-
BMC Cancer May 2018Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) is a rare variant of cervical cancer. The prognosis of women with NECC is poor and there is no standardized therapy for...
BACKGROUND
Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix (NECC) is a rare variant of cervical cancer. The prognosis of women with NECC is poor and there is no standardized therapy for this type of malignancy based on controlled trials.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trials describing the management and outcome of women with NECC.
RESULTS
Three thousand five hundred thirty-eight cases of NECC in 112 studies were identified. The pooled proportion of NECC among women with cervical cancer was 2303/163470 (1.41%). Small cell NECC, large cell NECC, and other histological subtypes were identified in 80.4, 12.0, and 7.6% of cases, respectively. Early and late stage disease presentation were evenly distributed with 1463 (50.6%) and 1428 (49.4%) cases, respectively. Tumors expressed synaptophysin (424/538 cases; 79%), neuron-specific enolase (196/285 cases; 69%), chromogranin (323/486 cases; 66%), and CD56 (162/267; 61%). The most common primary treatment was radical surgery combined with chemotherapy either as neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, described in 42/48 studies. Radiotherapy-based primary treatment schemes in the form of radiotherapy, radiochemotherapy, or radiotherapy with concomitant or followed by chemotherapy were also commonly used (15/48 studies). There is no standard chemotherapy regimen for NECC, but cisplatin/carboplatin and etoposide (EP) was the most commonly used treatment scheme (24/40 studies). Overall, the prognosis of women with NECC was poor with a mean recurrence-free survival of 16 months and a mean overall survival of 40 months. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted agents were reported as being active in three case reports.
CONCLUSION
NECC is a rare variant of cervical cancer with a poor prognosis. Multimodality treatment with radical surgery and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide with or without radiotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for early stage disease while chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide or topotecan, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab is appropriate for women with locally advanced or recurrent NECC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may be beneficial, but controlled evidence for their efficacy is lacking.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Neuroendocrine; Cervix Uteri; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 29728073
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4447-x -
International Journal of Molecular... Dec 2022Mucositis is a common and most debilitating complication associated with the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. The condition affects the entire alimentary canal from the... (Review)
Review
Mucositis is a common and most debilitating complication associated with the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. The condition affects the entire alimentary canal from the mouth to the anus and has a significant clinical and economic impact. Although oral and intestinal mucositis can occur concurrently in the same individual, these conditions are often studied independently using organ-specific models that do not mimic human disease. Hence, the purpose of this scoping review was to provide a comprehensive yet systematic overview of the animal models that are utilised in the study of chemotherapy-induced mucositis. A search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases was conducted to identify all relevant studies. Multiple phases of filtering were conducted, including deduplication, title/abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Studies were reported according to the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. An inter-rater reliability test was conducted using Cohen's Kappa score. After title, abstract, and full-text screening, 251 articles met the inclusion criteria. Seven articles investigated both chemotherapy-induced intestinal and oral mucositis, 198 articles investigated chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis, and 46 studies investigated chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Among a total of 205 articles on chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis, 103 utilised 5-fluorouracil, 34 irinotecan, 16 platinum-based drugs, 33 methotrexate, and 32 other chemotherapeutic agents. Thirteen articles reported the use of a combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, platinum-based drugs, or methotrexate to induce intestinal mucositis. Among a total of 53 articles on chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis, 50 utilised 5-fluorouracil, 2 irinotecan, 2 methotrexate, 1 topotecan and 1 with other chemotherapeutic drugs. Three articles used a combination of these drugs to induce oral mucositis. Various animal models such as mice, rats, hamsters, piglets, rabbits, and zebrafish were used. The chemotherapeutic agents were introduced at various dosages via three routes of administration. Animals were mainly mice and rats. Unlike intestinal mucositis, most oral mucositis models combined mechanical or chemical irritation with chemotherapy. In conclusion, this extensive assessment of the literature revealed that there was a large variation among studies that reproduce oral and intestinal mucositis in animals. To assist with the design of a suitable preclinical model of chemotherapy-induced alimentary tract mucositis, animal types, routes of administration, dosages, and types of drugs were reported in this study. Further research is required to define an optimal protocol that improves the translatability of findings to humans.
