-
Chembiochem : a European Journal of... Jan 2017Molecules that undergo activation or modulation following the addition of benign external small-molecule chemical stimuli have numerous applications. Here, we report the...
Molecules that undergo activation or modulation following the addition of benign external small-molecule chemical stimuli have numerous applications. Here, we report the highly efficient "decaging" of a variety of moieties by activation of a "self-immolative" linker, by application of water-soluble and stable tetrazine, including the controlled delivery of doxorubicin in a cellular context.
Topics: Apoptosis; Cell Line, Tumor; Cycloaddition Reaction; Doxorubicin; Drug Carriers; Drug Liberation; HEK293 Cells; Heterocyclic Compounds, 1-Ring; Humans; Nanoparticles; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 27862818
DOI: 10.1002/cbic.201600560 -
BioMed Research International 2014The usage of natural products in pharmaceuticals has steadily seen improvements over the last decade, and this study focuses on the utilization of palm oil in...
The usage of natural products in pharmaceuticals has steadily seen improvements over the last decade, and this study focuses on the utilization of palm oil in formulating liposomal doxorubicin (Dox). The liposomal form of Dox generally minimizes toxicity and enhances target delivery actions. Taking into account the antiproliferative and antioxidant properties of palm oil, the aim of this study is to design and characterize a new liposomal Dox by replacing phosphatidylcholine with 5% and 10% palm oil content. Liposomes were formed using the freeze_thaw method, and Dox was loaded through pH gradient technique and characterized through in vitro and ex vivo terms. Based on TEM images, large lamellar vesicles (LUV) were formed, with sizes of 438 and 453 nm, having polydispersity index of 0.21 ± 0.8 and 0.22 ± 1.3 and zeta potentials of about -31 and -32 mV, respectively. In both formulations, the entrapment efficiency was about 99%, and whole Dox was released through 96 hours in PBS (pH = 7.4) at 37°C. Comparing cytotoxicity and cellular uptake of LUV with Caelyx(R) on MCF7 and MDA-MBA 231 breast cancer cell lines indicated suitable uptake and lower IC50 of the prepared liposomes.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Apoptosis; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Survival; Doxorubicin; Humans; Liposomes; Palm Oil; Particle Size; Plant Oils; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 24795894
DOI: 10.1155/2014/765426 -
Nature Communications Mar 2024Myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are key regulators of immune responses and correlate with poor outcomes in hematologic malignancies. Here, we identify that MDSC...
Myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are key regulators of immune responses and correlate with poor outcomes in hematologic malignancies. Here, we identify that MDSC mitochondrial fitness controls the efficacy of doxorubicin chemotherapy in a preclinical lymphoma model. Mechanistically, we show that triggering STAT3 signaling via β2-adrenergic receptor (β2-AR) activation leads to improved MDSC function through metabolic reprograming, marked by sustained mitochondrial respiration and higher ATP generation which reduces AMPK signaling, altering energy metabolism. Furthermore, induced STAT3 signaling in MDSCs enhances glutamine consumption via the TCA cycle. Metabolized glutamine generates itaconate which downregulates mitochondrial reactive oxygen species via regulation of Nrf2 and the oxidative stress response, enhancing MDSC survival. Using β2-AR blockade, we target the STAT3 pathway and ATP and itaconate metabolism, disrupting ATP generation by the electron transport chain and decreasing itaconate generation causing diminished MDSC mitochondrial fitness. This disruption increases the response to doxorubicin and could be tested clinically.
Topics: Humans; Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells; Glutamine; Hematologic Neoplasms; Adenosine Triphosphate; Doxorubicin; Succinates
PubMed: 38555305
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-47096-9 -
European Journal of Pharmaceutical... Sep 2022To evaluate the bioequivalence of a hybrid pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) hydrochloride injection with reference product Caelyx®. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Bioequivalence of a hybrid pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride injection and Caelyx®: A single-dose, randomized, multicenter, open-label, two-period crossover study in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the bioequivalence of a hybrid pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) hydrochloride injection with reference product Caelyx®.
