-
BMC Cancer Feb 2021To compare the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) and solvent-based taxanes (sb-taxanes) as neoadjuvant therapy in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To compare the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) and solvent-based taxanes (sb-taxanes) as neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of breast cancer.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, published in English, about the comparison between nab-paclitaxel and sb-taxanes as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer were searched up to September 2019.
RESULTS
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with pathological complete response (pCR, defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0). Other main outcomes included long-term survival and adverse events (AEs). Seven studies (five RCTs and two cohorts) and 2949 patients were included. Neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel improved pCR compared with sb-taxanes (ypT0 ypN0: OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.27-1.83, P < 0.001; ypT0/is ypN0: OR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.17-1.68, P < 0.001). The benefits of nab-paclitaxel on pCR were persistent in HER2-negative, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (OR = 1.53, 95%CI: 1.07-2.19, P = 0.020), triple-negative breast cancer (weekly/every 2 weeks regimen; OR = 2.95, 95%CI: 1.54-5.67, P < 0.001), and tumors with Ki-67 > 20% (OR = 1.63, 95%CI: 1.26-2.12, P < 0.001). Patients treated with nab-paclitaxel had better event-free survival (EFS; HR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.57-0.85, P < 0.001) than with sb-taxanes. There were no differences in most of grade > 3 AEs between nab-paclitaxel and sb-taxanes (all P > 0.05), besides of any grade hypersensitivity (OR = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.11-0.72, P = 0.008), any grade (OR = 2.10, 95%CI: 1.37-3.23, P = 0.001) and grade > 3 (OR = 4.01, 95%CI: 2.51-6.41, P < 0.001) neuropathy.
CONCLUSION
Nab-paclitaxel is effective for the treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. Nab-paclitaxel could improve pCR rate and EFS compared with sb-taxanes and with reasonable toxicities.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Paclitaxel; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Solvents; Taxoids
PubMed: 33541289
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-07831-7 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Aug 2022Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) is an innovative form of taxane that has superior antitumor effects; however, the safety profile between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adverse Event Profile for Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Compared With Solvent-Based Taxanes in Solid-Organ Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
BACKGROUND
Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) is an innovative form of taxane that has superior antitumor effects; however, the safety profile between nab-paclitaxel and traditional taxanes remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the burden of adverse events (AEs) in patients with multiple malignancies receiving nab-paclitaxel compared with that in patients receiving traditional taxanes.
METHODS
Randomized clinical trials comparing nab-paclitaxel with traditional taxanes (solvent-based paclitaxel [sb-paclitaxel] or docetaxel) in the treatment of primary solid-organ malignancies were included if AEs were reported as an outcome. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary odds ratio (OR) of the relevant adverse outcomes related to nab-paclitaxel and traditional taxanes. Prespecified subgroup analyses based on intervention and doses, primary tumor sites, and different ethnic groups were also performed.
RESULTS
Twelve clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Grade 3/4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neurotoxicity were more frequent with nab-paclitaxel than with traditional taxanes. Nab-paclitaxel at 100 or 125 mg/m/w dosage was associated with fewer or similar grade 3/4 specific AEs. Allergy was less common with nab-paclitaxel. The median recovery times of neurotoxicity were 25, 64, and 37 days in patients receiving nab-paclitaxel, sb-paclitaxel, and docetaxel, respectively. Elevated incidences of specific AEs were more common in breast cancer and non-Asian patients than in other malignancies and ethnic groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
Nab-paclitaxel increased the risk of hematologic and non-hematologic AEs in general, but anaphylaxis was less common, and the recovery duration of neurotoxicity was shorter. Weekly administration of nab-paclitaxel at a lower dosage provided better tolerance.
Topics: Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel; Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Female; Humans; Nanoparticles; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Solvents; Taxoids
PubMed: 34963337
DOI: 10.1177/10600280211058385 -
Current Pharmaceutical Design 2021Background and Introduction: Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common dose-limiting side effects of solvent-based paclitaxel. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Background and Introduction: Peripheral neuropathy is one of the most common dose-limiting side effects of solvent-based paclitaxel. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX) and NK105 were developed to overcome the paclitaxel induced peripheral neuropathy. However, the incidence of peripheral neuropathy induced by PPX and NK105 was reported higher than solvent-based paclitaxel, but evidence remains inconsistent.
METHODS
The article was reported in accordance with PRISMA Guidelines (Registration number: CRD42021245313). We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the incidence and severity of peripheral neuropathy between solvent-based paclitaxel, PPX and NK105 mono-chemotherapy.
