-
The Breast Journal 2013The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety profile of vinorelbine-based chemotherapy in different settings for the treatment of breast cancer.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety profile of vinorelbine-based chemotherapy in different settings for the treatment of breast cancer. We performed a computerized search using combinations of the following keywords: "breast cancer", "breast neoplasms", "trial", "vinorelbine" and "navelbine". A total of 20 trials were included in this analysis, with a total of 5,080 patients accrued. Taxane was associated with enhanced overall survival (OS; p = 0.027) and response rate (RR; p = 0.037) as compared with vinorelbine in monotherapy, but did not show significantly favored progression-free survival (PFS; p = 0.136). Vinorelbine alone was equivalent to fluoropyrimidine treatment in RR (p = 0.79) for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. For vinorelbine-combined regimens, the analysis showed that the vinorelbine group gave similar results as other regimens for OS (p = 0.849) and PFS (p = 0.143). The RR of vinorelbine-combined regimens was slightly better than that of the other regimens (OR, 1.17), but the difference was not statistically significant. In neoadjuvant setting, vinorelbine treatment was as active as AC (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) or DAC (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, docetaxel) regimens with respect to RR (p = 0.76) and pathologic complete response (pCR; p = 0.77), but showed lower occurrence of grade 3/4 adverse effects. The analysis also demonstrated that vinorelbine-containing therapy is effective as adjuvant, front-line or salvage therapy of metastatic breast cancer, even for patients who were previously treated with anthracyclines or taxanes.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Deoxycytidine; Disease-Free Survival; Doxorubicin; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine
PubMed: 23320984
DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12071 -
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 -
Anticancer Research Jul 2019The development of effective human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapies has been heralded as a significant milestone in breast cancer treatment,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The development of effective human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapies has been heralded as a significant milestone in breast cancer treatment, resulting in improvement of the outcome for those with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Despite these advantages, metastatic breast cancer is still regarded as an incurable disease. In heavily pretreated patients with increasingly limited options for palliative management, ensuring control of disease and maintenance of quality of life is an important goal. Vinorelbine and lapatinib is a combination used in later-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The current article presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective series of the vinorelbine/lapatinib doublet for efficacy and toxicity in metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Altogether seven prospective trials involving 235 evaluable patients were retrieved for analysis. Pooled estimates of response rate and disease control rate were 24.4% and 63.3% respectively. Furthermore, overall survival was 20.1 months and progression-free survival was 5.44 months. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were seen in fewer than 10% of cases. Vinorelbine/ lapatinib combination regimen may serve as an option for pre-treated patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Humans; Lapatinib; Receptor, ErbB-2; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Vinorelbine
PubMed: 31262849
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13471 -
Clinical Breast Cancer Oct 2016Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is treated with cytotoxic drugs or endocrine agents according to the site and extent of the disease, biology, previous treatments, and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is treated with cytotoxic drugs or endocrine agents according to the site and extent of the disease, biology, previous treatments, and the patient's condition, comorbidities, and wishes. In MBC, vinorelbine (VRB) and capecitabine (X; VRB + X) are chemotherapy drugs that hold activity as first or later lines of therapy. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of the VRB + X combination in HER2-negative (HER2) MBC. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL for phase II/III clinical trials that assessed VRB + X for patients with HER2 MBC. Pooled estimates of the overall response rate (RR), median progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were computed using random or fixed effects models. Twenty-seven studies were included in the analysis, encompassing a total of 1356 MBC patients. All were phase II (n = 21) or prospective/pilot (n = 5) trials, except for 1 that was a phase III controlled trial. The pooled estimate for the RR in first-line therapy (n = 16 trials) was 52.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.5%-59.2%). For second-line trials, data were available in n = 9 studies and the overall RR was 41% (95% CI, 31.2%-51.6%). The pooled estimates for median PFS and OS in first-line therapy were 7.3 (95% CI, 6.2-8.3) and 22.3 (95% CI, 20-24.5) months, respectively. Vinorelbine + X, with the dose and schedules currently used in clinical practice, appears to be an effective and feasible chemotherapy for MBC, for first- and also for second-line therapy.
