Efficacy and Safety Of Treatments For Relapsed Or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL): Results Of a Systematic Literature Review

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 5099-5099
Author(s):  
Annete Njue ◽  
Peter C Trask ◽  
Ann Colosia ◽  
Robert Olivares ◽  
Shahnaz Khan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background MCL accounts for approximately 3%-10% of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) cases. The aggressive course of MCL includes rapid disease progression, with temporary responses to chemotherapy, and a high recurrence rate. However, the clinical course is variable with overall survival ranging from 6 months to more than 10 years. Although the median survival with MCL is 3-4 years, for those with relapsed or refractory disease, survival is much shorter. This systematic literature review (SLR) was designed to exhaustively collect and review information on the clinical efficacy and safety of the different interventions used in the treatment of refractory/relapsed MCL, and if possible to perform a meta-analysis. Methods Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase) were systematically searched for studies assessing the efficacy of safety of treatments for relapsed or refractory MCL published from 1997 to August 2, 2012. In addition, conference abstracts, bibliographic reference lists of included articles and recent reviews, and the Clinicaltrials.gov database were searched for phase 2, 3, or 4 studies displaying results, potentially unpublished in peer-reviewed journals. Main efficacy outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), complete response, partial response, duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety endpoints focused on grade 3/4 toxicities and treatment withdrawals due to toxicity. Studies had to report on relapsed or refractory MCL after at least one standard treatment and patients who were not eligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy or stem cell transplant (autologous or allogeneic). Mixed type NHL studies were required to report MCL outcomes separately for inclusion. Results A total of 3,308 publications were identified in the first pass of a broad SLR on NHL; of these, 67 provided relevant data for MCL representing 59 unique studies. Of the 59 studies, 6 were comparative (including 5 RCTs) and 53 were noncomparative single-arm studies; 35 evaluated single-agent regimens, and 24 evaluated combination therapies. A total of 40 different treatments were evaluated in the identified studies. Overall survival and PFS were infrequently reported. Criteria for relapsed or refractory were often not defined, with only 7 studies providing varied definitions. The ORR of active treatments in the few comparative studies ranged from 6%-83%, with most estimates between 45% and 60%. Progression-free survival was approximately 5-7 months with the exception of bortezomib + CHOP in which a 16-month PFS was noted; median OS for these studies ranged from 11-16 months, with 36 months for the aforementioned exception. In the single-arm studies, ORR ranged from 12%-100%, with most estimates from 30%-60%. Progression-free survival was approximately 5-12 months, except for bendamustine alone or in combination (∼21 months) and bortezomib in combination (∼18 months, but with large variability). Overall survival ranged from 12-24 months, with two notable exceptions: bortezomib combination (∼38 months) and temsirolimus in combination with rituximab (∼30 months). Some increase in PFS and OS was observed over the study period. The main safety concerns were related to thrombocytopenia (11-66%), neutropenia (15-100%), anemia (4-34%), and neuropathy (9-13%). Although patients’ MIPI category was collected, outcomes were not reported by this variable. Conclusions The results of this SLR confirm that survival is still low among treatments for relapsed or refractory MCL making this a continued area of unmet need. The small number of randomized trials makes it difficult to identify a standard of care. The lack of common treatments among the randomized controlled trials for MCL and the variability in the populations studied did not allow for a valid meta-analysis. Small sample size, infrequent reporting of OS/PFS, limited information on prior treatments/responses, and patient characteristics also make comparison of results difficult. Comparative studies demonstrating relative survival advantages of various therapies in relapsed or refractory MCL are needed, as is more information on the relation between MIPI scores and outcomes. In the absence of such evidence, management of relapsed or refractory disease should be based on individual patient characteristics and concerns regarding tolerability. Disclosures: Njue: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Trask:Sanofi: Employment. Colosia:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Olivares:Sanofi: Employment. Khan:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Abbe:Sanofi: Employment. Police: RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Wang:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Sherrill:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Kaye:RTI Health Solutions: Employment. Awan:Lymphoma Research Foundation (Career Development Award): Research Funding.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Upendra Yadav ◽  
Pradeep Kumar ◽  
Vandana Rai