Topics: Animals; Rats; Mice; Humans; Rabbits; Swine; Zebrafish; Reproducibility of Results; Mucositis; Irinotecan; Fluorouracil; Antineoplastic Agents; Stomatitis; Methotrexate
PubMed: 36499758
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232315434 -
International Journal of Gynecological... Jul 2017Despite advances in cervical cancer prevention and diagnosis, outcomes for patients given a diagnosis of advanced and recurrent disease are poor. In the GOG240 trial,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Bevacizumab Plus First-Line Topotecan-Paclitaxel or Cisplatin-Paclitaxel Versus Non-Bevacizumab-Containing Therapies in Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer.
OBJECTIVE
Despite advances in cervical cancer prevention and diagnosis, outcomes for patients given a diagnosis of advanced and recurrent disease are poor. In the GOG240 trial, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel-topotecan or paclitaxel-cisplatin has been shown to prolong survival compared with paclitaxel-topotecan or paclitaxel-cisplatin in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic disease. However, standards of care vary between regions and countries. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to enable a comparison between bevacizumab + chemotherapy with multiple monotherapy or combination chemotherapy regimens in the treatment for women with advanced, recurrent, or persistent cervical cancer.
METHODS/MATERIALS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials of patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer published in English from 1999 to 2015. A feasibility study was performed to assess the heterogeneity of the trials, and a network meta-analysis was conducted. Fixed- and random-effects models were fitted to calculate the hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) for all pairwise comparisons and ranking of all interventions.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies (19 trials) met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Sample sizes ranged from 69 to 452, and median patient age ranged from 45 to 53 years. There was a trend toward prolonged OS with cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab compared with all non-bevacizumab-containing therapies. Cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab had the highest probability of being the most efficacious compared with all regimens (68.1%), and cisplatin monotherapy had the lowest (0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this network meta-analysis show that bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel-topotecan or paclitaxel-cisplatin is likely to prolong OS over other non-bevacizumab-containing chemotherapies (eg, paclitaxel-carboplatin), which were not included in the GOG240 trial. In patients with advanced, persistent, and recurrent cervical cancer, cisplatin-paclitaxel-bevacizumab and topotecan-paclitaxel-bevacizumab showed the highest efficacy in all regimens investigated in this analysis.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Cisplatin; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Paclitaxel; Topotecan; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 28448304
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001000 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2001Ovarian cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer with an annual incidence of 21.6 per 100,000 in England and Wales. Due to the often asymptomatic nature of the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer with an annual incidence of 21.6 per 100,000 in England and Wales. Due to the often asymptomatic nature of the early stages of the disease, most cases are not detected until the advanced stages. Consequently, the prognosis after diagnosis is poor and the 5-year survival rate in the UK is only about 30%. Current recommendations suggest that first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer should involve paclitaxel and platinum (Pt)-based therapy (cisplatin/ carboplatin), however, most patients develop resistant or refractory disease and require second-line therapy. Patients may respond to re-challenge with Pt-agents if the treatment-free interval is > 6 months, but an alternative is often required. Topotecan is one of six drugs currently licensed in the UK for second-line therapy, and recent reviews suggest that it has modest efficacy in the treatment of advanced disease and performs favourably against paclitaxel. However, these reviews are based on a limited number of reports mainly consisting of non-randomised Phase I and II studies.
OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW
To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral and intravenous topotecan (Hycamtin, SmithKline Beecham, UK) for the treatment of all stages of ovarian cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Sixteen electronic databases from inception to September 2000 and Internet resources were searched, in addition to the bibliographies of retrieved articles and submissions from pharmaceutical companies.
INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Two reviewers independently screened all titles/abstracts and included/excluded studies based on full copies of manuscripts. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and full economic evaluations comparing topotecan to non-topotecan regimens were included. All stages of therapy and disease were considered, and the outcomes included were survival, response, symptom relief, quality of life, adverse effects and costs.
METHODS
DATA EXTRACTION STRATEGY: Data were extracted into an Access database by one reviewer and checked by a second. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.
METHODS
QUALITY ASSESSMENT STRATEGY: Two reviewers, using specified criteria, independently assessed the quality of the clinical effectiveness studies and the economic evaluations. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.
