-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2009Ovarian cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer deaths in the UK. The 5-year relative survival rate in the UK at diagnosis for women aged 15-39 years is nearly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Ovarian cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer deaths in the UK. The 5-year relative survival rate in the UK at diagnosis for women aged 15-39 years is nearly 70%. In comparison, it is only 12% for women diagnosed aged over 80 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of surgical treatments for ovarian cancer that is advanced at first presentation? What are the effects of platinum-based chemotherapy for ovarian cancer that is advanced at first presentation? What are the effects of taxane-based chemotherapy for ovarian cancer that is advanced at first presentation? What are the effects of intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer that is advanced at first presentation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to September 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 31 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adding taxanes to platinum-based chemotherapy, carboplatin plus a taxane, cisplatin plus a taxane, combination or single-agent platinum-based chemotherapy, docetaxel, intravenous and intraperitoneal chemotherapy, interval debulking, paclitaxel, primary surgery, and second-look surgery.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Cisplatin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Second-Look Surgery
PubMed: 19445772
DOI: No ID Found -
Cancers May 2023Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) represent an increasingly diagnosed condition with significant burden to patients' lives and medical resources. Endoscopic ultrasound... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) represent an increasingly diagnosed condition with significant burden to patients' lives and medical resources. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) ablation techniques have been utilized to treat focal pancreatic lesions. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of EUS ablation on PCL in terms of complete or partial response and safety.
METHODS
A systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed in April 2023 for studies assessing the performance of the various EUS ablation techniques. The primary outcome was complete cyst resolution, defined as cyst disappearance in follow-up imaging. Secondary outcomes included partial resolution (reduction in PCL size), and adverse events rate. A subgroup analysis was planned to evaluate the impact of the available ablation techniques (ethanol, ethanol/paclitaxel, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and lauromacrogol) on the results. Meta-analyses using a random effects model were conducted and the results were reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).
RESULTS
Fifteen studies (840 patients) were eligible for analysis. Complete cyst resolution after EUS ablation was achieved in 44% of cases (95%CI: 31-57; 352/767; I = 93.7%), and the respective partial response rate was 30% (95%CI: 20-39; 206/767; I = 86.1%). Adverse events were recorded in 14% (95%CI: 8-20; 164/840; I = 87.2%) of cases, rated as mild in 10% (95%CI: 5-15; 128/840; I = 86.7%), and severe in 4% (95%CI: 3-5; 36/840; I = 0%). The subgroup analysis for the primary outcome revealed rates of 70% (95%CI: 64-76; I = 42.3%) for ethanol/paclitaxel, 44% (95%CI: 33-54; I= 0%) for lauromacrogol, 32% (95%CI: 27-36; I = 88.4%) for ethanol, and 13% (95%CI: 4-22; I = 95.8%) for RFA. Considering adverse events, the ethanol-based subgroup rated the highest percentage (16%; 95%CI: 13-20; I = 91.0%).
CONCLUSION
EUS ablation of pancreatic cysts provides acceptable rates of complete resolution and a low incidence of severe adverse events, with chemoablative agents yielding higher performance rates.
PubMed: 37174092
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15092627 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021Paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) is a disabling side effect of paclitaxel with few effective preventive strategies. We aim to determine the efficacy of...
BACKGROUND
Paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) is a disabling side effect of paclitaxel with few effective preventive strategies. We aim to determine the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological neuroprotective interventions in preventing PIPN incidence.
METHODS
Biomedical literature databases were searched from years 2000 to 2021 for trials comparing neuroprotective interventions and control. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The primary outcome was the incidence of PIPN.
RESULTS
Of 24 relevant controlled trials, 14 were eligible for meta-analysis. Pooled results from seven non-pharmacological trials were associated with a statistically significant 48% relative reduction of PIPN risk with low heterogeneity. Conversely, pooled results from six pharmacological trials were associated with a significant 20% relative reduction of PIPN risk with moderate heterogeneity. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches appear effective in reducing PIPN incidence in the treatment arm compared to control (pooled RR < 1).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that both interventions may reduce PIPN risk. Non-pharmacological interventions appear more effective than pharmacological interventions.
PubMed: 35070969
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.763229 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2015Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013.
METHODS
A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.
RESULTS
For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated.
LIMITATIONS
As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease.
