To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001-September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator's choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting and rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) in head and neck cancer (HNC) randomized controlled trials based in the United States.
DATA SOURCES: Pubmed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus databases.
REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of titles in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were US-based randomized controlled trials focused on the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of HNC. Retrospective analyses and pilot studies were excluded. The mean age, patients randomized, publication details, trial sites, funding, and LTFU data were recorded. Reporting of participants through each stage of the trial was documented. Binary logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between study characteristics and reporting LTFU.
RESULTS: A total of 3255 titles were reviewed. Of these, 128 studies met the inclusion criteria for analysis. A total of 22,016 patients were randomized. The mean age of participants was 58.6 years. Overall, 35 studies (27.3%) reported LTFU, and the mean LTFU rate was 4.37%. With the exception of 2 statistical outliers, study characteristics including publication year, number of trial sites, journal discipline, funding source, and intervention type did not predict the odds of reporting LTFU. Compared to 95% of trials reporting participants at eligibility and 100% reporting randomization, only 47% and 57% reported on withdrawal and details of the analysis, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The majority of clinical trials in HNC in the United States do not report LTFU, which inhibits the evaluation of attrition bias that may impact the interpretation of significant findings. Standardized reporting is needed to evaluate the generalizability of trial results to clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To develop guideline recommendations concerning optimal neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer.
METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer and provide recommended care options.
RESULTS: A total of 41 articles met eligibility criteria and form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy should be managed by a multidisciplinary care team. Appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant therapy include patients with inflammatory breast cancer and those in whom residual disease may prompt a change in therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy can also be used to reduce the extent of local therapy or reduce delays in initiating therapy. Although tumor histology, grade, stage, and estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression should routinely be used to guide clinical decisions, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of other markers or genomic profiles. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have clinically node-positive and/or at least T1c disease should be offered an anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimen; those with cT1a or cT1bN0 TNBC should not routinely be offered neoadjuvant therapy. Carboplatin may be offered to patients with TNBC to increase pathologic complete response. There is currently insufficient evidence to support adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to standard chemotherapy. In patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive (HR-positive), HER2-negative tumors, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be used when a treatment decision can be made without surgical information. Among postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative disease, hormone therapy can be used to downstage disease. Patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive disease should be offered neoadjuvant therapy in combination with anti-HER2-positive therapy. Patients with T1aN0 and T1bN0, HER2-positive disease should not be routinely offered neoadjuvant therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Taxanes are highly active chemotherapy agents used in metastatic breast cancer. Review authors examined their role in early breast cancer. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for treatment of women with operable early breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (2018, Issue 6), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2018, using key words such as 'early breast cancer' and 'taxanes'. We screened reference lists of other related literature reviews and articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing taxane-containing regimens versus non-taxane-containing regimens in women with operable breast cancer were included. Studies of women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS); disease-free survival (DFS) was a secondary outcome measure. Toxicity was represented as odds ratios (ORs), and quality of life (QoL) data were extracted when present.
