-
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 -
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 -
Immunotherapy Mar 2023This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum versus US FDA-approved/National... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum versus US FDA-approved/National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapies for untreated advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without / aberrations. Bayesian network meta-analysis was the base-case analysis and included assessment of fixed and random effects, and independent and simultaneous models, adjusting for baseline risk (placebo response). Chemotherapy was the common comparator. Sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival than atezolizumab + platinum + nab-paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.40-0.82) and nivolumab + ipilimumab + pemetrexed + platinum (HR: 0.66; 95% CrI: 0.48-0.92). Sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum and pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed comparable progression-free survival (HR: 0.96; 95% CrI: 0.71-1.30). There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR range: 0.61-0.81) or overall response rates (odds ratio [OR] range: 0.29-0.75) between sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum and the other ICI combinations. The incidence of high-grade adverse events was higher with sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum than with nivolumab + ipilimumab (OR: 0.46; 95% CrI: 0.33-0.64) or without chemotherapy (OR: 0.25; 95% CrI: 0.19-0.34), with no significant difference between sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum and the other ICI combinations. Sintilimab + pemetrexed + platinum showed comparable efficacy and safety versus US standard-of-care first-line ICI combinations for advanced/metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Pemetrexed; Platinum; Bayes Theorem; Ipilimumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Nivolumab; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36748406
DOI: 10.2217/imt-2022-0252 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Mar 2023To develop recommendations involving targeted therapies for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer.
PURPOSE
To develop recommendations involving targeted therapies for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer.
METHODS
The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice.
RESULTS
Eighteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (AC) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5, first-line therapy with nivolumab and chemotherapy (CT) is recommended. For HER2-negative patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) AC and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5, first-line therapy with nivolumab and CT is recommended. First-line therapy with pembrolizumab and CT is recommended for HER2-negative patients with esophageal or GEJ AC and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 1%, nivolumab plus CT, or nivolumab plus ipilimumab is recommended; for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10, pembrolizumab plus CT is recommended. For patients with HER2-positive gastric or GEJ previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic AC, trastuzumab plus pembrolizumab is recommended, in combination with CT. For patients with advanced gastroesophageal or GEJ AC whose disease has progressed after first-line therapy, ramucirumab plus paclitaxel is recommended. For HER2-positive patients with gastric or GEJ AC who have progressed after first-line therapy, trastuzumab deruxtecan is recommended. In all cases, participation in a clinical trial is recommended as it is the panel's expectation that targeted treatment options for gastroesophageal cancer will continue to evolve.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Esophageal Neoplasms; Nivolumab; B7-H1 Antigen; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Stomach Neoplasms; Esophagogastric Junction; Immunotherapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36603169
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02331 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been an emerging treatment strategy for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Some studies have shown that high...
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been an emerging treatment strategy for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Some studies have shown that high expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) can achieve a better response of clinical efficacy. However, the efficacy of ICIs in advanced TNBC remains controversial. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the correlation of PD-L1 expression with the efficacy of ICIs in patients with advanced TNBC. We conducted a systematic search using four databases until March 2022 to obtain eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The quality of the studies was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Hazard ratio (HR) was extracted to evaluate the relationship between PD-L1 expression and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced TNBC. Five randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with 3104 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that ICIs could significantly improve the OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.98, = 0.03) in PD-L1 positive TNBC group. In the subgroup analysis, longer OS was observed (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.60-0.82, = 0.00001) in PD-L1 positive TNBC patients receiving ICIs alone or ICIs combined with nab-paclitaxel. In terms of PFS, PFS was significantly improved (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58-0.79, < 0.00001) in PD-L1 positive patients receiving first-line ICIs and chemotherapy compared to those with ICIs alone. No significant improvement was observed for OS or PFS in PD-L1 negative group. Our study indicated significant improvement for OS in advanced TNBC with ICIs therapy in the PD-L1 positive status, and ICIs alone or ICIs combined with nab-paclitaxel might be a excellent choice in terms of OS. Although PFS has no significant benefit in PD-L1 positive patients, the subgroup analysis showed that ICIs combined with chemotherapy could achieve the PFS benefit in the first-line treatment. However, further clinical studies are needed to validate our conclusions due to limited relevant research.
PubMed: 36532783
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1004821 -
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 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a well-established role in revascularization for coronary artery disease. We performed network meta-analysis to provide...
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a well-established role in revascularization for coronary artery disease. We performed network meta-analysis to provide evidence on optimal intervention strategies for lesions in small coronary arteries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Enrolled studies were randomized clinical trials that compared different intervention strategies [balloon angioplasty (BA), biolimus-coated balloon (BCB), bare-metal stent (BMS), new-generation drug-eluting stent (New-DES), older generation sirolimus-eluting stent (Old-SES), paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB), and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES)] for lesions in small coronary arteries. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
RESULTS
A total of 23 randomized clinical trials comparing seven intervention devices were analyzed. In terms of the primary outcome, New-DES was the intervention device with the best efficacy [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), 89.1%; mean rank, 1.7], and the Old-SES [risk ratio (RR), 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-2.64] and PCB (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.72-2.74) secondary to New-DES, but there was no statistically significant difference between these three intervention devices. All DES and PCB were superior to BMS and BA for MACE in both primary and sensitivity analysis. For secondary outcomes, there was no association between all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) with any intervention strategy, and additionally, the findings of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were similar to the primary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Paclitaxel-coated balloon yielded similar outcomes to New-DES for lesions in small coronary arteries. Therefore, this network meta-analysis may provide potential support for PCB as a feasible, effective, and safe alternative intervention strategy for the revascularization of small coronary arteries.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42022338433].
