-
PloS One 2011Despite reported antiproliferative activity of vitamin A and its common use for cancer, there is no comprehensive synthesis of its safety and efficacy in lung cancers.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite reported antiproliferative activity of vitamin A and its common use for cancer, there is no comprehensive synthesis of its safety and efficacy in lung cancers. To address this issue we conducted a systematic review of the safety and efficacy of vitamin A for the treatment and prevention of lung cancers.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Two independent reviewers searched six electronic databases from inception to July 2009 for clinical, observational, and preclinical evidence pertaining to the safety and efficacy of vitamin A and related retinoids for lung cancers. 248 studies were included for full review and analysis. Five RCTs assessed treatment of lung cancers, three assessed primary prevention, and three looked at secondary prevention of lung cancers. Five surrogate studies, 26 phase I/II, 32 observational, and 67 preclinical studies were also included. 107 studies were included for interactions between vitamin A and chemo- or radiation-therapy. Although some studies demonstrated benefits, there was insufficient evidence overall to support the use of vitamin A or related retinoids for the treatment or prevention of lung cancers. Retinyl palmitate combined with beta carotene increased risk of lung cancer in smokers in the large CARET trial. Pooling of three studies pertaining to treatment and three studies on secondary prevention revealed no significant effects on response rate, second primary tumor, recurrence, 5-year survival, and mortality. There was a small improvement in event free survival associated with vitamin A compared to controls, RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.13-1.35). The synthetic rexinoid bexarotene increased survival significantly among a subset of patients in two RCTs (p<0.014, <0.087).
CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of evidence to support the use of naturally occurring retinoids for the treatment and prevention of lung cancers. The rexinoid bexarotene may hold promise for use among a subset of patients, and deserves further study.
Topics: Animals; Diterpenes; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Retinoids; Retinyl Esters; Vitamin A; beta Carotene
PubMed: 21738614
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021107 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a malignant, chronic disease initially affecting the skin. Several therapies are available,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a malignant, chronic disease initially affecting the skin. Several therapies are available, which may induce clinical remission for a time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012: we wanted to assess new trials, some of which investigated new interventions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for MF in all stages of the disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched 2 trials registries for additional references. For adverse event outcomes, we undertook separate searches in MEDLINE in April, July and November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of local or systemic interventions for MF in adults with any stage of the disease compared with either another local or systemic intervention or with placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were improvement in health-related quality of life as defined by participants, and common adverse effects of the treatments. Key secondary outcomes were complete response (CR), defined as complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease, and objective response rate (ORR), defined as proportion of patients with a partial or complete response. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence and considered comparisons of psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA) light treatment as most important because this is first-line treatment for MF in most guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 20 RCTs (1369 participants) covering a wide range of interventions. The following were assessed as either treatments or comparators: imiquimod, peldesine, hypericin, mechlorethamine, nitrogen mustard and intralesional injections of interferon-α (IFN-α) (topical applications); PUVA, extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP: photochemotherapy), and visible light (light applications); acitretin, bexarotene, lenalidomide, methotrexate and vorinostat (oral agents); brentuximab vedotin; denileukin diftitox; mogamulizumab; chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, and vincristine; a combination of chemotherapy with electron beam radiation; subcutaneous injection of IFN-α; and intramuscular injections of active transfer factor (parenteral systemics). Thirteen trials used an active comparator, five were placebo-controlled, and two compared an active operator to observation only. In 14 trials, participants had MF in clinical stages IA to IIB. All participants were treated in secondary and tertiary care settings, mainly in Europe, North America or Australia. Trials recruited both men and women, with more male participants overall. Trial duration varied from four weeks to 12 months, with one longer-term study lasting more than six years. We judged 16 trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly performance bias (blinding of participants and investigators), attrition bias and reporting bias. None of our key comparisons measured quality of life, and the two studies that did presented no usable data. Eighteen studies reported common adverse effects of the treatments. Adverse effects ranged from mild symptoms to lethal complications depending upon the treatment type. More aggressive treatments like systemic chemotherapy generally resulted in more severe adverse effects. In the included studies, CR rates ranged from 0% to 83% (median 31%), and ORR ranged from 0% to 88% (median 47%). Five trials assessed PUVA treatment, alone or combined, summarised below. There may be little to no difference between intralesional IFN-α and PUVA compared with PUVA alone for 24 to 52 weeks in CR (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.31; 2 trials; 122 participants; low-certainty evidence). Common adverse events and ORR were not measured. One small cross-over trial found