-
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Dec 2022In recent years, significant changes have occurred in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) management, where docetaxel and new androgen receptor pathway... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Addition of New Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors to Docetaxel and Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis.
In recent years, significant changes have occurred in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) management, where docetaxel and new androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) have been shown to improve overall survival (OS) compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Recent data could once again radically change mHSPC treatment. PEACE-1 and ARASENS trials demonstrated a survival benefit of the addition of ARPI to docetaxel and ADT combination (triplet therapy), compared to docetaxel and ADT. With multiple options to choose from, it is crucial to identify the patients who would benefit most from triplet therapy. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the activity of the triplet therapy versus docetaxel plus ADT in mHSPC. A systematic review of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the proceedings of major international meetings was performed. Five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. PEACE-1 and ARASENS studies reported disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. Post hoc analysis of three other trials evaluated the combination of ARPI, docetaxel and ADT. Globally, 2538 patients were included (1270 triplet therapy; 1268 docetaxel + ADT). Triplet therapy was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.83, < 0.00001). A statistically significant benefit was shown in high-volume mHSPC patients (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.97, = 0.03) and in patients with de novo metastatic disease (HR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82, < 0.00001). The addition of ARPI to standard therapy was associated with DFS improvement (HR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.35-0.49, < 0.00001). This metanalysis shows a significant OS benefit from concomitant administration of ARPI, docetaxel and ADT in high volume and de novo mHSPC.
Topics: Humans; Male; Androgens; Docetaxel; Prostatic Neoplasms; Androgen Receptor Antagonists; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36547161
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29120747 -
The Lancet. Oncology Feb 2016Results from large randomised controlled trials combining docetaxel or bisphosphonates with standard of care in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have emerged. In order... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Addition of docetaxel or bisphosphonates to standard of care in men with localised or metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analyses of aggregate data.
BACKGROUND
Results from large randomised controlled trials combining docetaxel or bisphosphonates with standard of care in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have emerged. In order to investigate the effects of these therapies and to respond to emerging evidence, we aimed to systematically review all relevant trials using a framework for adaptive meta-analysis.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, conference proceedings, review articles, and reference lists of trial publications for all relevant randomised controlled trials (published, unpublished, and ongoing) comparing either standard of care with or without docetaxel or standard of care with or without bisphosphonates for men with high-risk localised or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For each trial, we extracted hazard ratios (HRs) of the effects of docetaxel or bisphosphonates on survival (time from randomisation until death from any cause) and failure-free survival (time from randomisation to biochemical or clinical failure or death from any cause) from published trial reports or presentations or obtained them directly from trial investigators. HRs were combined using the fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenzsel).
FINDINGS
We identified five eligible randomised controlled trials of docetaxel in men with metastatic (M1) disease. Results from three (CHAARTED, GETUG-15, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2992 [93%] of 3206 men randomised) showed that the addition of docetaxel to standard of care improved survival. The HR of 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·87; p<0·0001) translates to an absolute improvement in 4-year survival of 9% (95% CI 5-14). Docetaxel in addition to standard of care also improved failure-free survival, with the HR of 0·64 (0·58-0·70; p<0·0001) translating into a reduction in absolute 4-year failure rates of 16% (95% CI 12-19). We identified 11 trials of docetaxel for men with locally advanced disease (M0). Survival results from three (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2121 [53%] of 3978 men) showed no evidence of a benefit from the addition of docetaxel (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·69-1·09]; p=0·218), whereas failure-free survival data from four (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE, TAX 3501) of these trials (2348 [59%] of 3978 men) showed that docetaxel improved failure-free survival (0·70 [0·61-0·81]; p<0·0001), which translates into a reduced absolute 4-year failure rate of 8% (5-10). We identified seven eligible randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates for men with M1 disease. Survival results from three of these trials (2740 [88%] of 3109 men) showed that addition of bisphosphonates improved survival (0·88 [0·79-0·98]; p=0·025), which translates to 5% (1-8) absolute improvement, but this result was influenced by the positive result of one trial of sodium clodronate, and we found no evidence of a benefit from the addition of zoledronic acid (0·94 [0·83-1·07]; p=0·323), which translates to an absolute improvement in survival of 2% (-3 to 7). Of 17 trials of bisphosphonates for men with M0 disease, survival results from four trials (4079 [66%] of 6220 men) showed no evidence of benefit from the addition of bisphosphonates (1·03 [0·89-1·18]; p=0·724) or zoledronic acid (0·98 [0·82-1·16]; p=0·782). Failure-free survival definitions were too inconsistent for formal meta-analyses for the bisphosphonate trials.