CONCLUSIONS
For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deoxycytidine; Dioxoles; Disease-Free Survival; Double-Blind Method; Doxorubicin; Female; Health Care Costs; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Tetrahydroisoquinolines; Topotecan; Trabectedin; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 25626481
DOI: 10.3310/hta19070 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Dec 2020The comparison between paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for hemodialysis (HD) access stenosis or occlusion has not been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The comparison between paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for hemodialysis (HD) access stenosis or occlusion has not been well investigated. The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare all-cause mortality, HD access primary patency, and circuit primary patency after endovascular maintenance procedures using PCB angioplasty vs PBA.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were systematically searched to identify all the relevant studies on paclitaxel-coated devices for stenosis or thrombosis of HD access. A random effects model was applied to pool the effect measures. Dichotomous data were presented using an odds ratio (OR). Effect data were presented using pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis, 12 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies involving 1086 patients who underwent endovascular treatment for HD access stenosis or occlusion. All-cause mortality rates at 6, 12, and 24 months after intervention were similar between the PCB and PBA groups (6 months: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.38-2.96; P = .907; I = 19.2%]; 12 months: OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.66-2.16; P = .554; I = 0%]; 24 months: OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.83-2.45; P = .195; I = 0%]). There was a significant improvement of primary patency in the PCB group compared with the PBA group (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.69; P < .001; I = 67.3%). This benefit was consistent with the analysis of randomized controlled trials, whereas cohort studies were excluded. Further subgroup analysis of target lesions demonstrated that primary patency was significantly higher in the PCB group than in the PBA group, not only for arteriovenous fistula (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.98; P = .041; I = 76.8%) but also for central venous stenosis (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.71; P = .002; I = 0%). The PCB group was associated with higher 6-month (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59; P < .001) and 24-month lesion primary patency (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.72; P = .009) than PBA and was marginally associated with 12-month lesion primary patency (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.03; P = .06). Circuit primary patency analysis showed a marginal trend toward better outcome in the PCB group (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00) but no statistical significance (P = .052).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that PCB angioplasty is associated with significantly improved primary patency of arteriovenous fistula and central venous stenosis for HD access maintenance, with no evidence of increasing all-cause mortality based on short-term and midterm follow-up. Further large cohort study is needed to investigate long-term mortality.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angioplasty, Balloon; Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Cardiovascular Agents; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Equipment Design; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Paclitaxel; Recurrence; Renal Dialysis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Access Devices; Vascular Patency
PubMed: 32540324
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.04.525 -
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 -
Frontiers in Veterinary Science 2023Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common consequence of cancer treatment and pain is a frequent complaint of the patients. Paclitaxel, a cytostatic...
INTRODUCTION
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common consequence of cancer treatment and pain is a frequent complaint of the patients. Paclitaxel, a cytostatic drug, generates a well-described peripheral nerve injury and neuroinflammation, which may be experimentally mimicked in animal models. We conducted a systematic review analyzing the experimental design, reporting and mechanisms underlying paclitaxel-induced neuropathy in the included studies to establish the perspectives of translation of the current literature in models of CIPN.
METHODS
We elected studies published in Pubmed and Scopus between 1 January 2018 and 3 December 2022.
RESULTS
According to a defined mesh of keywords searched, and after applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, 70 original studies were included and analyzed in detail. Most studies used male Sprague-Dawley rats to induce paclitaxel-induced neuropathy, used low doses of paclitaxel, and the analyzed studies mainly focused at 14-28 days of CIPN. Mechanical nociceptive tests were preferred in the behavioral evaluation. The mechanisms under study were mainly neuroinflammation of peripheral nerves. The overall methodological quality was considered moderate, and the risk of bias was unclear.
DISCUSSION
Despite the ample preclinical research in paclitaxel-induced neuropathy, this systematic review alerts to some flaws in the experimental design along with limitations in reporting, e.g., lack of representation of both sexes in experimental work and the lack of reporting of the ARRIVE guidelines. This may limit the reproducibility of preclinical studies in CIPN. In addition, the clinical features of CIPN should be considered when designing animal experiments, such as sex and age of the CIPN patients. In this way the experimental studies aiming to establish the mechanisms of CIPN may allow the development of new drugs to treat CIPN and translation in the research of CIPN could be improved.
PubMed: 38188718
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1264668 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2021To compare the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) and solvent-based taxanes (sb-taxanes) as neoadjuvant therapy in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To compare the efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) and solvent-based taxanes (sb-taxanes) as neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of breast cancer.
METHODS
We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, published in English, about the comparison between nab-paclitaxel and sb-taxanes as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer were searched up to September 2019.
