-
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... 2014Background 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... (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: Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Bleomycin; Disease Progression; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; HIV Infections; Humans; Immune Reconstitution Inflammatory Syndrome; Observational Studies as Topic; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sarcoma, Kaposi; Vincristine
PubMed: 25313415
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003256.pub2 -
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 -
Cancer Biology & Therapy Jun 2014Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among gynecological tumors. Carboplatin/paclitaxel represents the cornerstone of front-line treatment. Instead, there is no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among gynecological tumors. Carboplatin/paclitaxel represents the cornerstone of front-line treatment. Instead, there is no consensus for management of recurrent/progressive disease, in which pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) ± carboplatin is widely used. We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis to evaluate impact of PLD-based compared with no-PLD-based regimens in the ovarian cancer treatment. Data were extracted from randomized trials comparing PLD-based treatment to any other regimens in the January 2000-January 2013 time-frame. Study end-points were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), CA125 response, and toxicity. Hazard ratios (HRs) of OS and PFS, with 95% CI, odds ratios (ORs) of RR and risk ratios of CA125 response and grade 3-4 toxicity, were extracted. Data were pooled using fixed and random effect models for selected endpoints. Fourteen randomized trials for a total of 5760 patients were selected and included for the final analysis, which showed no OS differences for PLD-based compared with other regimens (pooled HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.88-1.02; P = 0.132) and a significant PFS benefit of PLD-based schedule (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86-0.96; P = 0.001), particularly in second-line (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75-0.91) and in platinum-sensitive (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74-0.94) subgroups. This work confirmed the peculiar tolerability profile of this drug, moreover no difference was observed for common hematological toxicities and for RR, CA125 response. PLD-containing regimens do not improve OS when compared with any other schedule in all phases of disease. A marginal PFS advantage is observed only in platinum-sensitive setting and second-line treatment.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Disease-Free Survival; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Polyethylene Glycols; Proportional Hazards Models; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24658024
DOI: 10.4161/cbt.28557 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2013Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, requiring primary cytoreductive surgery and combination chemotherapy for its first-line... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is often diagnosed at an advanced stage, requiring primary cytoreductive surgery and combination chemotherapy for its first-line management. Currently, the recommended standard first-line chemotherapy is platinum-based, usually consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel (PAC/carbo). Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) is an improved formulation of doxorubicin that is associated with fewer and less severe side effects than are seen with non-modified doxorubicin. In combination with carboplatin, PLD has recently been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with PAC/carbo in women with relapsed, platinum-sensitive EOC. It is therefore important to know whether any survival benefit can be attributed to PLD when it is used in the first-line setting.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the role of PLD, alone or in combination, in first-line chemotherapy for women with EOC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group's Trial Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1990 to February 2013. In addition, we searched online trial registries for ongoing trials and abstracts of studies presented at relevant scientific meetings from 2000 onwards.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PLD alone or in combination with other agent/s (e.g. carboplatin) versus other agent/s for first-line chemotherapy in women with EOC who may or may not have undergone primary cytoreductive surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each included trial. We obtained updated trial data when possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two large trials. One trial compared three-weekly PLD and carboplatin (PLD/carbo) with PAC/carbo. The other trial included four experimental arms, one of which was PLD plus PAC/carbo, that were compared with the standard PAC/carbo regimen. We did not combine results of these two trials in the meta-analysis. We considered the two studies to be at low risk of bias.For the comparison PLD/carbo versus PAC/carbo (820 women; stages Ic to IV), no statistically significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85 to 1.19) or overall survival (OS) (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13) were noted between study arms. Severe anaemia (risk ratio [RR] 2.74, 95% CI 1.54 to 4.88) and thrombocytopenia (RR 8.09, 95% CI 3.93 to 16.67) were significantly more common with PLD/carbo, whereas alopecia (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.14) and severe neurotoxicity (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.66) were significantly more common with PAC/carbo. Quality of life scores were not significantly different.For the comparison PLD/PAC/carbo versus PAC/carbo (1726 women; stage III/IV), it is important to note that PLD was given for alternate cycles only (i.e. every 6 weeks). No statistically significant difference in PFS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09) or OS (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08) between these two treatment arms was reported. However, women in the triplet arm experienced significantly more severe haematological adverse events (anaemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and febrile neutropenia) compared with those given standard treatment.No RCTs evaluated single-agent PLD for first-line treatment of EOC.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