AbstractWorldwide breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer related death in women. Paclitaxel is an effective drug used for the treatment of breast cancer but it has many side effects. Nab-paclitaxel (nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) is an FDA approved drug for the treatment of breast cancer. Currently many clinical trials are conducted to deliver nab-paclitaxel into the tumor cells. But the efficacy and safety of this nab-paclitaxel over conventional paclitaxel still remains questionable. So, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel in breast cancer treatment.Electronic databases were searched for the suitable studies using key terms “nab-paclitaxel”, “paclitaxel”, and “clinical trial” with the combination of “breast cancer” up to August 11, 2019. Risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed by the Open Meta-Analyst program. A total of eight studies which fulfilled our criteria were included in this study. For efficacy we retrieved data of 12 months progression free survival, 24 months progression free survival, and overall survival (up to 3 years) and for the safety we took data of nausea, anemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, diarrhea and pain.We did not found any difference in efficacy of nab-paclitaxel over paclitaxel (12 months progression free survival-RRFE= 0.86, 95%CI= 0.77-0.97, p= 0.02, I2= 25.07%; 24 months progression free survival-RRFE= 0.86, 95% CI= 0.64-1.16, p= 0.34, I2= 0%; and 3 years survival-RRFE= 1.20, 95%CI= 0.92-1.56, p= 0.16, I2= 37.55%). The meta-analysis of studies used nab-paclitaxel showed reduced adverse effect of anemia (ORFE= 1.66, 95% CI= 1.26-2.19; p= <0.001; I2= 0%) and leukopenia (ORFE= 1.37; 95%CI= 1.06-1.75; p= 0.01; I2= 48.63%). However, in case of other adverse effects no significant association was found with nab-paclitaxel (nausea-ORFE=1.15, 95%CI= 0.94-1.41, p= 0.15, I2= 50.12%; neutropenia-ORRE= 0.75, 95%CI= 0.30-1.87, p= 0.54, I2= 94.45%; fatigue-ORRE= 1.11, 95%CI= 0.77-1.62, p= 0.55, I2= 56.02; diarrhea-ORFE= 1.11, 95%CI= 0.77-1.62, p= 0.55; I2= 34.26; pain-ORRE= 1.15, 95%CI= 0.78-1.69, p= 0.45, I2= 52.96%).In conclusion the use of nab-paclitaxel has reduces the side effects of anemia and leukopenia in breast cancer treatment in comparison to paclitaxel but nab-paclitaxel has no effect on the overall survival of the patients.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen jie Xie ◽  
Shuai Zhang ◽  
Lei Su ◽  
Yan hong Li ◽  
Xi Zhang ◽  
...  

Aim: We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in cancer patients. Materials & methods: Databases were searched to identify relevant trials. Data were extracted to evaluate overall survival, progression-free survival, overall response rate and grade ≥3 adverse events. Results: The pooled analysis demonstrated that lenvatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.23–0.80; p = 0.008), overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75–0.97; p = 0.013) and overall response rate (relative risk: 6.89; 95% CI: 2.22–21.36; p = 0.001) compared with control therapy. However, the use of lenvatinib can increase the risk of severe infection. Conclusion: Lenvatinib-containing regimens are associated with better progression-free survival, overall survival and overall response rate, but can induce severe infection.


Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun-I Lin ◽  
Jia-Lian Yang ◽  
Yu-Chao Lin ◽  
Che-Yi Chou ◽  
Jin-Hua Chen ◽  
...  

Both gemcitabine and fluoropyrimidine are recommended backbones in the first-line treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). To compare the efficacy and safety of these two therapeutic backbones, and to investigate the optimal therapies, we conducted a network meta-analysis. By retrospective analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT), the most preferred therapeutic regimen may be predicted. The eligible RCTs of the gemcitabine-based therapies and fluoropyrimidine-based therapies were searched up to 31 August 2019. In a frequentist network meta-analysis, treatments were compared and ranked according to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Thirty-two trials with 10,729 patients were included. The network meta-analyses results for overall survival and progression-free survival showed that fluoropyrimidine-based therapy seems to be the most effective treatment choice. Compared to gemcitabine combined with taxanes or immunotherapy, fluoropyrimidine-based therapy had comparable treatment effects (PFS: 0.67, p-Value = 0.11; 0.76, p-Value = 0.32; OS: 0.80, p-Value = 0.16; 0.77, p-Value = 0.21). Moreover, the combination of immunotherapy and gemcitabine had tolerable toxicities. Based on current evidence, fluoropyrimidine-based therapies and the combination of gemcitabine and taxanes were the most effective therapies in the advanced pancreatic cancer, and the combination of immunotherapy and gemcitabine can be developed into a new form of therapy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8042-8042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric M Maiese ◽  
Jean-Gabriel Le Moine ◽  
Claire Ainsworth ◽  
Outi Ahdesmäki ◽  
Emma Howe

