-
Hematology, Transfusion and Cell Therapy 2020Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the cancer with the highest incidence in childhood and adolescence, and pharmacotherapy is the primary form of treatment.
INTRODUCTION
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the cancer with the highest incidence in childhood and adolescence, and pharmacotherapy is the primary form of treatment.
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-asparaginase in acute lymphoblastic leukemia therapy in children and adolescents was conducted to compare it with native Escherichia coli L-asparaginase. PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) and EMBASE databases were selected. The following outcomes were analyzed: complete remission of the disease, event-free survival, overall survival, anti-asparaginase antibody level, hypersensitivity reactions, asparaginase and asparagine serum levels, number of postdiagnosis events, and overall mortality. Five randomized controlled trials were included. Analysis of the quality of evidence and risk of bias was performed using the Cochrane recommendation tool and the GRADE system.
RESULTS
The assessment results suggest that the level of certainty on the technology addressed is relatively weak from a methodological point of view. Evidence is insufficient to assess the effects on health outcomes because of the limited number and power of studies and important flaws in their design or conduct in classifying PEG-asparaginase as a superior drug or not, in the pharmacotherapy of ALL in children and adolescents. PEG-asparaginase can be used as a substitute for native E. coli L-asparaginase, demonstrating similar efficacy and safety.
CONCLUSION
The study may help decision-makers in the public health system to offer a more in-depth judgment on the therapeutic alternatives used to treat this neoplasm in children and adolescents.
PubMed: 31412986
DOI: 10.1016/j.htct.2019.01.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of...
BACKGROUND
The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. The secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution).
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias. We did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life. In the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future research.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Antineoplastic Agents; Antithrombins; Asparaginase; Bias; Cause of Death; Humans; Placebos; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 33038027
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013399.pub2 -
Journal of Hematology Oct 2023Treatment with non-anthracycline (ANT)-based chemotherapy has increased survival in patients with extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTCL). However, the...
BACKGROUND
Treatment with non-anthracycline (ANT)-based chemotherapy has increased survival in patients with extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTCL). However, the relative efficacy of various drug combinations has been contentious. We aimed to identify the most effective chemotherapy regimens for newly diagnosed ENKTCL.
METHODS
A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the differences in survival and treatment responses across various regimens. The primary objective was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR). We utilized a Bayesian framework to perform the network meta-analysis. Rank probabilities were assessed by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Node-splitting method was used to assess the inconsistency.
RESULTS
A total of 1,113 patients were enrolled across 10 studies. Chemotherapy regimens were grouped into five modalities, for which six types of direct comparisons were available. We identified the asparaginase (ASP)/gemcitabine (GEM)-based regimens superiority over ANT-based, non-ASP/ANT-based and ASP/methotrexate (MTX)-based regimens on OS. Although no significant differences were observed compared with ASP/not otherwise specified-based, ASP/GEM-based regimens were still the best option chemotherapy for OS. Moreover, the ASP/GEM-based regimens demonstrated advantages in PFS, ORR and CR.
CONCLUSIONS
According to our network meta-analysis, it appears that ASP/GEM-based regimens could potentially serve as the most effective frontline chemotherapy option for ENKTCL.
PubMed: 37936976
DOI: 10.14740/jh1169 -
Journal of Hematology & Oncology Dec 2018Extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, presents predominantly as a localized disease involving the nasal cavity and adjacent sites, and the...
Extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, presents predominantly as a localized disease involving the nasal cavity and adjacent sites, and the treatment of localized nasal ENKTL is a major issue. However, given its rarity, there is no standard therapy based on randomized controlled trials and therefore a lack of consensus on the treatment of localized nasal ENKTL. Currently recommended treatments are based mainly on the results of phase II studies and retrospective analyses. Because the previous outcomes of anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were poor, non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimens, including etoposide and L-asparaginase, have been used mainly for patients with localized nasal ENKTL. Radiotherapy also has been used as a main component of treatment because it can produce a rapid response. Accordingly, the combined approach of non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy with radiotherapy is currently recommended as a first-line treatment for localized nasal ENKTL. This review summarizes the different approaches for the use of non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy with radiotherapy including concurrent, sequential, and sandwich chemoradiotherapy, which have been proposed as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed patients with localized nasal ENKTL.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Humans; Lymphoma, Extranodal NK-T-Cell; Nose Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30567593
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-018-0687-0