-
Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) Aug 2013The angiogenesis inhibitor pazopanib has been approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell cancer (RCC) and soft tissue sarcoma. Severe and fatal hepatotoxicity has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The angiogenesis inhibitor pazopanib has been approved for the treatment of advanced renal cell cancer (RCC) and soft tissue sarcoma. Severe and fatal hepatotoxicity has been observed in its clinical studies. This analysis was conducted to determine the risk of liver toxicity by a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Databases from PubMed, Web of Science and abstracts presented at ASCO meetings up to January, 2012 were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included prospective trials of cancer patients treated with pazopanib starting at 800 mg daily. Summary incidence rates, relative risks, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 1478 patients from 10 clinical trials were included. The incidences of all-grade aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT), and bilirubin elevation were 39.6% (95% CI 31.2-48.6%), 41.4% (95% CI 34.1-49.0%), and 24.8% (95% CI 16.3-35.3%), respectively. The incidences of high-grade (Grade 3 and 4) AST, ALT and bilirubin elevation were 6.9% (95% CI 5.5-8.6%), 9.4% (95% CI 7.8-11.4%), and 3.4% (2.4-5.0%), respectively. In comparison with placebo, pazopanib significantly increased the risk of high-grade AST elevation (RR 6.56, 95% CI 2.04-21.07, p = 0.002) and ALT elevation (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.88-10.0, p = 0.001). However, the risks of high-grade bilirubin elevation (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.47-3.64) and fatal hepatotoxicity (RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.12-51.91, p = 0.55) were not significantly elevated.
CONCLUSION
The use of pazopanib was associated with a significantly increased risk of severe non-fatal hepatotoxicity in cancer patients.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Humans; Indazoles; Liver; Neoplasms; Pyrimidines; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 23594201
DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2013.782103 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in women. Historically, women with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer have had limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in women. Historically, women with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer have had limited treatment options. New anti-angiogenesis therapies, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting agents, offer an alternative strategy to conventional chemotherapy; they act by inhibiting the growth of new blood vessels, thereby restricting tumour growth by blocking the blood supply.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of VEGF targeting agents in the management of persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, online registers of clinical trials, and abstracts of scientific meetings up until 27 May 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We examined randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of VEGF targeting agents alone or in combination with conventional chemotherapy or other VEGF targeting agents.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently screened the results of search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to the standard methods expected by Cochrane. The certainty of evidence was assessed via the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 1634 records were identified. From these, we identified four studies with a total of 808 participants for inclusion. We also identified two studies that were awaiting classification and nine ongoing studies. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy Treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy may result in lower risk of death compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.95; 1 study, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there are probably more specific adverse events when compared to chemotherapy alone, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (risk ratio (RR) 18.00, 95% CI 2.42 to 133.67; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); serious thromboembolic events (RR 4.5, 95% CI 1.55 to 13.08; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and hypertension (RR 13.75, 95% CI 5.07 to 37.29; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be a higher incidence of serious haemorrhage (RR 5.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 22.56; 1 study, 440 participants; low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of serious adverse events is probably higher (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.79; 1 study, 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 295,164 per quality-adjusted life-year (1 study, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cediranib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy Treatment with cediranib plus chemotherapy may or may not result in similar risk of death when compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.65; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.57; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious haemorrhage (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 109.49; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious thromboembolic events (RR 3.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 80.59; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and serious hypertension (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.62; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, there may or may not be a similar incidence of serious adverse events compared to chemotherapy alone (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.78; 1 study, 67 participants; low-certainty evidence). Apatinib plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy versus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy Treatment with apatinib plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy may or may not result in similar risk of death compared to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy/brachytherapy alone (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.60; 1 study, 52 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, hypertension events may occur at a higher incidence as compared to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy/brachytherapy alone (RR 5.14, 95% CI 1.28 to 20.73; 1 study, 52 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pazopanib plus lapatinib versus lapatinib Treatment with pazopanib plus lapatinib may result in higher risk of death compared to lapatinib alone (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.31; 1 study, 117 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.58; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and thromboembolic events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.50; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of hypertension events is probably higher (RR 12.00, 95% CI 2.94 to 49.01; 1 study, 152 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may or may not be a similar incidence of serious adverse events as compared to lapatinib alone (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.26; 1 study, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pazopanib versus lapatinib Treatment with pazopanib may or may not result in similar risk of death as compared to lapatinib (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38; 1 study, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.12; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.40; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and thromboembolic events (RR 3.08, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.42; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of hypertension events is probably higher (RR 11.81, 95% CI 2.89 to 48.33; 1 study, 150 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of serious adverse events may or may not be similar as compared to lapatinib (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-certainty evidence in favour of the use of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. However, bevacizumab probably increases specific adverse events (gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae, thromboembolic events, hypertension) and serious adverse events. We found low-certainty evidence that does not support the use of cediranib plus chemotherapy, apatinib plus chemotherapy, apatinib plus chemotherapy/brachytherapy, or pazopanib monotherapy. We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that pazopanib plus lapatinib worsens outcomes. The VEGF inhibitors apatinib and pazopanib may increase the probability of hypertension events.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Bevacizumab; Bias; Brachytherapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Confidence Intervals; Female; Gastric Fistula; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Hypertension; Indazoles; Intestinal Fistula; Intestinal Perforation; Lapatinib; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Thromboembolism; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Young Adult
PubMed: 33661538
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013348.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The CDK 4/6 inhibitors, including palbociclib and ribociclib, are the standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor...
