-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) presents significant treatment selection challenges due to limited therapeutic options. This study aimed to...
Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) presents significant treatment selection challenges due to limited therapeutic options. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the efficacy of multiple treatment regimens for mCRPC through a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematically comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The network meta-analysis was employed to compare the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) among different interventions at specific time points. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023422823). A total of 29 RCTs, involving 12,706 patients and investigating 16 interventions, were included in the analysis. Chempretarget ((capivasertib or cabozantinib) + docetaxel + prednisone)) and PARP (Olaparib or rucaparib) inhibitors emerged as interventions that significantly improved survival outcomes compared to first-line treatment in mCRPC patients. Chempretarget demonstrated superior overall survival starting from the 12th month, while PARP inhibitors showed a clear advantage in progression-free survival within the 3-18 months range. Notably, chempre ((Docetaxel or Cabazitaxel) + prednisone) exhibited favorable performance in radiographic progression-free survival during the 3-18 month period. Our findings underscore the efficacy of chempretarget, PARP inhibitors, and chempre in enhancing survival outcomes for mCRPC patients. Further head-to-head comparisons are warranted to validate these results. These findings carry important implications for treatment decision-making in mCRPC and may guide the development of more effective therapeutic strategies.
PubMed: 38074136
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1290990 -
Oman Medical Journal Sep 2022Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 75-85% of all lung cancer diagnoses. This meta-analysis sought to estimate the overall survival (OS) of NSCLC based on...
OBJECTIVES
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 75-85% of all lung cancer diagnoses. This meta-analysis sought to estimate the overall survival (OS) of NSCLC based on randomized control trials which had compared docetaxel with kinase inhibitors, antineoplastic agents, and monoclonal antibodies as second-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC.
METHODS
We selected 18 randomized control trials which used docetaxel as the standard treatment arm, while kinase inhibitors, antineoplastic agents, and monoclonal antibodies constituted the experimental arm. The methodological quality of the trial was classified according to the Modified Jadad score. Several steps were taken to reduce publication bias. A forest plot was used to graphically summarize the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The Hedge's g value of antineoplastic agents was 0.11 (95% CI: -0.03-0.26), while for kinase inhibitors was 0.04 (95% CI: -0.10-0.17) and monoclonal antibodies was 0.05 (95% CI: -0.02-0.13). Forest plot showed a clear though only slightly higher overall survival using docetaxel compared to those of the antineoplastic agents, kinase inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies, due to the existence of moderate heterogeneity and lower impact.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the patients in these studies who were in the standard (docetaxel) treatment arm had slightly better OS than those in the intervention treatment arm. As per the results, docetaxel was more effective in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC than antineoplastic agents, monoclonal antibodies, and kinase inhibitors. We infer that docetaxel-based second-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC is supported by our meta-analysis.
PubMed: 36341003
DOI: 10.5001/omj.2022.86 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Mar 2019As the first-line regimens for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, both docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) and epirubicin, cisplatin, and...
Docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil compared with epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil regimen for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
As the first-line regimens for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, both docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) and epirubicin, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (ECF) regimens are commonly used in clinical practice, but there is still controversy about which is better.
AIM
To compare the efficacy and safety of DCF and ECF regimens by conducting this meta-analysis.
METHODS
Computer searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Science Direct, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and Scopus were performed to find the clinical studies of all comparisons between DCF and ECF regimens. We used progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse effects (AEs) as endpoints for analysis.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included seven qualified studies involving a total of 598 patients. The pooled hazard ratios between the DCF and ECF groups were comparable in PFS (95%CI: 0.58-1.46, = 0.73), OS (95%CI: 0.65-1.10, = 0.21), and total AEs (95%CI: 0.93-1.29, = 0.30). The DCF group was significantly better than the ECF group in terms of ORR (95%CI: 1.13-1.75, = 0.002) and DCR (95%CI: 1.03-1.41, = 0.02). However, the incidence rate of grade 3-4 AEs was also greater in the DCF group than in the ECF group (95%CI: 1.16-1.88, = 0.002), especially for neutropenia and febrile neutropenia.
