-
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2023(1) Background: Among new anti-angiogenesis agents being developed and ever-changing guidelines indications, the question of the benefits/safety ratio remains unclear.... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Among new anti-angiogenesis agents being developed and ever-changing guidelines indications, the question of the benefits/safety ratio remains unclear. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review combined with a meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (12,081 patients), evaluating overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity (grade ≥ 3 toxic effects, type, and number of all adverse effects. (3) Results: The analysis showed improvement of pooled-PFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78; I = 77%; < 0.00001) in first-line (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; = 0.0003) or recurrent cancer (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.70; < 0.00001) and regardless of the type of anti-angiogenesis drug used (Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, VEGF-receptors (VEGF-R) inhibitors or angiopoietin inhibitors). Improved OS was also observed (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99; = 0.03). OS benefits were only observed in recurrent neoplasms, both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant neoplasms. Grade ≥ 3 adverse effects were increased across all trials. Anti-angiogenetic therapy increased the risk of hypertension, infection, thromboembolic/hemorrhagic events, and gastro-intestinal perforations but not the risk of wound-related issues, anemia or posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome. (4) Conclusions: Although angiogenesis inhibitors improve PFS, there are little-to-no OS benefits. Given the high risk of severe adverse reactions, a careful selection of patients is required for obtaining the best results possible.
PubMed: 36980348
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13061040 -
Clinical Lung Cancer May 2023Second-line treatment options are limited for patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We conducted a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
Second-line treatment options are limited for patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We conducted a PRISMA-standard systematic literature review to evaluate the treatment landscape for patients with relapsed SCLC (PROSPERO number: CRD42022299759). Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were performed (October 2022) to identify publications (prior 5 years) from prospective studies of therapies for relapsed SCLC. Publications were screened against predetermined eligibility criteria; data were extracted to standardized fields. Publication quality was assessed using GRADE. The data were analyzed descriptively, grouped by drug class. Overall, 77 publications involving 6349 patients were included. Studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with established cancer indications accounted for 24 publications; topoisomerase I inhibitors for 15; checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) for 11, and alkylating agents for 9 publications. The remaining 18 publications featured chemotherapies, small-molecule inhibitors, investigational TKIs and monoclonal antibodies, and a cancer vaccine. According to GRADE assessment, 69% of the publications reported low-/very-low-quality evidence; quality limitations included lack of randomization and small sample sizes. Only 6 publications/6 trials reported phase 3 data; 5 publications/2 trials reported phase 2/3 results. Overall, the clinical potential of alkylating agents and CPIs remained unclear; investigations of combination approaches and biomarker-directed usage are warranted. Phase 2 data from TKI trials were consistently promising; no phase 3 data were available. Phase 2 data for a liposomal formulation of irinotecan were promising. We confirmed an absence of promising investigational drug/regimens in late-stage development; thus, relapsed SCLC remains an area of high unmet need.
Topics: Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Alkylating Agents; Carcinoma; Lung
PubMed: 36907793
DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2023.01.012 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2023The optimal treatment regimen for breast cancer patients with gBRCA mutations remains controversial given the availability of numerous options, such as platinum-based... (Review)
Review
The optimal treatment regimen for breast cancer patients with gBRCA mutations remains controversial given the availability of numerous options, such as platinum-based agents, polymerase inhibitors (PARPis), and other agents. We included phase II or III RCTs and estimated the HR with 95% CI for OS, PFS, and DFS, in addition to the OR with 95% CI for ORR and pCR. We determined the treatment arm rankings by -scores. Furthermore, we carried out a subgroup analysis in TNBC and HR-positive patients. We conducted this network meta-analysis using R 4.2.0 and a random-effects model. A total of 22 RCTs were eligible, involving 4253 patients. In the pairwise comparisons, PARPi + Platinum + Chemo was better than PARPi + Chemo for OS (in whole study group and in both subgroups) as well as PFS. The ranking tests demonstrated that PARPi + Platinum + Chemo ranked first in PFS, DFS, and ORR. Platinum + Chemo showed higher OS than PARPi + Chemo. The ranking tests for PFS, DFS, and pCR indicated that, except for the best treatment (PARPi + Platinum + Chemo) containing PARPi, the second and third treatments were platinum monotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy. In conclusion, PARPi + Platinum + Chemo might be the best regime for gBRCA-mutated BC. Platinum drugs showed more favorable efficacy than PARPi in both combination and monotherapy.
PubMed: 36836123
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041588 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Combination treatment regimens consisting of both immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and chemotherapeutic agents have emerged as the standard of care for a range of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Combination treatment regimens consisting of both immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and chemotherapeutic agents have emerged as the standard of care for a range of cancers. This network meta-analysis (NMA) examined the toxicity profiles and safety rankings of these different ICI-based combination regimens.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published as of March 1, 2022 comparing two or more treatment regimens in which at least one arm was comprised of an ICI + platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimen. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade and AEs of grade 3 or higher were the primary endpoints for this analysis, while specific AE types were secondary endpoints. This NMA combined both direct and indirect comparisons when analyzing odds ratios (ORs) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for different ICI-based treatment regimens.