MAIN RESULTS: This review included 29 studies (27 full-text publications and 2 abstracts or online theses). The updated analysis included 41,911 randomised women; the original review included 21,191 women. Taxane-containing regimens improved OS (HR 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence; 27 studies; 39,180 women; 6501 deaths) and DFS (HR, 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence; 29 studies; 41,909 women; 10,271 reported events) compared to chemotherapy without a taxane. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity across studies for OS and DFS (respectively).When a taxane-containing regimen was compared with the same regimen without a taxane, the beneficial effects of taxanes persisted for OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 10,842 women) and for DFS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 10,842 women). When a taxane-containing regimen was compared with the same regimen with another drug or drugs that were substituted for the taxane, a beneficial effect was observed for OS and DFS with the taxane-containing regimen (OS: HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.86; P < 0.001; 13 studies; 16,196 women; DFS: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 14 studies; 16,823 women). Preliminary subgroup analysis by lymph node status showed a survival benefit with taxane-containing regimens in studies of women with lymph node-positive disease only (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 17 studies; 22,055 women) but less benefit in studies of women both with and without lymph node metastases or with no lymph node metastases. Taxane-containing regimens also improved DFS in women with lymph node-positive disease (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 17 studies; 22,055 women), although the benefit was marginal in studies of women both with and without lymph node-positive disease (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 9 studies; 12,998 women) and was not apparent in studies of women with lymph node-negative disease (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 3 studies; 6856 women).Taxanes probably result in a small increase in risk of febrile neutropenia (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.49; moderate-certainty evidence; 24 studies; 33,763 women) and likely lead to a large increase in grade 3/4 neuropathy (OR 6.89, 95% CI 3.23 to 14.71; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence; 22 studies; 31,033 women). Taxanes probably cause little or no difference in cardiotoxicity compared to regimens without a taxane (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.33; moderate-certainty evidence; 23 studies; 32,894 women). Seven studies reported low-quality evidence for QoL; overall, taxanes may make little or no difference in QoL compared to chemotherapy without a taxane during the follow-up period; however, the duration of follow-up differed across studies. Only one study, which was conducted in Europe, provided cost-effectiveness data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review of studies supports the use of taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, with improvement in overall survival and disease-free survival for women with operable early breast cancer. This benefit persisted when analyses strictly compared a taxane-containing regimen versus the same regimen without a taxane or the same regimen with another drug that was substituted for the taxane. Preliminary evidence suggests that taxanes are more effective for women with lymph node-positive disease than for those with lymph node-negative disease. Considerable heterogeneity across studies probably reflects the varying efficacy of the chemotherapy backbones of the comparator regimens used in these studies. This review update reports results that are remarkably consistent with those of the original review, and it is highly unlikely that this review will be updated, as new trials are assessing treatments based on more detailed breast cancer biology.
Treatment intensification to maximize disease control and reduced-intensity approaches to minimize the risk of late sequelae have been evaluated in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma. The influence of these interventions on the risk of secondary malignant neoplasms, progression-free survival and overall survival is reported in the present meta-analysis based on individual patient data from 9498 patients treated within 16 randomized controlled trials for newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma between 1984 and 2007. Secondary malignant neoplasms were meta-analyzed using Peto's method as time-to-event outcomes. For progression-free and overall survival, hazard ratios derived from each trial using Cox regression were combined by inverse-variance weighting. Five study questions (combined-modality treatment vs chemotherapy alone; more extended vs involved-field radiotherapy; radiation at higher doses vs radiation at 20 Gy; more vs fewer cycles of the same chemotherapy protocol; standard-dose chemotherapy vs intensified chemotherapy) were investigated. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, dose-intensified chemotherapy resulted in better progression-free survival (p=0.007) rates as compared with standard-dose chemotherapy, but was associated with an increased risk of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndromes (p=0.0028). No progression-free or overall survival differences were observed between combined-modality and chemotherapy alone, but more secondary malignancies were seen after combined-modality (p=0.010). For the remaining three study questions, outcomes and secondary malignancy rates did not differ significantly between treatment strategies. The results of this meta-analysis help to weigh up efficacy and secondary malignancy risk for the choice of first-line treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma patients. However, final conclusions regarding secondary solid tumors require longer follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Efficacy and the risk of severe late effects have to be well-balanced in treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Late adverse effects include secondary malignancies which often have a poor prognosis. To synthesise evidence on the risk of secondary malignancies after current treatment approaches comprising chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, we performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from patients treated for newly diagnosed HL.