Topics: Anthracyclines; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Administration Schedule; Feasibility Studies; Female; Humans; Receptor, ErbB-2; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine
PubMed: 27282844
DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2016.05.002 -
Thorax Jan 2002Lung cancer remains a devastating disease with few effective treatment options. Recent developments in chemotherapy have led to cautious optimism. This paper reviews the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lung cancer remains a devastating disease with few effective treatment options. Recent developments in chemotherapy have led to cautious optimism. This paper reviews the evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of four of the new generation drugs for patients with lung cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified from 11 electronic databases (including Medline, Cochrane library and Embase), reference lists and contact with experts and industry was performed to assess clinical effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine. Clinical effectiveness was assessed using the outcomes of patient survival, quality of life, and adverse effects. Cost effectiveness was assessed by development of a costing model and presented as incremental cost per life year saved (LYS) compared with best supportive care (BSC).
RESULTS
Of the 33 RCTs included, five were judged to be of good quality, 10 of adequate quality, and 18 of poor quality. Gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine as first line treatment and docetaxel as second line treatment appear to be more beneficial for non-small cell lung cancer than BSC and older chemotherapy agents, increasing patient survival by 2-4 months against BSC and some comparator regimes. These gains in survival do not appear to be at the expense of quality of life. Survival gains were delivered at reasonable levels of incremental cost effectiveness for vinorelbine, vinorelbine with cisplatin, gemcitabine, gemcitabine with cisplatin, and paclitaxel with cisplatin regimens compared with BSC.
CONCLUSION
Although the clinical benefits of the new drugs appear relatively small, their benefit to patients with lung cancer appears to be worthwhile and cost effective.
Topics: Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deoxycytidine; Docetaxel; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensitivity and Specificity; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 11809985
DOI: 10.1136/thorax.57.1.20 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2001The incidence of lung cancer is declining following a drop in smoking rates, but it is still the leading cause of death from cancer in England and Wales, with about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The incidence of lung cancer is declining following a drop in smoking rates, but it is still the leading cause of death from cancer in England and Wales, with about 30,000 deaths a year. Survival rates for lung cancer are poor everywhere, but they appear to be better in the rest of the European Community and the USA than in the UK. Only about 5 per cent of people with lung cancer survive for 5 years, and nearly all of these are cured by surgery after fortuitously early diagnosis. At present, only a small proportion of patients (probably about 5 per cent) with non-small-cell lung cancer are being given chemotherapy. Some centres treat a greater proportion.
OBJECTIVES
This review examines the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four of the newer drugs - vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel and docetaxel - used for treating the most common type of lung cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer). The first three drugs are used for first-line treatment, but at present docetaxel is used only after first-line chemotherapy has failed.
METHODS
This report was based on a systematic literature review and economic modelling, supplemented by cost data. RESULTS - NUMBER AND QUALITY OF STUDIES: A reasonable number of randomised trials were found - three for docetaxel, six for gemcitabine, five for paclitaxel and 13 for vinorelbine. The quality of the trials was variable but good overall. There was a wide range of comparators. Some trials compared chemotherapy with best supportive care (BSC), which involves care that aims to control symptoms, with palliative radiotherapy if needed, but not to prolong life. Others compared the newer drugs against previous drugs or combinations. RESULTS - SUMMARY OF BENEFITS: The gains in duration of survival with the new drugs are modest - a few months - but worthwhile in a condition for which the untreated survival is only about 5 months. There are also gains in quality of life compared with BSC, because on balance the side-effects of some forms of chemotherapy have less effect on quality of life than the effects of uncontrolled spread of cancer. RESULTS - COSTS: The total cost to the NHS of using these new drugs in England and Wales might be about GBP 10 million per annum, but is subject to a number of factors. There would be non-financial constraints on any increase in chemotherapy for the next few years, such as staffing; the number of patients choosing to have the newer forms of chemotherapy is not yet known; and the costs of the drugs may fall, for example, as generic forms appear. RESULTS - COST PER LIFE-YEAR GAINED: The available data did not provide an entirely satisfactory basis for cost-effectiveness calculations. The main problem was the lack of direct comparisons of the new drugs. In order to strengthen the analysis, three different modelling approaches were used: pairwise comparisons using trial data; cost-minimisation analysis, as if all the new regimens were of equal efficacy; and cost-effectiveness analysis pooling the results of several trials with different comparators, giving indirect comparisons of the new drugs by using BSC as the common comparator. A number of different scenarios were explored through extensive sensitivity analysis in each model. