-
BMC Health Services Research Jun 2023The combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) was primarily carried out with a combination of immune checkpoint...
BACKGROUND
The combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) was primarily carried out with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-etoposide (EP). It is likely to be more effective in treating ES-SCLC than EP alone, but could result in high healthcare costs. The study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy for ES-SCLC.
METHODS
We searched literature from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies on cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy for ES-SCLC. The literature search period was up to April 20, 2023. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
RESULTS
A total of 16 eligible studies were included in the review. All studies met CHEERS recommendations, and all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in these studies were rated as having low risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The treatment regimens compared were ICIs plus EP or EP alone. All studies mainly used incremental quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes. Most ICIs plus EP treatment regimens were not cost-effective based on corresponding willingness-to-pay thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS
Adebrelimab plus EP and serplulimab plus EP were probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in China, and serplulimab plus EP was probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in the U.S. Lowering the price of ICIs and selecting ES-SCLC patients who were sensitive to ICIs could improve the cost-effectiveness of the ICIs-combined treatment.
Topics: Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Etoposide; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Immunotherapy
PubMed: 37365540
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09727-7 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Adebrelimab showed excellent efficacy in the first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, whether adebrelimab is superior to...
The efficacy of adebrelimab compared with durvalumab and atezolizumab in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a survival analysis of reconstructed patient-level data.
BACKGROUND
Adebrelimab showed excellent efficacy in the first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, whether adebrelimab is superior to durvalumab and atezolizumab remains unclear. Therefore, we, in this study, aimed to compare the survival data of adebrelimab (CAPSTONE-1 trial) with durvalumab (CASPIAN trial) and atezolizumab (IMpower133 trial) in the first-line setting of ES-SCLC patients.
METHODS
Online databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL, were systematically searched on December 2, 2022. The and methods were used to analyze the summary survival curves and the reconstructed patient-level data. The main endpoints were median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
RESULTS
In this analysis, survival data in the CASPIAN, IMpower133, and CAPSTONE-1 trials were collected from five published studies. The pooled median OS and PFS were 14.0 months (95% CI 11.2-16.6) and 5.6 months (95% CI 4.7-6.7) when ES-SCLC patients received chemotherapy (etoposide and cisplatin/carboplatin) and anti-PD-L1 therapy. Based on the reconstructed patient-level data, adebrelimab significantly prolonged survival outcomes against atezolizumab (OS: Hazard ratio [HR]0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.95; PFS: HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.83) and durvalumab (OS: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.92).
CONCLUSION
For previously untreated ES-SCLC patients, longer survival time might be benefited from adding adebrelimab to etoposide-platinum chemotherapy. In future studies, further real-world evidence or head-to-head clinical trials are warranted to confirm the differences between the PD-L1 inhibitors.
Topics: Humans; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Lung Neoplasms; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Survival Analysis; Progression-Free Survival; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37215120
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1185577 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology Apr 2023Chemotherapy plays an important role in definitive chemoradiotherapy strategies. However, the most optimal concurrent chemotherapy scheme is still controversial. This...
Paclitaxel combined with platinum (PTX) versus fluorouracil combined with cisplatin (PF) in the treatment of unresectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of two different regimens.
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapy plays an important role in definitive chemoradiotherapy strategies. However, the most optimal concurrent chemotherapy scheme is still controversial. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel/docetaxel combined with platinum (PTX) and fluorouracil combined with cisplatin (PF) in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) of unresectable esophageal cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and Embase databases were searched by combining subject words and free words through December 31, 2021. The inclusion criteria were pathologically confirmed esophageal cancer studies using CCRT, where the chemotherapy regimen only compared PTX and PF. Quality evaluation and data extraction of studies that met the inclusion criteria were carried out independently. Stata 11.1 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. The begger analysis and egger analysis were used to assess publication bias, and the robustness of the pooled results further assessed by the Trim and Fill analysis.
RESULTS
After screening, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. A total of 962 cases were enrolled, including 480 (49.9%) in the PTX group and 482 (50.1%) in the PF group. The gastrointestinal reaction to the PF regimen was the most serious [relative risk (RR) =0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.80, P=0.003]. The complete remission (CR) rate, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) of the PTX group were higher than those of the PF group (RR =1.35, 95% CI: 1.03-1.76, P=0.030; RR =1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.22, P=0.006; RR =1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09, P=0.022). In terms of the overall survival (OS) rate, the 2-year survival rates of the PTX group were higher than those of the PF group (P=0.005). There was no significant difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates between the two regimens (P=0.064, 0.144, and 0.341, respectively). There may be publication bias for ORR and DCR, and the results are reversed after applying the Trim and Fill method, so the combined results are not robust.
CONCLUSIONS
PTX may be the preferred regimen for CCRT of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, with better short-term therapeutic effect and 2-year OS rate and lower gastrointestinal toxicity.
