-
Frontiers in Oncology 2021The present COVID-19 pandemic has tended toward normality. To provide convenient, safe, and effective home treatment programs for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer...
BACKGROUND
The present COVID-19 pandemic has tended toward normality. To provide convenient, safe, and effective home treatment programs for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), the clinical efficacy and safety of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) (including olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib) monotherapy as a maintenance treatment for platinum-sensitive ROC were systematically evaluated.
METHODS
Numerous electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PARPi maintenance treatment for ROC that were published before June 2021. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoint was grade 3-4 adverse effects (AEs). After data extraction and the quality evaluation of the included studies, Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using R software. The ability of each treatment was ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.
RESULTS
The analysis included five studies and 1390 patients. The NMA results demonstrated that compared with the placebo, olaparib and niraparib exhibited significant benefits in the gBRCA-mutated population, and respectively reduced the risk of death by 31% (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) and 34% (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44-0.99). Olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib were all found to be very effective in prolonging PFS in patients with ROC. All three PARPi treatments increased the number of grade 3-4 AEs in patients with ROC as compared with the placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, olaparib and niraparib maintenance treatment can significantly prolong the OS of patients with gBRCA mutations. Furthermore, the three investigated PARPi monotherapy maintenance treatments can prolong PFS regardless of BRCA mutation status. Although the incidence of AEs in the treatment groups was found to be significantly higher than that in the placebo group, the patients in the treatment group tolerated the treatment. Home oral PARPi treatment can balance tumor treatment and pandemic prevention and control, and is the most convenient, safe, and effective home treatment method available against the background of the current COVID-19 pandemic.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-6-0033/.
PubMed: 34900739
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.785102 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Breast cancer type 1 susceptibility (BRCA) mutations not only increase breast cancer (BC) risk but also result in poor survival and prognosis for BC patients. This study...
PURPOSE
Breast cancer type 1 susceptibility (BRCA) mutations not only increase breast cancer (BC) risk but also result in poor survival and prognosis for BC patients. This study will analyze the effect and safety of therapeutic regimens for the treatment of BC patients with germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations by network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Public databases were searched from inception to 29 April 2021. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the benefit of chemotherapy and targeted drug-related strategies.
RESULTS
Seventeen articles were included in the analysis. For progression-free survival (PFS), olaparib (hazard ratio (HR): 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43 - 0.79), platinum (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.22 - 0.89), and talazoparib (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.41 - 0.71) were significantly better than platinum-free chemotherapy (Chemo). The results based on indirect comparisons showed that veliparib (Vel) + platinum + Chemo was also significantly better than Chemo (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20 - 0.69). For overall survival (OS), olaparib was significantly better than Chemo only in the population who did not receive prior chemotherapy. For pathologic complete response (pCR), bevacizumab+Chemo had a significant advantage over platinum agents (OR: 3.64; 95% CI: 1.07 - 12.39). Olaparib and talazoparib both showed significantly higher objective response rates (ORRs) than Chemo.
CONCLUSION
The PFS results suggested that olaparib, talazoparib, and Vel+platinum agent+Chemo were ideal regimens for overall, TNBC, and advanced BC patients with gBRCA mutations. Whether PARPis are suitable for patients with gBRCA mutations who have received prior platinum therapy still needs to be clarified.
PubMed: 34490117
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.718761 -
Pharmacological Research Oct 2021We aimed to evaluate comparative safety and tolerability of the approved PARP inhibitors in people with cancer. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to evaluate comparative safety and tolerability of the approved PARP inhibitors in people with cancer.
METHODS
Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing an approved PARP inhibitor (fluzoparib, olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, or talazoparib) with placebo or chemotherapy in cancer patients. Outcomes of interest included: serious adverse event (SAE), discontinuation due to adverse event (AE), interruption of treatment due to AE, dose reduction due to AE, and specific grade 1-5 AEs.
