-
Chemotherapy regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC Cancer Jun 2014Advanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Advanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.
METHODS
MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.
CONCLUSIONS
In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bayes Theorem; Databases as Topic; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24972449
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-471 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Uterine carcinosarcomas are uncommon with about 35% not confined to the uterus at diagnosis. The survival of women with advanced uterine carcinosarcoma is poor with a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uterine carcinosarcomas are uncommon with about 35% not confined to the uterus at diagnosis. The survival of women with advanced uterine carcinosarcoma is poor with a pattern of failure indicating greater likelihood of upper abdominal and distant metastatic recurrence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy and/or systemic chemotherapy in the management of uterine carcinosarcoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2012, Issue 10, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to November 2012. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in women with uterine carcinosarcoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials met the inclusion criteria and these randomised 579 women, of whom all were assessed at the end of the trials. Two trials assessing 373 participants with stage III to IV persistent or recurrent disease, found that women who received combination therapy had a significantly lower risk of death and disease progression than women who received single agent ifosfamide, after adjustment for performance status (HR = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60 to 0.94 and HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.90 for OS and PFS respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in all reported adverse events, with the exception of nausea and vomiting, where significantly more women experienced these ailments in the combination therapy group than the Ifosamide group (RR = 3.53, 95% CI: 1.33 to 9.37).In one trial there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death and disease progression in women who received whole body irradiation and chemotherapy, after adjustment for age and FIGO stage (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.05 and HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.18 for OS and PFS respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in all reported adverse events, with the exception of haematological and neuropathy morbidities, where significantly less women experienced these morbidities in the whole body irradiation group than the chemotherapy group (RR= 0.02, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.16) for haematological morbidity and all nine women in the trial experiencing neuropathy morbidity were in the chemotherapy group).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In advanced stage metastatic uterine carcinosarcoma as well as recurrent disease adjuvant combination, chemotherapy with ifosfamide should be considered. Combination chemotherapy with ifosfamide and paclitaxel is associated with lower risk of death compared with ifosfamide alone. In addition, radiotherapy to the abdomen is not associated with improved survival.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Carcinosarcoma; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Ifosfamide; Paclitaxel; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 23450572
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006812.pub3 -
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 -
BMC Cancer Nov 2022Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is clinically aggressive breast cancer with a poor prognosis. Approximately 20% of TNBC has been found to express programmed death... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is clinically aggressive breast cancer with a poor prognosis. Approximately 20% of TNBC has been found to express programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), making it a potential therapeutic target. As a PD-L1 inhibitor, atezolizumab is a recently approved immunotherapeutic drug for TNBC, this meta-analysis (MA) was aimed to review the randomized controlled trial studies (RCTs) of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of TNBC and synthesize the evidence-based results on its effectiveness and safety.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel with nab-paclitaxel alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).
RESULTS
A total of six RCTs were included in this MA. For efficacy, although OS was not significantly prolonged with combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01], p=0.08), this combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.59, 0.87], p=0.0006) and ORR (RR 1.25, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01] p<0.00001). For safety, any AEs, haematological, gastrointestinal, and liver AEs showed no statistically significant differences between the atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combination group and nab-paclitaxel alone group. However, serious AEs, high grade, dermatological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs were significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel alone compared to atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combined (p-value range from <0.00001 to 0,02).
CONCLUSION
Atezolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel was associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of TNBC; however, this combination resulted in more toxicity compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. While nab-paclitaxel alone produced chemotherapy-related AEs, the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel produced AEs, especially immune-related AEs such as haematological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This research work of systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022297952).
Topics: Humans; Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 36335316
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10225-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Epirubicin; Fluorouracil; Humans; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 29557103
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011044.pub2 -
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 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2023Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve... (Review)
Review
Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve patients' quality of life. This review looked at the oncological treatments that cause taste and smell alterations and their time of onset. We performed an integrative rapid review. The PubMed, PROSPERO, and Web of Science databases were searched in November 2022. The article screening and study selection were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were analyzed narratively. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. A high heterogeneity was detected. Taste disorders ranged between 17 and 86%, while dysosmia ranged between 8 and 45%. Docetaxel, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, anthracyclines, and oral 5-FU analogues were found to be the drugs most frequently associated with TSDs. This review identifies the cancer treatments that mainly lead to taste and smell changes and provides evidence for wider studies, including those focusing on prevention. Further studies are warranted to make conclusive indication possible.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Olfaction Disorders; Quality of Life; Smell; Taste; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 36768861
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032538 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jun 2023In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine based regimens such as in combination with albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM + nab-PTX). After progression, multiple regimens including NALIRI + 5-FU and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU-based oxaliplatin doublets (OFF, FOLFOX, or XELOX), or 5-FU-based monotherapy (FL, capecitabine, or S-1) are considered appropriate by major guidelines. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of different treatment strategies tested as second-line regimens for patients with mPDAC after first-line gemcitabine-based systemic treatment.
METHODS
Randomized phase II and III clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they were published or presented in English. Trials of interest compared two active systemic treatments as second-line regimens until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We performed a Bayesian NMA with published hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different second-line therapies for mPDAC. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were grade 3-4 toxicities. We calculated the relative ranking of agents for each outcome as their surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA score meant a higher ranking for efficacy outcomes.