CONCLUSION
With better ORR and DCR values, the DCF regimen seems to be more suitable for advanced gastric cancer than the ECF regimen. However, the higher rate of AEs in the DCF group still needs to be noticed.
PubMed: 30863759
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i5.600 -
Health Technology Assessment... Feb 2004To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral capecitabine for locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer in relation to its licensed... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral capecitabine for locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer in relation to its licensed indications.
DATA SOURCES
Twenty-three electronic databases and other databases of ongoing research and Internet resources, bibliographies of retrieved articles and industry submissions.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently screened and assessed all titles and/or abstracts including economic evaluations. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that investigated capecitabine monotherapy, in patients pretreated with an anthracycline-containing regimen or a taxane, or capecitabine in combination with docetaxel, in patients pretreated with an anthracycline-containing regimen, were included. The economic evaluation was based on data reported in the manufacturer's submission.
RESULTS
For capecitabine monotherapy, 12 uncontrolled observational studies were identified. The methodological quality of the studies was low. Capecitabine demonstrated antitumour activity, but was associated with a particular risk of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea. Economic evaluation was hampered by the poor quality of the published studies, but compared indirectly with vinorelbine, capecitabine was associated with lower costs and improved patient outcomes. For capecitabine in combination with docetaxel, one RCT was identified. Combination therapy was superior to single-agent docetaxel in terms of survival, time to disease progression and overall response. Adverse events occurred more frequently with combination therapy. The economic evaluation demonstrated an overall improved QALY score for combination therapy with a slight reduction in costs.
CONCLUSIONS
No conclusions could be drawn regarding the therapeutic benefit of capecitabine monotherapy; RCTs are required. Capecitabine appeared cost-effective compared with vinorelbine, but serious doubts remain; the poor quality of the trials may invalidate this conclusion. Based on limited evidence, combination therapy was more effective than single-agent docetaxel and likely to be cost-effective, but was associated with higher incidences of hand-foot syndrome, nausea, diarrhoea and stomatitis.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deoxycytidine; Disease Progression; Docetaxel; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; State Medicine; Survival Rate; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 14960257
DOI: 10.3310/hta8050 -
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Nov 2017To compare palbociclib + letrozole and palbociclib + fulvestrant with chemotherapy agents in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing palbociclib with chemotherapy agents for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR-positive and HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer.
PURPOSE
To compare palbociclib + letrozole and palbociclib + fulvestrant with chemotherapy agents in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ABC/MBC) who had no prior systemic treatment for advanced disease (first line) or whose disease progressed after prior endocrine therapy or chemotherapy (second line).
METHODS
A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2000 to January 2016 that compared endocrine-based therapies, chemotherapy agents, and/or chemotherapy agents + biological therapies in the first- and second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC/MBC. The main outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP). Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs) and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were assessed.
RESULTS
Sixty RCTs met eligibility criteria and were stratified by line of therapy. In the first line, palbociclib + letrozole showed statistically significant improvements in PFS/TTP versus capecitabine [intermittent: HR 0.28 (95% CrI 0.11-0.72)] and mitoxantrone [HR 0.28 (0.13-0.61)], and trended toward improvements versus paclitaxel [HR 0.59 (0.19-1.96)], docetaxel [HR 0.51 (0.14-2.03)] and other monotherapy or combination agents (HRs ranging from 0.24 to 0.99). In the second line, palbociclib + fulvestrant showed statistically significant improvements in PFS/TTP versus capecitabine [intermittent: HR 0.28 (0.13-0.65)], mitoxantrone [HR 0.26 (0.12-0.53)], and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [HR 0.19 (0.07-0.50)], and trended toward improvements versus paclitaxel [HR 0.48 (0.16-1.44)], docetaxel [HR 0.71 (0.24-2.13)] and other monotherapy or combination agents (HRs ranging from 0.23-0.89). NMA findings aligned with direct evidence and were robust to sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Palbociclib + letrozole and palbociclib + fulvestrant demonstrate trends in incremental efficacy compared with chemotherapy agents for the first- and second-line treatment of HR +/HER2- ABC/MBC.