INTERPRETATION
The addition of docetaxel to standard of care should be considered standard care for men with M1 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are starting treatment for the first time. More evidence on the effects of docetaxel on survival is needed in the M0 disease setting. No evidence exists to suggest that zoledronic acid improves survival in men with M1 or M0 disease, and any potential benefit is probably small.
FUNDING
Medical Research Council UK.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bone Neoplasms; Diphosphonates; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Humans; Imidazoles; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Standard of Care; Survival Rate; Taxoids; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 26718929
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00489-1 -
BMC Cancer Jan 2022Administration of single-agent docetaxel in a weekly schedule may offer similar efficacy, with a more favorable toxicity profile, compared to a three-weekly schedule in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The influence of docetaxel schedule on treatment tolerability and efficacy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Administration of single-agent docetaxel in a weekly schedule may offer similar efficacy, with a more favorable toxicity profile, compared to a three-weekly schedule in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
METHODS
The original search of Medline, Embase, and Scopus was performed in September 2018 and references were updated with additional searches up to January 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the identified literature based on a predefined set of criteria. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of weekly versus three-weekly docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients were included.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials (N = 459 patients) were included in the final analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of objective response rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54 - 1.05), progression-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71 - 1.26) or overall survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.29) between weekly and three-weekly docetaxel, respectively. Weekly docetaxel was associated with a significantly lower risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10 - 0.27), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI: 0.08 - 0.55), and neuropathy (RR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.78). Although the risk of epiphora (≥ grade 3/leading to treatment withdrawal, RR 3.62, 95% CI: 1.07-12.22) and onycholysis (≥ grade 2/leading to treatment withdrawal, RR 3.90, 95% CI: 1.34 - 11.32) was increased.
CONCLUSIONS
Weekly docetaxel is associated with a lower risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and neuropathy than the three-weekly docetaxel schedule in metastatic breast cancer patients. However, the risk of onycholysis, epiphora, and treatment discontinuation seems increased with weekly administration. No significant differences in efficacy outcomes were found. Weekly docetaxel might be an alternative for patients at risk for developing neutropenia.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35078455
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09196-x -
European Urology Oncology May 2024Mutations in the speckle-type POZ (SPOP) gene are frequently identified in prostate cancer (PC); yet, prognostic implications for affected patients remain unclear.... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Mutations in the speckle-type POZ (SPOP) gene are frequently identified in prostate cancer (PC); yet, prognostic implications for affected patients remain unclear. Limited consensus exists regarding tailored treatments for SPOP-mutant (SPOPmut) PC.
OBJECTIVE
To elucidate the prognostic and predictive significance of SPOP mutations across distinct PC stages and treatments.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted up to January 29, 2024. The meta-analysis included studies comparing survival outcomes between SPOPmut and SPOP wild-type (SPOPwt) PC.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
From 669 records, 26 studies (including five abstracts) were analyzed. A meta-analysis of metastasis-free survival in localized (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.88; p < 0.01) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic PC (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53-0.76; p < 0.01) showed a favorable prognosis for patients with SPOPmut PC. In metastatic settings, SPOP mutations correlated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy ± androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.76, p < 0.01, and HR: 0.60, 95% CI:0.46-0.79, p < 0.01, respectively). In metastatic castration-resistant PC, only abiraterone provided improved PFS and OS to patients with SPOP mutations compared with patients with SPOPwt, but data were limited. SPOP mutations did not correlate with improved PFS (p = 0.80) or OS (p = 0.27) for docetaxel.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with SPOPmut PC seem to exhibit superior oncological outcomes compared with patients with SPOPwt. Tailored risk stratification and treatment approaches should be explored in such patients.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Speckle-type POZ (SPOP) mutations could be a favorable prognostic factor in patients with prostate cancer (PC) and may also predict better progression-free and overall survival than treatment with hormonal agents. Therefore, less intensified treatments omitting chemotherapy for patients with SPOP-mutant PC should be explored in clinical trials.
PubMed: 38704358
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.04.011 -
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2008To identify the expected delay between publication of conference abstracts and full publication of results from trials of new anti-cancer agents for breast cancer and to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To identify the expected delay between publication of conference abstracts and full publication of results from trials of new anti-cancer agents for breast cancer and to identify whether there are any apparent biases in publication and reporting.