RESULTS
Results revealed that no significant difference exists between the incidence of all grade peripheral neuropathy among the solvent-based paclitaxel, PPX and NK105 treated groups. While, the incidence of high grade peripheral neuropathy induced by NK105 was lower than two other groups. Moreover, the overall survival was not improved in PPX compared with other groups. However, NK105 demonstrated significant longer overall survival in patients with cancer.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests more attention should be paid to the paclitaxel poliglumex re-formulation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Humans; Paclitaxel; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases; Polyglutamic Acid; Solvents
PubMed: 32940171
DOI: 10.2174/1381612826666200917145551 -
Medicine Feb 2016Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Is There Any Significant Difference in Stent Thrombosis Between Sirolimus and Paclitaxel Eluting Stents?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However, other meta-analyses have found SES to be superior to PES. Therefore, to solve this issue, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes between SES and PES during a follow-up period of about 1 or more years.We have searched Medline and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SES with PES. These RCTs have been carefully analyzed and then different types of ST including ST defined by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC), acute ST, late and very late ST have all been considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. A follow-up period of about 1 year, between 1 and 2 years as well as a longer follow-up period between 1 and 5 years have been considered. Data were retrieved and combined by means of a fixed-effect model because of a lower heterogeneity observed among the results. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies from 19 RCTs comprising of 16,724 patients (8115 patients in the SES group and 8609 patients in the PES group) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences in ST have been observed between SES and PES. Results were as follow: definite ST with OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18, P = 0.36; probable ST with OR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.42-1.21, P = 0.21; definite, probable and/or possible ST with OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.17, P = 0.57; acute ST with OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.38-2.56, P = 0.98; subacute ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.25; early ST with OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.53-1.25, P = 0.34; late ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.39-1.34, P = 0.30; very late ST with OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72-1.44, P = 0.92; and any ST with OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.69-1.07, P = 0.18. Long-term ST between 1 and 5 years with OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.71-1.22, P = 0.60 was also not significantly different.No significant difference in ST has been observed between patients treated with either SES or PES. Hence SES and PES can both be considered almost equally effective.
Topics: Aged; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sirolimus; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26844487
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002651 -
European Review For Medical and... Sep 2022Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant Folfirinox and Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Multi-agent regimens such as Folfirinox and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel have shown significant improvements compared with single-agent gemcitabine as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for BRPC and LAPC is still controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The eligible studies including prospective, retrospective, and randomized controlled trial related to Folfirinox and GNP as NAC for patients with BRPC or LAPC up to March 2022 were searched and assessed. Pooled analysis for chemotherapy response rate, resection rate, R0 resection rate, progress free survival, overall survival, and grade 3/4 events of toxicity were performed in the study.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with GNP, Folfirinox had higher resection rate (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.59-1.14) and R0 resection rate (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), better PFS (HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.55-1.12) and OS (HR=0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99), and without increasing severe toxicity rate (HR=0.95; 95% CI 0.71-1.28). There are no differences in rate of stable disease (HR=1.06; 95% CI 0.92-1.22) and partial/complete regression (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.59-1.23) between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher resection and R0 resection rate and better PFS and OS results were obtained in Folfirinox group compared with GNP group for patients with BRPC and LAPC. There was no increased severe toxicity rate for Folfirinox compared with GNP.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Deoxycytidine; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Oxaliplatin; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 36111933
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202209_29656 -
Heliyon Nov 2023The efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have yielded inconsistent findings.
Efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies.
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have yielded inconsistent findings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, including comparative and noncomparative trials and cohort studies, to assess the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC. The search covered PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov until October 2022. Efficacy outcomes (OR, PR, progressive disease, OS, and PFS) and safety outcomes (neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and sensory neuropathy) were analyzed.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included data from 35 studies (9 RCTs, 2 cohort studies, and 24 noncomparative studies). Nab-paclitaxel significantly improved OR rate (RR 1.35 [95% CI 1.19, 1.53], I = 36.6%; RR 1.67 [95% CI 1.30, 2.14], I = 4.3%) and PR rate (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.18, 1.53], I = 38.8%; RR 1.59 [95% CI 1.22, 2.07], I = 19.4%) compared to the control group. It further demonstrated more pronounced benefits in squamous cell carcinoma and as a second-line treatment. Pooled evidence from the RCTs also indicated improved OS (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.81, 0.99], I = 9.2%) and PFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.76, 0.93], I = 14.5%) However, evidence on the reduction of adverse events with nab-paclitaxel treatment was insufficient, and biases in study selection and detection may have influenced the results.
CONCLUSIONS
Nab-paclitaxel enhances OR, PR, PFS, and marginally improves OS in advanced NSCLC, particularly in patients with prior chemotherapy. Further research is needed to establish its safety advantages.
PubMed: 38027982
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21903 -
Medicine Dec 2022This paper aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line for patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This paper aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line for patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer.