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost per life-year saved or incremental cost, versus BSC. There was insufficient evidence from which to derive cost per quality-adjusted life-year. In first-line treatment, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and the lower-dose paclitaxel plus cisplatin combinations generally performed well against BSC under a range of different scenarios and especially when given as a maximum of 3 cycles. Incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) versus BSC varied depending on scenario, but baseline figures based on trial data and protocols were: single-agent vinorelbine, pound 2194 per LYG; vinorelbine plus cisplatin, pound 5206; single-agent gemcitabine, pound 5690; gemcitabine plus cisplatin, pound 10,041; and paclitaxel plus cisplatin, pound 8537. In second-line chemotherapy, docetaxel gave a cost per LYG of pound 17,546, again well within the range usually accepted as cost-effective. However, in routine care, the impact of therapy would be regularly reviewed, and continuation would depend on response, side-effects, patient choice and clinical judgement. Chemotherapy would be stopped in non-responders, making chemotherapy more cost-effective. A 'real-life' scenario in which 60 per cent of patients receive only 1 or 2 cycles of chemotherapy gives much lower costs per LYG, with single-agent gemcitabine, single-agent vinorelbine, and paclitaxel plus platinum appearing to be cost-saving compared with BSC; the incremental cost of gemcitabine plus cisplatin would be pound 2478 per LYG, and of vinorelbine plus cisplatin, pound 2808. At the very least, gains in duration of survival were achieved without diminution of quality of life (at best, they improved quality) and with relatively low incremental cost. Comparisons among the individual drugs should be viewed with caution because they have had to be based on indirect comparisons. RESULTS - LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS: Each of the three models had limitations. The cost-effectiveness estimates from the pairwise comparisons were based on single studies. The cost-minimisation analysis assumed that the regimens have equal efficacy in practice. The cost-effectiveness analysis had to be based on pooling data from individual trials. The costs of BSC, inpatient stay and outpatient visits were from Scottish data. Median rather than mean data on duration of survival have been used in the analysis, because most of the trials reported only median data. Median survival and number of drug cycles were calculated by averaging across a number of studies, rather than being reliant on one particular study. The costs of the less expensive antiemetics cited in the trials were omitted. The use of more modern and costly antiemetics would have a modest detrimental effect on cost-effectiveness. In the absence of published data, an estimate was made of the cost of side-effects of chemotherapy, in particular hospital admissions, and applied to all the new regimens. In practice, admissions related to side-effects and their respective costs are likely to vary by regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
The new drugs for non-small-cell lung cancer extend life by only a few months compared with BSC, but appear to do so without net loss in quality of life and at a cost per LYG that is much lower than for many other NHS activities. Depending on assumptions used, these new drugs range from being cost-effective, as conventionally accepted, to being cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEWER DRUGS: One of the present constraints on chemotherapy is availability of inpatient beds. The advent of newer and gentler forms of chemotherapy given on an outpatient basis would not only overcome this, but it would allow more patients to be treated. This might apply particularly to older patients. The treatment of more patients would increase workload for oncologists, cancer nurses and pharmacists. The Government has already announced increased expenditure on staff for cancer care. The previously pessimistic attitudes to chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer are changing in the wake of the newer agents, and this shift is likely to increase referral. CONCLUSIONS - NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Recent advances in chemotherapy are welcome, but their effects remain small for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Much more research is needed into better drugs, better combinations, new ways of assessing the likelihood of response and especially direct comparisons between the new regimens. This research would be aided by having a greater proportion of patients involved in trials, but there will be infrastructure implications of increased participation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deoxycytidine; Docetaxel; England; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality of Life; Survival Rate; Taxoids; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine; Wales; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 12065068
DOI: 10.3310/hta5320 -
Pharmacological Research Mar 2020The Aidi injection contains multiple active ingredients, including astragaloside (Re, Rb1, and Rg1), ginsenoside, cantharidin, elentheroside E, and syringin, and it is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Clinical efficacy and safety of aidi injection combination with vinorelbine and cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 54 randomized controlled trials.