METHODS
ANALYSIS STRATEGY: Due to the limited number of studies included in the review and the fact that they compared topotecan with different comparators, the out-come data could not be pooled statistically. Clinical effectiveness data are discussed separately under the different outcome subheadings. For time-to-event data, hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals are presented where available, and for the remaining outcomes, relative risks are reported or calculated where sufficient data were available. Relative risk data are also presented in the form of Forest plots without pooled estimates. Economic data are presented in the form of a summary and critique of the evidence, and a grading (A-I) assigned to each study indicating the direction and magnitude of the cost-effectiveness data.
INCLUDED STUDIES
A total of 568 titles/abstracts were identified and screened for relevance. Full copies of 72 papers were assessed and seven published manuscripts reporting details of two studies of clinical effectiveness and one economic evaluation were included. Further details of the two clinical effectiveness studies and two new economic evaluations were identified from confidential company submissions. Overall, two international multicentre RCTs of effectiveness comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (trial 039) and topotecan with caelyx (trial 30-49) were included in the review. The three economic evaluations included in the review comprised one cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) comparing topotecan with caelyx, one cost-consequences analysis (CCA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel, etoposide and altretamine and one cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel.
RESULTS
QUALITY OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS DATA: Both clinical effectiveness studies (trial 30-49 and 039) were of reasonable quality, although it was unclear whether either performed valid intention-to-treat analyses. In addition, trial 30-49 failed to state whether the outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS --QUALITY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: The CCA (comparing topotecan with three comparators) was of poor quality and of little relevance to the UK NHS. The CMA and CEA were of reasonable quality overall and relevant to the UK NHS. However, both, in particular the CEA, suffered from methodological problems, and thus their findings should be interpreted with caution.
RESULTS
ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on limited data. Only two trials with a total of 709 participants were identified. In general, with a few minor exceptions, there were no statistically significant differences between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in survival, response rate, median time to response, median duration of response and quality of life. Significant differences that were reported were mainly identified in subgroup analyses (Pt-sensitive disease and disease without ascites) of questionable validity and their relevance to a general advanced ovarian cancer patient population undergoing second-line chemotherapy is unclear. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. Topotecan was associated with increased incidences of haematological toxicities (including neutropenia, leukopenia, anaemia and thrombocytopenia), alopecia, nausea and vomiting. Caelyx-treated patients suffered from significantly increased incidences of Palmar-Plantar erythrodysesthesia, stomatitis, mucous membrane disorders and skin rashes. Paclitaxel was associated with significant increases in alopecia, arthralgia, myalgia, neuropathy, paraesthesiae, skeletal pain and flushing.
RESULTS
ASSESSMENT OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of cost-effectiveness was also based on limited data, with three evaluations identified, one of which was not relevant. The two remaining studies, comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (CEA) and topotecan with caelyx (CMA), both used effectiveness data from multicentre RCTs and based their costs on 1999/2000 UK sources. The evaluations were conducted from a UK NHS perspective and findings presented in GB pounds/Euros. Topotecan for the second-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer was shown to be more cost-effective than paclitaxel (32,513 GB pounds versus 46,186 GB pounds per person in terms of any response (complete or partial), incremental cost-effectiveness = 3065 GB pounds) in all respects except cost per time without toxicity or symptoms, but less cost-effective than caelyx (14,023 GB pounds versus 9979 GB pounds per person regardless of whether the patient responded). However, direct comparisons of the cost findings between the two studies is difficult because they used different designs, different time horizons for the cost analyses and the findings were presented as costs per person for only patients who responded in one study (topotecan versus paclitaxel) and costs per person regardless of whether they responded in the other study (topotecan versus caelyx).
CONCLUSIONS
This review indicates that there is little evidence in the form of RCTs on which to base an assessment of the effectiveness of topotecan as second-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence suggests there were no statistically significant differences overall between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in clinical outcomes. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. The clinical significance of the findings is not discussed. Overall, the effects of topotecan could at best be described as modest, but the alternative agents offer no real advantages except fewer side-effects and possibly improved cost-effectiveness. Both of the clinical effectiveness studies on which this evidence is based had methodological flaws, the most serious being the lack of a blinded assessor in the topotecan versus caelyx trial, which is important for unbiased assessment of response outcomes. The economic evaluations also suffered from a number of potential problems.