DATA SOURCES
Major electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the selected interventions for the treatment of breast cancer.
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to standard methods. Data were extracted from the included studies using a predesigned and piloted data extraction template.
RESULTS
Six anti-cancer treatments for breast cancer were included in the review: docetaxel, paclitaxel, trastuzumab, gemcitabine, lapatinib and bevacizumab. The literature searches generated 1556 references, from which 71 publications were retrieved and screened for inclusion. Screening identified 41 publications of 18 RCTs with at least one arm of treatment meeting the inclusion criteria for the review. Of the 18 included RCTs, only four publications (from three RCTs) reported the same outcomes in both an abstract and a full publication. Time between the abstract and full publication was 5 months in two cases, 7 months in one case and 19 months in one case (overall mean delay = 9 months). Eleven trials were identified that have not currently published in a full publication the data presented in an abstract or conference proceeding. The duration between publication of the abstracts and the end of August 2007 varied from 3 months to 38 months (mean delay 16.5 months). The longest delays in publication were for trials investigating gemcitabine (38 months) or bevacizumab (33 months). Observational analysis of the published and unpublished trials did not indicate any particular biases in terms of whether positive results were more likely to be fully published than non-significant ones.
CONCLUSIONS
It was surprising that only three of the 18 relevant RCTs had one or more full papers that reported the same outcome measures (and stage of analysis) as an earlier conference abstract. However, a limitation of this review is the small number of studies included. With a larger sample size than that in the present report, investigation into the effect of publication delay on decision-making might be feasible. Future research should include extension of this work to other anti-cancer drugs and investigation into the reasons for lengthy delays to full publication noted for some trials.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Breast Neoplasms; Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Databases, Bibliographic; Deoxycytidine; Docetaxel; Female; Humans; Lapatinib; Paclitaxel; Publication Bias; Publishing; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taxoids; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Time; Trastuzumab; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 18831948
DOI: 10.3310/hta12320 -
Cureus May 2023Patients diagnosed with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer require treatment upfront because of the aggressive nature of this type of... (Review)
Review
Pathologic Complete Response Achieved in Early-Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy With Trastuzumab and Chemotherapy vs. Trastuzumab, Chemotherapy, and Pertuzumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
Patients diagnosed with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer require treatment upfront because of the aggressive nature of this type of cancer. Patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer are usually treated with neoadjuvant therapy. This neoadjuvant therapy comprises targeted therapy and chemotherapy. Targeted therapy is given with trastuzumab. Pertuzumab is either administered or not with trastuzumab as a targeted therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to find out and compare the benefit achieved in terms of pathologic complete response (pCR) by adding pertuzumab to the neoadjuvant treatment regimen for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Various databases were searched to find out relevant clinical trials. After going through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, three clinical trials were shortlisted for this systematic review and meta-analysis. These three clinical trials were double-armed. Pertuzumab was present in one arm while being absent in one arm to assess the benefit of adding pertuzumab in terms of pCR achieved. Data were analyzed using RevMan Web (Cochrane, London, UK). The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated for the outcome. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effect model were used for analysis. The risk of bias in studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (ROB2). The summary statistics showed that the incidence of pCR was more in the experimental group (having pertuzumab) as compared to the control group (without pertuzumab) with an odds ratio of 2.10 (95% CI: 1.56-2.83) with I2 = 0%. In three double-arm trials, there were 840 participants, 445 in the experimental group and 395 in the control group. A total of 203 (45%) patients out of 445 in the experimental group achieved pCR, whereas 127 (32%) patients out of 395 in the control group achieved pCR. Through the results of this study, it can be concluded that the rate of pCR achieved was higher in that arm in which pertuzumab was present compared to the study arm in which only trastuzumab was given as targeted therapy. Thus, it can be suggested that pertuzumab be added to the neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer patients. This would result in achieving a better pCR. And by improving pCR rates, the survival outcomes of patients can be significantly improved.
PubMed: 37398703
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39780 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2001The incidence of lung cancer is declining following a drop in smoking rates, but it is still the leading cause of death from cancer in England and Wales, with about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The incidence of lung cancer is declining following a drop in smoking rates, but it is still the leading cause of death from cancer in England and Wales, with about 30,000 deaths a year. Survival rates for lung cancer are poor everywhere, but they appear to be better in the rest of the European Community and the USA than in the UK. Only about 5 per cent of people with lung cancer survive for 5 years, and nearly all of these are cured by surgery after fortuitously early diagnosis. At present, only a small proportion of patients (probably about 5 per cent) with non-small-cell lung cancer are being given chemotherapy. Some centres treat a greater proportion.