PLD/carbo is a reasonable alternative to PAC/carbo for the first-line treatment of EOC. Although three-weekly PLD/carbo may be associated with increased dose delays and discontinuations compared with the standard PAC/carbo regimen, it might be more acceptable to women who wish to avoid alopecia or those at high risk of neurotoxicity. No survival benefits appear to be associated with the alternating triplet regimen, and the additional toxicity associated with adding PLD to PAC/carbo limits further investigation. Further studies are needed to establish the safest, most effective PLD/carbo regimen for newly diagnosed disease.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Doxorubicin; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24142521
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010482.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer in women and it is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. The majority of ovarian tumours are epithelial in origin.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer in women and it is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. The majority of ovarian tumours are epithelial in origin. Women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) often have a reduced performance status with a limited life expectancy, therefore maintaining quality of life with effective symptom control is the main purpose of treatment. Drug treatment of relapsed disease is directed by the platinum-free interval: relapsed platinum-sensitive disease is usually re-treated with platinum-based therapy and platinum-resistant disease challenged with non-platinum drugs. However, the side-effects of chemotherapy agents may be severe and optimal treatment regimens are unclear. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), which contains a cytotoxic drug called doxorubicin hydrochloride is one of several treatment modalities that may be considered for single-agent treatment of relapsed EOC, or used in combination with other drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of PLD in women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group (CGCG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1990 to February 2013. We also searched online registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated PLD in women diagnosed with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently abstracted data to a pre-designed data collection form and assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guidelines. Where possible, we pooled collected data in meta-analyses using RevMan 5.2 software.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs that evaluated PLD alone or in combination with other drugs. Four RCTs contributed no data to the meta-analyses. Two studies compared PLD plus carboplatin (carbo) to paclitaxel (PAC)/carbo in women with platinum-sensitive relapsed EOC. Overall survival (OS) was similar for these treatments, however progression-free survival (PFS) was longer with PLD/carbo (1164 participants; hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.97; I² = 7%; P value 0.01). PLD/carbo was associated with significantly more anaemia and thrombocytopenia than PAC/carbo, whereas PAC/carbo was associated with significantly more alopecia, neuropathies, hypersensitivity reactions and arthralgias/myalgias. PLD/carbo was well-tolerated and women receiving this treatment were significantly less likely to discontinue treatment than those receiving PAC/carbo (two studies, 1150 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.57; I² = 0%; P < 0.00001).Five studies compared other agents to PLD alone. None of these agents were associated with significantly better survival or severe adverse-event profiles than PLD. Topotecan and gemcitabine were associated with significantly more haematological severe adverse events than PLD, and patupilone was associated with significantly more severe neuropathies and diarrhoea. Severe hand-foot syndrome (HFS) occurred consistently more frequently with PLD than the other drugs.Three studies compared PLD combination treatment to PLD alone. Two combinations resulted in a significantly longer PFS compared with PLD alone: trabectedin (TBD)/PLD (one study, 672 women; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96; P value 0.02) and vintafolide (EC145)/PLD (one study, 149 women; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.97; P value 0.04). TBD/PLD appeared to benefit the partially platinum-sensitive subgroup only. Further studies are likely to have an important impact on our confidence in these estimates. TBD/PLD was associated with significantly more haematological and gastrointestinal severe adverse events than PLD alone, whereas EC145/PLD appeared to be well-tolerated.For platinum-resistant relapsed EOC, the median PFS and OS for single-agent PLD across seven included studies was 15 weeks and 54 weeks, respectively. Severe HFS occurred significantly more frequently in women receiving a 50 mg/m² dose of PLD than those receiving less than 50 mg/m² (17% versus 2%, respectively; P value 0.01).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In platinum-sensitive relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer, PLD/carbo is more effective than PAC/carbo and is better tolerated; PLD/carbo should therefore be considered as first-line treatment in women with platinum-sensitive relapsed EOC. PLD alone is a useful agent for platinum-resistant relapsed EOC, however it remains unclear how it compares with other single agents for this subgroup and in what order these agents should be used. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of PLD in combination with other agents in platinum-resistant relapsed EOC.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Ovarian Neoplasms; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23835762
