-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the seventh most frequent cancer diagnosis worldwide, and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common kind, accounting for 90% of cases. First-line therapy for women with epithelial ovarian cancer consists of a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy. However, more than 50% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer will experience a relapse and require further chemotherapy and at some point develop resistance to platinum-based drugs. Currently, guidance on the use of most chemotherapy drugs, including taxanes, is unclear for women whose epithelial ovarian cancer has recurred. Paclitaxel, topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, trabectedin and gemcitabine are all licensed for use in the UK at the discretion of clinicians, following discussion with the women as to potential adverse effects. Taxanes can be given in once-weekly regimens (at a lower dose) or three-weekly regimens (at a higher dose), which may have differences in the severity of side effects and effectiveness. As relapsed disease suggests incurable disease, it is all the more important to consider side effects and the impact of treatment schedules, as well as quality of life, and not only the life-prolonging effects of treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and toxicity of different taxane monotherapy regimens for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, up to 22 March 2022. Other related databases and trial registries were searched as well as grey literature and no additional studies were identified. A total of 1500 records were identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of taxane monotherapy for adult women diagnosed with recurrent epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. We included trials comparing two or more taxane monotherapy regimens. Participants could be experiencing their first recurrence of disease or any line of recurrence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened, independently assessed studies, and extracted data from the included studies. The clinical outcomes we examined were overall survival, response rate, progression-free survival, neurotoxicity, neutropenia, alopecia, and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models following standard Cochrane methodology. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Our literature search yielded 1500 records of 1466 studies; no additional studies were identified by searching grey literature or handsearching. We uploaded the search results into Covidence. After the exclusion of 92 duplicates, we screened titles and abstracts of 1374 records. Of these, we identified 24 studies for full-text screening. We included four parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All trials were multicentred and conducted in a hospital setting. The studies included 981 eligible participants with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer, tubal or primary peritoneal cancer with a median age ranging between 56 to 62 years of age. All participants had a WHO (World Health Organization) performance status of between 0 to 2. The proportion of participants with serous histology ranged between 56% to 85%. Participants included women who had platinum-sensitive (71%) and platinum-resistant (29%) relapse. Some participants were taxane pre-treated (5.6%), whilst the majority were taxane-naive (94.4%). No studies were classified as having a high risk of bias for any of the domains in the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We found that there may be little or no difference in overall survival (OS) between weekly paclitaxel and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.33, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there may be little or no difference in response rate (RR of 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and progression-free survival (PFS) (RR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52, two studies, 263 participants, very low-certainty evidence) between weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel, but the evidence is very uncertain. We found differences in the chemotherapy-associated adverse events between the weekly and three-weekly paclitaxel regimens. The weekly paclitaxel regimen may result in a reduction in neutropenia (RR 0.51, 95% 0.27 to 0.95, two studies, 260 participants, low-certainty evidence) and alopecia (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73, one study, 205 participants, low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in neurotoxicity, but the evidence was very low-certainty and we cannot exclude an effect (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45, two studies, 260 participants). When examining the effect of paclitaxel dosage in the three-weekly regimen, the 250 mg/m paclitaxel regimen probably causes more neurotoxicity compared to the 175 mg/m regimen (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, one study, 330 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Quality-of-life data were not extractable from any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fewer people may experience neutropenia when given weekly rather than three-weekly paclitaxel (low-certainty evidence), although it may make little or no difference to the risk of developing neurotoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). This is based on the participants receiving lower doses of drug more often. However, our confidence in this result is low and the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Weekly paclitaxel probably reduces the risk of alopecia, although the rates in both arms were high (46% versus 79%) (low-certainty evidence). A change to weekly from three-weekly chemotherapy could be considered to reduce the likelihood of toxicity, as it may have little or no negative impact on response rate (very low-certainty evidence), PFS (very low-certainty evidence) or OS (very low-certainty evidence). Three-weekly paclitaxel, given at a dose of 175 mg/m compared to a higher dose,probably reduces the risk of neurotoxicity.We are moderately confident in this result; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. A change to 175 mg/m paclitaxel (from a higher dose), if a three-weekly regimen is used, probably has little or no negative impact on PFS or OS (very low-certainty evidence).
Topics: Adult; Alopecia; Bridged-Ring Compounds; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neutropenia; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Taxoids
PubMed: 35866378
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008766.pub3 -
Drug Delivery Dec 2019Multidrug resistance (MDR) remains one of the major reasons for inefficiency of many chemotherapeutic agents in cancer therapy. In this study, a D-α-tocopheryl...