Topics: Age Factors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Piperazines; Postmenopause; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone; Retreatment; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28752187
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4404-4 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is an important cause of premature treatment cessation and dose-limitation in cancer therapy. It also reduces quality of...
Taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is an important cause of premature treatment cessation and dose-limitation in cancer therapy. It also reduces quality of life and survivorship in affected patients. Genetic polymorphisms in the CYP3A family have been investigated but the findings have been inconsistent and contradictory. A systematic review identified 12 pharmacogenetic studies investigating genetic variation in and and TIPN. In our candidate gene study, 288 eligible participants (211 taxane participants receiving docetaxel or paclitaxel, and 77 control participants receiving oxaliplatin) were successfully genotyped for and . Genotyping data was transformed into a combined CYP3A metaboliser phenotype: Poor metabolisers, intermediate metabolisers and extensive metabolisers. Individual genotypes and combined CYP3A metaboliser phenotypes were assessed in relation to neurotoxicity, including by meta-analysis where possible. In the systematic review, no significant association was found between and TIPN in seven studies, with one study reporting a protective association. For , one study has reported an association with TIPN, while four other studies failed to show an association. Evaluation of our patient cohort showed that paclitaxel was found to be more neurotoxic than docetaxel ( < 0.001). Diabetes was also significantly associated with the development of TIPN. The candidate gene analysis showed no significant association between either SNP () and the development of TIPN overall, or severe TIPN. Meta-analysis showed no association between these two variants and TIPN. Transformed into combined CYP3A metaboliser phenotypes, 30 taxane recipients were poor metabolisers, 159 were intermediate metabolisers, and 22 were extensive metabolisers. No significant association was observed between metaboliser status and case-control status. We have shown that the risk of peripheral neuropathy during taxane chemotherapy is greater in patients who have diabetes. CYP3A genotype or phenotype was not identified as a risk factor in either the candidate gene analysis or the systematic review/meta-analysis, although we cannot exclude the possibility of a minor contribution, which would require a larger sample size.
PubMed: 37469869
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1178421 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jun 2015Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be... (Review)
Review
Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease.
DATA SOURCES
Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered.
REVIEW METHODS
Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained).
RESULTS
Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC.
CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK
The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease-Free Survival; Erlotinib Hydrochloride; Gefitinib; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26134145
DOI: 10.3310/hta19470 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of currently available combination therapies in patients with metastatic...
To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of currently available combination therapies in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Qualified publications were searched in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were indirectly compared and assessed using NMA and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were also compared. Eighteen publications from 12 trials were analyzed in the NMA. In the overall population, triplet therapy was ranked first for OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.48-0.67) and rPFS (HR: 0.33, 95% CrI:0.26-0.41) compared with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without standard non-steroidal antiandrogen. In high-volume mHSPC, triplet therapy was also ranked first in OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CrI:0.44-0.75) and rPFS(HR, 0.29; 95% CrI: 0.23-0.37). Specifically, abiraterone triplet therapy was ranked first in OS (HR, 0.52; 95% CrI:0.38-0.72) and rPFS (HR, 0.28; 95% CrI:0.21-0.38) among all therapies. ADT plus rezvilutamide was ranked first among doublet therapies (OS: HR, 0.58; 95% CrI:0.44-0.77; rPFS: HR, 0.44; 95% CrI:0.33-0.58). In low-volume mHSPC, doublet and triplet therapies were ranked first in OS (HR:0.68, 95% CrI:0.58-0.80) and rPFS (HR:0.37, 95% CrI:0.25-0.55), respectively. ADT plus apalutamide was ranked first in OS among all therapies (HR:0.53, 95% CrI:0.35-0.79), whereas enzalutamide triplet therapy was ranked first in rPFS (HR:0.27, 95% CrI:0.15-0.51). ADT plus rezvilutamide showed a relatively lower incidence of AE among all therapies (OR:1.00, 95% CrI:0.31-3.15), and a lower risk of specific AEs among doublet therapies, particularly regarding seizure (OR, 0.29; 95% CrI:0.01-8.18) and fatigue (OR, 0.96; 95% CrI:0.63-1.46). Docetaxel-based doublet or triplet therapies significantly increased the risk of any AEs or grade ≥3 AEs. Triplet therapy was the best treatment option for the overall population. In high-volume mHSPC, triplet therapy and ADT plus rezvilutamide had the greatest potential to benefit patients. Patients with low-volume mHSPC were most likely to benefit from ADT plus androgen receptor-targeted agents. Triplet therapy was associated with a higher risk of AEs than the other therapies. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022375347, identifier PROSPERO:CRD42022375347.
