-
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
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 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022The main objective of this systematic review was to examine the literature evaluating association of image-based body composition with chemotherapy-related toxicity in...
OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this systematic review was to examine the literature evaluating association of image-based body composition with chemotherapy-related toxicity in ovarian cancer patients. A secondary objective was to evaluate the different definitions of sarcopenia across studies.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA-DTA statement and the protocol was registered on Prospero. A comprehensive literature search of 3 electronic databases was performed by two authors. For each eligible article, information was collected concerning the clinical setting; basic study data; population characteristics; technical aspects; body composition features; chemotherapy drugs administered; association of body composition values and toxicities. The overall quality of the included studies was critically evaluated.
RESULTS
After the initial retrieval of 812 articles, the systematic review included 6 articles (5/6 studies were retrospective; one was prospective). The number of patients ranged between 69 and 239; mean/median age ranged between 55 and 65 years; the percentage of sarcopenic patients ranged between 25% and 54%. The cut-off values to define sarcopenia and the vertebral levels for evaluation of body composition were different. Five studies included chemotherapy based on carboplatin and paclitaxel, 1 included chemotherapy based on pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Among the studies including carboplatin and paclitaxel, 3/5 demonstrated an association with toxicity, whereas 2/5 did not. Altogether, 4/6 papers demonstrated an association between the body composition values and the development of chemotherapy-related toxicities.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a wide variability of results about the association of body composition and chemotherapy-related toxicity in ovarian cancer patients. Therefore further studies, possibly including a comprehensive assessment of body compartments and where the definition of body composition cut-offs is constant, are warranted to better understand this association.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022337753, identifier (CRD42022337753).
PubMed: 36408182
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1057631 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common kind, accounting for 90% of cases. First-line therapy for women with epithelial ovarian cancer consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy. However, more than 50% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer will experience a relapse and require further chemotherapy and at some point develop resistance to platinum-based drugs. Currently, guidance on the use of most chemotherapy drugs, including taxanes, is unclear for women whose epithelial ovarian cancer has recurred. Paclitaxel, topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, trabectedin and gemcitabine are all licensed for use in the UK at the discretion of clinicians, following discussion with the women as to potential adverse effects. Taxanes can be given in once-weekly regimens (at a lower dose) or three-weekly regimens (at a higher dose), which may have differences in the severity of side effects and effectiveness. As relapsed disease suggests incurable disease, it is all the more important to consider side effects and the impact of treatment schedules, as well as quality of life, and not only the life-prolonging effects of treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and toxicity of different taxane monotherapy regimens for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, up to 22 March 2022. Other related databases and trial registries were searched as well as grey literature and no additional studies were identified. A total of 1500 records were identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of taxane monotherapy for adult women diagnosed with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. We included trials comparing two or more taxane monotherapy regimens. Participants could be experiencing their first recurrence of disease or any line of recurrence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened, independently assessed studies, and extracted data from the included studies. The clinical outcomes we examined were overall survival, response rate, progression-free survival, neurotoxicity, neutropenia, alopecia, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models following standard Cochrane methodology. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Our literature search yielded 1500 records of 1466 studies; no additional studies were identified by searching grey literature or handsearching. We uploaded the search results into Covidence. After the exclusion of 92 duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 1374 records. Of these, we identified 24 studies for full-text screening. We included four parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All trials were multicentred and conducted in a hospital setting. The studies included 981 eligible participants with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer with a median age ranging between 56 to 62 years of age. All participants had a WHO (World Health Organization) performance status of between 0 to 2. The proportion of participants with serous histology ranged between 56% to 85%. Participants included women who had platinum-sensitive (71%) and platinum-resistant (29%) relapse. Some participants were taxane pre-treated (5.6%), whilst the majority were taxane-naive (94.4%). No studies were classified as having a high risk of bias for any of the domains in the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We found that there may be little or no difference in overall survival (OS) between weekly paclitaxel and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.33, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there may be little or no difference in response rate (RR of 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and progression-free survival (PFS) (RR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) between weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain. We found differences in the chemotherapy-associated adverse events between the weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel regimens. The weekly paclitaxel regimen may result in a reduction in neutropenia (RR 0.51, 95% 0.27 to 0.95, two studies, 260 participants, low-certainty