-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The CDK 4/6 inhibitors, including palbociclib and ribociclib, are the standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor...
BACKGROUND
The CDK 4/6 inhibitors, including palbociclib and ribociclib, are the standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer. Proton pump inhibitors are one of the most globally prescribed types of medications as part of the treatment for gastroesophageal reflux and heartburn complaints. Medication interactions have been demonstrated, leading to a decrease in the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs such as capecitabine and pazopanib. However, their role and interaction with targeted therapies such as CDK inhibitors are still poorly understood.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases for studies that investigated the use of PPI with CDK 4/6 inhibitors versus CDK4/6 alone for advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We systematically searched for the currently available CDK inhibitors: palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib. We computed hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effect models for all endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics. R, version 4.2.3, was used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 2,737 patients with advanced breast cancer in 9 studies were included, with six studies described the status menopausal as 217 (7.9%) pre-menopause and 1851 (67.6%) post-menopause, for endocrine sensitivity only five studies described1489 (54.4%) patients were endocrine-sensitive and 498 (182%) endocrine-resistent, 910 (33.2%) patients used PPIs. The overall Progression-Free Survival was in favor of the PPI non-users (HR 2.0901; 95% CI 1.410-2.9498; < 0.001). As well as the subgroup taking palbociclib, revealing statistical relevance for the PPI non-users (HR 2.2539; 95% CI 1.3213-3.8446; = 0.003) and ribociclib subgroup with a slight decrease in hazard ratio (HR 1.74 95% CI 1.02-2.97; = 0.04; I = 40%). In the multivariate analysis, there was no statistical signifance with ECOG (HR 0.9081; 95% CI 0.4978-16566; p 0.753) and Age (HR 1.2772; 95% CI 0.8790-1.8559; = 0.199). Either, the univariate analysis did not show statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
Women with HR+ and HER2-advanced metastatic breast undergoing treatment with targeted therapies, specifically CDK 4/6 inhibitors, should be monitored for the use of proton pump inhibitors. Therefore, the use of PPIs should be discussed, weighing the advantages and disadvantages for specific cases. It should be individualized based on the necessity in clinical practice for these cases.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
identifier CRD42023484755.
PubMed: 38769999
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1352224 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to compare the safety profile of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) approved for use as monotherapy or combination therapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). A systematic review with frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of: cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, tivozanib, cabozantinib + nivolumab, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, axitinib + avelumab, and axitinib + pembrolizumab in previously untreated adult patients with metastatic clear cell RCC. Eligible studies were identified by two reviewers in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias for RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The P score was used to determine the treatment ranking. The mean probability of an event along with the relative measures of the NMA was considered with the treatment rankings. A total of 13 RCTs were included in the systematic review and NMA. Sorafenib and tivozanib used as monotherapy were the best treatment options. Sorafenib achieved the highest P score for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), fatigue, nausea, vomiting of any grade, and hypertension of any grade or grade ≥3. Tivozanib achieved the highest P score for AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, and grade ≥3 diarrhea. Sunitinib was the best treatment option in terms of diarrhea and dysphonia of any grade, while cabozantinib, pazopanib, and axitinib + pembrolizumab-in terms of grade ≥3 fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. TKIs used in combination were shown to have a poorer safety profile than those used as monotherapy. Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab was considered the worst option in terms of any AEs, grade ≥3 AEs, treatment discontinuation due to AEs, dose modifications due to AEs, fatigue of any grade, nausea, vomiting, and grade ≥3 nausea. Axitinib + avelumab was the worst treatment option in terms of dysphonia, grade ≥3 diarrhea, and hypertension, while cabozantinib + nivolumab was the worst option in terms of grade ≥3 vomiting. Interestingly, among the other safety endpoints, cabozantinib monotherapy had the lowest P score for diarrhea and hypertension of any grade. The general safety profile, including common AEs, is better when TKIs are used as monotherapy vs. in combination with immunological agents. To confirm these findings, further research is needed, including large RCTs.
PubMed: 37745049
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1223929 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.
Topics: Male; Female; Adult; Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Axitinib; Nivolumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Sunitinib
PubMed: 37146227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013798.pub2 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore,...
BACKGROUND
There are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore, this Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the optimal treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published until 15 June 2022. The outcome measures for this meta-analysis were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) of Grade 3-4. The Cochrane assessment tool for risk of bias was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included original studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022347273).