RESULTS
Ten trials including 3763 participants and six treatments (olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, talazoparib, placebo, and protocol-specified single agent chemotherapy) were identified. SAE and discontinuation of treatment did not differ significantly among the four approved PARP inhibitors. Regarding interruption of treatment and dose reduction due to AE, statistically significant differences and statistically non-significant trend were observed. Talazoparib is associated with a higher risk of interruption of treatment and dose reduction (excluding rucaparib) due to AE as compared with the other drugs. Niraparib showed a trend of lower risk of AE related dose reduction as compared with the other drugs. Furthermore, there were significant differences in specific grade 1-5 AE among the four drugs.
CONCLUSION
The safety profile of the four approved PARP inhibitors is comparable in terms of SAE and AE-related discontinuation of treatment. Statistically significant differences in the AEs spectrum and AEs related dose interruption and dose reduction demonstrated the prompt identification of AE and dose personalization seem mandatory to obtain maximal benefit from PARP inhibitors.
Topics: Humans; Indazoles; Indoles; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Phthalazines; Piperazines; Piperidines; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34389457
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105808 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Dec 2021To update recommendations of the ASCO systemic therapy for hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) guideline. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To update recommendations of the ASCO systemic therapy for hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) guideline.
METHODS
An Expert Panel conducted a systematic review to identify new, potentially practice-changing data.
RESULTS
Fifty-one articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alpelisib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) should be offered to postmenopausal patients, and to male patients, with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, -mutated, ABC, or MBC following prior endocrine therapy with or without a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor. Clinicians should use next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or cell-free DNA in plasma to detect mutations. If no mutation is found in cell-free DNA, testing in tumor tissue, if available, should be used as this will detect a small number of additional patients with mutations. There are insufficient data at present to recommend routine testing for mutations to guide therapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC. For or mutation carriers with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer, olaparib or talazoparib should be offered in the 1st-line through 3rd-line setting. A nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to postmenopausal women with treatment-naïve HR-positive MBC. Fulvestrant and a CDK4/6 inhibitor should be offered to patients with progressive disease during treatment with AIs (or who develop a recurrence within 1 year of adjuvant AI therapy) with or without one line of prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, or as first-line therapy. Treatment should be limited to those without prior exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting.Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prognosis; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone
PubMed: 34324367
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.01392 -
Pharmacological Research Sep 2021Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature,...
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a WHO grade IV glioma and the most common malignant, primary brain tumor with a 5-year survival of 7.2%. Its highly infiltrative nature, genetic heterogeneity, and protection by the blood brain barrier (BBB) have posed great treatment challenges. The standard treatment for GBMs is surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy. The robust DNA repair and self-renewing capabilities of glioblastoma cells and glioma initiating cells (GICs), respectively, promote resistance against all current treatment modalities. Thus, durable GBM management will require the invention of innovative treatment strategies. In this review, we will describe biological and molecular targets for GBM therapy, the current status of pharmacologic therapy, prominent mechanisms of resistance, and new treatment approaches. To date, medical imaging is primarily used to determine the location, size and macroscopic morphology of GBM before, during, and after therapy. In the future, molecular and cellular imaging approaches will more dynamically monitor the expression of molecular targets and/or immune responses in the tumor, thereby enabling more immediate adaptation of tumor-tailored, targeted therapies.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Glioblastoma; Humans
PubMed: 34302977
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105780 -
Gynecologic Oncology Aug 2021We aimed to evaluate the risk of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) causing pneumonitis in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in the real-world practice. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND
We aimed to evaluate the risk of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) causing pneumonitis in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in the real-world practice.
METHODS
First, a systematic review based on meta-analysis was conducted. RCTs with available data reporting pneumonitis events for PARPis were eligible for analysis. Second, we conducted a disproportionality analysis based on data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to characterize the main features of PARPi-related pneumonitis.
RESULTS
16 trials with 5771 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with control arms, PARPis showed a significant increase in the risk of pneumonitis events (Peto OR 2.68 [95% CI 1.31-5.47], p = 0.007) with no heterogeneity (I = 0%, χp = 0.70). The incidence of pneumonitis across treatment arms was 0.79% (28/3551). In the FAERS database, we identified 84 cases of PARPi-pneumonitis with a fatality rate of 16% (13/79). The median time to event onset was 81 (interquartile range [IQR] 27-131) days and 87% of the adverse events occurred within 6 months.