OBJECTIVES: We investigated several questions concerning possible changes in the risk of secondary malignancies when modifying chemotherapy or radiotherapy (omission of radiotherapy, reduction of the radiation field, reduction of the radiation dose, use of fewer chemotherapy cycles, intensification of chemotherapy). We also analysed whether these modifications affect progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL trials databases comprehensively in June 2010 for all randomised trials in HL since 1984. Key international trials registries were also searched. The search was updated in March 2015 without collecting further IPD (one further eligible study found) and again in July 2017 (no further eligible studies).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for untreated HL patients which enrolled at least 50 patients per arm, completed recruitment by 2007 and performed a treatment comparison relevant to our objectives.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study groups submitted IPD, including age, sex, stage and the outcomes secondary malignant neoplasm (SMN), OS and PFS as time-to-event data. We meta-analysed these data using Petos method (SMN) and Cox regression with inverse-variance pooling (OS, PFS) for each of the five study questions, and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the applicability and robustness of the results.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 21 eligible trials and obtained IPD for 16. For four studies no data were supplied despite repeated efforts, while one study was only identified in 2015 and IPD were not sought. For each study question, between three and six trials with between 1101 and 2996 participants in total and median follow-up between 6.7 and 10.8 years were analysed. All participants were adults and mainly under 60 years. Risk of bias was assessed as low for the majority of studies and outcomes. Chemotherapy alone versus same chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. Omitting additional radiotherapy probably reduces secondary malignancy incidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.82, low quality of evidence), corresponding to an estimated reduction of eight-year SMN risk from 8% to 4%. This decrease was particularly true for secondary acute leukemias. However, we had insufficient evidence to determine whether OS rates differ between patients treated with chemotherapy alone versus combined-modality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.11, moderate quality of evidence). There was a slightly higher rate of PFS with combined modality, but our confidence in the results was limited by high levels of statistical heterogeneity between studies (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.73, moderate quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus involved-field radiation versus same chemotherapy plus extended-field radiation (early stages) . There is insufficient evidence to determine whether smaller radiation field reduces SMN risk (Peto OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.89, 95% C: 0.70 to 1.12, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21, high quality of evidence). Chemotherapy plus lower-dose radiation versus same chemotherapy plus higher-dose radiation (early stages). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lower-radiation dose on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.50, low quality of evidence), OS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28, high quality of evidence) or PFS (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.48, high quality of evidence). Fewer versus more courses of chemotherapy (each with or without radiotherapy; early stages). Fewer chemotherapy courses probably has little or no effect on SMN risk (Peto OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62), OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to1.34) or PFS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45).Outcomes had a moderate (SMN) or high (OS, PFS) quality of evidence. Dose-intensified versus ABVD-like chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy in each case). In the mainly advanced-stage patients who were treated with intensified chemotherapy, the rate of secondary malignancies was low. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of chemotherapy intensification (Peto OR 1.37, CI 0.89 to 2.10, low quality of evidence). The rate of secondary acute leukemias (and for younger patients, all secondary malignancies) was probably higher than among those who had treatment with standard-dose ABVD-like protocols. In contrast, the intensified chemotherapy protocols probably improved PFS (eight-year PFS 75% versus 69% for ABVD-like treatment, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.95, moderate quality of evidence). Evidence suggesting improved survival with intensified chemotherapy was not conclusive (HR: 0.85, CI 0.70 to 1.04), although escalated-dose BEACOPP appeared to lengthen survival compared to ABVD-like chemotherapy (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79, moderate quality of evidence).Generally, we could draw valid conclusions only in terms of secondary haematological malignancies, which usually occur less than 10 years after initial treatment, while follow-up within the present analysis was too short to record all solid tumours.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The risk of secondary acute myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (AML/MDS) is increased but efficacy is improved among patients treated with intensified chemotherapy protocols. Treatment decisions must be tailored for individual patients. Consolidating radiotherapy is associated with an increased rate of secondary malignancies; therefore it appears important to define which patients can safely be treated without radiotherapy after chemotherapy, both for early and advanced stages. For early stages, treatment optimisation methods such as use of fewer chemotherapy cycles and reduced field or reduced-dose radiotherapy did not appear to markedly affect efficacy or secondary malignancy risk. Due to the limited amount of long-term follow-up in this meta-analysis, further long-term investigations of late events are needed, particularly with respect to secondary solid tumours. Since many older studies have been included, possible improvement of radiotherapy techniques must be considered when interpreting these results.