OBJECTIVES
This review examines the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four of the newer drugs - vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel and docetaxel - used for treating the most common type of lung cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer). The first three drugs are used for first-line treatment, but at present docetaxel is used only after first-line chemotherapy has failed.
METHODS
This report was based on a systematic literature review and economic modelling, supplemented by cost data. RESULTS - NUMBER AND QUALITY OF STUDIES: A reasonable number of randomised trials were found - three for docetaxel, six for gemcitabine, five for paclitaxel and 13 for vinorelbine. The quality of the trials was variable but good overall. There was a wide range of comparators. Some trials compared chemotherapy with best supportive care (BSC), which involves care that aims to control symptoms, with palliative radiotherapy if needed, but not to prolong life. Others compared the newer drugs against previous drugs or combinations. RESULTS - SUMMARY OF BENEFITS: The gains in duration of survival with the new drugs are modest - a few months - but worthwhile in a condition for which the untreated survival is only about 5 months. There are also gains in quality of life compared with BSC, because on balance the side-effects of some forms of chemotherapy have less effect on quality of life than the effects of uncontrolled spread of cancer. RESULTS - COSTS: The total cost to the NHS of using these new drugs in England and Wales might be about GBP 10 million per annum, but is subject to a number of factors. There would be non-financial constraints on any increase in chemotherapy for the next few years, such as staffing; the number of patients choosing to have the newer forms of chemotherapy is not yet known; and the costs of the drugs may fall, for example, as generic forms appear. RESULTS - COST PER LIFE-YEAR GAINED: The available data did not provide an entirely satisfactory basis for cost-effectiveness calculations. The main problem was the lack of direct comparisons of the new drugs. In order to strengthen the analysis, three different modelling approaches were used: pairwise comparisons using trial data; cost-minimisation analysis, as if all the new regimens were of equal efficacy; and cost-effectiveness analysis pooling the results of several trials with different comparators, giving indirect comparisons of the new drugs by using BSC as the common comparator. A number of different scenarios were explored through extensive sensitivity analysis in each model. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost per life-year saved or incremental cost, versus BSC. There was insufficient evidence from which to derive cost per quality-adjusted life-year. In first-line treatment, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, and the lower-dose paclitaxel plus cisplatin combinations generally performed well against BSC under a range of different scenarios and especially when given as a maximum of 3 cycles. Incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) versus BSC varied depending on scenario, but baseline figures based on trial data and protocols were: single-agent vinorelbine, pound 2194 per LYG; vinorelbine plus cisplatin, pound 5206; single-agent gemcitabine, pound 5690; gemcitabine plus cisplatin, pound 10,041; and paclitaxel plus cisplatin, pound 8537. In second-line chemotherapy, docetaxel gave a cost per LYG of pound 17,546, again well within the range usually accepted as cost-effective. However, in routine care, the impact of therapy would be regularly reviewed, and continuation would depend on response, side-effects, patient choice and clinical judgement. Chemotherapy would be stopped in non-responders, making chemotherapy more cost-effective. A 'real-life' scenario in which 60 per cent of patients receive only 1 or 2 cycles of chemotherapy gives much lower costs per LYG, with single-agent gemcitabine, single-agent vinorelbine, and paclitaxel plus platinum appearing to be cost-saving compared with BSC; the incremental cost of gemcitabine plus cisplatin would be pound 2478 per LYG, and of vinorelbine plus cisplatin, pound 2808. At the very least, gains in duration of survival were achieved without diminution of quality of life (at best, they improved quality) and with relatively low incremental cost. Comparisons among the individual drugs should be viewed with caution because they have had to be based on indirect comparisons. RESULTS - LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS: Each of the three models had limitations. The cost-effectiveness estimates from the pairwise comparisons were based on single studies. The cost-minimisation analysis assumed that the regimens have equal efficacy in practice. The cost-effectiveness analysis had to be based on pooling data from individual trials. The costs of BSC, inpatient stay and outpatient visits were from Scottish data. Median rather than mean data on duration of survival have been used in the analysis, because most of the trials reported only median data. Median survival and number of drug cycles were calculated by averaging across a number of studies, rather than being reliant on one particular study. The costs of the less expensive antiemetics cited in the trials were omitted. The use of more modern and costly antiemetics would have a modest detrimental effect on cost-effectiveness. In the absence of published data, an estimate was made of the cost of side-effects of chemotherapy, in particular hospital admissions, and applied to all the new regimens. In practice, admissions related to side-effects and their respective costs are likely to vary by regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
