetic reports with focus on commonly reported taxane-related gastrointestinal, hematological and neurological toxicities in adult patients with solid tumors. The findings from a total of 51 eligible studies are presented in a comprehensive way.
RESULTS
Most frequently investigated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were located in genes encoding proteins affecting pharmacokinetics, such as drug transporters and genes of the cytochrome P450 family. Inconclusive data for risk of toxicity as well as for effects on drug exposure were reported on variants in ABCB1, CYP3A4, CYP3A5 and, for paclitaxel, CYP2C8. Interest is also dedicated towards genes involved in pharmacodynamics, such as detoxification of reactive oxygen species, DNA repair, neuronal processes and microtubule function. Recent studies include variants in TUBB2A, EPHA5 and EPHA6 for a possible association with neurotoxicity. Variations in methodological approach, sample size, study design, treatment schedule and end-point of toxicity affect consistency of results.
CONCLUSION
This review illustrates the complexity to well design pharmacogenetic studies for validation of SNPs that may clarify differences in taxane-induced toxicities among individuals. Novel genes encoding cellular targets of taxanes deserve further analysis by means of robust patient cohorts and definition of objective end-points.
Topics: ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B; Antineoplastic Agents; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C8; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Docetaxel; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Hematologic Diseases; Humans; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Paclitaxel; Pharmacogenetics; Polymorphism, Genetic; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Receptor, EphA5; Receptor, EphA6; Taxoids; Tubulin
PubMed: 26585358
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.10.010 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias. For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Mouth Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 34929047
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006386.pub4 -
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 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Sep 2019Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of carboplatin- versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A meta-analysis by the Cochrane group (2013) was updated. Systematic searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings were conducted to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013-January 2018 which compared carboplatin and cisplatin combined with: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, irinotecan, or pemetrexed. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), one-year OS, objective response rate (ORR), grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities, and HRQoL.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs (2,048 patients) were identified from 4,139 records for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96, 1.21) and one-year OS (relative risk [RR]: 0.97, CI: 0.89, 1.07) between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A small effect on ORR favouring cisplatin was detected (RR = 0.88; CI: 0.78, 0.99). Differences in drug-related toxicities were observed between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy for thrombocytopenia, anaemia, neurotoxicity, and the risk of nausea/vomiting. Three RCTs comparing HRQoL between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy found no significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated evidence base corroborates findings of previous meta-analyses showing no difference in OS between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, despite a slight benefit in ORR for cisplatin. Toxicity profiles should be considered alongside patients' comorbidities in the choice of therapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31446995
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.07.010 -
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 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jun 2016Docetaxel or Epirubicin-based regimens are both approved for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. We perform a systemic review with metanalysis to evaluate the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Docetaxel or Epirubicin-based regimens are both approved for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. We perform a systemic review with metanalysis to evaluate the efficacy and toxicities of docetaxel-based chemotherapy compared with epirubicin-containing regimens. A metaanalysis of randomized studies in accordance with the preference guidelines for reported items in systematic reviews and meta-analyses is performed in which the databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the ASCO University Meeting were searched for relevant publications. The primary outcome was efficacy, the secondary toxicities. A total of 553 cases were included in the meta-analysis; 278 received epirubicin-based treatment and 313 received docetaxel. The pooled risk ratio to achieve an objective response and a disease control rate were 1.08 (95% CI 0.85-1.37; P=0.52) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.75-1.08; P=0.27) respectively. EPI arm showed a decrease in the risk of neutropenia, anemia, fatigue, asthenia and diarrhea, paraesthesia; docetaxel arm showed a decrease in the risk of leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, anorexia, nausea, nausea-vomiting, stomatitis and neutropenic fever. The results of our study suggest a similar activity of docetaxel and epirubicin-based chemotherapeutic regimens in metastatic gastric cancer. Other parameters as, comorbidity, concomitant diseases and prior therapies should be taken into account to address the clinician's choice in selecting the best therapeutical approach for any single patient.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Docetaxel; Epirubicin; Humans; Neoplasm Staging; Stomach Neoplasms; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27083592
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.04.001 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2007A systematic review was undertaken and an economic model constructed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere,... (Review)
Review
A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was undertaken and an economic model constructed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis) in combination with prednisone/prednisolone for the treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (mHRPC). The main comparators considered were other established chemotherapy regimens and best supportive care.