CONCLUSION
PARPis increased the risk of pneumonitis that can result in serious outcomes and tend to occur early. Early recognition and management of PARPi-pneumonitis is of vital importance in clinical practice. The mechanisms and risk factors should be studied further to improve clinical understanding and innovative treatment strategies for these diseases.
Topics: Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems; Humans; Incidence; Indazoles; Neoplasms; Phthalazines; Piperazines; Piperidines; Pneumonia; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 34023129
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer remains a challenge to treat. With emerging study results, it is important to interpret the available clinical data and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer remains a challenge to treat. With emerging study results, it is important to interpret the available clinical data and apply the evidence offering the most effective treatment to the right patient. Poly(ADP Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are a new class of drug and their role in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer is being established.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
On 8 June 2020, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via OvidSP, Embase via OvidSP, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences as well as scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors of trials for further information, where needed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials on participants with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer comparing 1) chemotherapy in combination with PARP inhibitors, compared to the same chemotherapy without PARP inhibitors or 2) treatment with PARP inhibitors, compared to treatment with other chemotherapy. We included studies that reported on our primary outcome of overall survival and secondary outcomes including progression-free survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 49 articles for qualitative synthesis, describing five randomised controlled trials that were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). A sixth trial was assessed as eligible but had ended prematurely and no data were available for inclusion in our meta-analysis. Risk of bias was predominately low to unclear across all studies except in regards to performance bias (3/5 high risk) and detection bias for the outcomes of quality of life (2/2 high risk) and reporting of adverse events (3/5 high risk). High-certainty evidence shows there may be a small advantage in overall survival (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; 4 studies; 1435 patients). High-certainty evidence shows that PARP inhibitors offer an improvement in PFS in locally advanced/metastatic HER2-negative, BRCA germline mutated breast cancer patients (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 5 studies; 1474 patients). There was no statistical heterogeneity for these outcomes. Subgroup analyses for PFS outcomes based on trial level data were performed for triple-negative breast cancer, hormone-positive and/or HER2-positive breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations, and patients who had received prior chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer or not. The subgroup analyses showed a persistent PFS benefit regardless of the subgroup chosen. Pooled analysis shows PARP inhibitors likely result in a moderate improvement in tumour response rate compared to other treatment arms (66.9% vs 48.9%; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.54; 5 studies; 1185 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The most common adverse events reported across all five studies included neutropenia, anaemia and fatigue. Grade 3 or higher adverse events probably occur no less frequently in patients receiving PARP inhibitors (59.4% for PARP arm versus 64.5% for non-PARP arm, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 5 studies; 1443 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Only two studies reported quality of life outcomes so this was not amenable to meta-analysis. However, both studies that did assess quality of life showed PARP inhibitors were superior compared to physician's choice of chemotherapy in terms of participant-reported outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative, BRCA germline mutated breast cancer, PARP inhibitors offer an improvement in progression-free survival, and likely improve overall survival and tumour response rates. This systematic review provides evidence supporting the use of PARP inhibitors as part of the therapeutic strategy for breast cancer patients in this subgroup. The toxicity profile for PARP inhibitors is probably no worse than chemotherapy but more information is required regarding quality of life outcomes, highlighting the importance of collecting such data in future studies. Future studies should also be powered to detect clinically important differences in overall survival and could focus on the role of PARP inhibitors in other relevant breast cancer populations, including HER2-positive, BRCA-negative/homologous recombination repair-deficient and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PDL1) positive.
Topics: Bias; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Genes, BRCA1; Genes, BRCA2; Germ-Line Mutation; Humans; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 33886122
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011395.pub2 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jun 2021To systematically review the effectiveness and harm of consolidation or maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage II-IV EOC. (Review)
Review
Consolidation or maintenance systemic therapy for newly diagnosed stage II, III, or IV epithelial ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma: A systematic review.
BACKGROUNDS
To systematically review the effectiveness and harm of consolidation or maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed stage II-IV EOC.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO databases, and four relevant conferences were systematically searched. We adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and used the GRADE approach to aggregate data.
RESULTS
Among 12,675 citations, 28 comprising 16,310 patients were analyzed. The certainty of aggregated study evidence ranged from high to low.