PubMed: 37201087
DOI: 10.21037/jgo-23-33 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Many women, and other females, with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) develop resistance to conventional chemotherapy drugs. Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis (development... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many women, and other females, with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) develop resistance to conventional chemotherapy drugs. Drugs that inhibit angiogenesis (development of new blood vessels), essential for tumour growth, control cancer growth by denying blood supply to tumour nodules.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and toxicities of angiogenesis inhibitors for treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (from 1990 to 30 September 2022). We searched clinical trials registers and contacted investigators of completed and ongoing trials for further information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing angiogenesis inhibitors with standard chemotherapy, other types of anti-cancer treatment, other angiogenesis inhibitors with or without other treatments, or placebo/no treatment in a maintenance setting, in women with EOC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QoL), adverse events (grade 3 and above) and hypertension (grade 2 and above).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 50 studies (14,836 participants) for inclusion (including five studies from the previous version of this review): 13 solely in females with newly-diagnosed EOC and 37 in females with recurrent EOC (nine studies in platinum-sensitive EOC; 19 in platinum-resistant EOC; nine with studies with mixed or unclear platinum sensitivity). The main results are presented below. Newly-diagnosed EOC Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.07; 2 studies, 2776 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is very uncertain for PFS (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05; 2 studies, 2746 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the combination results in a slight reduction in global QoL (mean difference (MD) -6.4, 95% CI -8.86 to -3.94; 1 study, 890 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination likely increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.26; 1 study, 1485 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 4.27, 95% CI 3.25 to 5.60; 2 studies, 2707 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to block VEGF receptors (VEGF-R), given with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17; 2 studies, 1451 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely increase PFS slightly (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00; 2 studies, 2466 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination likely reduces QoL slightly (MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.46 to -0.26; 1 study, 1340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but it increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.55; 1 study, 188 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 3) (RR 6.49, 95% CI 2.02 to 20.87; 1 study, 1352 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrent EOC (platinum-sensitive) Moderate-certainty evidence from three studies (with 1564 participants) indicates that bevacizumab with chemotherapy, and continued as maintenance, likely results in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.02), but likely improves PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.63) compared to chemotherapy alone. The combination may result in little to no difference in QoL (MD 0.8, 95% CI -2.11 to 3.71; 1 study, 486 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it increases the rate of any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.11, 1.07 to 1.16; 3 studies, 1538 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common in arms with bevacizumab (RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.84 to 8.83; 3 studies, 1538 participants). TKIs with chemotherapy may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 1 study, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence), likely increase PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.72; 1 study, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on QoL (MD 6.1, 95% CI -0.96 to 13.16; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hypertension (grade ≥ 3) was more common with TKIs (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.10). Recurrent EOC (platinum-resistant) Bevacizumab with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance increases OS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 5 studies, 778 participants; high-certainty evidence) and likely results in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.58; 5 studies, 778 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The combination may result in a large increase in hypertension (grade ≥ 2) (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.27; 2 studies, 436 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of bowel fistula/perforation (grade ≥ 2) may be slightly higher with bevacizumab (RR 6.89, 95% CI 0.86 to 55.09; 2 studies, 436 participants). Evidence from eight studies suggest TKIs with chemotherapy likely result in little to no difference in OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.08; 940 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with low-certainty evidence that it may increase PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 940 participants), and may result in little to no meaningful difference in QoL (MD ranged from -0.19 at 6 weeks to -3.40 at 4 months). The combination increases any adverse event (grade ≥ 3) slightly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.49; 3 studies, 402 participants; high-certainty evidence). The effect on bowel fistula/perforation rates is uncertain (RR 2.74, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.75; 5 studies, 557 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Bevacizumab likely improves both OS and PFS in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC. In platinum-sensitive relapsed disease, bevacizumab and TKIs probably improve PFS, but may or may not improve OS. The results for TKIs in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC are similar. The effects on OS or PFS in newly-diagnosed EOC are less certain, with a decrease in QoL and increase in adverse events. Overall adverse events and QoL data were more variably reported than were PFS data. There appears to be a role for anti-angiogenesis treatment, but given the additional treatment burden and economic costs of maintenance treatments, benefits and risks of anti-angiogenesis treatments should be carefully considered.
Topics: Humans; Female; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Neoplasms
PubMed: 37185961
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007930.pub3 -
PloS One 2023Platinum-based chemotherapy is one of the most common treatments for many cancers; however, the effect of chemotherapy varies from individual to individual. Excision... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Platinum-based chemotherapy is one of the most common treatments for many cancers; however, the effect of chemotherapy varies from individual to individual. Excision repair cross complementation group 1 (ERCC1) is widely recognized as a key gene regulating nucleotide excision repair (NER) and is closely associated with platinum response. Many studies have yielded conflicting results regarding whether ERCC1 polymorphisms can affect the response to platinum and overall survival (OS). Therefore, it is necessary to perform a meta-analysis of patients with specific races and cancer types.