RESULTS
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with pathological complete response (pCR, defined as ypT0 ypN0 or ypT0/is ypN0). Other main outcomes included long-term survival and adverse events (AEs). Seven studies (five RCTs and two cohorts) and 2949 patients were included. Neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel improved pCR compared with sb-taxanes (ypT0 ypN0: OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.27-1.83, P < 0.001; ypT0/is ypN0: OR = 1.40, 95%CI: 1.17-1.68, P < 0.001). The benefits of nab-paclitaxel on pCR were persistent in HER2-negative, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (OR = 1.53, 95%CI: 1.07-2.19, P = 0.020), triple-negative breast cancer (weekly/every 2 weeks regimen; OR = 2.95, 95%CI: 1.54-5.67, P < 0.001), and tumors with Ki-67 > 20% (OR = 1.63, 95%CI: 1.26-2.12, P < 0.001). Patients treated with nab-paclitaxel had better event-free survival (EFS; HR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.57-0.85, P < 0.001) than with sb-taxanes. There were no differences in most of grade > 3 AEs between nab-paclitaxel and sb-taxanes (all P > 0.05), besides of any grade hypersensitivity (OR = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.11-0.72, P = 0.008), any grade (OR = 2.10, 95%CI: 1.37-3.23, P = 0.001) and grade > 3 (OR = 4.01, 95%CI: 2.51-6.41, P < 0.001) neuropathy.
CONCLUSION
Nab-paclitaxel is effective for the treatment of non-metastatic breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. Nab-paclitaxel could improve pCR rate and EFS compared with sb-taxanes and with reasonable toxicities.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Paclitaxel; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Solvents; Taxoids
PubMed: 33541289
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-07831-7 -
Integrative Cancer Therapies Jul 2014Intravenous vitamin C (IVC) is a contentious adjunctive cancer therapy, widely used in naturopathic and integrative oncology settings. We conducted a systematic review... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intravenous vitamin C (IVC) is a contentious adjunctive cancer therapy, widely used in naturopathic and integrative oncology settings. We conducted a systematic review of human interventional and observational studies assessing IVC for use in cancer patients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and AMED from inception to April 2013 for human studies examining the safety, effectiveness, or pharmacokinetics of IVC use in cancer patients.
RESULTS
Of 897 records, a total of 39 reports of 37 studies were included: 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 15 uncontrolled trials, 6 observational studies, and 14 case reports. IVC dosing ranged from 1 g to more than 200 g ascorbic acid per infusion, typically administered 2 to 3 times weekly. IVC does not appear to increase toxicity or interfere with antitumor effects of gemcitabine/erlotinib therapy or paclitaxel and carboplatin. Based on 1 RCT and data from uncontrolled human trials, IVC may improve time to relapse and possibly enhance reductions in tumor mass and improve survival in combination with chemotherapy. IVC may improve quality of life, physical function, and toxicities associated with chemotherapy, including fatigue, nausea, insomnia, constipation, and depression. Case reports document several instances of tumor regression and long-term disease-free survival associated with use of IVC.
CONCLUSION
There is limited high-quality clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of IVC. The existing evidence is preliminary and cannot be considered conclusive but is suggestive of a good safety profile and potentially important antitumor activity; however, more rigorous evidence is needed to conclusively demonstrate these effects. IVC may improve the quality of life and symptom severity of patients with cancer, and several cases of cancer remission have been reported. Well-designed, controlled studies of IVC therapy are needed.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Ascorbic Acid; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Survival Rate
PubMed: 24867961
DOI: 10.1177/1534735414534463 -
Medicine Feb 2016Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Is There Any Significant Difference in Stent Thrombosis Between Sirolimus and Paclitaxel Eluting Stents?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However, other meta-analyses have found SES to be superior to PES. Therefore, to solve this issue, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes between SES and PES during a follow-up period of about 1 or more years.We have searched Medline and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SES with PES. These RCTs have been carefully analyzed and then different types of ST including ST defined by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC), acute ST, late and very late ST have all been considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. A follow-up period of about 1 year, between 1 and 2 years as well as a longer follow-up period between 1 and 5 years have been considered. Data were retrieved and combined by means of a fixed-effect model because of a lower heterogeneity observed among the results. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies from 19 RCTs comprising of 16,724 patients (8115 patients in the SES group and 8609 patients in the PES group) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences in ST have been observed between SES and PES. Results were as follow: definite ST with OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18, P = 0.36; probable ST with OR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.42-1.21, P = 0.21; definite, probable and/or possible ST with OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.17, P = 0.57; acute ST with OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.38-2.56, P = 0.98; subacute ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.25; early ST with OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.53-1.25, P = 0.34; late ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.39-1.34, P = 0.30; very late ST with OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72-1.44, P = 0.92; and any ST with OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.69-1.07, P = 0.18. Long-term ST between 1 and 5 years with OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.71-1.22, P = 0.60 was also not significantly different.No significant difference in ST has been observed between patients treated with either SES or PES. Hence SES and PES can both be considered almost equally effective.
Topics: Aged; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sirolimus; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26844487
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002651