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further good quality RCTs and CEAs are required comparing topotecan with other licensed and potentially useful (soon to be licensed) second-line treatments for ovarian cancer. At present, it is difficult to make any decisions about topotecan and other drugs for second-line therapy without good quality direct comparisons. In view of the ongoing studies identified, an update of the current review should be considered in approximately 18 months (Summer 2002) or possibly sooner if the recently commissioned National Institute for Clinical Excellence review of caelyx for ovarian cancer identifies additional data relevant to topotecan.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Topotecan
PubMed: 11701100
DOI: 10.3310/hta5280 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Chemotherapeutic agents such as topotecan can be used to treat ovarian cancer. The effects of using topotecan as a therapeutic agent have not been previously been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapeutic agents such as topotecan can be used to treat ovarian cancer. The effects of using topotecan as a therapeutic agent have not been previously been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topotecan for the treatment of ovarian cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (Issue 4, 2006); Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group (CGCRG) Specialised Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); EMBASE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) database (to 1 August 2006); CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) (January 1990 to 27 July 2006).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which randomized patients with ovarian cancer to single or combined use of topotecan versus interventions without topotecan, or different remedies of topotecan.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies including 1323 participants were eligible for this review (Gordon 2004a; Gore 2001a; Gore 2002; Hoskins 1998; Huinink 2004; Placido 2004) All studies, as reported, were identified as being of poor methodological quality. Topotecan had comparable effectiveness to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), (16.1 weeks versus 17.0 weeks; p = 0.095). Overall survival (OS) time was similar in participants using PLD compared with topotecan (56.7 weeks versus 60 weeks; p = 0.341). Topotecan was more hematologically toxic compared with paclitaxel or PLD, relative risks (RRs) of hematological events: ranged from 1.03 to 14.46 and 1.73 to 27.12 respectively. A 21-day cycle of topotecan was more toxic than a 42-day cycle (RRs of hematological and non-hematological events ranged from 1.03 to 8). Intravenous and oral topotecan had comparable toxicity. Topotecan delayed progression more effectively compared with paclitaxel (23.1 weeks versus 14 weeks, p = 0.0021). Participants were more likely to respond to topotecan on a 21-day cycle as opposed to a 42-day cycle (RR 7.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 55.36). Small tumor diameter, sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with better prognosis. Small sample size, methodological flaws and poor reporting of the included trials made measurement bias of the trials difficult to assess.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topotecan appears to have a similar level of effectiveness as paclitaxel and PLD, though with different patterns of side effects. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required in order to define an optimal regime.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topotecan
PubMed: 18425923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005589.pub2 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... May 2023Compare lurbinectedin versus other second-line (2L) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison connected the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Compare lurbinectedin versus other second-line (2L) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatments. An unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison connected the platinum-sensitive SCLC cohort of a single-arm lurbinectedin trial to a network of three randomized controlled trials (oral and intravenous [IV] topotecan, and platinum re-challenge) identified by systematic literature review. Network meta-analysis methods estimated relative treatment effects. In platinum-sensitive patients, lurbinectedin demonstrated a survival benefit and favorable safety profile versus oral and IV topotecan and platinum re-challenge (overall survival, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.43; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.27, 0.67; HR: 0.43; 95% CrI: 0.26, 0.70; HR: 0.42; 95% CrI: 0.30, 0.58 respectively). Lurbinectedin showed a robust survival benefit and favorable safety versus other SCLC treatments in 2L platinum-sensitive SCLC.
Topics: Humans; Topotecan; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Carbolines; Platinum; Lung Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37079341
DOI: 10.57264/cer-2022-0098 -
Health Technology Assessment... Mar 2010To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC).
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2009, including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional references and the manufacturer's submission to NICE was also searched.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text of retrieved papers using a standard form. For the clinical effectiveness review, the studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which included adult participants with relapsed SCLC who responded to first-line treatment and for whom re-treatment with first-line therapy was inappropriate. The treatment was topotecan (oral or intravenous, i.v.) compared with one another, best supportive care (BSC) or other chemotherapy regimens. Outcomes included measures of response or disease progression and measures of survival. For the cost-effectiveness review studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit or cost-consequence analyses. Data extraction and quality assessment of included studies was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. An independent economic model estimated the cost-effectiveness of topotecan (oral or i.v.) compared with BSC. The model used survival analysis methods to derive estimates of mean survival for patients treated with topotecan or receiving BSC alone. These were combined with quality of life (QoL) weights to derive estimates of mean quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients receiving BSC alone or topotecan plus BSC. Categories of costs included in the model included drug use, chemotherapy administration and on-treatment monitoring, management of adverse events, monitoring for disease progression and palliative care.