METHODS
Eight databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Scopus, VIP, China Biology Medicine disc and Wanfang databases) were searched. Results were expressed in terms of odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs.
RESULTS
In this study, rs11615, rs2298881 and rs3212986 SNPs were studied. In the comparison between CT and TT on the response to platinum, esophageal cancer [I2 = 0%, OR = 6.18, 95% CI(1.89,20.23), P = 0.003] and ovarian cancer [I2 = 0%, OR = 4.94, 95% CI(2.21,11.04), P<0.001] showed that the rs11615 CT genotype predicted a better response. In the comparison between CC and TT, ovarian cancer [I2 = 48.0%, OR = 6.15, 95% CI (2.56,14.29), P<0.001] indicated that the CC genotype predicted a better response. In the meta-analysis of OS, the CC genotype was related to longer OS than TT in ovarian cancer [TT vs CC: I2 = 57.7%, HR = 1.71, 95% CI (1.18, 2.49), P<0.001].
CONCLUSION
The ERCC1 rs11615 polymorphism was related to the response to platinum and OS, but the correlation is based on specific cancer types in the Asian population.
Topics: Female; Humans; Platinum; Genotype; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Ovarian Neoplasms; China; Endonucleases; DNA-Binding Proteins
PubMed: 37141338
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284825 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore,...
BACKGROUND
There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore, this Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the optimal treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published until 15 June 2022. The outcome measures for this meta-analysis were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) of Grade 3-4. The Cochrane assessment tool for risk of bias was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included original studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022347273).
RESULTS
Our systematic review included 11 RCTs involving 1871 patients and 11 treatments other than chemotherapy. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall survival (OS) was the highest in adavosertib + gemcitabine compared with conventional chemotherapy, (HR=0.56,95%CI:0.35-0.91), followed by sorafenib + topotecan (HR=0.65, 95%CI:0.45-0.93). In addition, Adavosertib + Gemcitabine regimen had the highest PFS (HR=0.55,95%CI:0.34-0.88), followed by Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen (HR=0.48,95%CI:0.38-0.60) and the immunotherapy of nivolumab was the safest (HR=0.164,95%CI:0.312-0.871) with least adverse events of Grades 3-4.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicated that Adavosertib (WEE1 kinase-inhibitor) + gemcitabine regimen and Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen would be significantly beneficial to patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and could be preferred for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The immunotherapeutic agent, Nivolumab, is of considerable safety, with a low risk for grade-III or IV adverse events. Its safety is comparable to Adavosertib + gemcitabine regimen. Pazopanib + Paclitaxel (weekly regimen), Sorafenib + Topotecan/Nivolumab could be selected if there are contraindications of the above strategies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022347273.
PubMed: 37114128
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1114484 -
Heliyon Apr 2023In recent years, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC), but the...
Effectiveness and safety of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
In recent years, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung carcinoma (ES-SCLC), but the optimal combination of ICI and standard chemotherapy strategy is yet to be established. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to identify which first-line combination strategy is optimal for patients with ES-SCLC.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the proceedings of international conferences, including American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings, were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 31, 2022. The collected primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs).
RESULTS
Our NMA study included six phase 3 and three phase 2 RCTs including 4037 patients and 10 first-line regimens. Regarding effectiveness, the addition of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors to standard chemotherapy provided greater efficacy than chemotherapy alone. However, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 inhibitors were not associated with satisfactory prognoses. Serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide (vs. standard chemotherapy, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.49-0.82) and nivolumab plus platinum-etoposide (HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.91) displayed the greatest benefit regarding OS. In terms of PFS, serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide yielded the best benefit of all treatments (HR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.39-0.6). The combination of ICIs and chemotherapy caused more toxicity in general, but durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide (odds ratio [OR] = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.68-1.4), atezolizumab plus carboplatin-etoposide (OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.68-1.6), and adebrelimab plus platinum-etoposide (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.52-2) displayed similar safety as standard chemotherapy. Subgroup analysis by race illustrated that serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide was associated with the best OS in Asian patients. And in non-Asian patients, the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and chemotherapy (pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide, durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide, and durvalumab and tremelimumab plus platinum-etoposide) displayed superiority to standard chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our NMA study suggested that serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide and nivolumab plus platinum-etoposide are associated with the best OS as first-line treatments for patients with ES-SCLC. Serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide was associated with the best PFS. In Asian patients, serplulimab plus carboplatin-etoposide had the best OS.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42022345850.
