Andre Deeke Sasse

Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) antagonists to antiemetic regimens has substantially reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We sought to systematically review the overall impact of NK1R antagonists on CINV prevention. METHODS We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, and meeting proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NK1R antagonists plus standard antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention. Complete response (CR) to therapy was defined as the absence of emesis and the absence of rescue therapy. The endpoints were defined as CR in the overall phase (during the first 120 hours of chemotherapy), CR in the acute phase (first 24 hours), and the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after chemotherapy, nausea, and toxicity. Subgroup analyses evaluated the type of NK1R antagonist used, the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy regimen, and prolonged use of 5-HT3 (serotonin) receptor antagonists, a class of standard antiemetic agents. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were one-sided; statistical tests for effect estimates and publication bias were two-sided. RESULTS Seventeen trials (8740 patients) were included in this analysis. NK1R antagonists increased the CR rate in the overall phase from 54% to 72% (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.57, P < .001). CR and nausea were improved in all phases and subgroups. The expected side effects from NK1R antagonists did not statistically significantly differ from previous reports; however, this analysis suggests that the incidence of severe infection increased from 2% to 6% in the NK1R antagonist group (three RCTs with a total of 1480 patients; OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.69 to 5.67, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS NK1R antagonists increased CINV control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases. They are effective for both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Their use might be associated with increased infection rates; however, additional appraisal of specific data from RCTs is needed.

Addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis, with emphasis on chemotherapy subgroups

BackgroundBevacizumab has an important role in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. However, clinical trials studying its effect have involved distinct chemotherapy regimens with divergent results. The aim of this meta-analysis is to gather current data and evaluate not only the efficacy of bevacizumab, but also the impact of divergent backbone regimens.MethodsA wide search of randomized clinical trials using bevacizumab in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer was performed in Embase, MEDLINE, LILACS and Cochrane databases. Meeting presentations and abstracts were also investigated. The resulting data were examined and included in the meta-analysis according to the type of regimen.ResultsSix trials, totaling 3060 patients, were analyzed. There was an advantage to using bevacizumab for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.84; CI: 0.77-0.91; P < 0.00001 and HR = 0.72; CI: 0.66-0.78; P < 0.00001, respectively). However, heterogeneity of results was very high for both outcomes, and subgroup analyses supported the OS advantage with bevacizumab restricted to irinotecan-based regimens. Infusional fluorouracil subsets involved a minor proportion, and did not demonstrate statistical benefit in PFS or OS. Regarding toxicity, higher rates of grades 3-4 hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolic events and proteinuria were uniformly observed with bevacizumab, leading to increased treatment interruptions (HR = 1.47; P = 0.0004).ConclusionsBevacizumab has efficacy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, but the current data are insufficient to support efficacy in all regimens, especially infusional fluorouracil regimens, like FOLFIRI and FOLFOX.

Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction Recently, studies have demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy could be associated with better outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the benefit seems to be dependent on the drugs used in the chemotherapy regimens. This systematic review evaluated the strength of data on efficacy of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced NSCLC. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), toxicities and treatment related mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) were used for the meta-analysis and were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results We included results reported from five RCTs, with a total of 2,252 patients included in the primary analysis, all of them using platinum-based chemotherapy regimens. Compared to chemotherapy alone, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy resulted in a significant longer OS (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; p = 0.04), longer PFS (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; p<0.00001) and higher response rates (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.89 to 2.89; p<0.00001). We found no heterogeneity between trials, in all comparisons. There was a slight increase in toxicities in bevacizumab group, as well as an increased rate of treatment-related mortality. Conclusions The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC prolongs OS, PFS and RR. Considering the toxicities added, and the small absolute benefits found, bevacizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy can be considered an option in selected patients with advanced NSCLC. However, risks and benefits should be discussed with patients before decision making.

Optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The optimal duration of first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been a matter for debate for nearly 20 years. In order to elucidate this issue, a meta-analysis comparing the different durations of same treatments was performed. METHODS We searched for all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different durations of first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL databases were searched for RCTs comparing a defined number of cycles of chemotherapy versus continuing treatment until disease progression, or a defined number of cycles versus a higher number of cycles of the same chemotherapy. Trials including biological agents were excluded. RESULTS Seven trials that included 1559 patients were analysed. Treatment for more than 4 cycles was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in the hazard of mortality relative to shorter treatment (hazard ratio (HR)=0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.84-1.11; P=.65). In those treated with third-generation chemotherapy through the whole study time, treatment for more than 4 cycles was associated with a non-statistically significant increase in mortality (HR=1.08; 95% CI=0.90-1.28; P=.28). Patients receiving more chemotherapy had significant longer progression-free survival (HR=.75; 95% CI=0.60-0.85; P<0.0001) than the group with shorter duration of treatment. In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in the overall response rate between the groups (odds ratio (OR)=0.78; 95% CI=0.60-1.01; P=.96). Longer treatment was associated with more severe leucopaenia but with no significant increase in non-haematological toxicities. CONCLUSIONS In patients with advanced NSCLC the use of more than 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy with third-generation regimens significantly increases progression-free survival but not overall survival and is associated with higher incidence of adverse events. There is no evidence to support continuous chemotherapy until progression in patients with lung cancer.

