scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of combined androgen blockade with antiandrogen for advanced prostate cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Yang ◽  
R. Chen ◽  
T. Sun ◽  
L. Zhao ◽  
F. Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Combined Androgen Blockade ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Androgen Blockade

Background Combined androgen blockade (cab) is a promising treatment modality for prostate cancer (pca). In the present meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of first-line cab using an antiandrogen (aa) with castration monotherapy in patients with advanced pca.Methods PubMed, embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (rcts) published through 12 December 2016. Hazard ratios (hrs) with 95% confidence intervals (cis) were determined for primary outcomes: overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs). Subgroup analyses were performed for Western compared with Eastern patients and use of a nonsteroidal aa (nsaa) compared with a steroidal aa (saa).Results Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using an aa was associated with significantly improved os (n = 14; hr: 0.90; 95% ci: 0.84 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and pfs (n = 13; hr: 0.89; 95% ci: 0.80 to 1.00; p = 0.04). No significant difference in os (p = 0.71) and pfs (p = 0.49) was observed between the Western and Eastern patients. Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using a nsaa was associated with significantly improved os (hr: 0.88; 95% ci: 0.82 to 0.95; p = 0.0009) and pfs (hr: 0.85; 95% ci: 0.73 to 0.98; p = 0.007)—a result that was not achieved with cab using a saa. The safety profiles of cab and monotherapy were similar in terms of adverse events, including hot flushes, impotence, and grade 3 or 4 events, with the exception of risk of diarrhea and liver dysfunction or elevation in liver enzymes, which were statistically greater with cab using an aa.Conclusions Compared with castration monotherapy, first-line cab therapy with an aa, especially a nsaa, resulted in significantly improved os and pfs, and had an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced pca.

scholarly journals Combining Correlated Outcomes and Surrogate Endpoints in a Network Meta-Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Treatments

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2663
Author(s):  
Tung Hoang ◽  
Jeongseon Kim
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cancer Treatments ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Credible Intervals ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Selection Of

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies in the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Predicted hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for overall survival (OS) were calculated from the odds ratio (OR) for the overall response rate and/or HR for progression-free survival using multivariate random effects (MVRE) models. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of 49 articles to compare the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI±bevacizumab (Bmab)/cetuximab (Cmab)/panitumumab (Pmab), and FOLFOXIRI/CAPEOX±Bmab. The NMA showed significant OS improvement with FOLFOX, FOLFOX+Cmab, and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFIRI (HR = 0.84, 95% CrI = 0.73–0.98; HR = 0.76, 95% CrI = 0.62–0.94; HR = 0.80, 95% CrI = 0.66–0.96, respectively), as well as with FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFOXIRI (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.51–0.94 and HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.54–0.97, respectively). The odds of adverse events grade ≥3 were significantly higher for FOLFOX+Cmab vs. FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 2.34, 95% CrI = 1.01–4.66). Higher odds of events were observed for FOLFIRI+Pmab in comparison with FOLFIRI (OR = 2.16, 95% CrI = 1.09–3.84) and FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 3.14, 95% CrI = 1.51–5.89). FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Bmab showed high probabilities of being first- and second-line treatments in terms of the efficacy and safety, respectively. The findings of the efficacy and safety comparisons may support the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153640.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of novel treatments in chemotherapy-naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZhiChao Min
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Novel Treatments ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Currently, novel treatment methods for chemotherapy-naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients have been applied in clinical practice. Since the optimum regimen remains inconclusive, this study compares the efficacy and safety of these treatments by network meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov database and review articles before January 30, 2020 were searched and date were extracted. A total of 29908 patients with CRPC from 23 randomized controlled trials were included. Relative hazard ratios (HR) had been used to assess the effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or radiographic PFS (rPFS), and adverse events (AEs). We then pooled the data and used Bayesian and frequentist random-effects model to identify the best treatment strategy. Results: Compared with the placebo, both Bayesian and frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses found that only enzalutamide and abiraterone had a significant effect in OS. Similar results were observed in PFS/rPFS. Bicalutamide, tasquinimod and orteronel could also improve rPFS. Enzalutamide only could improve rPFS more effectively than abiraterone with no significant differences in OS/PFS/AEs. In any subgroups of patients with age <75, ≥75 or ECOG score = 0,1 or Gleason score ≤7, ≥8, enzalutamide could improve the OS significantly. Nevertheless, the significant benefit of abiraterone was only found in patients with age <75 and ECOG score = 0.Conclusions: Our network analysis suggested that both enzalutamide and abiraterone are optimal treatment for chemotherapy-naïve CRPC patients with age <75 and ECOG score = 0 for great improvement on OS and PFS. In addition, enzalutamide is also an optimum therapy for chemotherapy-naïve CRPC patients with age ≥75 and ECOG score = 1.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Pre- and Postdocetaxel Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Trial-Level Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Fang ◽  
Mary Nakazawa ◽  
Emmanuel S. Antonarakis ◽  
Chun Li
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Method Approach