The new drugs for non-small-cell lung cancer extend life by only a few months compared with BSC, but appear to do so without net loss in quality of life and at a cost per LYG that is much lower than for many other NHS activities. Depending on assumptions used, these new drugs range from being cost-effective, as conventionally accepted, to being cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEWER DRUGS: One of the present constraints on chemotherapy is availability of inpatient beds. The advent of newer and gentler forms of chemotherapy given on an outpatient basis would not only overcome this, but it would allow more patients to be treated. This might apply particularly to older patients. The treatment of more patients would increase workload for oncologists, cancer nurses and pharmacists. The Government has already announced increased expenditure on staff for cancer care. The previously pessimistic attitudes to chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer are changing in the wake of the newer agents, and this shift is likely to increase referral. CONCLUSIONS - NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Recent advances in chemotherapy are welcome, but their effects remain small for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Much more research is needed into better drugs, better combinations, new ways of assessing the likelihood of response and especially direct comparisons between the new regimens. This research would be aided by having a greater proportion of patients involved in trials, but there will be infrastructure implications of increased participation.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deoxycytidine; Docetaxel; England; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality of Life; Survival Rate; Taxoids; Vinblastine; Vinorelbine; Wales; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 12065068
DOI: 10.3310/hta5320 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Feb 2023In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments. A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line-to-progression and second-line treatments for advanced NsqNSCLC informed Bayesian NMAs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end points. Among first-line-to-progression treatments, pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the greatest OS benefit versus other regimens and a PFS benefit versus all but three regimens. Among second-line treatments, an OS benefit was seen for atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab versus docetaxel. Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the maximum OS benefit in the first-line setting. In the second-line setting, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapies were better than docetaxel.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Pemetrexed; Network Meta-Analysis; Platinum; Bayes Theorem; Immunotherapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36621905
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0016 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Male testicular dysfunction is a considerable complication of anti-cancer therapies, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy, partly due to the increased oxidative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Protective effects of exogenous melatonin therapy against oxidative stress to male reproductive tissue caused by anti-cancer chemical and radiation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.
BACKGROUND
Male testicular dysfunction is a considerable complication of anti-cancer therapies, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy, partly due to the increased oxidative stress caused by these treatments. Melatonin is an effective antioxidant agent that protects testicles against physical and toxic chemical stressors in animal models. This study aims to systematically review the melatonin's protective effects against anti-cancer stressors on rodential testicular tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
An extensive search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed for animal studies investigating exogenous melatonin's protective effects on rodent testicles exposed to anti-cancer chemicals and radiotherapeutic agents. Using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model, standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the pooled data. The protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022355293).
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 38 studies from 43 studies that were eligible for the review. Rats and mice were exposed to radiotherapy (ionizing radiations such as gamma- and roentgen radiation and radioactive iodine) or chemotherapy (methotrexate, paclitaxel, busulfan, cisplatin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, Taxol, procarbazine, docetaxel, and chlorambucil). According to our meta-analysis, all outcomes were significantly improved by melatonin therapy, including sperm quantity and quality (count, motility, viability, normal morphology, number of spermatogonia, Johnsen's testicular biopsy score, seminiferous tubular diameter, and seminiferous epithelial height), serum level of reproductive hormones (Follicle-Stimulating Hormone and testosterone), tissue markers of oxidative stress (testicular tissue malondialdehyde, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, catalase, glutathione, caspase-3, and total antioxidant capacity), and weight-related characteristics (absolute body, epididymis, testis, and relative testis to body weights). Most SYRCLE domains exhibited a high risk of bias in the included studies. Also, significant heterogeneity and small-study effects were detected.
CONCLUSION
In male rodents, melatonin therapy was related to improved testicular histopathology, reproductive hormones, testis and body weights, and reduced levels of oxidative markers in testicular tissues of male rodents. Future meticulous studies are recommended to provide a robust scientific backbone for human applications.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355293, identifier CRD42022355293.
Topics: Humans; Male; Animals; Rats; Mice; Melatonin; Antioxidants; Iodine Radioisotopes; Semen; Thyroid Neoplasms; Oxidative Stress; Body Weight
PubMed: 37701901
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1184745 -
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