scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Nilutamide in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer who Underwent Orchiectomy: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

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 ◽  
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.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1331-1342
Author(s):  
Irena Ilic ◽  
Sandra Sipetic ◽  
Jovan Grujicic ◽  
Milena Ilic

Introduction Almost half of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Our aim was to assess the effects of adding necitumumab to chemotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC. Material and methods A comprehensive literature search was performed according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate and adverse events were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time-to-event data and pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Results The meta-analysis included four randomized clinical trials with 2074 patients. The pooled results showed significant improvement for overall survival (HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.95), p = 0.004) when necitumumab was added to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No statistically significant improvement was noted for progression-free survival and objective response rate (HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.69–1.01), p = 0.06 and OR = 1.46 (95% CI 0.90–2.38), p = 0.13, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with non-squamous NSCLC, there was no benefit in overall survival and objective response rate. Patients with advanced NSCLC who received necitumumab were at the highest odds of developing a skin rash (OR = 14.50 (95% CI 3.16–66.43), p = 0.0006) and hypomagnesaemia (OR = 2.77 (95% CI 2.23–3.45), p < 0.00001), while the OR for any grade ≥3 adverse event was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28–1.87, p < 0.00001). Conclusions The addition of necitumumab to standard chemotherapy in a first-line setting in patients with stage IV NSCLC results in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, while the results were not significant for progression-free survival and objective response rate.


2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Hanaei ◽  
Khashayar Afshari ◽  
Armin Hirbod-Mobarakeh ◽  
Bahram Mohajer ◽  
Delara Amir Dastmalchi ◽  
...  

Abstract Although different immunotherapeutic approaches have been developed for the treatment of glioma, there is a discrepancy between clinical trials limiting their approval as common treatment. So, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess survival and clinical response of specific immunotherapy in patients with glioma. Generally, seven databases were searched to find eligible studies. Controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of specific immunotherapy in glioma were found eligible. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, the data were analyzed based on the level of heterogeneity. Overall, 25 articles with 2964 patients were included. Generally, mean overall survival did not statistically improve in immunotherapy [median difference=1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI)=−0.16–3.17; p=0.08]; however, it was 11.16 months higher in passive immunotherapy (95% CI=5.69–16.64; p<0.0001). One-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy groups [hazard ratio (HR)=0.69; 95% CI=0.52–0.92; p=0.01]. As the hazard rate in the immunotherapy approach was 0.83 of the control group, 2-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy (HR=0.83; 95% CI=0.69–0.99; p=0.04). Three-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy as well (HR=0.67; 95% CI=0.48–0.92; p=0.01). Overall, median progression-free survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy (standard median difference=0.323; 95% CI=0.110–0.536; p=0.003). However, 1-year progression-free survival was not remarkably different between immunotherapy and control groups (HR=0.94; 95% CI=0.74–1.18; p=0.59). Specific immunotherapy demonstrated remarkable improvement in survival of patients with glioma and could be a considerable choice of treatment in the future. Despite the current promising results, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to approve immunotherapeutic approaches as the standard of care and the front-line treatment for glioma.


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 128-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuhiro Nishikawa ◽  
Daisuke Sakai ◽  
Junji Kawada ◽  
Ryohei Kawabata ◽  
Tomono Kawase ◽  
...  

128 Background: Irinotecan is a key drug in second- or further-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer. Continuous administration of trastuzumab beyond first progression is expected to contribute to the benefit of chemotherapy for HER2-positive gastric cancer. We assessed the efficacy and safety of combination chemotherapy with trastuzumab and irinotecan in Japanese patients with advanced HER2-positive chemo-refractory gastric cancer. Methods: Intravenous infusion of irinotecan every 2 weeks at a dose of 150 mg/m2; intravenous infusion of trastuzumab at a dose of 8 mg/kg on day 1 of the first cycle, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Administration of irinotecan and trastuzumab were repeated in independent schedules. The primary endpoint was disease control rate. The secondary endpoints were adverse events, response rate, time-to-treatment failure, progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rate stratified by prior trastuzumab use. This study was conducted by the Osaka Gastrointestinal Cancer Chemotherapy Study Group (OGSG). Results: From October 2012 to Augst 2014, 30 patients were enrolled and one patient withdrew before study treatment. Accordingly, 29 patients were assessable for efficacy and safety. The disease control rate was 65.5% [95% C.I. 45.7 - 82.1%], and the response rate was 20.7% [95% C.I. 8.0 - 39.7%]. The median progression free survival and the median overall survival were 3.7 and 7.5 months, respectively. The major grade 3/4 toxic effects were neutropenia (24%); anemia (24%); leucopenia (21%); anorexia (11%); fatigue (14%); hypoalbuminemia (24%); and hypokalemia (14%). One death (NOS) was considered to be related to the study. Conclusions: The results of combination Trastuzumab with irinotecan showed feasible and promising efficacy against advanced HER2-positive chemo-refractory gastric cancer. These findings indicated that trastuzumab continuation use might be beneficial. Clinical trial information: 000008626.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 1847-1853
Author(s):  
Ling Li ◽  
Fei Kong ◽  
Lei Zhang ◽  
Xin Li ◽  
Xiaorui Fu ◽  
...  

Summary Purpose Apatinib, a new tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, has shown promising efficacy against several solid cancers, but evidence of its efficacy against relapsed and refractory nasopharyngeal carcinoma is limited. We investigated the efficacy and safety of apatinib for relapsed and refractory nasopharyngeal carcinoma in an open-label, single-arm, phase II clinical trial. Fifty-one patients with relapsed and refractory nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhengzhou University, who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. All patients received apatinib at an initial dose of 500 mg daily (1 cycle = 28 days). The primary and secondary endpoints were overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. We evaluated treatment effects and recorded apatinib-related adverse events by performing regular follow-ups and workup. The overall response rate (complete and partial responses) was 31.37% (16/51). The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 16 (95% CI, 9.32–22.68) and 9 months (95% CI, 5.24–12.76), respectively. Most patients tolerated treatment-related adverse events of grades 1 and 2; hypertension (29, 56.86%), proteinuria (25, 49.02%), and hand–foot syndrome (27, 52.94%) were the most common adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. Apatinib showed good efficacy and safety in patients with relapsed and refractory NPC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document