We examined the comparative efficacies of first-line abiraterone and enzalutamide in pre- and postdocetaxel settings in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) through a trial level meta-analysis. A mixed method approach was applied to 19 unique studies containing 17 median overall survival (OS) estimates and 13 median radiographic progression-free survival (PFS) estimates. We employed a random-effects meta-analysis to compare efficacies of abiraterone and enzalutamide with respect to OS and PFS. In the predocetaxel setting, enzalutamide use was associated with an increase in median OS of 5.9 months (p<0.001), hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, and an increase in median PFS of 8.3 months (p<0.001), HR = 0.47 compared to abiraterone. The advantage of enzalutamide improved after adjusting for baseline Gleason score to 19.5 months (p<0.001) and 14.6 months (p<0.001) in median OS and PFS, respectively. In the postdocetaxel setting, the advantage of enzalutamide use was nominally significant for median PFS (1.2 months p=0.02 without adjustment and 2.2 months and p=0.0007 after adjustment); there was no significant difference in median OS between the two agents. The results from this comprehensive meta-analysis suggest a survival advantage with the use of first-line enzalutamide over abiraterone in CRPC and highlight the need for prospective clinical trials.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of novel treatments in chemotherapy-naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
ZhiChao Min
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Novel Treatments ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Currently, novel treatment methods for chemotherapy-naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients have been applied in clinical practice. Since the optimum regimen remains inconclusive, this study compares the efficacy and safety of these treatments by network meta-analysis. Methods The PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov database and review articles before January 30, 2020 were searched and date were extracted. A total of 29908 patients with CRPC from 23 randomized controlled trials were included. Relative hazard ratios (HR) had been used to assess the effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or radiographic PFS (rPFS), and adverse events (AEs). We then pooled the data and used Bayesian and frequentist random-effects model to identify the best treatment strategy. Results Compared with the placebo, both Bayesian and frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses found that only enzalutamide and abiraterone had a significant effect in OS. Similar results were observed in PFS/rPFS. Bicalutamide, tasquinimod and orteronel could also improve rPFS. Enzalutamide only could improve rPFS more effectively than abiraterone with no significant differences in OS/PFS/AEs. In any subgroups of patients with age <75, ≥75 or ECOG score = 0,1 or Gleason score ≤7, ≥8, enzalutamide could improve the OS significantly. Nevertheless, the significant benefit of abiraterone was only found in patients with age <75 and ECOG score = 0. Conclusions Our network analysis suggested that both enzalutamide and abiraterone are optimal treatment for chemotherapy-naïve CRPC patients with age <75 and ECOG score = 0 for great improvement on OS and PFS. In addition, enzalutamide is also an optimum therapy for chemotherapy-naïve CRPC patients with age ≥75 and ECOG score = 1.

scholarly journals Combined Androgen Blockade in Localized Prostate Cancer Treated With Definitive Radiation Therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 1497-1504
Author(s):  
Lucas K. Vitzthum ◽  
Chris Straka ◽  
Reith R. Sarkar ◽  
Rana McKay ◽  
J. Michael Randall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Combined Androgen Blockade ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Androgen Blockade