RESULTS
A total of 434 references were identified of which five were included in the clinical effectiveness review. In these trials topotecan was compared with BSC, CAV [cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and vincristine] or amrubicin, or oral topotecan was compared with i.v. topotecan. No economic evaluations were identified. There were no statistically significant differences between groups when i.v. topotecan was compared with either CAV or oral topotecan for overall response rate (ORR). Response rate was significantly better in participants receiving i.v. amrubicin than in those receiving a low dose of i.v. topotecan (38% versus 13%, respectively, p = 0.039). There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of oral topotecan compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87, p = 0.01). Drug acquisition costs for four cycles of treatment were estimated at 2550 pounds for oral topotecan and 5979 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Non-drug treatment costs accounted for an additional 1097 pounds for oral topotecan and 4289 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Total costs for the modelled time horizon of 5 years were 4854 pounds for BSC, 11,048 pounds for oral topotecan and between 16,914 pounds and 17,369 pounds for i.v. topotecan (depending on assumptions regarding time progression). Life expectancy was 0.4735, 0.7984 and 0.7784 years for BSC, oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan respectively. Total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.2247 and 0.4077, for BSC and oral topotecan respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 33,851 pounds per QALY gained. Total QALYs for i.v. topotecan were between 0.3875 and 0.4157 (depending on assumptions regarding time progression) resulting in an ICER between 74,074 pounds and 65,507 pounds per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS
Topotecan appeared to be better than BSC alone in terms of improved survival, and was as effective as CAV and less favourable than i.v. amrubicin in terms of response. Oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan were similar in efficacy. Topotecan offers additional benefit over BSC, but at increased cost. ICERs for i.v. topotecan, compared with BSC, were high and suggest that it is unlikely to be a cost-effective option. The ICER for oral topotecan is at the upper extreme of the range conventionally regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective. Further research into the QoL of patients with relapsed SCLC could identify the impacts of disease progression and treatment response.
Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Topotecan
PubMed: 20356561
DOI: 10.3310/hta14190 -
Journal of Thoracic Disease Jun 2021Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for 12-15% of lung cancers and is associated with poor survival outcomes and high symptom burden. This study employed a broad,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for 12-15% of lung cancers and is associated with poor survival outcomes and high symptom burden. This study employed a broad, systematic search strategy and timeframe to identify evidence on real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for SCLC outside the USA, including understanding sub-populations such as extensive-stage (ES) or limited-stage (LS) disease.
METHODS
Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM reviews) were searched for journal articles published in the English language between 1 January 2000-1 March 2020 and supplemented by hand searching of conference abstracts and posters presented at conferences between 1 January 2016-1 March 2020 reporting real-world treatment outcomes in patients with SCLC. A targeted clinical guideline review was also completed.
RESULTS
One-hundred studies provided quantitative data; 57 were available as full-text articles, whilst the remaining 43 were presented as abstracts or posters. The majority (80 studies, 80%) of included studies reported treatment in the first-line setting, where platinum-based chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy was the most commonly used treatment strategy, in line with current treatment guidelines in SCLC. First-line treatments were found to have a high response rate; however, most patients relapsed early. No studies reported treatment or outcomes with immune-oncology therapies. Second-line treatment options were very limited, and primarily consisted of either re-treatment with first-line regimen or topotecan, but the prognosis for these patients remained poor. Outcomes were particularly poor amongst those with ES or relapsed disease LS disease.
CONCLUSIONS
SCLC treatment patterns and short survival outcomes have remained constant over the previous 20 years. Due to the search timeframe, none of the studies identified reported on the impact of recently approved immune-oncology therapies in SCLC. Further data is needed on the impact of immunotherapies on treatment patterns and real-world outcomes in SCLC.