METHODS
This multicenter, open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, single-dose, crossover, bioequivalence study was conducted in female patients aged ≥18 years and ≤75 years with ovarian cancer, whose disease progressed or recurred after platinum-based chemotherapy, and who were scheduled to start PLD therapy. Patients were intravenously infused drugs over 1 h at 50 mg/m dose two hours after breakfast on the first day of the chemotherapy cycle in period-I and crossed over to the other arm in period-II (day 29). Pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses were performed using two separate, validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry methods for encapsulated and unencapsulated doxorubicin.
RESULTS
Both the test and reference formulations were well-tolerated and safe. The pharmacokinetic analysis for both encapsulated and unencapsulated doxorubicin was conducted in 50 patients and PK parameters were found to be comparable between test and reference products. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of hybrid PLD/Caelyx® were; maximum measured plasma concentration (C): 91.94-97.28%, area under the plasma concentration versus time from time 0 to t (AUC): 95.19-103.67% AUC from time 0 to ∞ (AUC): 95.13-103.66% for encapsulated doxorubicin and for unencapsulated doxorubicin C: 92.08-116.46% AUC: 91.91-108.28% AUC: 93.45-110.05%.
CONCLUSION
The PLD formulation was found to be bioequivalent to Caelyx®.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Area Under Curve; Cross-Over Studies; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Polyethylene Glycols; Tablets; Therapeutic Equivalency
PubMed: 35777616
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2022.106248 -
Photochemistry and Photobiology Mar 2023Porphyrin-phospholipid (PoP) liposomes loaded with Doxorubicin (Dox) have been demonstrated to be an efficient vehicle for chemophototherapy (CPT). Multidrug resistance... (Review)
Review
Porphyrin-phospholipid (PoP) liposomes loaded with Doxorubicin (Dox) have been demonstrated to be an efficient vehicle for chemophototherapy (CPT). Multidrug resistance (MDR) of cancer cells is a problematic phenomenon in which tumor cells develop resistance to chemotherapy. Herein, we report that Dox-resistant tumor cells can be ablated using our previously described formulation termed long-circulating Dox loaded in PoP liposomes (LC-Dox-PoP), which is a PEGylated formulation containing 2 mol. % of the PoP photosensitizer. In vitro studies using free Dox and LC-Dox-PoP showed that human ovarian carcinoma A2780 cells were more susceptible to Dox compared to the corresponding Dox-resistant A2780-R cells. When CPT was applied with LC-Dox-PoP liposomes, effective killing of both nonresistant and resistant A2780 cell lines was observed. An in vivo study to assess the efficiency of LC-Dox-PoP showed effective tumor shrinkage and prolonged survival of athymic nude mice bearing subcutaneous Dox-resistant A2780-R tumor xenografts when they were irradiated with a red laser. Biodistribution analysis demonstrated enhanced tumoral drug uptake in Dox-resistant tumors with CPT, suggesting that increased drug delivery was sufficient to induce ablation of resistant tumor cells.
Topics: Mice; Animals; Humans; Female; Liposomes; Ovarian Neoplasms; Cell Line, Tumor; Mice, Nude; Tissue Distribution; Doxorubicin; Phospholipids
PubMed: 35842741
DOI: 10.1111/php.13677 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Oct 2016Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a widely used standard treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are not suitable candidates for curative...
Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a widely used standard treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are not suitable candidates for curative treatments. The rationale for TACE is that intra-arterial chemotherapy using lipiodol and chemotherapeutic agents, followed by selective vascular embolization, results in a strong cytotoxic effect as well as ischemia (conventional TACE). Recently, drug-eluting beads (DC Beads) have been developed for transcatheter treatment of HCC to deliver higher doses of the chemotherapeutic agent and to prolong contact time with the tumor. DC Beads can actively sequester doxorubicin hydrochloride from solution and release it in a controlled sustained fashion. Treatment with DC Beads substantially reduced the amount of chemotherapeutic agent that reached the systemic circulation compared with conventional, lipiodol-based regimens, significantly reducing drug-related adverse events. In this article, we describe the treatment response, survival, and safety of TACE used with drug-eluting beads for the treatment of HCC and discuss future therapeutic possibilities.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Doxorubicin; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 27833376
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i40.8853 -
Cells Jul 2023Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is among the most aggressive breast cancer subtypes. Despite being initially responsive to chemotherapy, patients develop...