BACKGROUND
The CDK 4/6 inhibitors, including palbociclib and ribociclib, are the standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer. Proton pump inhibitors are one of the most globally prescribed types of medications as part of the treatment for gastroesophageal reflux and heartburn complaints. Medication interactions have been demonstrated, leading to a decrease in the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs such as capecitabine and pazopanib. However, their role and interaction with targeted therapies such as CDK inhibitors are still poorly understood.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases for studies that investigated the use of PPI with CDK 4/6 inhibitors versus CDK4/6 alone for advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We systematically searched for the currently available CDK inhibitors: palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib. We computed hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models for all endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics. R, version 4.2.3, was used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 2,737 patients with advanced breast cancer in 9 studies were included, with six studies described the status menopausal as 217 (7.9%) pre-menopause and 1851 (67.6%) post-menopause, for endocrine sensitivity only five studies described1489 (54.4%) patients were endocrine-sensitive and 498 (182%) endocrine-resistent, 910 (33.2%) patients used PPIs. The overall Progression-Free Survival was in favor of the PPI non-users (HR 2.0901; 95% CI 1.410-2.9498; < 0.001). As well as the subgroup taking palbociclib, revealing statistical relevance for the PPI non-users (HR 2.2539; 95% CI 1.3213-3.8446; = 0.003) and ribociclib subgroup with a slight decrease in hazard ratio (HR 1.74 95% CI 1.02-2.97; = 0.04; I = 40%). In the multivariate analysis, there was no statistical signifance with ECOG (HR 0.9081; 95% CI 0.4978-16566; p 0.753) and Age (HR 1.2772; 95% CI 0.8790-1.8559; = 0.199). Either, the univariate analysis did not show statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
Women with HR+ and HER2-advanced metastatic breast undergoing treatment with targeted therapies, specifically CDK 4/6 inhibitors, should be monitored for the use of proton pump inhibitors. Therefore, the use of PPIs should be discussed, weighing the advantages and disadvantages for specific cases. It should be individualized based on the necessity in clinical practice for these cases.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
identifier CRD42023484755.
PubMed: 38769999
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1352224 -
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Jun 2023Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a convenient alternative to whole-blood sampling for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in clinical practice. The aim of this study was...
BACKGROUND
Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a convenient alternative to whole-blood sampling for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies that have examined and used DBS sampling for the TDM of chemotherapy and targeted therapy agents for the treatment of patients with solid cancers.
METHODS
Using the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search of EMBASE and PUBMED was performed to identify eligible clinical studies that used DBS sampling to monitor chemotherapy or targeted therapy for the treatment of solid cancers.
RESULTS
Of the 23 eligible studies, 3 measured concordance between drug concentrations determined by DBS and whole-blood, 7 developed analytical methods of DBS, and 13 performed both. DBS was employed for the TDM of everolimus (3 studies), vemurafenib (2 studies), pazopanib (2 studies), abiraterone (2 studies), mitotane, imatinib, adavosertib, capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, etoposide, irinotecan, docetaxel, gefitinib, palbociclib/ribociclib, and paclitaxel (one study each). The studies included a median of 14 participants (range: 6-34), with 10-50 μL of blood dispensed on DBS cards (20) and Mitra devices (3). Seventeen of the 20 studies that used DBS found no significant impact of the hematocrit on the accuracy and precision of the developed method in the normal hematocrit ranges (eg, 29.0%-59.0%). DBS and plasma or venous concentrations were highly correlated (correlation coefficient, 0.872-0.999) for all drugs, except mitotane, which did not meet a predefined level of significance (r > 0.872; correlation coefficient, r = 0.87, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
DBS provides an alternative sampling strategy for the TDM of many anticancer drugs. Further research is required to establish a standardized approach for sampling and processing DBS samples to allow future implementation.
Topics: Humans; Mitotane; Antineoplastic Agents; Everolimus; Neoplasms; Vemurafenib
PubMed: 36750444
DOI: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000001082 -
Seminars in Oncology 2020Patients with severe renal impairment or undergoing hemodialysis are usually excluded from clinical trials. Available data regarding safety and activity of systemic...
BACKGROUND
Patients with severe renal impairment or undergoing hemodialysis are usually excluded from clinical trials. Available data regarding safety and activity of systemic therapies (ST) in hemodialyzed patients are scarce.
METHODS
Clinical data were searched through PubMed database until April 2020 according to PRISMA criteria. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of ST were reported.
RESULTS
Among 270 references, 56 reports were evaluated in full text: 41 were included for efficacy and 42 for safety analysis (sunitinib n = 68, bevacizumab n = 6, everolimus n = 28, temsirolimus n = 17, sorafenib n = 55, axitinib n = 13, pazopanib n = 13, nivolumab n = 18, cabozantinib n = 0, lenvatinib n = 0, and ipilimumab n = 0). Twelve of the reports included PK assessment among dialyzed patients. Hemodialysis did not seem to modify the expected efficacy and safety of each compound among patients undergoing hemodialysis. PK assessments were not modified in comparison with a population not undergoing dialysis.
CONCLUSION
Targeted and Immune therapies seem to be effective and can be used among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Due to frailty and comorbidities associated to chronic hemodialysis enhanced vigilance for these therapies within this specific population is recommended. Dedicated prospective clinical trials would definitely help to obtain data with a higher level of evidence.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Female; Humans; Immunotherapy; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 32522380
DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.05.001