Background: The addition of androgen deprivation therapy to radiation therapy (RT) improves survival in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is not known whether combined androgen blockade (CAB) with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-A) and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen improves survival over GnRH-A monotherapy. Methods: This study evaluated patients with intermediate- and high-risk PCa diagnosed in 2001 through 2015 who underwent RT with either GnRH-A alone or CAB using the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Associations between CAB and prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival (OS) were determined using multivariable regression with Fine-Gray and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. For a positive control, the effect of long-term versus short-term GnRH-A therapy was tested. Results: The cohort included 8,423 men (GnRH-A, 4,529; CAB, 3,894) with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. There were 1,861 deaths, including 349 resulting from PCa. The unadjusted cumulative incidences of PCSM at 10 years were 5.9% and 6.9% for those receiving GnRH-A and CAB, respectively (P=.16). Compared with GnRH-A alone, CAB was not associated with a significant difference in covariate-adjusted PCSM (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85–1.30) or OS (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93–1.12). For high-risk patients, long-term versus short-term GnRH-A therapy was associated with improved PCSM (SHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57–0.95) and OS (SHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.93). Conclusions: In men receiving definitive RT for intermediate- or high-risk PCa, CAB was not associated with improved PCSM or OS compared with GnRH alone.

Meta-analysis of outcomes of VEGF and EGFR targeted biologic therapy in relapsed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 534-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chan ◽  
Eva Segelov ◽  
Jeremy David Shapiro ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Christos Stelios Karapetis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Biologic Agents ◽  
First Line ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
The Impact

534 Background: Biologic therapies used in treatment of mCRC are expensive and there is debate about their value. We examined the impact of biologic therapy on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade 3/4 toxicity for patients beyond first-line treatment. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries were searched for randomized studies in relapsed mCRC comparing treatment containing targeted therapy to the same treatment without targeted therapy. Biologic agents were classed as: EGFR-inhibitors (EGFR-I), VEGF antibody/trap and VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Only KRAS wild-type patients were included for EGFR-I analysis. Results were aggregated according to standard meta-analytic techniques. Results: 10 studies evaluating 5,847 patients were identified. Considering subgroups and lines, OS and PFS benefit was demonstrated in all groups across all lines except for OS in 2nd line EGFR-I use (which may be due to subsequent crossover). A benefit to ORR was seen with EGFR-I 2nd line (Pooled ORR benefit +24%, Odds Ratio (OR) 4.44, 95% CI 3.20-6.18), EGFR-I 3rd line and beyond (Pooled ORR benefit +16%), VEGF antibody/trap (Pooled ORR benefit +7.2%, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.57-2.54) and VEGFR TKI (Pooled ORR benefit +1.9%, OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27-3.30). The risk of grade 3/4 toxicity was greater with the addition of all targeted agents. Conclusions: The use of VEGF and EGFR targeted biologic agents beyond first-line setting in mCRC results in a benefit to OS, PFS and ORR for all agents except for OS benefit with second-line EGFR-I. This benefit comes at the cost of increased toxicity. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of approved first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): A network meta-analysis based on phase II/III randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16074-e16074
Author(s):  
Kirsi Manz ◽  
Klaus Fenchel ◽  
Andreas Eilers ◽  
Jon Morgan ◽  
Kirsten Wittling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
First Line Treatment

e16074 Background: During the last decade several novel treatment options including TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been developed for the treatment of mRCC patients. However, results from direct comparisons (head-to-head RCTs) to determine the optimal treatment are lacking for most of these agents. In this network meta-analysis we attempted to indirectly compare efficacy and safety of first-line TKIs in patients with mRCC. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (English language only). Abstracts of conferences of relevant medical societies were also included from database inception (January 1, 2007) to January 15, 2019. A systematic manual search (including data requests from the publication authors) was also performed. For the purpose of this network meta-analysis only phase II/III RCTs assessing approved first-line TKI therapy for mRCC were analysed. The analysis was done using the software R with the netmeta package. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint; grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were secondary endpoints. Results: A database search identified 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria reporting on 4,460 patients. For PFS cabozantinib and sunitinib were found to be superior to sorafenib, however, when compared to tivozanib, PFS did not significantly differ between the TKIs. Furthermore, tivozanib was found to have the highest probability of being the safest drug as first-line treatment in terms of grade 3 and 4 AEs (ranking safety, p score 0.9344). Conclusions: No significant PFS differences for all TKIs currently used for first-line treatment of mRCC have been found when compared with tivozanib. Compared with all approved TKIs tivozanib appears to be the best choice for first-line treatment of these patients because it has demonstrated the most favourable safety profile. These results may provide guidance to oncologists when making treatment decisions for mRCC patients.