RESULTS
Our systematic review included 11 RCTs involving 1871 patients and 11 treatments other than chemotherapy. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall survival (OS) was the highest in adavosertib + gemcitabine compared with conventional chemotherapy, (HR=0.56,95%CI:0.35-0.91), followed by sorafenib + topotecan (HR=0.65, 95%CI:0.45-0.93). In addition, Adavosertib + Gemcitabine regimen had the highest PFS (HR=0.55,95%CI:0.34-0.88), followed by Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen (HR=0.48,95%CI:0.38-0.60) and the immunotherapy of nivolumab was the safest (HR=0.164,95%CI:0.312-0.871) with least adverse events of Grades 3-4.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicated that Adavosertib (WEE1 kinase-inhibitor) + gemcitabine regimen and Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen would be significantly beneficial to patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and could be preferred for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The immunotherapeutic agent, Nivolumab, is of considerable safety, with a low risk for grade-III or IV adverse events. Its safety is comparable to Adavosertib + gemcitabine regimen. Pazopanib + Paclitaxel (weekly regimen), Sorafenib + Topotecan/Nivolumab could be selected if there are contraindications of the above strategies.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022347273.
PubMed: 37114128
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1114484 -
American Journal of Clinical Oncology Jun 2023Patients with recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer often have poor prognoses, and their optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. Inhibition of angiogenesis is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer often have poor prognoses, and their optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. Inhibition of angiogenesis is a valuable strategy for treating ovarian cancer, and the drug pazopanib is a potent, multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor. However, treatment with pazopanib in combination with chemotherapy remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy and side effects of pazopanib combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials published up to September 2, 2022. The primary outcomes of eligible studies included overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate, 2-year PFS rate, 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, 2-year OS rate, and adverse events.
RESULT
Outcomes from a total of 518 recurrent or persistent ovarian cancer patients from 5 studies were analyzed in this systematic review. Pooled results showed that pazopanib plus chemotherapy, when compared with chemotherapy alone, significantly improved the ORR (pooled risk ratio=1.400; 95% CI, 1.062-1.846; P = 0.017) but not the disease control rate, 1-year PFS, 2-year PFS, 1-year OS, or 2-year OS. Moreover, pazopanib increased the risk of neutropenia, hypertension, fatigue, and liver dysfunction.
CONCLUSION
Pazopanib plus chemotherapy improved patient ORR but did not improve survival; it also increased the occurrence of several adverse events. Further large-sample clinical trials are needed to verify these results to guide pazopanib use in patients with ovarian cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Ovarian Neoplasms; Pyrimidines; Sulfonamides; Indazoles; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36877187
DOI: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000999 -
Cancers Oct 2022Cancer is a clinical condition that can benefit from anti-angiogenic drugs (AADs). Given the low prevalence and the heterogeneity of childhood cancers, information about... (Review)
Review
Cancer is a clinical condition that can benefit from anti-angiogenic drugs (AADs). Given the low prevalence and the heterogeneity of childhood cancers, information about the safety of these drugs in pediatric patients is partially assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of AADs in pediatric patients with solid tumors. Clinical trials and observational studies were searched in PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials database For each included study, adverse events (AEs) were extracted. A meta-analysis was conducted by pooling proportions of AEs using a random intercept logistic regression model. Seventy studies were retrieved. Most part were clinical trials (55 out of 70), and only fifteen observational studies were found. Overall, proportion of serious and non-serious AEs of AADs used as monotherapy was 46% and 89%, respectively. Proportions of serious AEs varied among drugs: sunitinib, 79%; lenvatinib, 64%; sorafenib, 48%; ramucirumab, 41%; pazopanib, 30%; and vandetanib, 27%. A higher proportion of non-serious hematological AEs was found in the patients receiving pazopanib with respect to sunitinib and lenvatinib. The safety profile of AADs has been extensively investigated for mostly drugs in phase I and II trials and is limited to acute toxicities. Overall, one out of two patients using AAD drugs in monotherapy experienced a serious AE despite proportions varied per single drugs. When AADs were combined with standard chemotherapy, the proportion of AEs varied in relation to the single combinations.
PubMed: 36358734
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215315 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Multiple targeted therapeutics are available for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC), but it remains unclear which treatment is optimal to...
Multiple targeted therapeutics are available for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC), but it remains unclear which treatment is optimal to achieve long-term survival. A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of targeted treatments for patients with RAIR-DTC from inception to April, 2022. Data were extracted by following the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR), its corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to indicate ranking probability using Bayesian network meta-analyses. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events. A total of 12 eligible RCTs involved 1,959 patients and 13 treatments: apatinib, cabozantinib, anlotinib, nintedanib, lenvatinib, lenvatinib with low dose (LD), sorafenib, sorafenib plus everolimus, donafenib (200 mg), donafenib (300 mg), pazopanib (continuous), pazopanib (intermittent), and vandetanib. Pooled analyses indicated that targeted therapeutics significantly prolonged PFS and OS in patients with RAIR-DTC (0.31, 0.21-0.41; 0.69, 0.53-0.85, respectively) compared with placebo. Network meta-analyses indicated that lenvatinib showed the most favorable PFS, with significant differences versus sorafenib (0.33, 0.23-0.48), vandetanib (0.31, 0.20-0.49), nintedanib (0.30, 0.15-0.60), and placebo (0.19, 0.15-0.25), while apatinib was most likely to be ranked first for prolonging OS with a SUCRA of 0.90. Lenvatinib showed the highest ORR (66%, 61%-70%), followed by anlotinib (59%, 48%-70%) and apatinib (54%, 40%-69%). Lenvatinib caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher, followed by lenvatinib (LD) and apatinib. Different toxicity profiles of individual treatment were also revealed. This network meta-analysis suggests that lenvatinib and apatinib were associated with the best progression-free survival and overall survival benefits, respectively, for patients with RAIR-DTC, compared with other targeted therapeutics. Patients who received lenvatinib or apatinib also had more grade 3 or higher adverse events. : [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=302249], identifier [CRD42022302249].