RESULTS
A NMA of 9 treatments was performed for OS (n = 2521 patients enrolled). Compared with 5-FU + folinic acid both irinotecan or NALIRI + fluoropyrimidines had a trend to better OS (HR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.21-2.75 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.31-1.85). Fluoropyrimidines + folinic acid + oxaliplatin were no better than the combination without oxaliplatin. The analysis of treatment ranking showed that the combination of NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid was most likely to yield the highest OS results (SUCRA = 0.7). Furthermore, the NMA results indicated that with the highest SUCRA score (SUCRA = 0.91), NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid may be the optimal choice for improved PFS amongst all regimens studied.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the NMA results, NALIRI + 5-FU, and folinic acid may represent the best second-line treatment for improved survival outcomes in mPDAC. Further evidence from prospective trials is needed to determine the best treatment option for this group of patients.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Oxaliplatin; Leucovorin; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Prospective Studies; Fluorouracil; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37337148
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023This meta-analysis was exerted in assessing the anticancer efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) when combined with platinum compound agents for therapy in...
PURPOSE
This meta-analysis was exerted in assessing the anticancer efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) when combined with platinum compound agents for therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHOD
We systematically searched the following seven electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang, and China Science and Technology Journal Data. Randomized comparative clinical [randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT)] studies on nab-P plus platinum and carboplatin or cisplatin in combination with conventional chemotherapy agents or traditional paclitaxel were searched.
RESULTS
A total of 19 RCT studies involving 6,011 patients were analyzed. The primary outcome includes the overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcome includes adverse events (AEs). Nab-P combined with platinum (carboplatin/cisplatin) had a better ORR [odds ratio (OR) = 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.34, 2.05), < 0.001] and improved PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84, 95% CI: (0.74, 0.94), = 0.01] and OS [HR = 0.86, 95% CI: (0.78, 0.96), = 0.008] in NSCLC patients. ORR [OR = 2.18, 95% CI: (1.07, 4.43)], PFS [HR = 0.62, 95% CI: (0.40, 0.97)], and OS [HR = 0.63, 95% CI: (0.49, 0.81)] were significantly improved among patients aged >70 years, and ORR [OR = 1.80, 95% CI: (1.20, 2.70)] and PFS [HR = 0.74, 95% CI: (0.56, 0.97)] were significantly elevated with SCC rate ≥65% in NSCLC patients (all > 0.05). Among the adverse effects, the prevalence of neutropenia, neuralgia, and arthralgia/myalgia (≥ grade 3) compared to that of the control group. On the other hand, the prevalence of anemia and thrombocytopenia was higher in the nab-P plus platinum (carboplatin/cisplatin) compared to that of controls. It is worth noting that fatigue did not show statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
Nab-P in combination with carboplatin/cisplatin regimen improves efficacy and tolerability in patients with NSCLC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022288499.
PubMed: 37554498
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1139248 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2019Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in developed countries. Treatment of advanced endometrial cancer usually involves radiotherapy,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynaecological cancers in developed countries. Treatment of advanced endometrial cancer usually involves radiotherapy, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy or a combination of these. However, survival outcomes are poor in advanced or metastatic disease. Better systemic treatment options are needed to improve survival and safety outcomes for these women. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is a frequently altered signalling pathway in endometrial cancer. Single-arm studies have reported some encouraging results of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibition in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitor-containing regimens in women with locally-advanced, metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase to 16 January 2019; and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov in July 2018. We also reviewed reference lists from included studies and endometrial cancer guidelines.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a regimen with a PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitor (either alone or in combination with other treatments, such as chemotherapy or hormonal therapy) versus a comparator regimen without a PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitor. There were no restrictions on which comparator(s) were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data independently, and assessed risks of bias and the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measures were progression-free survival and toxicity (grade 3/4 where available). We derived hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, objective tumour response rate, quality of life and treatment-related death. We used GRADEproGDT to assess the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes (by first-line and second/third-line therapy for progression-free survival and overall survival).
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs involving 361 women. One study assessed the effects of the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus, in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab in treatment-naïve women with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. The second study compared the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus alone versus progestin or investigator choice of chemotherapy in women who had received prior treatment for metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer. We identified five ongoing studies on the effects of PI3K and AKT inhibitors, metformin and dual mTOR inhibitors.For first-line therapy, an mTOR inhibitor-containing regimen may worsen progression-free survival (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.93; 1 study, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence), while for second/third-line therapy, an mTOR inhibitor probably improves progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy or endocrine therapy (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.91; 1 study, 95 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Data on toxicity were available from both studies: administering an mTOR inhibitor regimen may increase the risk of grade 3/4 mucositis (RR 10.42, 95% CI 1.34 to 80.74; 2 studies, 357 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference in risk of anaemia or interstitial pneumonitis (low-certainty evidence for both toxicities). Overall, event rates were low. For first-line therapy, an mTOR inhibitor-containing regimen may result in little to no difference in overall survival compared to chemotherapy (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.781 study, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). The finding was similar for second/third-line therapy (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.61; 1 study, 130 participants; low-certainty evidence). Administering mTOR inhibitor-containing regimens may result in little to no difference in tumour response compared to chemotherapy or hormonal therapy in first-line or second/third-line therapy (first line: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.17; 1 study, 231 participants; second/third line: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.40; 1 study, 61 participants; low-certainty evidence).Neither study collected or reported quality-of-life data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Two RCTs have been reported to date, with low certainty of evidence. In a recurrent disease setting, mTOR inhibitors may result in improved progression-free survival, but we found no clear benefit in overall survival or tumour response rate. We await the publication of at least five ongoing studies investigating the role of PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer before any conclusions can be drawn on their use.
PubMed: 31588998
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012160.pub2