PubMed: 37153773
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1148021 -
BMC Medicine Oct 2017Docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, the number of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on this topic is increasing. Our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of all second-line treatments for advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown status for EGFR by a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration website, as well as other sources, were searched for available reports up to June 6, 2017. Two reviewers independently selected published and unpublished reports of RCTs comparing any second-line treatments, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response (ObR), the number of serious adverse events, and quality of life.
RESULTS
We included 102 RCTs involving 36,058 patients (62% male, median age 61 years, 81% with stage IV cancer, 80% smokers, and 92% with performance status 0-1). We revealed a differential reporting of outcomes between efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the trials reported safety outcomes and less than 20% quality of life. For OS, nivolumab was more effective than docetaxel (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.56-0.83), pemetrexed (0.67, 0.52-0.83), erlotinib (0.68, 0.53-0.86), and gefitinib (0.66, 0.53-0.83). Pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib. For PFS, erlotinib plus cabozantinib was more effective than docetaxel (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.18-0.84), pemetrexed (0.38, 0.18-0.82), erlotinib (0.37, 0.18-0.78), and gefitinib (0.38, 0.18-0.82). Cabozantinib and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than the four recommended treatments. For ObR, no treatment was significantly more effective. The effectiveness of the four recommended treatments was similar and they were ranked among the 25 less-effective treatments. For safety, evidence is insufficient to draw certain conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib may be the most effective second-line treatments for NSCLC in terms of OS. The four recommended treatments seem to have relatively poor performance. However, the impact on life expectancy of immunotherapy versus other treatments should be further explored by future analyses, and more trials comparing the novel treatments are needed to reduce uncertainty in these results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42015017592 ).
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Genes, erbB-1; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 29082855
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022Adding induction chemotherapy to concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy has significantly prolonged the survival time of patients with locoregionally advanced...
BACKGROUND
Adding induction chemotherapy to concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy has significantly prolonged the survival time of patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. In this study, we intend to evaluate the survival outcomes, responses, and incidences of toxicities of induction chemotherapy and the differences between different strategies.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL on August 10, 2021. Single-arm or multi-arm prospective clinical trials on induction chemotherapy without targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors were included. Primary outcomes included survival outcomes, objective response rate, and disease control rate, and the secondary outcome was the rates of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events.
RESULTS
The 39 studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis comprised 36 clinical trials and 5389 patients. The estimates for 3-year overall and fail-free survival rates were 87% and 77%. The estimates for 5-year rates of overall and fail-free survival were 81% and 73%. Gemcitabine plus platinum and docetaxel combined with 5-fluorouracil plus platinum strategies were associated with the highest rates of 3-year and 5-year overall survival. The objective response and disease control rates were 85% and 98% after the completion of induction chemotherapy. Neutropenia (27%) and nausea/vomiting (7%) were the most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related hematological and non-hematological adverse events during the induction phase.
CONCLUSIONS
Different induction chemotherapeutic strategies appear to have varying effects and risks; a comprehensive summary of the survival outcomes, responses, and toxicities in clinical trials may provide a crucial guide for clinicians.
PubMed: 35965543
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.927510