CONCLUSIONS
The existing evidence does not find overall survival benefit for consolidation therapy with chemotherapy. For maintenance therapy, comparing with placebo, olaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and bevacizumab are effective as maintenance therapy for certain patients with newly diagnosed stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma respectively without reducing quality of life. Longer follow-up with more mature results of overall survival will better define the effect of these agents.
Topics: Carcinoma; Fallopian Tube Neoplasms; Fallopian Tubes; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33865996
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103336 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... May 2021Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors (PARPis) showed antitumour activity in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers, with more heterogeneous outcomes in tumours harbouring... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-inhibitors (PARPis) showed antitumour activity in BRCA1/2-mutated cancers, with more heterogeneous outcomes in tumours harbouring mutations that impair other genes involved in the DNA homologous recombination repair (HRR) or wild-type (wt).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better assess the role of PARPis in the treatment of metastatic solid tumours, with and without BRCA1/2 mutations. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary end-points were overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). A random-effects model was applied.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies (8,839 patients) were included. PFS was significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.68, p < 0.001), without being affected by BRCA mutational status (p = 0.65). Significant subgroup differences were observed with regard to the tumour site (p = 0.001), line of therapy (p = 0.002), control arm (p < 0.001), type of PARPi (p < 0.001) and trials' phase (p = 0.006). PARPis were associated with ORR (relative risk: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16-1.56, p < 0.001), with significant subgroup differences observed with regard to treatment line (p = 0.03), control arm (p = 0.04) and PARPis (p < 0.001) and independent of mutational status (p = 0.44), tumour site (p = 0.86) and trials' phase (p = 0.09). OS was significantly improved by PARPis (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.92, p < 0.001), regardless of mutational status (p = 0.57), tumour site (p = 0.82), treatment line (p = 0.22), control arm (p = 0.21), PARPis (p = 0.30) and trials' phase (p = 0.26). Finally, an exploratory subgroup analysis showed a significant PFS improvement (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43-0.60, p < 0.001) with PARPis in BRCA-wt/HRR-deficient tumours.
CONCLUSION
Our results confirm the efficacy of already approved PARPi-based treatments in BRCA1/2-mutant solid tumours, support their role also in BRCA-independent HRR-deficient tumours and suggest a potentially broader efficacy in some wt tumours, perhaps with appropriate therapeutic partners. Prospective studies are warranted.
Topics: BRCA1 Protein; BRCA2 Protein; Humans; Mutation; Neoplasms; Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors; Progression-Free Survival; Recombinational DNA Repair; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 33862496
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.02.035 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2020This meta-analysis investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor monotherapy as maintenance treatment in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer...
This meta-analysis investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor monotherapy as maintenance treatment in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant RCTs. The primary endpoint was PFS. The results were stratified based on three categories: BRCA mutated patients, HRD patients, and overall population. The secondary outcome were discontinuations due to adverse events and grade 3 or 4 adverse events in maintenance phase. Five eligible RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. For patients with BRCA mutated ovarian cancer, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.21 with 95% CrI: 0.081-0.55), rucaparib (HR = 0.23 with 95% CrI: 0.16-0.34), olaparib (HR = 0.27 with 95% CrI: 0.20-0.35), and niraparib (HR = 0.26 with 95% CrI: 0.17-0.41) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For HRD patients, both rucaparib (HR = 0.32 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.42) and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.60) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For the overall population, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.51 with 95% CrI: 0.34-0.76), rucaparib (HR = 0.37 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.45), olaparib (HR = 0.35 with 95% CrI: 0.25-0.49), and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.48) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. Regarding grade 3 or 4 adverse events, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity reactions to rucaparib and niraparib were significantly higher than in the olaparib group. In terms of discontinuations due to adverse events, the treatment discontinuations were not significantly different between the three drugs. In summary, all the included maintenance treatment regimens are effective regardless of BRCA mutational status, and no statistically significant differences between rucaparib, niraparib and Olaparib in terms of PFS. In terms of safety profile, the three drugs present manageable adverse events. Clinicians should consider potential adverse events related to each of these interventions in clinical practice, and the adverse events are generally manageable.
PubMed: 33692936
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.573801