-
Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) 2001A systematic review of chemotherapy trials in several tumour types was performed by The Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). The procedures for... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of chemotherapy trials in several tumour types was performed by The Swedish Council of Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). The procedures for the evaluation of the scientific literature are described separately (Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 155-65). This synthesis of the literature on chemotherapy for breast cancer is based on 233 randomised studies, 9 meta-analysis of randomised studies, a population-based cohort study and 18 overviews/retrospective analyses including a total of 155,243 patients. The conclusions reached can be summarised into the following points: Adjuvant treatment-- There is solid scientific support from randomised studies that adjuvant polychemotherapy at 10 years will result in an absolute mortality reduction for patients younger than 50 years by 12% for node positive (34% relative mortality reduction corresponding to an estimated median survival prolongation of several years) and 6% for node negative patients. For women aged 50 to 69 years, the corresponding figures for node positive and node negative patients are 6% and 2%, respectively (approximately 11% relative mortality reduction). Anthracycline-containing combinations result in an absolute survival benefit at five years of 3%, compared with non-anthracycline based polychemotherapy. There are indications that the taxane paclitaxel may further improve the survival compared with anthracyclines. However, the limited data preclude conclusions for the routine care. The addition of tamoxifen to chemotherapy further enhances the survival benefit for receptor positive subgroups. The roles of more dose-intensive regimens, including high-dose therapy with stem cell support, are presently studied in randomised investigations. The data presented so far are conflicting but they do not in general support high-dose therapy. Quality of life, based on analyses of randomised studies, demonstrate that adjuvant polychemotherapy has an initial detrimental effect, but long-term follow-up of treated patients demonstrates no impairment of quality of life compared with untreated patients. Polychemotherapy in standard doses should be offered to premenopausal node positive patients, and the corresponding postmenopausal group with a receptor-negative breast cancer and to node negative patients with high risk factors. Polychemotherapy should be combined with tamoxifen to all patients with receptor-positive tumours. Due to a need of more knowledge in this field, patients should be included in investigational protocols. Locally advanced breast cancer-- Based on current knowledge, treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer should include neoadjuvant/preoperative polychemotherapy since there is evidence from controlled studies that such therapy will statistically significantly increase the number of patients who can be offered breast-conserving surgery. Indirect comparisons also demonstrate survival improvements, but the scientific support is equivocal. Metastatic breast cancer-- The median survival for patients with metastatic disease treated with conventional chemotherapy doses and regimens is 12 to 24 months. Retrospective cohort studies indicate that the use of non-anthracycline containing chemotherapy compared with no chemotherapy might add a survival gain of six to nine months. However, this estimation is based on equivocal data. Based on overview data, polychemotherapy results in a statistically significant survival gain compared with single-agent therapy. Based on repeated randomised studies, the addition of anthracyclines increases the response rate and statistically significantly improves the survival compared with non-anthracycline containing chemotherapy, except for CMF combined with prednisone/prednisolone, which will statistically significantly improve the survival compared with some anthracycline combinations. Second line therapy using vinorelbine or docetaxel is statistically significantly better than other regimens with a time to progression and survival benefit in the order of one to three months based on few randomised studies. The role, if any, of third line therapy is yet to be demonstrated. In the metastatic setting, conventional chemotherapy improves the quality of life. In standard care, first line therapy should contain an anthracycline and second line therapy using vinorelbine or docetaxel could be offered to selected patients failing first line therapy. Based on numerous randomised studies, breast cancer demonstrates a positive dose-response relationship both in the adjuvant situation and for metastatic disease. However, in the conventional dose-range there seems to be a plateau in the dose-response curve, with no further survival gains for high
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 11441936
DOI: 10.1080/02841860151116349 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2000SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the paclitaxel arm was 3.5 months. This was significantly... (Review)
Review
SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the paclitaxel arm was 3.5 months. This was significantly longer than the mitomycin control arm (1.6 months, p = 0.026). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL): The median length of overall survival in the paclitaxel arm was 12.7 months, compared with 8.4 months in the mitomycin arm. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (QUALITY OF LIFE): Quality of life was not reported. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (ECONOMIC EVALUATION): The only economic evaluation that compared paclitaxel with control (mitomycin) was submitted in confidence and has been removed from this report. Six economic evaluations involved comparisons of paclitaxel and docetaxel, which are given below. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL: Four randomised controlled Phase III trials were identified: 303 Study, 304 Study, Scand and Bonneterre. A total of 1092 patients were included. One of these was a preliminary report of a study before completion of accrual (Bonneterre). Patients in the 303 Study had previously received chemotherapy involving alkylating agents; those in the other three had received anthracyclines. There were six economic evaluations on docetaxel. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (QUALITY OF TRIALS): The 303 and 304 Studies were analysed on an intention to treat basis; the Scand trial excluded a single patient. The length of follow-up ranged from 11 months (Scand) to 23 months (303 Study). At least two-thirds of the participants in these trials had died. The Scand study recommended cross-over to alternate treatment on objective signs of disease progression. Patients crossing over in this way were violating the randomisation; however, no details were given concerning whether or not such patients were censored. In the economic analyses, there were no direct comparisons for the estimation of benefits. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the docetaxel arm ranged from 4.75 months (304 Study) to 7 months (Bonneterre). Patients in the docetaxel arms of the 304 and Scand studies had significantly longer progression-free survivals than controls (4.75 months versus 2.75 months, p = 0.001; 6.3 months versus 3 months, p = 0.001). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL): The median overall survival in the docetaxel arm ranged from 10.4 months (Scand) to 15 months (303 Study). Patients in the docetaxel arms of the 304 Study survived for significantly longer than the mitomycin plus vinblastine arm (11.4 months versus 8.7 months, p = 0.03). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (QUALITY OF LIFE): Quality of life was evaluated in two of the trials: the 303 and 304 Studies. There were no significant differences between docetaxel and control in either of these trials in terms of global health status, although differences were apparent on some subscales. These did not appear to follow a consistent pattern across the trials. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS): All six of these involved comparisons of paclitaxel and docetaxel, where the range of cost-utility ratios for incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was pound 1990-pound 2431. In addition, three analyses compared docetaxel and vinorelbine. The cost-utility ratio for incremental QALYs gained was pound 14,050 in the only one of these carried out in the UK. OVARIAN CANCER - FIRST-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL: Four randomised controlled Phase III trials were identified: EORTC, TITGANZ, E1193 and CA139-278. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Breast Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality of Life; Survival Analysis; Taxoids
PubMed: 11074389
DOI: No ID Found -
Anticancer Research 1999We carried out a systematic review of new drugs active in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Fifty five phase II and III trials were reviewed (vinorelbine (19... (Review)
Review
We carried out a systematic review of new drugs active in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Fifty five phase II and III trials were reviewed (vinorelbine (19 trials), paclitaxel (15), gemcitabine (11), docetaxel (6), topotecan (2) or irinotecan (2)). The first four ones could be considered as active drugs when given as single agent. More information is required for the camptothecin derivatives. Four phase III randomised studies were available, all concerning vinorelbine. They showed that in combination with cisplatin, vinorelbine improved the response rate and perhaps survival, in comparison to vinorelbine alone and that vinorelbine was better than 5 fluorouracil and vindesine. A quantitative overview was impracticable, because of too few randomised trials. A qualitative overview was carried out using the European Lung Cancer Working Party score. The overall median quality score was 65.3%. There was no statistically significant difference between the drugs, but there was a positive correlation between the score and the number of patients. There was also an improvement of the quality score in favour of the randomised trials. Some important methodological aspects were often missing in the articles. In conclusion, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, paclitaxel and docetaxel are active against NSCLC but more good-quality data are required to define their exact role in the routine.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Camptothecin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Deoxycytidine; Docetaxel; Humans; Irinotecan; Lung Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taxoids; Topotecan; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 10650780
DOI: No ID Found