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is among the most aggressive breast cancer subtypes. Despite being initially responsive to chemotherapy, patients develop drug-resistant and metastatic tumors. Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1) is a secreted protein with a tumor suppressor function due to its anti-proteolytic activity. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that TIMP-1 binds to the CD63 receptor and activates noncanonical oncogenic signaling in several cancers, but its role in mediating TNBC chemoresistance is still largely unexplored. Here, we show that mesenchymal-like TNBC cells express TIMP-1, whose levels are further increased in cells generated to be resistant to cisplatin (Cis-Pt-R) and doxorubicin (Dox-R). Moreover, public dataset analyses indicate that high TIMP-1 levels are associated with a worse prognosis in TNBC subjected to chemotherapy. Knock-down of TIMP-1 in both Cis-Pt-R and Dox-R cells reverses their resistance by inhibiting AKT activation. Consistently, TNBC cells exposed to recombinant TIMP-1 or TIMP-1-enriched media from chemoresistant cells, acquire resistance to both cisplatin and doxorubicin. Importantly, released TIMP-1 reassociates with plasma membrane by binding to CD63 and, in the absence of CD63 expression, TIMP-1-mediated chemoresistance is blocked. Thus, our results identify TIMP-1 as a new biomarker of TNBC chemoresistance and lay the groundwork for evaluating whether blockade of TIMP-1 signal is a viable treatment strategy.
Topics: Humans; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms; Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase-1; Cisplatin; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Doxorubicin
PubMed: 37443843
DOI: 10.3390/cells12131809 -
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 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2022Due to its noninvasive nature, site-confined irradiation, and high tissue penetrating capabilities, ultrasound (US)-driven sonodynamic treatment (SDT) has been proven to...
Due to its noninvasive nature, site-confined irradiation, and high tissue penetrating capabilities, ultrasound (US)-driven sonodynamic treatment (SDT) has been proven to have broad application possibilities in neoplastic and non-neoplastic diseases. However, the inefficient buildup of sonosensitizers in the tumor site remarkably impairs SDT efficiency. The present work proposes a deep-penetrating sonochemistry nanoplatform (Pp18-lipos@SRA737&DOX, PSDL) comprising Pp18 liposomes (Pp18-lipos, Plipo), SRA737 (a CHK1 inhibitor), and doxorubicin (DOX) for the controlled formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and release of DOX and SRA737 upon US activation, therefore increasing chemotherapeutic effectiveness and boosting SDT efficacy. Therein, the antitumor activities of DOX have been attributed to its intercalation into the nucleus DNA and induction of cell apoptosis. CHK1 evolved to respond to DNA damage and repair the damage via cell cycle progression. SRA737 is a potent and orally bioavailable clinical drug candidate for inhibiting CHK1, demonstrating adjuvant anticancer effect in vitro and in vivo. It was interesting to find that SRA737 carried into Plipo@DOX could significantly alleviate G2/M cell cycle arrest and aggravate DNA double-strand injuries, resulting in significant cell death. The developed US-switchable nanosystem provides a promising strategy for augmenting sono-chemotherapy against breast cancer controllably and precisely.
Topics: Cell Death; Cell Line, Tumor; Doxorubicin; Humans; Liposomes; Nanoparticles; Reactive Oxygen Species; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 35887326
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23147981 -
Health Technology Assessment... Mar 2006To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH)... (Review)
Review
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions.
REVIEW METHODS
Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS
For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Liposomes; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Topotecan
PubMed: 16545208
DOI: 10.3310/hta10090