PubMed: 36091770
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.933648 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022The aim of this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was to analyze the efficacy and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
METHODS
Studies eligible for the efficacy of adjuvant targeted therapy regimens in advanced or metastatic RCC published before December 2021 in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched for (1) patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who received adjuvant postoperative targeted therapy versus those not receiving active treatment; (2) primary endpoint outcomes of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs); and (3) design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) as inclusion criteria. Data on DFS and OS were extracted or recalculated by meta-analysis as hazard ratios (HRs), and AEs were compared using a dominance ratio (OR).
RESULT
This systematic evaluation will provide evidence on the effectiveness and adverse effects of adjuvant targeted therapy in patients with advanced RCC. The results of meta-analysis showed that all of the three adjuvant targeted therapeutic drugs (sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib) did not benefit from the adjuvant targeted therapy for DFS and OS and even increase the incidence of AEs compared to the placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this study was to summarize data on DFS, OS, and AEs in patients with advanced RCC treated with targeted therapies. The evidence provided by this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis will help guide clinical decision-making and provide insight into the future management of patients with advanced RCC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms
PubMed: 35392587
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7341294 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2022The efficacy of anti-angiogenic agents (AAAs) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of anti-angiogenic agents (AAAs) in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to synthesize evidence of their comparative effectiveness for improving overall survival (OS) among EOC patients. We searched six databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to February 2021. We performed an NMA with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%-confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate comparative effectiveness among different AAAs in chemotherapy-naïve and recurrent EOC. P-score was used to provide an effectiveness hierarchy ranking. Sensitivity NMA was carried out by focusing on studies that reported high-risk chemotherapy-naïve, platinum-resistant, and platinum-sensitive EOC. The primary outcome was OS. We identified 23 RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of AAAs. In recurrent EOC, concurrent use of trebananib (10 mg/kg) with chemotherapy was likely to be the best option (P-score: 0.88, HR 1.67, 95% CI 0.94; 2.94). The NMA indicated that bevacizumab plus chemotherapy followed by maintenance bevacizumab (P-score: 0.99) and pazopanib combined with chemotherapy (P-score: 0.79) both had the highest probability of being the best intervention for improving OS in high-risk chemotherapy-naïve and platinum-resistant EOC, respectively. AAAs may not play a significant clinical role in non-high-risk chemotherapy-naïve and platinum-sensitive EOC.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Bevacizumab; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Ovarian Neoplasms
PubMed: 35264616
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07731-1 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Aug 2021The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative evaluation of cardiovascular risks among nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs in patients with solid tumors: a Bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) as anticancer drugs in patients with solid tumors.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials. We have included 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) associated with nine VEGFR-TKIs Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs used to treat patients with solid tumors. To evaluate the trials' risk of bias, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was assessed. A direct comparison was assessed by RevMan5.3 software, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was tested by the I statistic and Chi-square test for P value. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0 and GeMTC 0.14.3 software, calculated OR along with corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI). The model's convergence was evaluated by the potential scale reduced factor (PSRF). Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons was assessed by the "node-splitting" method.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 20,027 patients from 45 randomized controlled trials and associated with nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib), were enrolled. Findings indicated that lenvatinib had the most significant probability of provoking all grades cardiovascular incident and hypertension, followed by vandetanib, cabozantinib, axitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, regorafenib and nintedanib. The nine agent's severe cardiovascular and severe hypertension risk was probably similar. The ranking probability of cardiac toxicity shows that vandetanib ranked most likely to have the highest risk for cardiotoxicity among all the VEGFR-TKIs reviewed, followed by pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, sunitinib. In contrast, regorafenib and nintedanib did not exhibit an increased risk of cardiac damage.
CONCLUSIONS
The association between the nine VEGFR-TKIs with potential cardiotoxicity occurrence was reviewed. Both the regorafenib and nintedanib did not display detectable signs of cardiotoxic damage. In contrast, lenvatinib and vandetanib are ranked to have the most severe cardiotoxicity side impacts. These results may provide information for clinical practice guidelines, implementing strategies in selecting the adequate VEGFR-TKIs, and understanding the cardiovascular toxicity inflicted by the VEGFR-TKIs.
PROSPERO IDENTIFIER
CRD 42,020,167,307.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Cardiotoxicity; Cardiovascular Diseases; Drug Approval; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 33725154
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03521-w