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006910.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Chemotherapeutic agents such as topotecan can be used to treat ovarian cancer. The effects of using topotecan as a therapeutic agent have not been previously been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapeutic agents such as topotecan can be used to treat ovarian cancer. The effects of using topotecan as a therapeutic agent have not been previously been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topotecan for the treatment of ovarian cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (Issue 4, 2006); Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group (CGCRG) Specialised Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); EMBASE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) database (to 1 August 2006); CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) (January 1990 to 27 July 2006).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which randomized patients with ovarian cancer to single or combined use of topotecan versus interventions without topotecan, or different remedies of topotecan.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies including 1323 participants were eligible for this review (Gordon 2004a; Gore 2001a; Gore 2002; Hoskins 1998; Huinink 2004; Placido 2004) All studies, as reported, were identified as being of poor methodological quality. Topotecan had comparable effectiveness to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), (16.1 weeks versus 17.0 weeks; p = 0.095). Overall survival (OS) time was similar in participants using PLD compared with topotecan (56.7 weeks versus 60 weeks; p = 0.341). Topotecan was more hematologically toxic compared with paclitaxel or PLD, relative risks (RRs) of hematological events: ranged from 1.03 to 14.46 and 1.73 to 27.12 respectively. A 21-day cycle of topotecan was more toxic than a 42-day cycle (RRs of hematological and non-hematological events ranged from 1.03 to 8). Intravenous and oral topotecan had comparable toxicity. Topotecan delayed progression more effectively compared with paclitaxel (23.1 weeks versus 14 weeks, p = 0.0021). Participants were more likely to respond to topotecan on a 21-day cycle as opposed to a 42-day cycle (RR 7.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 55.36). Small tumor diameter, sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with better prognosis. Small sample size, methodological flaws and poor reporting of the included trials made measurement bias of the trials difficult to assess.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topotecan appears to have a similar level of effectiveness as paclitaxel and PLD, though with different patterns of side effects. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required in order to define an optimal regime.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topotecan
PubMed: 18425923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005589.pub2 -
Health Technology Assessment... Mar 2006To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH)... (Review)
Review
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions.
REVIEW METHODS
Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS
For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Liposomes; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Topotecan
PubMed: 16545208
DOI: 10.3310/hta10090 -
European Journal of Gynaecological... 2002To evaluate the chemotherapeutic options for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who have received platinum-based chemotherapy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the chemotherapeutic options for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who have received platinum-based chemotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic search of the Medline, CancerLit and Cochrane Library databases was performed for the period from 1984 to June 2001 to find randomized trials comparing second- or higher-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with recurrent platinum-pretreated epithelial ovarian cancer.
RESULTS
Seven randomized trials have failed to demonstrate the clear superiority of any one chemotherapy regimen in terms of improvements in long-term survival, quality of life or response rate. One trial detected a statistically significant difference between treatments in progression-free survival, which was longer with cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/cisplatin than with paclitaxel in women with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Another trial did not show a difference between liposomal doxorubicin and topotecan overall in women with recurrent ovarian cancer but a subgroup analysis detected a significant survival advantage for liposomal doxorubicin over topotecan in women with platinum-sensitive disease.
CONCLUSION
The evidence available does not support firm conclusions about the preferred chemotherapy regimen for recurrent ovarian cancer. Randomized trials that compare new drugs with current standard treatments are needed.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Platinum Compounds; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate
PubMed: 12013102
DOI: No ID Found