PubMed: 37095958
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14794 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... May 2023Compare lurbinectedin versus other second-line (2L) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison connected the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Compare lurbinectedin versus other second-line (2L) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison connected the platinum-sensitive SCLC cohort of a single-arm lurbinectedin trial to a network of three randomized controlled trials (oral and intravenous [IV] topotecan, and platinum re-challenge) identified by systematic literature review. Network meta-analysis methods estimated relative treatment effects. In platinum-sensitive patients, lurbinectedin demonstrated a survival benefit and favorable safety profile versus oral and IV topotecan and platinum re-challenge (overall survival, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.27, 0.67; HR: 0.43; 95% CrI: 0.26, 0.70; HR: 0.42; 95% CrI: 0.30, 0.58 respectively). Lurbinectedin showed a robust survival benefit and favorable safety versus other SCLC treatments in 2L platinum-sensitive SCLC.
Topics: Humans; Topotecan; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Carbolines; Platinum; Lung Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37079341
DOI: 10.57264/cer-2022-0098 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023It remains unclear what the best second-line treatment is for patients with small-cell lung cancer sensitive to previous platinum-based chemotherapy.
Comparison of the second-line treatments for patients with small cell lung cancer sensitive to previous platinum-based chemotherapy: A systematic review and Bayesian network analysis.
OBJECTIVE
It remains unclear what the best second-line treatment is for patients with small-cell lung cancer sensitive to previous platinum-based chemotherapy.
METHODS
We systematically screened randomized controlled trials from several online databases. The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR), and the secondary outcomes were disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and hematological complications graded 3 to 5. The efficacy of included treatments was ranked by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value.
RESULTS
We included eleven trials involving 1560 patients in quantitative analysis. Triple chemotherapy containing platinum (TP, combination of cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan) was associated with favorable ORR (intravenous topotecan vs TP; odds ratio: 0.13, 95% CI:0.03-0.63; SUCRA, 0.94) and PFS (vs intravenous topotecan; hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI: 0.25-0.99; SUCRA, 0.90). Belotecan ranked highest for OS (SUCRA, 0.90), while intravenous topotecan plus Ziv-aflibercept ranked highest for DCR (SUCRA, 0.75). TP was more likely to cause anemia and thrombocytopenia while intravenous topotecan plus Ziv-aflibercept resulted in most neutrocytopenia.
CONCLUSION
TP is the first recommendation for the second-line treatment of sensitive relapsed SCLC. TP achieved priority in ORR and PFS with the most frequent adverse effects in anemia and thrombocytopenia. For patients who cannot tolerate the hematological adverse effects of triple chemotherapy, amrubicin is an optional option. Amrubicin had relatively good ORR and PFS, accompanied by fewer hematological complications. The rechallenge of the platinum doublet is inferior to amrubicin in ORR, DCR, and PFS. Oral topotecan has a similar effect compared with IV topotecan, but oral topotecan was associated with slightly higher safety and less stress in nursing. Belotecan contributed to the best PFS with slightly better safety but was not ideal in other outcomes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022358256.
PubMed: 37007093
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1154685 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Feb 2023The Gold-Standard treatment for Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer remains cytoreductive surgery followed by systemic chemotherapy. Surgery can be performed either by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The Gold-Standard treatment for Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer remains cytoreductive surgery followed by systemic chemotherapy. Surgery can be performed either by an open or minimally invasive approach (MIS), although the former remains the most widely used approach. Recently, Van Driel et al. proved that adding 100 mg/m of Cisplatin in Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) at Interval Debulking Surgery (IDS) gives a disease-free survival (DFS) advantage. Similarly, Gueli-Alletti et al. demonstrated how the MIS approach is feasible and safe in IDS. Moreover, Petrillo et al. reported pharmacokinetic profiles with a higher chemotherapy concentration in patients undergoing HIPEC after MIS compared with the open approach. Therefore, the following review investigates the oncological and clinical safety consequences of the association between MIS and HIPEC. Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched the PubMed and Scopus databases in April 2022. Studies containing data about oncological and safety outcomes were included. We registered the Review to the PROSPERO site for meta-analysis with protocol number CRD42022329503. Five studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. 42 patients were included in the review from three different Gynecological Oncological referral centers. The systematic review highlighted a Recurrence Rate ranging between 0 and 100%, with a 3-year Platinum-Free Survival between 10 and 70%. The most common HIPEC drug was Cisplatin, used at concentrations between 75 and 100 mg/m and at an average temperature of 42 °C, for 60 to 90 min. Only 1 Acute Kidney Insufficiency has been reported. The scarcity of clinical trials focusing on a direct comparison between MIS and the open approach followed by HIPEC in EOC treatment does not make it possible to identify an oncological advantage between these two techniques. However, the safety profiles shown are highly reassuring.
Topics: Female; Humans; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Cisplatin; Combined Modality Therapy; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Hyperthermia, Induced; Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy; Ovarian Neoplasms
PubMed: 36984422
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59030421