evidence) and alopecia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73, one study, 205 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in neurotoxicity, but the evidence was very low-certainty and we cannot exclude an effect (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45, two studies, 260 participants). When examining the effect of paclitaxel dosage in the three-weekly regimen, the 250 mg/m paclitaxel regimen probably causes more neurotoxicity compared to the 175 mg/m regimen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, one study, 330 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life data were not extractable from any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fewer people may experience neutropenia when given weekly rather than three-weekly paclitaxel (low-certainty evidence), although it may make little or no difference to the risk of developing neurotoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). This is based on the participants receiving lower doses of drug more often. However, our confidence in this result is low and the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Weekly paclitaxel probably reduces the risk of alopecia, although the rates in both arms were high (46% versus 79%) (low-certainty evidence). A change to weekly from three-weekly chemotherapy could be considered to reduce the likelihood of toxicity, as it may have little or no negative impact on response rate (very low-certainty evidence), PFS (very low-certainty evidence) or OS (very low-certainty evidence). Three-weekly paclitaxel, given at a dose of 175 mg/m compared to a higher dose,probably reduces the risk of neurotoxicity.We are moderately confident in this result; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. A change to 175 mg/m paclitaxel (from a higher dose), if a three-weekly regimen is used, probably has little or no negative impact on PFS or OS (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Adult; Alopecia; Bridged-Ring Compounds; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neutropenia; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Taxoids
PubMed: 35866378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008766.pub3 -
European Review For Medical and... Mar 2020We reviewed studies comparing survival outcomes such as overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and toxicity profile between patients treated with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel plus carboplatin-based chemotherapy as first line treatment for patients with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
We reviewed studies comparing survival outcomes such as overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and toxicity profile between patients treated with Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin (PLD) combination and those treated with paclitaxel combination for ovarian cancer. We conducted systematic searches in various databases including Medline, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception until August 2019. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of published trials. We carried out a meta-analysis with random-effects model and reported pooled Hazard ratios (HR) or Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, we analysed 7 studies including 3,676 participants. All the studies were randomized controlled trials, while majority of studies had low bias risks. We did not find significant evidence for any of these outcomes except progression free survival (favoured PLD combination therapy pooled HR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.77-0.98). Worst grade toxicities like allergy (pooled RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.06-3.24) and neurotoxicity (pooled RR: 5.59; 95% CI: 1.43-21.84) were significantly higher among patients receiving paclitaxel combination therapy when compared to patients receiving PLD combination therapy. To summarize, PLD combination therapy is non-inferior to paclitaxel combination therapy in the management of ovarian cancer with respect to survival outcomes and worst grade toxicity profile. However, clinical recommendations cannot be made, as the evidence is not conclusive or significant enough.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Disease-Free Survival; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32271409
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202003_20655 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Nov 2017To compare palbociclib + letrozole and palbociclib + fulvestrant with chemotherapy agents in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing palbociclib with chemotherapy agents for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive and HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer.
PURPOSE
To compare palbociclib + letrozole and palbociclib + fulvestrant with chemotherapy agents in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ABC/MBC) who had no prior systemic treatment for advanced disease (first line) or whose disease progressed after prior endocrine therapy or chemotherapy (second line).
METHODS
A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2000 to January 2016 that compared endocrine-based therapies, chemotherapy agents, and/or chemotherapy agents + biological therapies in the first- and second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC/MBC. The main outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP). Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs) and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were assessed.
RESULTS
Sixty RCTs met eligibility criteria and were stratified by line of therapy. In the first line, palbociclib + letrozole showed statistically significant improvements in PFS/TTP versus capecitabine [intermittent: HR 0.28 (95% CrI 0.11-0.72)] and mitoxantrone [HR 0.28 (0.13-0.61)], and trended toward improvements versus paclitaxel [HR 0.59 (0.19-1.96)], docetaxel [HR 0.51 (0.14-2.03)] and other monotherapy or combination agents (HRs ranging from 0.24 to 0.99). In the second line, palbociclib + fulvestrant showed statistically significant improvements in PFS/TTP versus capecitabine [intermittent: HR 0.28 (0.13-0.65)], mitoxantrone [HR 0.26 (0.12-0.53)], and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [HR 0.19 (0.07-0.50)], and trended toward improvements versus paclitaxel [HR 0.48 (0.16-1.44)], docetaxel [HR 0.71 (0.24-2.13)] and other monotherapy or combination agents (HRs ranging from 0.23-0.89). NMA findings aligned with direct evidence and were robust to sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Palbociclib + letrozole and palbociclib + fulvestrant demonstrate trends in incremental efficacy compared with chemotherapy agents for the first- and second-line treatment of HR +/HER2- ABC/MBC.