RESULTS
In total, 33 RCTs enrolling 19,012 cancer patients were included in this NMA. Of the analyzed regimens, avelumab + chemotherapy and camrelizumab + chemotherapy were associated with a significantly greater risk of AEs of any grade relative to ipilimumab + chemotherapy, durvalumab + chemotherapy, or pembrolizumab + chemotherapy. No significant differences in the risk of AEs of grade 3 or higher were observed when comparing different ICI regimens. Hepatotoxicity and pyrexia were the most common AEs associated with atezolizumab + chemotherapy treatment. Ipilimumab + chemotherapy was associated with a relatively higher risk of gastrointestinal and skin toxicity. Skin toxicity and hypothyroidism were the major AEs associated with nivolumab + chemotherapy. Fatigue and pneumonia were the most common AEs respectively associated with sugemalimab + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
Of the evaluated regimens, camrelizumab + chemotherapy and avelumab + chemotherapy were associated with significantly higher rates of AEs of any grade, whereas durvalumab and sintilimab were relatively safe PD-L1 and PD-1 inhibitors, respectively, when administered in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy. However, none of the evaluated ICI + chemotherapy regimens exhibited any differences with respect to the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs, offering guidance that may be of value in routine clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Ipilimumab; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Platinum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36825025
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1062679 -
International Journal of Hyperthermia :... 2023The original meta-analysis of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is already outdated, owing to the latest trial results. This study aimed to clarify the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prognostic value and adverse events of cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in primary advanced and platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The original meta-analysis of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is already outdated, owing to the latest trial results. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and adverse events of cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC compared to conventional therapy for advanced and platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (OC).
METHODS
In this meta-analysis, phase II/III controlled trials regarding 'HIPEC' and 'ovarian cancer' were searched for in electronic databases from inception to March 2022.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The pooled hazard ratio [HR] in the HIPEC group for progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.83, = .002) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, < .001) were improved in the HIPEC group compared with the non-HIPEC group. For primary advanced disease, OS and PFS were significantly increased in patients receiving interval debulking surgery + HIPEC, whereas PFS was not significantly different between primary debulking surgery (PDS) + HIPEC and PDS alone. For platinum-sensitive recurrent disease, no correlation was observed for PFS and OS between the HIPEC and non-HIPEC groups ( < .05). The incidence of procedure-related complications was higher in the HIPEC group than in the non-HIPEC group (odds ratio = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.24-3.01, < .01). The morbidity of leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea, hypoalbuminemia, and grades III-IV electrolyte disturbance was higher in the HIPEC group than in the non-HIPEC group. However, HIPEC administration reduced the risk of intra-abdominal bleeding and constipation.
CONCLUSION
HIPEC-based regimens improved the clinical prognosis for primary advanced OC, whereas no significant value was elicited for recurrent OC.
Topics: Humans; Female; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Prognosis; Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy; Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Platinum; Hyperthermia, Induced; Ovarian Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36775583
DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2023.2165729 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Feb 2023Thymic carcinoma (TC) is a rare cancer and patients failing initial chemotherapy (relapse/refractory) face limited therapeutic options given no approved options or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Thymic carcinoma (TC) is a rare cancer and patients failing initial chemotherapy (relapse/refractory) face limited therapeutic options given no approved options or consensus standard of care. This study aimed to identify and summarize clinical outcomes of all regimens evaluated in clinical trials of relapsed or refractory patients. Interventional trials enrolling advanced TC patients who failed first-line chemotherapy and reported outcomes in this group were eligible for inclusion in our systemic literature review (SLR). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed to determine the feasibility of pooling specific studies and treatments. Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) endpoints were of interest for meta-analysis. Nineteen trials were identified in the SLR. Three trials with one or two TC patients were removed from our assessment to reduce publication bias. Response rates among studies with at least ten TC patients varied from 9 % to 38 %. Pooled ORRs in patients receiving S-1 (46 patients), sunitinib (46 patients), or pembrolizumab (66 patients) were 28 %, 24 %, and 21 %, respectively. Prolonged duration of response with pembrolizumab was observed with a pooled median of 23.8 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 12, not reached). Median PFS of five months or greater was reported in patients treated with sunitinib, lenvatinib, pembrolizumab, capecitabine + gemcitabine, everolimus, or S-1. Median OS of 20 months or greater was reported in trials evaluating S-1 or pembrolizumab; this endpoint was not reached in trials evaluating lenvatinib, regorafenib, or sunitinib. Generalizability of treatment effects is challenging in the research of rare diseases and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes may help to increase precision and relevance of results to the larger TC population. Our study found limited treatment options upon relapse, demonstrating a need for further investigations into novel therapeutics and well-powered clinical trials to better inform on optimal treatments.