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonists for Ovarian Function Preservation in Premenopausal Women Undergoing Chemotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Chemotherapy may result in a detrimental effect on ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal women undergoing treatment for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). To minimize risk of harm to ovarian function and fertility for patients in this setting, careful considerations should be made. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) have been suggested as an alternative to prevent the loss of ovarian function due to exposure to cytotoxic agents, but GnRHa use for ovarian protection in EBC patients is not fully resolved. OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of GnRHa administered concurrently with chemotherapy for ovarian function preservation. DATA SOURCES PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between January 1975 and March 2015. The abstracts of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting between 1995 and 2014 and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium between 2009 and 2014 were searched as well. STUDY SELECTION Prospective, randomized, clinical trials addressing the role of ovarian suppression with GnRHa in preventing early ovarian dysfunction in premenopausal women undergoing treatment for EBC were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data extraction was performed independently by 2 authors. The methodology and the risk of bias were assessment based on the description of randomization method, withdrawals, and blinding process. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Rate of resumption of regular menses after a minimal follow-up period of 6 months following chemotherapy was used as a surrogate to assess the incidence of ovarian dysfunction. Additional secondary outcomes included hormone levels and number of pregnancies. Risk ratio estimates were calculated based on the number of evaluable patients. Analyses were conducted using a random effect model. RESULTS Seven studies were included in this analysis, totaling 1047 randomized patients and 856 evaluable patients. The use of GnRHa was associated with a higher rate of recovery of regular menses after 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 2.41; 95% CI, 1.40-4.15; P = .002) and at least 12 months (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.33-2.59; P < .001) following the last chemotherapy cycle. The use of GnRHa was also associated with a higher number of pregnancies (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.02-3.36; P = .04), although this outcome was not uniformly reported and fertility or rate of pregnancy was not the primary outcome in any of the trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists given with chemotherapy was associated with increased rates of recovery of regular menses in this meta-analysis. Evidence was insufficient to assess outcomes related to GnRHa and ovarian function and fertility and needs further investigation.

Adjuvant therapy for locally advanced renal cell cancer: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BackgroundMany adjuvant trials have been undertaken in an attempt to reduce the risk of recurrence among patients who undergo surgical resection for locally advanced renal cancer. However, no clear benefit has been identified to date. This systematic review was conducted to examine the exact role of adjuvant therapy in renal cancer setting.MethodsRandomized controlled trials were searched comparing adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy, vaccine, immunotherapy, biochemotherapy) versus no active treatment after surgery among renal cell cancer patients. Outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and severe toxicities. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a fixed-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was measured by I2. Different strategies of adjuvant treatment were evaluated separately.ResultsTen studies (2,609 patients) were included. Adjuvant therapy provided no benefits in terms of OS (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.89 to 1.28; P = 0.48 I2 = 0%) or DFS (HR 1.03; 95%CI 0.87 to 1.21; P = 0.77 I2 = 15%) when compared to no treatment. No subgroup analysis (immunotherapy, vaccines, biochemotherapy and hormone therapy) had relevant results. Toxicity evaluation depicted a significantly higher frequency of serious adverse events in the adjuvant group.ConclusionsThis analysis provided no support for the hypothesis that the agents studied provide any clinical benefit for renal cancer patients although they increase the risk of toxic effects. Randomized trials are underway to test targeted therapies, which might open a new therapeutic frontier. Until these trials yield results, no adjuvant therapy can be recommended for patients who undergo surgical resection for renal cell cancer.