Multidrug resistance (MDR) remains one of the major reasons for inefficiency of many chemotherapeutic agents in cancer therapy. In this study, a D-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS) and polylysine-deoxycholic acid copolymer (PLL-DA) co-modified cationic liposome coating with hyaluronic acid (HA) was constructed for co-delivery of paclitaxel (PTX) and chemosensitizing agent, sorafenib (SOR) to treat the MDR cancer. The multifunctional liposome (HA-TPD-CL-PTX/SOR) presented good stability against rat plasma and was capable of reversing surface zeta potential under acidic conditions in the presence of HAase. Additionally, experimental result confirmed that the PLL-DA copolymer would facilitate the endo-lysosomal escape of the liposome. In vitro study demonstrated that HA-TPD-CL-PTX/SOR could significantly enhance drug accumulation in resistant MCF-7/MDR cells by inhibiting the P-gp efflux, and effectively inhibited growth of tumor cells. Furthermore, the liposome showed an enhanced anticancer activity in vivo, with a tumor growth inhibition rate of 78.52%. In summary, HA-TPD-CL-PTX/SOR exhibited a great potential for effective therapy of resistant cancers by combining with chemotherapeutic agents and could be a promising nano-carrier for reversing MDR and improving the effectiveness of chemotherapy.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Cell Line, Tumor; Drug Delivery Systems; Drug Resistance, Multiple; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; Drug Synergism; Female; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Liposomes; MCF-7 Cells; Mice; Mice, Inbred BALB C; Mice, Nude; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Polymers; Rats; Sorafenib; Vitamin E
PubMed: 30856352
DOI: 10.1080/10717544.2019.1580797 -
Colloids and Surfaces. B, Biointerfaces May 2016Paclitaxel and rapamycin have been reported to act synergistically to treat breast cancer. Albeit paclitaxel is available for breast cancer treatment, the most commonly...
Paclitaxel and rapamycin have been reported to act synergistically to treat breast cancer. Albeit paclitaxel is available for breast cancer treatment, the most commonly used formulation in the clinic presents side effects, limiting its use. Furthermore, both drugs present pharmacokinetics drawbacks limiting their in vivo efficacy and clinic combination. As an alternative, drug delivery systems, particularly liposomes, emerge as an option for drug combination, able to simultaneously deliver co-loaded drugs with improved therapeutic index. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop and characterize a co-loaded paclitaxel and rapamycin liposome and evaluate it for breast cancer efficacy both in vitro and in vivo. Results showed that a SPC/Chol/DSPE-PEG (2000) liposome was able to co-encapsulate paclitaxel and rapamycin with suitable encapsulation efficiency values, nanometric particle size, low polydispersity and neutral zeta potential. Taken together, FTIR and thermal analysis evidenced drug conversion to the more bioavailable molecular and amorphous forms, respectively, for paclitaxel and rapamycin. The pegylated liposome exhibited excellent colloidal stability and was able to retain drugs encapsulated, which were released in a slow and sustained fashion. Liposomes were more cytotoxic to 4T1 breast cancer cell line than the free drugs and drugs acted synergistically, particularly when co-loaded. Finally, in vivo therapeutic evaluation carried out in 4T1-tumor-bearing mice confirmed the in vitro results. The co-loaded paclitaxel/rapamycin pegylated liposome better controlled tumor growth compared to the solution. Therefore, we expect that the formulation developed herein might be a contribution for future studies focusing on the clinical combination of paclitaxel and rapamycin.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biological Availability; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Survival; Drug Delivery Systems; Female; Liposomes; Mammary Neoplasms, Experimental; Mice; Mice, Inbred BALB C; Microscopy, Electron, Transmission; Paclitaxel; Phosphatidylethanolamines; Polyethylene Glycols; Sirolimus; Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26836480
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.01.032 -
Molecular Pharmaceutics May 2014Combining chemotherapeutics is a promising method of improving cancer treatment; however, the clinical success of combination therapy is limited by the distinct...
Combining chemotherapeutics is a promising method of improving cancer treatment; however, the clinical success of combination therapy is limited by the distinct pharmacokinetics of combined drugs, which leads to nonuniform distribution. In this study, we report a new robust approach to load two drugs with different hydrophilicities into a single cross-linked multilamellar liposomal vesicle (cMLV) to precisely control the drug ratio that reaches the tumor in vivo. The stability of cMLVs improves the loading efficiency and sustained release of doxorubicin (Dox) and paclitaxel (PTX), maximizing the combined therapeutic effect and minimizing the systemic toxicity. Furthermore, we show that the cMLV formulation maintains specific drug ratios in vivo for over 24 h, enabling the ratio-dependent combination synergy seen in vitro to translate to in vivo antitumor activity and giving us control over another parameter important to combination therapy. This combinatorial delivery system may provide a new strategy for synergistic delivery of multiple chemotherapeutics with a ratiometric control over encapsulated drugs to treat cancer and other diseases.