Topics: Humans; Sunitinib; Thymoma; Platinum; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Lung Neoplasms; Thymus Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36638588
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.01.003 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Feb 2023In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments. A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line-to-progression and second-line treatments for advanced NsqNSCLC informed Bayesian NMAs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end points. Among first-line-to-progression treatments, pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the greatest OS benefit versus other regimens and a PFS benefit versus all but three regimens. Among second-line treatments, an OS benefit was seen for atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab versus docetaxel. Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the maximum OS benefit in the first-line setting. In the second-line setting, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapies were better than docetaxel.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Pemetrexed; Network Meta-Analysis; Platinum; Bayes Theorem; Immunotherapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36621905
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0016 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) has been established as a standard treatment for locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent esophageal...
Clinical efficacy of combination therapy of an immune checkpoint inhibitor with taxane plus platinum versus an immune checkpoint inhibitor with fluorouracil plus platinum in the first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) has been established as a standard treatment for locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC). However, the optimal chemotherapy regimen in combination therapy is still unclear.
PURPOSE
To investigate the efficacy and adverse events of the fluorouracil plus platinum (FP) and taxane plus platinum (TP) regimens in ESCC patients receiving chemo-immunotherapy, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Potentially eligible studies were searched from Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Pooled rates of overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events were compared between ICIs+TP and ICIs+FP groups in ESCC patients receiving first-line chemo-immunotherapy.
RESULTS
A total of 10 clinical trials were included, of which 5 were randomized controlled trials. Compared with chemotherapy alone, chemo-immunotherapy significantly improved the OS of ESCC patients (pooled HR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.76; p<0.01). Pooled analysis revealed that ESCC patients receiving ICIs+TP had significantly higher ORR, DCR, PFS, and OS rates than those receiving ICIs+FP. No statistically significant difference in the pooled incidence rate of treatment-related death was found (2.3% vs 0.9%, P=0.08). ICIs+TP had significantly higher rates of hematologic toxicity but lower rates of gastrointestinal toxicity than ICIs+FP.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current data, the first-line treatment using ICIs+TP may be a better option than ICIs+FP in advanced, metastatic, or recurrent ESCC.
PubMed: 36605427
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1015302 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Nov 2022Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma with early metastatic potential. The standard-of-care treatment has not changed in years. Recent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive neuroendocrine carcinoma with early metastatic potential. The standard-of-care treatment has not changed in years. Recent studies report improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combined ICI and chemotherapy in ES-SCLC. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the magnitude of survival benefits. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane between 1 January 2010 and 15 July 2022 and conference proceedings from 2018 to 2022, for randomised controlled trials, evaluating chemo-ICI compared with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in untreated ES-SCLC. Outcomes assessed were PFS, OS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), toxicity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The search identified 8061 studies, with 8 (56 publications) included in the final analysis. PFS and OS were significantly improved for patients randomised to chemo-ICI (PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.80) and (OS HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85). Subgroup analysis demonstrated a differential effect between PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors. There was no difference in ORR and DoR. All-grade adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.12) were similar. The addition of ICI to chemotherapy in untreated ES-SCLC results in a 22% risk reduction in death, and a 25% risk reduction in disease progression with a minimal increase in toxicity. These improvements are modest but represent progress beyond the standard of care.
Topics: Humans; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Quality of Life; Progression-Free Survival; Lung Neoplasms; Immunotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36547123
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29120709 -
PloS One 2022Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) have become a mainstay for the treatment of BRCA-mutant malignancies. PARPis are likely to be more effective but also...
OBJECTIVES
Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) have become a mainstay for the treatment of BRCA-mutant malignancies. PARPis are likely to be more effective but also bring an increase in costs. Thus, we aimed at evaluating the cost effectiveness of PARPis in the treatment of malignancies.
METHODS
Studies of cost effectiveness of PARPis were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Key information was extracted from the identified studies and reviewed. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Modeling techniques, measurement of parameters and uncertainty analysis were analyzed across studies. Interventions and cost-effectiveness results were reported stratified by patient population.
RESULTS
Among the 25 studies identified, we included 17 on ovarian cancer, 2 on breast cancer, 3 on pancreatic cancer, and 3 on prostate cancer that involved olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib. All studies had a QHES score of above 75. In the maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer, additional administration of olaparib was cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy but was not cost-effective for platinum-sensitive recurrent patients in majority studies. However, the economic value of other PARPis in ovarian cancer as well as all PARPis in other tumors remained controversial. Cost-effectiveness of PARPi was primarily impacted by the costs of PARPi, survival time, health utility and discount rate. Moreover, genetic testing improved the cost-effectiveness of PARPi treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
PARPi is potentially cost-effective for patients with ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer. Genetic testing can improve the cost-effectiveness of PARPi.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Ovarian Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Agents; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 36520958
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279286