Camptothecins Compared with Etoposide in Combination with Platinum Analog in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Superiority of camptothecin regimens over etoposide—both combined with platinum analogs—in extensive disease small cell lung cancer has been a matter of debate with contradictory findings in randomized trials. A systematic review was sought to elucidate this issue. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing first-line camptothecin-platinum doublets versus etoposide-platinum doublets in patients with extensive disease small cell lung cancer were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases, European Society of Medical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer meeting sites. Meta-analyses were performed using fixed-effects model. Subgroup analyses were undertaken comparing each type of camptothecin to etoposide-based regimens. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and toxicities. Results: Eight studies (3086 patients) were included. The meta-analysis of topotecan regimens (TP) was not reliable due to impending heterogeneity. Meta-analysis of trials testing irinotecan combinations (IP) versus etoposide regimens (EP; 1561 patients) stated an OS improvement in favor of IP arm, though with considerable heterogeneity, whose origin seemed to be a Japanese trial. In the analyses without that study (1407 patients left), IP brought a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.78–0.97; p = 0.02; I2 = 0). IP also increased PFS (hazard ratio = 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.73–0.95; p = 0.006; I2 = 0%). There was no impact in RR (absolute RR 56% with IP; 53% with EP; p = 0.17). IP caused more diarrhea (p < 0.0001) but less hematological toxicities (p < 0.001) than EP. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis demonstrates statistically significant OS and PFS benefits of IP over EP regimens in western and eastern patients. Specific characteristics of safety profile should be taken into account when administrating IP chemotherapy.

Androgenic suppression combined with radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma: a systematic review

BackgroundLocally advanced prostate cancer is often associated with elevated recurrence rates. Despite the modest response observed, external-beam radiotherapy has been the preferred treatment for this condition. More recent evidence from randomised trials has demonstrated clinical benefit with the combined use of androgen suppression in such cases. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the combination of distinct hormone therapy modalities versus radiotherapy alone for overall survival, disease-free survival and toxicity.MethodsDatabases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov) were scanned for randomised clinical trials involving radiotherapy with or without androgen suppression in local prostate cancer. The search strategy included articles published until October 2011. The studies were examined and the data of interest were plotted for meta-analysis. Survival outcomes were reported as a hazard ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals.ResultsData from ten trials published from 1988 to 2011 were included, comprising 6555 patients. There was a statistically significant advantage to the use of androgen suppression, in terms of both overall survival and disease free survival, when compared to radiotherapy alone. The use of long-term goserelin (up to three years) was the strategy providing the higher magnitude of clinical benefit. In contrast to goserelin, there were no trials evaluating the use of other luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues as monotherapy. Complete hormonal blockade was not shown to be superior to goserelin monotherapy.ConclusionsBased on the findings of this systematic review, the evidence supports the use of androgen suppression with goserelin monotherapy as the standard treatment for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy, which are at high risk of recurrence or metastases.

Dose-dense chemotherapy versus conventional chemotherapy for early breast cancer: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Despite the widespread acceptance of dose-dense (DD) regimens as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC), studies of efficacy offer contradictory findings. This systematic review evaluates the real impact of DD chemotherapy. METHODS Randomized controlled trials comparing conventional adjuvant chemotherapy versus a DD regimen for EBC patients were searched in electronic databases. Dose-dense regimens included the same drugs and total amount as conventional chemotherapy, but applied in shorter intervals. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects model. Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and toxicities. Analyses were conducted according to tumor hormone receptor expression, plus tests for interaction. RESULTS Four studies (3418 patients) were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DD therapy can improve DFS (3356 patients; HR=0.83; 95% CI 0.73-0.95; p=0.005), independent of hormone receptor expression status. There was no OS benefit with DD therapy (3356 patients; HR=0.86; 95% CI 0.73-1.01; p=0.06) irrespective of tumor hormone receptor status (OS in hormone-positive stratum HR=0.94; 95% CI 0.74-1.21; OS in hormone-negative stratum HR=0.78; 95% CI 0.62-0.99; interaction test p=0.28). DD regimens caused a small increase in anemia and mucositis, but had no impact on cardiac events, leukemia or myelodysplasia. CONCLUSIONS DD adjuvant chemotherapy can improve DFS of EBC patients with little impact on safety. However there is no clear benefit in OS. Further research may indicate if there is any impact on OS not presently seen due to small sample size, and which patients may derive greater benefit.

Cáncer de próstata: práctica clínica basada en la evidencia

Objectives: Evidence-based medicine allows the best available external clinical evidence from systematic literature rese arch to be graded in order to determine the strength of its recommendation. This guideline aims to assist physicians and healthprofessionalsinclinicaldecisionsrelatedtoprostatecancertreatment,particularlyinurology,clinicaloncologyand radiotherapy. Methods: The publications used as information sources were obtained from structured data search in electronic databa ses, such as CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials) and MEDLINE (online). Each item of this guideline derived from an original question which was distributed to the participants. Search strategies were prepared to select the studies presenting the best methodological quality, according to predefined levels of evidence. Results: All the recommendations were followed by a level of evidence (LE) and a degree of recommendation (DR). We used a formal ranking system to help the reader to judge the strength of the evidence behind the results published in support of each recommendation. Conclusions: The existing parameters should be viewed as guidelines of conduct. The final trial on which the clinical procedure or treatment plan is most suitable for a particular patient should be done by a physician, who should discuss the available treatment options with the patient according to the diagnosis.