once-monthly ECP for six months may be less effective than twice-weekly PUVA for three months, reporting CR in two of eight participants and ORR in six of eight participants after PUVA, compared with no CR or ORR after ECP (very low-certainty evidence). Some participants reported mild nausea after PUVA but no numerical data were given. One participant in the ECP group withdrew due to hypotension. However, we are unsure of the results due to very low-certainty evidence. One trial comparing bexarotene plus PUVA versus PUVA alone for up to 16 weeks reported one case of photosensitivity in the bexarotene plus PUVA group compared to none in the PUVA-alone group (87 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between bexarotene plus PUVA and PUVA alone in CR (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.80) and ORR (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.44) (93 participants; low-certainty evidence). One trial comparing subcutaneous IFN-α injections combined with either acitretin or PUVA for up to 48 weeks or until CR indicated there may be little to no difference in the common IFN-α adverse effect of flu-like symptoms (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.88; 82 participants). There may be lower CR with IFN-α and acitretin compared with IFN-α and PUVA (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84; 82 participants) (both outcomes: low-certainty evidence). This trial did not measure ORR. One trial comparing PUVA maintenance treatment to no maintenance treatment, in participants who had already had CR, did report common adverse effects. However, the distribution was not evaluable. CR and OR were not assessable. The range of treatment options meant that rare adverse effects consequently occurred in a variety of organs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of high-certainty evidence to support decision making in the treatment of MF. Because of substantial heterogeneity in design, missing data, small sample sizes, and low methodological quality, the comparative safety and efficacy of these interventions cannot be reliably established on the basis of the included RCTs. PUVA is commonly recommended as first-line treatment for MF, and we did not find evidence to challenge this recommendation. There was an absence of evidence to support the use of intralesional IFN-α or bexarotene in people receiving PUVA and an absence of evidence to support the use of acitretin or ECP for treating MF. Future trials should compare the safety and efficacy of treatments to PUVA, as the current standard of care, and should measure quality of life and common adverse effects.
Topics: Acitretin; Antineoplastic Agents; Bexarotene; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Interferon-alpha; Mycosis Fungoides; Neoplasm Staging; PUVA Therapy; Photochemotherapy; Photopheresis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 32632956
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008946.pub3 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2022The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Kyowa Kirin) of mogamulizumab (Poteligeo), as part of the single technology... (Review)
Review
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Kyowa Kirin) of mogamulizumab (Poteligeo), as part of the single technology appraisal process, to submit evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness for previously treated mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS). Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. Based on a systematic literature review, one randomised controlled trial, MAVORIC, was identified showing favourable results in patients with MF and SS. However, MAVORIC compared mogamulizumab to vorinostat, which is not standard care in the NHS, and there is uncertainty due to the study design, specifically crossover of patients. Based on a "naïve comparison of results from the vorinostat arm of the MAVORIC study and the physician's choice arm (methotrexate or bexarotene i.e. United Kingdom [UK] standard treatments) of the ALCANZA study as well as comparison to Phase II bexarotene data", the company considered vorinostat to be "a reasonable proxy for current standard of care in the NHS". The ERG considered, based on the limited data available, that the comparability of vorinostat (MAVORIC) and physician's choice (ALCANZA) could not be established. In response to the Appraisal Consultation Document, the company provided an unanchored matched adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of mogamulizumab with UK standard care by analysing Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. However, given the high risk of bias of an unanchored MAIC, these results needed to be regarded with a considerable degree of caution. The economic analysis suffered from uncertainty because there was no trial evidence on the comparator in the England and Wales National Health Service (NHS), and it was unclear to what extent the trial (MAVORIC) comparator (vorinostat) was comparable to standard care, referred to as established clinical management (ECM) in the NHS. The evidence for overall survival had not reached maturity and was confounded by treatment switching, for which different crossover adjustment methods produced large variations in life years. Caregiver utilities were applied in the analysis, but there was a lack of guidance on their application and whether these were indicated in this appraisal. After consultation, the company updated the economic analysis with the MAIC. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing mogamulizumab against ECM were (depending on whether the HES or MAVORIC comparison were used) £31,030 or £32,634 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained according to the company's base case and £38,274 or £80,555 per QALY gained according to the ERG's base case. NICE did not recommend mogamulizumab for treating MF or SS in adults who have had at least one previous systemic treatment. This decision was subsequently appealed, and an appeal decision has been reached.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bexarotene; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Mycosis Fungoides; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sezary Syndrome; Skin Neoplasms; State Medicine; Technology; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Vorinostat
PubMed: 34664200
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01098-3