PubMed: 34277061
DOI: 10.21037/jtd-20-3034 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Mar 2022Cancer in neonates and infants is a rare but challenging entity. Treatment is complicated by marked physiological changes during the first year of life, excess rates of... (Review)
Review
Cancer in neonates and infants is a rare but challenging entity. Treatment is complicated by marked physiological changes during the first year of life, excess rates of toxicity, mortality, and late effects. Dose optimisation of chemotherapeutics may be an important step to improving outcomes. Body size-based dosing is used for most anticancer drugs used in infants. However, dose regimens are generally not evidence based, and dosing strategies are frequently inconsistent between tumour types and treatment protocols. In this review, we collate available pharmacological evidence supporting dosing regimens in infants for a wide range of cytotoxic drugs. A systematic review was conducted, and available data ranked by a level of evidence (1-5) and a grade of recommendation (A-D) provided on a consensus basis, with recommended dosing approaches indicated as appropriate. For 9 of 29 drugs (busulfan, carboplatin, cyclophosphamide, daunorubicin, etoposide, fludarabine, isotretinoin, melphalan and vincristine), grade A was scored, indicating sufficient pharmacological evidence to recommend a dosing algorithm for infants. For busulfan and carboplatin, sufficient data were available to recommend therapeutic drug monitoring in infants. For eight drugs (actinomycin D, blinatumomab, dinutuximab, doxorubicin, mercaptopurine, pegaspargase, thioguanine and topotecan), some pharmacological evidence was available to guide dosing (graded as B). For the remaining drugs, including commonly used agents such as cisplatin, cytarabine, ifosfamide, and methotrexate, pharmacological evidence for dosing in infants was limited or non-existent: grades C and D were scored for 10 and 2 drugs, respectively. The review provides clinically relevant evidence-based dosing guidance for cytotoxic drugs in neonates and infants.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Busulfan; Carboplatin; Etoposide; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 34865945
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.11.001 -
BMC Cancer Aug 2010To undertake a systematic review of the available data for oral and intravenous topotecan in adults with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for whom re-treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To undertake a systematic review of the available data for oral and intravenous topotecan in adults with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for whom re-treatment with the first line regimen is not considered appropriate.
METHODS
We searched six databases from 1980 up to March 2009 for relevant trials regardless of language or publication status. Relevant studies included any randomised trial of any chemotherapeutic treatment against any comparator in this licensed indication. Where possible we used opposite quantitative methods. Where meta-analysis was considered unsuitable for some or all of the data, we employed a narrative synthesis method. For indirect comparisons we used the method of Bucher et al., where available data allowed it, otherwise we used narrative descriptions.
RESULTS
Seven unique studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which could be used in our analyses. These included one study comparing oral topotecan plus best supportive care (BSC) to BSC alone, one study comparing intravenous topotecan to cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and vincristine (CAV), and two studies comparing oral topotecan with intravenous topotecan. All four studies appear to be well conducted and with low risk of bias. Oral topotecan plus BSC has advantages over BSC alone in terms of survival (hazard ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87) and quality of life (EQ-5 D difference: 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25). Intravenous topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent small-cell lung cancer and resulted in improved quality-of-life with respect to several symptoms. CAV was associated with significantly less grade 4 thrombocytopenia compared with IV topotecan (risk ratio = 5.83; 95% CI, 2.35 to 14.42). Survival (hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25) and response (pooled risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.85) data were similar for the oral and IV topotecan groups. Symptom control was also very similar between the trials and between the oral and IV groups. Toxicity data showed a significant difference in favour of oral topotecan for neutropenia (pooled risk ratio = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.89). Indirect evidence showed that oral topotecan was at least as good as or better than CAV on all outcomes (survival, response rates, toxicities, and symptoms) that allowed indirect comparisons, with the only exception being grade four thrombocytopenia which occurred less often on CAV treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Concerning topotecan both the oral and intravenous options have similar efficacy, and patient preference may be a decisive factor if the choice would be between the two formulations. The best trial evidence for decision making, because it was tested versus best supportive care, exists for oral topotecan. Indirectly, because we have two head-to-head comparisons of oral versus intravenous topotecan, and one comparison of intravenous topotecan versus CAV in similar patients as in the trial against best supportive care, one might infer that IV topotecan and CAV could also be superior to best supportive care, and that oral topotecan has similar effects to CAV with possibly better symptom control. From the evidence discussed above, it is evident that oral topotecan has similar efficacy to IV topotecan (direct comparison) and CAV (indirect comparison). There is no further evidence base of direct or possible indirect comparisons for other comparators than CAV of either oral or IV topotecan.
Topics: Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; Topoisomerase Inhibitors; Topotecan
PubMed: 20716361
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-436