The Aidi injection contains multiple active ingredients, including astragaloside (Re, Rb1, and Rg1), ginsenoside, cantharidin, elentheroside E, and syringin, and it is administered with vinorelbine and cisplatin (NP) to treat non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of the Aidi injection with NP, and the optimal threshold and treatment regimen to produce the desired responses. We collected all studies regarding the Aidi injection with NP for NSCLC from Chinese and English databases (up to April 2019). Risk of methodological bias was evaluated for each study. Data for analysis were extracted using a standard data extraction form. Evidence quality was assessed following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We included 54 trials containing 4,053 patients for analysis. Combining the Aidi injection with NP significantly increased the objective response rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; confidence interval [CI], 1.23, 1.42), disease control rate (OR, 1.14; CI, 1.11, 1.18), and quality of life (OR, 1.80; CI, 1.61, 1.98), with decreased risks of myelosuppression, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, gastrointestinal reaction, and liver dysfunction. For patients with a Karnofsky Performance Status score of ≥60, the Aidi injection (50 mL/day, two weeks/cycle, with two to three cycles) treatment with vinorelbine (25 mg/m) and cisplatin (30-35 mg/m or 40-50 mg/m) might be the optimal regimen for producing the desired tumor response and achieving a good safety level. Most results were robust, and their quality was moderate. The results suggest that administration of the Aidi injection and concomitant NP is beneficial to NSCLC, and provide evidence for the optimal threshold and treatment regimen that may improve tumor response with a good safety level.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Injections; Lung Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vinorelbine
PubMed: 31935454
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104637 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2000SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the paclitaxel arm was 3.5 months. This was significantly... (Review)
Review
SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the paclitaxel arm was 3.5 months. This was significantly longer than the mitomycin control arm (1.6 months, p = 0.026). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL): The median length of overall survival in the paclitaxel arm was 12.7 months, compared with 8.4 months in the mitomycin arm. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (QUALITY OF LIFE): Quality of life was not reported. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (ECONOMIC EVALUATION): The only economic evaluation that compared paclitaxel with control (mitomycin) was submitted in confidence and has been removed from this report. Six economic evaluations involved comparisons of paclitaxel and docetaxel, which are given below. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL: Four randomised controlled Phase III trials were identified: 303 Study, 304 Study, Scand and Bonneterre. A total of 1092 patients were included. One of these was a preliminary report of a study before completion of accrual (Bonneterre). Patients in the 303 Study had previously received chemotherapy involving alkylating agents; those in the other three had received anthracyclines. There were six economic evaluations on docetaxel. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (QUALITY OF TRIALS): The 303 and 304 Studies were analysed on an intention to treat basis; the Scand trial excluded a single patient. The length of follow-up ranged from 11 months (Scand) to 23 months (303 Study). At least two-thirds of the participants in these trials had died. The Scand study recommended cross-over to alternate treatment on objective signs of disease progression. Patients crossing over in this way were violating the randomisation; however, no details were given concerning whether or not such patients were censored. In the economic analyses, there were no direct comparisons for the estimation of benefits. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the docetaxel arm ranged from 4.75 months (304 Study) to 7 months (Bonneterre). Patients in the docetaxel arms of the 304 and Scand studies had significantly longer progression-free survivals than controls (4.75 months versus 2.75 months, p = 0.001; 6.3 months versus 3 months, p = 0.001). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL): The median overall survival in the docetaxel arm ranged from 10.4 months (Scand) to 15 months (303 Study). Patients in the docetaxel arms of the 304 Study survived for significantly longer than the mitomycin plus vinblastine arm (11.4 months versus 8.7 months, p = 0.03). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (QUALITY OF LIFE): Quality of life was evaluated in two of the trials: the 303 and 304 Studies. There were no significant differences between docetaxel and control in either of these trials in terms of global health status, although differences were apparent on some subscales. These did not appear to follow a consistent pattern across the trials. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS): All six of these involved comparisons of paclitaxel and docetaxel, where the range of cost-utility ratios for incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was pound 1990-pound 2431. In addition, three analyses compared docetaxel and vinorelbine. The cost-utility ratio for incremental QALYs gained was pound 14,050 in the only one of these carried out in the UK. OVARIAN CANCER - FIRST-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL: Four randomised controlled Phase III trials were identified: EORTC, TITGANZ, E1193 and CA139-278. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Breast Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality of Life; Survival Analysis; Taxoids
PubMed: 11074389
DOI: No ID Found -
The Lancet. Oncology Oct 2011No standard monotherapy or combination palliative chemotherapy currently exists for patients with advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. In... (Review)
Review
No standard monotherapy or combination palliative chemotherapy currently exists for patients with advanced breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. In this systematic review we assess the current knowledge on the efficacy and safety of palliative single-agent chemotherapy drugs--capecitabine, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and liposomal doxorubicin--commonly used in daily clinical practice. We identified 22 studies, of which ten investigated capecitabine, nine investigated vinorelbine, three investigated gemcitabine, and one investigated liposomal doxorubicin. The greatest amount of information was available for capecitabine and vinorelbine. These two drugs showed good efficacy. The disease control rate differed significantly between the four drugs, which is relevant in terms of how well tumour symptoms can be improved and whether quality of life can be maintained or even improved. To obtain more evidence of the efficacy and safety of chemotherapeutic agents used in this pretreated population of advanced breast cancer patients, randomised comparisons of the various drugs, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted agents, are needed.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anthracyclines; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Deoxycytidine; Disease-Free Survival; Doxorubicin; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Middle Aged; Palliative Care; Quality of Life; Risk Assessment; Survival Rate; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 21621462
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70045-6 -
Molecular and Clinical Oncology Sep 2015The present study aimed to compare the effects of vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vinorelbine-free regimens. A meta-analysis of all the relevant...
The present study aimed to compare the effects of vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vinorelbine-free regimens. A meta-analysis of all the relevant randomized controlled trials was performed to investigate the improvement in pathological complete response (pCR), overall response rate (ORR) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS). The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies reporting randomized controlled trials comparing vinorelbine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy with vinorelbine-free regimens until July 2013. Risk ratios/odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the association between vinorelbine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and various efficacy outcomes. Fixed- or random-effect models were adopted to pool the data. Five eligible studies with a total of 1,495 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to vinorelbine-free chemotherapy, vinorelbine-based regimens demonstrated no significant improvement in clinical outcomes including: pCR [relative risk (RR)=1.016; 95% CI, 0.738-1.399; P=0.922], ORR (RR=1.048; 95% CI, 0.969-1.133; P=0.239) and BCS (RR=1.764; 95% CI, 0.734-4.239; P=0.205). However, vinorelbine-based regimens were associated with a lower incidence of grade 3-4 alopecia (OR, 0.617; 95% CI, 0.448-0.848; P=0.003). In a hierarchical analysis for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the proportion of subjects achieving pCR was significantly increased when HER2-amplified (RR=2.31; 95% CI, 1.20-4.43; P=0.01) and hormone receptor negative (RR=0.488; 95% CI, 0.263-0.908; P=0.023). The present review confirms that neoadjuvant chemotherapy vinorelbine-based regimens are unlikely to emerge as superior to pCR, ORR and BCS. Hierarchical analysis indicated that the HER2-amplified and hormone receptor-negative patients were significantly associated with a pathological response rate.
PubMed: 26623067
DOI: 10.3892/mco.2015.576