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Cell Line, Tumor; Doxorubicin; Drug Synergism; Female; Humans; Liposomes; Mice; Mice, Inbred BALB C; Nanomedicine; Paclitaxel; Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
PubMed: 24673622
DOI: 10.1021/mp5000373 -
Thoracic Cancer Feb 2013Lung cancer in elderly patients poses an increasingly challenge for oncologists. The optimal treatment needs to be explored. The purpose of this study was to...
BACKGROUND
Lung cancer in elderly patients poses an increasingly challenge for oncologists. The optimal treatment needs to be explored. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the novel form of paclitaxel liposome for elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
This multi-center prospective trial recruited patients aged at least 70 years with advanced or recurrent NSCLC. Eligibility criteria included presence of measurable lesions, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, as well as adequate organ function. Patients received paclitaxel liposome at the escalating dose of 135 mg/m , 150 mg/m and 175 mg/m every three weeks.
RESULTS
Forty-two patients were enrolled with a median age of 73 years (range 70-81). No complete response was observed. Partial response was obtained in 6.7%, 14.2% and 7.7% of patients, and 13.3%, 42.9% and 38.5% had stable disease from the three dose groups. In these groups, 26.7%, 21.4% and 25% of patients experienced grade 3-4 neutropenia. Time to progression was 1.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.3 months), 1.2 months (95% CI, 0.9-1.3 months) and 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.3 months), respectively. Overall survival in the dose group of 135 mg/m was 4.9 months (95%CI, 1.0-11.5 months) and was not reached in the other two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Paclitaxel liposome administered at the dose of 150 mg/m every three weeks was the safest and most effective of the three dose levels. However, the treatment achieved only mild effects. It was unnecessary to conduct further phase III randomized trials on this topic.
PubMed: 28920321
DOI: 10.1111/j.1759-7714.2012.00134.x -
Bioengineered Jan 2022This study determines the effect of Nab-paclitaxel in combination with IL-15 fusion protein, containing IL-15 and an anti-HSA nanobody domain, on colorectal cancer...
This study determines the effect of Nab-paclitaxel in combination with IL-15 fusion protein, containing IL-15 and an anti-HSA nanobody domain, on colorectal cancer bearing mice. binding test of IL15 fusion protein to HSA and Nab-paclitaxel, as well as CTLL-2 cell stimulation assay were performed. The tumor inhibitory effects of Nab-paclitaxel in combination with IL-15 fusion protein was evaluated in the HCT116 bearing murine model. Moreover, the population and function of cytotoxic T cells and M1 macrophages, as well as MDSCs and Treg cells, were also further examined. As a result, combination therapy of Nab-paclitaxel and IL-15 fusion protein effectively inhibits the tumor growth and produced a 78% reduction in tumor size for HCT116, as compared to vehicle group. In the TDLN for the combination group, there were 18% of CD8+ IFN-γ + T-cells and 0.47% CD4CD25FOXP3 regulatory T-cells, as opposed to 5.0% and 5.1%, respectively, for the model control group. Combination therapy further exhibited enhanced suppressive effects on the accumulation of CD11bGR-1 MDSC in spleen and bone marrow. Furthermore, Nab-paclitaxel and IL-15 fusion protein showed a significant suppression of NF-κB-mediated immune suppressive markers and increased expression of CD8, Granzyme B, CD62L, CD49b, and CD86 without obvious organ toxicity. In conclusion, combination therapy of Nab-paclitaxel and IL-15 fusion protein can effectively stimulate the antitumor activity of immune effector cells, thereby inhibiting immunosuppressive cells within the TME of colorectal cancer, and the overall therapeutic effect has a significant advantage over monotherapy.AbbreviationsInterleukin 15, IL-15; Human serum albumin, HSA; Myeloid-derived suppressor cells, MDSC; Albumin binding domain, ABD; Tumor drainage lymph node, TDLN; Natural killer (NK); Tumor-draining lymph node (TDLN); Tumor infiltrating lymphocyte, TIL; Immunogenic cell death, ICD; Enhanced permeability retention, EPR; Liposomal doxorubicin, Doxil; 5-fluorouracil, 5-FU.