METHODS
By searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid, any randomized clinical study comparing the effectiveness of paclitaxel and pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced gastroesophageal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the 23 eligible studies that were fully reviewed were eligible for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The total number of patients included in the meta-analysis was 635 in the pembrolizumab group and 596 in the paclitaxel group. In terms of objective response rate, there was no statistically significant difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel (relative risk = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.80-1.50, P = .57). Furthermore, Pembrolizumab and paclitaxel did not differ in terms of the rate of partial response statistically significantly from one another, according to the overall analysis (relative risk = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.57-1.52, P-value = .78).
CONCLUSION
There is no difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel in objective response rate. The objective response rate shows that doctors may consider either treatment for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, given the time to response is comparable across therapies.
Topics: Humans; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36482610
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031940 -
BMC Cancer Nov 2022Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is clinically aggressive breast cancer with a poor prognosis. Approximately 20% of TNBC has been found to express programmed death... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is clinically aggressive breast cancer with a poor prognosis. Approximately 20% of TNBC has been found to express programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), making it a potential therapeutic target. As a PD-L1 inhibitor, atezolizumab is a recently approved immunotherapeutic drug for TNBC, this meta-analysis (MA) was aimed to review the randomized controlled trial studies (RCTs) of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of TNBC and synthesize the evidence-based results on its effectiveness and safety.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel with nab-paclitaxel alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).
RESULTS
A total of six RCTs were included in this MA. For efficacy, although OS was not significantly prolonged with combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01], p=0.08), this combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.59, 0.87], p=0.0006) and ORR (RR 1.25, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01] p<0.00001). For safety, any AEs, haematological, gastrointestinal, and liver AEs showed no statistically significant differences between the atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combination group and nab-paclitaxel alone group. However, serious AEs, high grade, dermatological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs were significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel alone compared to atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combined (p-value range from <0.00001 to 0,02).
CONCLUSION
Atezolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel was associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of TNBC; however, this combination resulted in more toxicity compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. While nab-paclitaxel alone produced chemotherapy-related AEs, the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel produced AEs, especially immune-related AEs such as haematological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This research work of systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022297952).
Topics: Humans; Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 36335316
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10225-y -
Current Cancer Drug Targets May 2009A systematic review of cell models of acquired drug resistance not involving genetic manipulation showed that 80% of cell models had an inverse resistance relationship... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of cell models of acquired drug resistance not involving genetic manipulation showed that 80% of cell models had an inverse resistance relationship between cisplatin and paclitaxel. Here we systematically review genetically modified cell lines in which the inverse cisplatin/paclitaxel resistance phenotype has resulted. This will form a short list of genes which may play a role in the mechanism of the inverse resistance relationship as well as act as potential markers for monitoring the development of resistance in the clinical treatment of cancer. The literature search revealed 91 genetically modified cell lines which report toxicity or viability/apoptosis data for cisplatin and paclitaxel relative to their parental cell lines. This resulted in 26 genes being associated with the inverse cisplatin/paclitaxel phenotype. The gene with the highest number of genetically modified cell lines associated with the inverse resistance relationship was BRCA1 and this gene is discussed in detail with reference to chemotherapy response in cell lines and in the clinical treatment of breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Other genes associated with the inverse resistance phenotype included dihydrodiol dehydrogenase (DDH) and P-glycoprotein. Genes which caused cross resistance or cross sensitivity between cisplatin and paclitaxel were also examined, the majority of these genes were apoptosis associated genes which may be useful for predicting cross resistance. We propose that BRCA1 should be the first of a panel of cellular markers to predict the inverse cisplatin/paclitaxel resistance phenotype.
Topics: ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 1; Antineoplastic Agents; BRCA1 Protein; Cell Line, Tumor; Cisplatin; Female; Genes, BRCA1; Humans; Neoplasms; Oxidoreductases; Paclitaxel; Phenotype; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19442054
DOI: 10.2174/156800909788166592 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2023Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve... (Review)
Review
Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve patients' quality of life. This review looked at the oncological treatments that cause taste and smell alterations and their time of onset. We performed an integrative rapid review. The PubMed, PROSPERO, and Web of Science databases were searched in November 2022. The article screening and study selection were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were analyzed narratively. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. A high heterogeneity was detected. Taste disorders ranged between 17 and 86%, while dysosmia ranged between 8 and 45%. Docetaxel, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, anthracyclines, and oral 5-FU analogues were found to be the drugs most frequently associated with TSDs. This review identifies the cancer treatments that mainly lead to taste and smell changes and provides evidence for wider studies, including those focusing on prevention. Further studies are warranted to make conclusive indication possible.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Olfaction Disorders; Quality of Life; Smell; Taste; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 36768861
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032538