PubMed: 36451921
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1017833 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022The Platinum-based combination has been proven to have an outstanding effect on patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), but the best...
The Platinum-based combination has been proven to have an outstanding effect on patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), but the best scientific combination has not been established yet. The present study is aimed to seek the best treatment plan for PSROC. We did a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis, during which lite before March 2022 were retrieved on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled databases. We included randomized controlled clinical trials comparing chemotherapy combinations with other treatments for patients with PSROC. The important outcomes concerned were progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary outcome), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and AEs-related discontinuation. All outcomes were ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. 26 trials involving 10441 patients were retrieved in this study. For the initial treatment of PSROC, carboplatin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus bevacizumab had the best PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.51-0.68]; Carboplatin plus paclitaxel plus bevacizumab resulted in the best OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.35) and ORR [odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.35]. For the maintenance therapy in PSROC, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) following platinum-based chemotherapy provided the best PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.61-0.68), the highest frequency of adverse events of grade three or higher (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.44) but the treatment discontinuation was generally low. Subgroup analysis suggested that trabectedin plus PLD was comparable to single platinum in prolonging PFS in the platinum-free interval (6-12 months). Both platinum-based chemotherapy plus PARPi and platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab had higher survival benefits than other treatments in PSROC. Trabectedin plus PLD might be a potential alternative treatment strategy for the partially platinum-sensitive subpopulation with intolerance to platinum. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?], identifier [CRD42022326573].
PubMed: 36438821
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1010626 -
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Oct 2023Although platinum-based chemotherapy can improve pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the impact on survival of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although platinum-based chemotherapy can improve pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the impact on survival of platinum-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is still controversial. Our meta-analysis aimed at analyzing survival with platinum-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with TNBC. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and several major conferences up to January 2021. Fixed and random models were used for our meta-analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and side effects data were extracted from the included literature in addition to the corresponding pooled hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of nine studies involving 3247 patients were included. The pooled analysis suggested that compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy could further improve DFS (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.45-0.67, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.70, p < 0.01) in patients with TNBC. The subgroup analysis showed that platinum-based chemotherapy could further improve DFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.74, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.83, p < 0.01) in neoadjuvant chemotherapy and DFS (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.69, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.69, p < 0.01) in adjuvant chemotherapy compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with TNBC. In addition, compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy without anthracycline chemotherapy could further improve DFS (HR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.70, p < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.46, 95%CI 0.19-0.72, p < 0.01) in patients with TNBC. Compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, all-grade diarrhea, fatigue, and grade ≥ 3 anemia were higher in platinum-based chemotherapy. In contrast, all-grade anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, myalgia/arthralgia, cardiac toxicity were lower in platinum-based chemotherapy; grade ≥ 3 leukopenia, neutropenia and myalgia/arthralgia were also lower. Compared with anthracycline- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy was more associated with improved DFS and OS in TNBC patients. The benefit of survival is consistent with platinum-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. The side effects of platinum-based chemotherapy are tolerable.
Topics: Humans; Female; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms; Platinum; Myalgia; Breast Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Prognosis; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Neutropenia; Anthracyclines; Arthralgia; Anemia; Neoadjuvant Therapy
PubMed: 36422737
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-022-00940-y -
Clinical & Translational Oncology :... Apr 2023We aimed to determine the effect of dual anti-HER2 blockade compared to monotherapy on clinically important outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dual neoadjuvant blockade plus chemotherapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of women with non-metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
We aimed to determine the effect of dual anti-HER2 blockade compared to monotherapy on clinically important outcomes.
METHODS
We carried out a systematic review updated until July 2022. The outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), clinical response, event-free survival, and overall survival.
RESULTS
We identified eleven randomized clinical trials (2836 patients). When comparing paclitaxel plus dual treatment versus paclitaxel plus trastuzumab or lapatinib, dual treatment was associated with a higher probability of achieving a pathological complete response (OR 2.88, 95% CI 2.02-4.10). Addition of a taxane to an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil, plus lapatinib or trastuzumab, showed that the dual treatment was better than lapatinib alone (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.41-4.34), or trastuzumab alone (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.13-3.16). Dual treatment may result in an increase in survival outcomes and tumour clinical response, although such benefits are not consistent for all the combinations studied.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of dual blockade with combinations of trastuzumab and pertuzumab can be recommended for the neoadjuvant treatment of women with HER2-positive breast cancer. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018110273.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Lapatinib; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Receptor, ErbB-2; Quinazolines; Treatment Outcome; Trastuzumab; Paclitaxel; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36417083
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-022-02998-2