DATA SOURCES
Twenty-one resources (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched to April 2005.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Data from included studies were extracted and quality assessed. Where appropriate, outcomes were synthesised using formal analytic approaches. A new economic model was developed in order to establish the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel compared with a range of potential comparators. A separate review was undertaken to identify sources of utility data required to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken to explore the robustness of the main analysis to alternative assumptions related to quality of life. Monte Carlo simulation was used to propagate uncertainty in input parameters through the model in such a way that the results of the analysis could be presented with their uncertainty. The impact of uncertainty surrounding the decision was established using value of information and implementation approaches.
RESULTS
Seven randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria. A direct comparison of docetaxel plus prednisone versus mitoxantrone plus prednisone in an open-label randomised trial showed improved outcomes for docetaxel plus prednisone in terms of overall survival, quality of life, pain and prostate-specific antigen decline. Two other chemotherapy regimens that included docetaxel: docetaxel plus estramustine and docetaxel plus prednisone plus estramustine, also showed improved outcomes in comparison with mitoxantrone plus prednisone. Indirect comparison suggested that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be superior to corticosteroids alone in terms of overall survival. Conclusions on cost-effectiveness were primarily informed by the results of the in-house model. This indicated that mitoxantrone plus a corticosteroid is probably cheaper and more effective than corticosteroid alone. Compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone/prednisolone, the use of docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone (3-weekly) appears cost-effective only if the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with docetaxel plus prednisone (3-weekly) remained fairly robust to these variations with estimates ranging from 28,000 pounds to 33,000 pounds per QALY. Value of information analysis revealed that further research is potentially valuable. Given a maximum acceptable ratio of 30,000 pounds per QALY, the expected value of information was estimated to be approximately 13 million pounds.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review of the research suggests that docetaxel plus prednisone seems to be the most effective treatment for men with mHRPC. The economic model suggests that treatment with docetaxel plus prednisone/prednisolone is cost-effective in patients with mHRPC provided the NHS is prepared to pay 33,000 pounds per additional QALY. Future research should include the direct assessment of quality of life and utility gain associated with different treatments, including the effect of adverse events of treatment, using generic instruments, which are suitable for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analyses.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Docetaxel; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Male; Models, Economic; Neoplasm Metastasis; Prednisone; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 17181985
DOI: 10.3310/hta11020 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Dec 2021Docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab, with or without pertuzumab (TCH(P)), has become the preferred (neo)adjuvant regimen for HER2-positive breast cancer. However, its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab, with or without pertuzumab (TCH(P)), has become the preferred (neo)adjuvant regimen for HER2-positive breast cancer. However, its associated febrile neutropenia (FN) risk is unclear: pivotal studies reported FN risks < 10%, but in clinical practice, a high FN rate (> 20%) was observed. This systematic review and meta-analysis determine the FN risk associated with TCH(P) and the indication for primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (PP G-CSF).
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched for full-text English articles reporting the FN incidence in early breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant TCH(P). The primary endpoint was the pooled crude FN incidence in patients treated without PP G-CSF using the random effects method. Secondary endpoints were the FN risk with PP G-CSF support, age-related differences in FN and differences in risk with TCH versus TCHP.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review. The pooled estimates of FN incidences were 27.6% (95% CI 18.6 to 37.1) in patients who did not receive PP G-CSF (primary meta-analysis, 9 studies, n = 889) versus 5.0% (95% CI 2.6 to 8.0) in patients administered PP G-CSF (secondary meta-analysis, 7 studies, n = 445). Two studies reported non-significant age-related differences in FN. The risk comparison between TCH and TCHP was inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
The crude FN risk associated with (neo)adjuvant TCH(P) is over 20%, the upper limit above which the international guidelines unanimously advise PP G-CSF administration. G-CSF prophylaxis effectively reduces FN risk and should become the standard of care with (neo)adjuvant TCH(P).
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Febrile Neutropenia; Female; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans
PubMed: 34533681
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06387-1