This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to integrate different chemotherapeutic regimens for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients. Overall survival (OS) and complete remission (CR) were considered as main outcome indicators to evaluate the efficacy of NHL chemotherapies. OS and CR data were extracted from included studies and represented by hazard ratio and odds ratio separately. Network structure and forest plots were further included to visually present the relative efficacy among different regimens. A total of 14 qualified publications with 4,167 patients were included. In OS results, no significant difference was observed from the 1-year OS. For 2-year, 3-year and 5-year OS, patients treated by CNOP exhibited the least favorable results. Moreover, significant advantages of R-CHOP treatment over CHOP and VMP were recognized in view of 3-year OS. In respect of CR, R-HDS presented significantly better outcomes than CNOP and VMP, and no significant difference was identified when compared to CHOP in forest plot. ProMACE-CytaBOM and R-HDS possessed the compelling cumulative ranking probability in OS or CR, indicating their competitive performance in NHL treatment while R-CHOP and I-CHOP yielded desirable in terms of long-term survival and short-term survival, respectively. To conclude, ProMACE-CytaBOM, I-CHOP, R-HDS and R-CHOP were recommended to go through further evaluation to confirm their superiority in NHL treatment. CNOP and VMP were discouraged after comprehensively analyzing OS and CR from NMA results.
Comparar la eficacia de doxorubicina, bleomicina, vinblastina y dacarbazina (ABVD) frente a la bleomicina, etopósido, doxorrubicina, ciclofosfamida, vincristina, procarbazina y prednisona (BEACOPP) para el tratamiento del linfoma de Hodgkin (HL). Se realizó una extensa recopilación de la literatura en inglés sobre los resultados clínicos después del tratamiento por ABVD frente a BEACOPP en Medline, PubMed y Embase hasta el período que finalizó en diciembre de 2015. Se combinó el odds ratio (OR) con el correspondiente intervalo de confianza del 95% Basado en la heterogeneidad entre los estudios individuales. En total, siete artículos que informaron sobre cuatro ensayos se incluyeron en este metanálisis. Los pacientes asignados al tratamiento con BEACOPP tuvieron una mejor tasa de remisión completa (OR = 0,55; IC del 95%: 0,35; 0,87), supervivencia global (OS) mayor de 5 años (OR = 0,64; IC del 95%: 0,51; 0,81); Supervivencia libre de progresión (PFS, OR = 0,56, IC del 95%: 0,38, 0,81) que los pacientes asignados al tratamiento ABVD. El análisis de subgrupos estratificado utilizando una estrategia diferente no mostró diferencias significativas para OS entre cortos cursos de BEACOPP escalado combinado con el estándar BEACOPP y que para ABVD (OR = 0,72, IC del 95% 0,45, 1,15). Reducción de la progresión / recaída, CR mejor, y SO similar se observaron con BEACOPP, lo que indica su superior eficiencia de BEACOPP en el tratamiento de la HL. Sin embargo, se necesita más análisis de la toxicidad relacionada con el tratamiento.
Existe una incertidumbre importante con respecto a la eficacia de la terapia de mantenimiento después de la quimioterapia de alta dosis (HDC), así como el trasplante autólogo de células madre (ASCT) para el tratamiento de pacientes con linfoma agresivo. Se realizó una revisión sistemática para evaluar la efectividad de la terapia de mantenimiento post-ASCT en pacientes con linfoma recidivante / refractario. En la revisión sistemática se incluyeron 4476 estudios y un total de 42 estudios (11 ensayos controlados aleatorios [ECA], 9 estudios comparativos retrospectivos y 22 estudios de un solo brazo). Hubo heterogeneidad significativa en el diseño del estudio, los regímenes quimioterapéuticos, las estrategias de mantenimiento post-ASCT, los criterios de inscripción de pacientes y los criterios de valoración del estudio. Nuestros hallazgos sugieren que las estrategias de orientación inmune de mantenimiento post-ASCT, incluyendo los anticuerpos bloqueadores PD-1 / PD-L1, rituximab y brentuximab, pueden mejorar la supervivencia sin progresión pero no la supervivencia global. Colectivamente, los resultados indican la necesidad de probar nuevas estrategias con bien diseñados y adecuadamente impulsado RCTs para abordar mejor el papel de post-ASCT mantenimiento en recaída / refractarios linfomas.
To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001-September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator's choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.
Pregunta de la revisión sistemática»Revisión sistemática de intervenciones