Topics: Albumins; Animals; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colorectal Neoplasms; HCT116 Cells; Humans; Interleukin-15; Mice; Paclitaxel; Single-Domain Antibodies; Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
PubMed: 35019820
DOI: 10.1080/21655979.2021.2023997 -
International Journal of Women's Health 2016Patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer have progression of disease within 6 months of completing platinum-based chemotherapy. While several chemotherapeutic... (Review)
Review
Patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer have progression of disease within 6 months of completing platinum-based chemotherapy. While several chemotherapeutic options exist for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, the overall response to any of these therapies is ~10%, with a median progression-free survival of 3-4 months and a median overall survival of 9-12 months. Bevacizumab (Avastin), a humanized, monoclonal antivascular endothelial growth factor antibody, has demonstrated antitumor activity in the platinum-resistant setting and was recently approved by US Food and Drug Administration for combination therapy with weekly paclitaxel, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, or topotecan. This review summarizes key clinical trials investigating bevacizumab for recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and provides an overview of efficacy, safety, and quality of life data relevant in this setting. While bevacizumab is currently the most studied and clinically available antiangiogenic therapy, we summarize recent studies highlighting novel alternatives, including vascular endothelial growth factor-trap, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and angiopoietin inhibitor trebananib, and discuss their application for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.
PubMed: 27051317
DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S78101 -
Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.) Jul 2010Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancy in the United States, with approximately 15,000 deaths per year. Platinum/taxane... (Review)
Review
Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancy in the United States, with approximately 15,000 deaths per year. Platinum/taxane doublets have long been considered the standard treatment regimen for advanced-stage disease; however, recent studies have sought to improve on the outcome from this therapy. Intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy has been shown to yield superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); however, logistical problems and toxicities have limited more widespread adoption. Recent studies have also suggested that a "dose-dense" schedule of paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin may result in improved outcomes, and the impact of biological therapies in the first-line setting is under active investigation. In the setting of recurrent disease, preliminary results suggest that novel doublet regimens such as carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin may have similar activity to standard platinum/taxane doublets while carrying a reduced risk of allergic reactions. Additionally, targeted therapy remains an active area of investigation, with evidence of activity from agents such as PARP inhibitors, anti-angiogenics, and PI3 kinase inhibitors. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of ovarian cancer and its treatment in both the newly diagnosed and recurrent settings.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Phosphoinositide-3 Kinase Inhibitors; Poly Adenosine Diphosphate Ribose; Proteins
PubMed: 20718251
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2019Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are the first clinically approved drugs designed to exploit synthetic lethality, and were first introduced as a... (Review)
Review
Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are the first clinically approved drugs designed to exploit synthetic lethality, and were first introduced as a cancer-targeting strategy in 2005. They have led to a major change in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, and altered the natural history of a disease with extreme genetic complexity and defective DNA repair via homologous recombination (HR) pathway. Furthermore, additional mechanisms apart from breast related cancer antigens 1 and 2 () mutations can also result in HR pathway alterations and consequently lead to a clinical benefit from PARP inhibitors. Novel combinations of PARP inhibitors with other anticancer therapies are challenging, and better understanding of PARP biology, DNA repair mechanisms, and PARP inhibitor mechanisms of action is crucial. It seems that PARP inhibitor and biologic agent combinations appear well tolerated and clinically effective in both -mutated and wild-type cancers. They target differing aberrant and exploitable pathways in ovarian cancer, and may induce greater DNA damage and HR deficiency. The input of immunotherapy in ovarian cancer is based on the observation that immunosuppressive microenvironments can affect tumour growth, metastasis, and even treatment resistance. Several biologic agents have been studied in combination with PARP inhibitors, including inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF; bevacizumab, cediranib), and PD-1 or PD-L1 (durvalumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab), anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (tremelimumab), mTOR-(vistusertib), AKT-(capivasertib), and PI3K inhibitors (buparlisib, alpelisib), as well as MEK 1/2, and WEE1 inhibitors (selumetinib and adavosertib, respectively). Olaparib and veliparib have also been combined with chemotherapy with the rationale of disrupting base excision repair via PARP inhibition. Olaparib has been investigated with carboplatin and paclitaxel, whereas veliparib has been tested additionally in combination with temozolomide vs. pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, as well as with oral cyclophosphamide, and topoisomerase inhibitors. However, overlapping myelosuppression observed with PARP inhibitor and chemotherapy combinations requires further investigation with dose escalation studies. In this review, we discuss multiple clinical trials that are underway examining the antitumor activity of such combination strategies.
PubMed: 31374917
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics9030087