8042 Background: Treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) in the US has undergone significant advances, with several new therapies recently FDA approved for relapse/refractory MM (RRMM), including carfilzomib+lenalidomide+dex (KRd), carfilzomib+dex (Kd), daratumumab+lenalidomide+dex (DRd), daratumumab+bortezomib+dex (DVd), ixaxomib+lenalidomide+dex (IRd), and elotuzumab+lenalidomide+dex (ERd). These new therapies have shown improvements in clinical outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, with few head-to-head RCTs, there is little comparative evidence to determine the most effective treatment for specific patients. A systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to determine the comparative efficacy (progression free survival (PFS)) of MM therapies for treating first relapse. Methods: The SLR searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs investigating the efficacy of treatments for RRMM (to August 2016). NMA was conducted on the PFS hazard ratios (HR), where available in RCTs for patients with one prior line of treatment, using Bayesian fixed effects mixed treatment comparisons. Results: Data formed two evidence networks. Network 1: RCTs with Rd; Network 2: RCTs with Vd. Analyses found DRd and DVd had the highest probability of being the best treatment (0.96 and 0.89, respectively). Compared to other MM therapies, DRd and DVd had the lowest risk of progression or death (PFS HR <1.0) (Table 1). For example, compared to KRd, DRd had a 41% (PFS HR 0.59) reduced risk of progression or death. Conclusions: This analysis provides comparative evidence among treatments where head-to-head RCTs have not been conducted. For treating first relapse, compared to other MM treatments, this analysis found that DRd and DVd had the highest probability of providing the longest progression free survival. [Table: see text]


BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kabirraaj Toor ◽  
Mark R. Middleton ◽  
Keith Chan ◽  
Adenike Amadi ◽  
Andriy Moshyk ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods A systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary. Results Of 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27–0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14–0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib. Conclusion Adjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk–benefit profile.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Manik Chhabra

Background: Prostate cancer is the sixth leading cause of death, among all cancer deaths By 2030, this burden is expected to increase with 1.7 million new cases and 499,000 new deaths. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Nilutamide in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) patients who underwent orchiectomy. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the Medline/PubMed and Cochrane Library. References from included studies and studies from clinicaltrials.gov were explored without language and date restrictions. We included only randomized controlled trials, comparing the safety and efficacy of Nilutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer (mPCa) patients who underwent orchiectomy with placebo. The outcomes of concerns were survival and the response of drug and safety.. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two authors were independently involved in the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved by consulting a third reviewer. Results: A total of five out of 244 studies were included in meta-analysis involving1637 participants. Nilutamide group showed improved response rate (RR=1.77, 95%CI 1.46-2.14, p<0.00001), disease progression (RR=0.59, 95%CI 0.47-0.73, p<0.00001), complete response (RR=2.13, 95%CI 1.40-3.23, p=0.003) and clinical benefit (RR=1.23, 95%CI 1.13-1.34, p<0.00001) when compared to placebo; however, stable disease favored the control group (RR=0.80, 95%CI 0.68-0.94, p=0.007). In addition, patients on Nilutamide showed prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival. Nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events reported in Nilutamide group. Conclusion: Evidence suggests that patients with mPCa who underwent orchiectomy receiving Nilutamide showed significant improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival response rate and clinical benefits in comparison with the placebo group.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Long Ma ◽  
Gang Jin ◽  
Keying Yao ◽  
Yi Yang ◽  
Ruitong Chang ◽  
...  

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors versus docetaxel for non-small cell lung cancer by meta-analysis.Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors versus docetaxel on the treatment of NSCLC were searched in CNKI, WF, VIP, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of eligible studies. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan5.3 software.Results: Compared with the use of docetaxel chemotherapy for NSCLC, the overall survival and progression-free survival of the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors regimen are better [overall survival: (HR= 0.73, 95%CI:0.69∼0.77, P&lt;0.00001], progression-free survival: (HR= 0.89, 95%CI:0.83∼0.94, P&lt;0.00001]), and lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events ([OR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.13∼0.31, P&lt;0.00001]).Conclusion: Compared with the docetaxel chemotherapy regimen, the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors has certain advantages in terms of efficacy and safety. The results still need to be confirmed by a multi-center, large sample, and high-quality research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingduo Kong ◽  
Hongyi Wei ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Yilin Li ◽  
Yongjun Wang

Abstract Background Laparoscopy has been widely used for patients with early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). However, there is limited evidence regarding whether survival outcomes of laparoscopy are equivalent to those of laparotomy among patients with eEOC. The result of survival outcomes of laparoscopy is still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the survival outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of eEOC. Methods According to the keywords, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for studies from January 1994 to January 2021. Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for patients with eEOC were assessed for eligibility. Only studies including outcomes of overall survival (OS) were enrolled. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (Version 12.0) and Review Manager (Version 5.2). Results A total of 6 retrospective non-random studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that there was no difference between two approaches for patients with eEOC in OS (HR = 0.6, P = 0.446), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.6, P = 0.137) and upstaging rate (OR = 1.18, P = 0.54). But the recurrence rate of laparoscopic surgery was lower than that of laparotomic surgery (OR = 0.48, P = 0.008). Conclusions Laparoscopy and laparotomy appear to provide comparable overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes for patients with eEOC. Further high-quality studies are needed to enhance this statement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document