scholarly journals Taxanes Alone or in Combination With Anthracyclines As First-Line Therapy of Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1980-1986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine J. Piccart-Gebhart ◽  
Tomasz Burzykowski ◽  
Marc Buyse ◽  
George Sledge ◽  
James Carmichael ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Hazard Ratios

Purpose Taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) have been sequenced or combined with anthracyclines (doxorubicin or epirubicin) for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. This meta-analysis uses data from all relevant trials to detect any advantages of taxanes in terms of tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and survival. Patients and Methods Individual patient data were collected on eight randomized combination trials comparing anthracyclines + taxanes (+ cyclophosphamide in one trial) with anthracyclines + cyclophosphamide (+ fluorouracil in four trials), and on three single-agent trials comparing taxanes with anthracyclines. Combination trials included 3,034 patients; single-agent trials included 919 patients. Results Median follow-up of living patients was 43 months, median survival was 19.3 months, and median PFS was 7.1 months. In single-agent trials, response rates were similar in the taxanes (38%) and in the anthracyclines (33%) arms (P = .08). The hazard ratios for taxanes compared with anthracyclines were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.36; P = .011) for PFS and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P = .90) for survival. In combination trials, response rates were 57% (10% complete) in taxane-based combinations and 46% (6% complete) in control arms (P < .001). The hazard ratios for taxane-based combinations compared with control arms were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.99; P = .031) for PFS and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.03; P = .24) for survival. Conclusion Taxanes were significantly worse than single-agent anthracyclines in terms of PFS, but not in terms of response rates or survival. Taxane-based combinations were significantly better than anthracycline-based combinations in terms of response rates and PFS, but not in terms of survival.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Pyrotinib Versus T-DM1 in HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Pre-Treated With Trastuzumab and a Taxane: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Liao ◽  
Wenfa Huang ◽  
Yaxin Liu ◽  
Wendi Pei ◽  
Huiping Li
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Probability Curve ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeTo compare the efficacy and safety between pyrotinib (Pyr) and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in pre-treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed in August 2020. Randomized clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety between different anti-HER2 regimens in patients pre-treated with trastuzumab (Tra) and a taxane in metastatic settings (≤second-line treatment) were included. A fixed effects network meta-analysis based on the Bayesian inferential framework was conducted for progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs). Values of surface under cumulative ranking probability curve (SUCRA) were calculated to offer a ranking of all regimens.ResultsTwelve studies with 4,353 subjects were identified. Nine regimens were included into the network: T-DM1, lapatinib-capecitabine (Lap-Cap), Tra-Cap, Cap, neratinib (Ner), pertuzumab (Per)-Tra-Cap, Pyr-Cap, atezolizumab (Ate)-T-DM1, and Ner-Cap. For PFS, Pyr-Cap was more favorable than T-DM1 (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.77, 0.70–0.86), Lap-Cap (0.64, 0.59–0.69), Tra-Cap (0.63, 0.56–0.70), Cap (0.50, 0.45–0.56), Ner (0.59, 0.51–0.69), Per-Tra-Cap (0.68, 0.59–0.79), and Ner-Cap (0.72, 0.64–0.81). For OS, Pyr-Cap showed further improvement than Lap-Cap (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.71, 0.52–0.99), Cap (0.68, 0.49–0.96), and Ner (0.65, 0.45–0.94). For ORR, Pyr-Cap was significantly superior than Cap (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 7.87, 1.22–56.51). No significant difference was observed in grade ≥3 AEs among all the regimens. Pyr-Cap ranked in the highest in PFS, OS, ORR, and grade ≥3 AEs (SUCRA = 99.4, 89.7, 86.4, and 89.3%).ConclusionsThese results indicate that Pyr may be more effective than T-DM1 in HER2+ MBC patients pre-treated with Tra and a taxane. However, it may be associated with more grade ≥3 AEs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document