Topics: Age Factors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Piperazines; Postmenopause; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone; Retreatment; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28752187
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4404-4 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2015Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013.
METHODS
A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.
RESULTS
For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated.
LIMITATIONS
As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease.
CONCLUSIONS
For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deoxycytidine; Dioxoles; Disease-Free Survival; Double-Blind Method; Doxorubicin; Female; Health Care Costs; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Tetrahydroisoquinolines; Topotecan; Trabectedin; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 25626481
DOI: 10.3310/hta19070 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Kaposi's sarcoma remains the most common cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa and the second most common cancer in HIV-infected patients worldwide. Since the introduction of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Kaposi's sarcoma remains the most common cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa and the second most common cancer in HIV-infected patients worldwide. Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), there has been a decline in its incidence.However, Kaposi's sarcoma continues to be diagnosed in HIV-infected patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the added advantage of chemotherapy plus HAART compared to HAART alone; and the advantages of different chemotherapy regimens in HAART and HAART naive HIV infected adults with severe or progressive Kaposi's sarcoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and , GATEWAY, the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health's ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials and the Aegis archive of HIV/AIDS for conference abstracts. An updated search was conducted in July 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials and observational studies evaluating the effects of any chemotherapeutic regimen in combination with HAART compared to HAART alone, chemotherapy versus HAART, and comparisons between different chemotherapy regimens.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed the studies independently and extracted outcome data.We used the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) as the measure of effect.We did not conduct meta-analysis as none of the included trials assessed identical chemotherapy regimens.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six randomised trials and three observational studies involving 792 HIV-infected adults with severe Kaposi's sarcoma.Seven studies included patients with a mix of mild to moderate (T0) and severe (T1) Kaposi's sarcoma. However, this review was restricted to the subset of participants with severe Kaposi's sarcoma disease.Studies comparing HAART plus chemotherapy to HAART alone showed the following: one trial comparing HAART plus doxorubicin,bleomycin and vincristine (ABV) to HAART alone showed a significant reduction in disease progression in the HAART plus ABV group (RR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.75, 100 participants); there was no statistically significant reduction in mortality and no difference in adverse events. A cohort study comparing liposomal anthracyclines plus HAART to HAART alone showed a non-statistically significant reduction in Kaposi's sarcoma immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in patients that received HAART plus liposomal anthracyclines (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.55, 129 participants).Studies comparing HAART plus chemotherapy to HAART plus a different chemotherapy regimen showed the following: one trial involving 49 participants and comparing paclitaxel versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients on HAART showed no difference in disease progression. Another trial involving 46 patients and comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus liposomal daunorubicin showed no participants with progressive Kaposi's sarcoma disease in either group.Studies comparing different chemotherapy regimens in patients from the pre-HAART era showed the following: in the single RCT comparing liposomal daunorubicin to ABV, there was no significant difference with the use of liposomal daunorubicin compared to ABV in disease progression (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.82, 227 participants) and overall response rate. Another trial involving 178 participants and comparing oral etoposide versus ABV demonstrated no difference in mortality in either group. A non-randomised trial comparing bleomycin alone to ABV demonstrated a higher median survival time in the ABV group; there was also a non-statistically significant reduction in adverse events and disease progression in the ABV group (RR 11; 95% CI 0.67 to 179.29, 24 participants).An additional non-randomised study showed a non-statistically significant overall mortality benefit from liposomal doxorubicin as compared to conservative management consisting of either bleomycin plus vinblastine, vincristine or single-agent antiretroviral therapy alone (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, 29 participants). The overall quality of evidence can be described as moderate quality. The quality of evidence was downgraded due to the small size of many of the included studies and small number of events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this review suggest that HAART plus chemotherapy may be beneficial in reducing disease progression compared to HAART alone in patients with severe or progressive Kaposi's sarcoma. For patients on HAART, when choosing from different chemotherapy regimens, there was no observed difference between liposomal doxorubicin, liposomal daunorubicin and paclitaxel.
Topics: Alitretinoin; Antineoplastic Agents; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Bleomycin; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Etoposide; HIV Infections; Humans; Liposomes; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sarcoma, Kaposi; Skin Neoplasms; Tretinoin; Vincristine
PubMed: 25221796
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003256.pub2