Search

Background: Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, whether adding immunotherapy to antiangiogenic therapy benefits patients with unresectable HCC (uHCC) more in the first-line setting remains controversial. Objective: In this analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes of lenvatinib monotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination therapy in advanced uHCC in real-world clinical practice. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched on 23 April 2023. The "metaSurvival" and "meta" packages of the R software (version 4.2.2) were used to summarize the survival curves and meta-analyze the survival data. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were defined as dual primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: Overall, the pooled median OS was 18.4 months in the lenvatinib group versus 18.5 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; the pooled median PFS was 6.9 months in the lenvatinib group versus 7.3 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group. Lenvatinib therapy showed similar OS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55–1.52, p = 0.72] and PFS (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56–1.12, p = 0.19) compared with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy. In addition, a comparable ORR [odds ratio (OR): 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65–1.20, p = 0.44) was observed between lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Conclusions: Comprehensive analysis suggested that lenvatinib monotherapy exhibited survival outcomes comparable to those of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination therapy, which may provide useful insights for clinicians in future clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy is the standard of care in treating advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, whether adding pemetrexed-based chemotherapy to EGFR-TKI targeted therapy furtherly prolongs survival outcomes and improves responses remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this pooled analysis to compare the efficacy and tolerability between gefitinib plus pemetrexed-based chemotherapy and gefitinib alone in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC patients with mutated EGFR. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL on June 23, 2022. Eligible studies were registered randomized clinical trials comparing gefitinib plus pemetrexed-based chemotherapy with gefitinib alone. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and discontinuation rate (DR) were explored as secondary outcomes. Results: Eight studies within five randomized clinical trials were eligible. Gefitinib combined with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy significantly prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.89, p = 0.0125) and PFS (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39–0.70, p < 0.0001) versus gefitinib alone. In subgroup analysis, patients with EGFR exon 19 deletion and exon 21 L858R could benefit from the addition of pemetrexed-based chemotherapy to gefitinib in terms of PFS (EGFR exon 19 deletion: HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34–0.75, p = 0.0008; EGFR exon 21 L858R: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26–0.82, p = 0.0079) but not OS. In addition, ORR was improved after the administration of gefitinib plus pemetrexed-based chemotherapy against gefitinib (odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% CI 1.44–2.55, p < 0.0001). Both strategies showed comparable DCRs (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.94–2.26, p = 0.0952) and DRs (risk ratio [RR] 2.80, 95% CI 0.69–11.44, p = 0.1509). Conclusion: Compared with gefitinib alone, combining pemetrexed-based chemotherapy with gefitinib significantly improved OS and PFS in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients with acceptable tolerability. However, the accurate sub-population who could have OS benefits requires further validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of advanced lung cancer. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether adding stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to immunotherapy (IT) further improves responses and survival outcomes. Therefore, in this pooled analysis, we comprehensively compared IT plus SBRT with IT alone in patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods. Online databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, were systematically searched on April 24, 2022. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials comparing IT plus SBRT to IT. The primary outcomes were the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were explored as secondary outcomes. Results. Overall, three phase 2 randomized clinical trials with a total of 146 previously treated lung cancer patients were enrolled. The median PFS and OS were 3.8 months and 9.5 months for IT plus SBRT versus 2.4 months and 6.1 months for IT. Comparing IT plus SBRT with IT alone, pooled risk ratios for ORR and DCR were 1.95 (95% confidence interval 1.07–3.53, p = 0.03) and 1.28 (0.94–1.73, p = 0.12). While pooled hazard ratios were 0.77 (0.25–2.42, p = 0.66) for PFS and 0.71 (0.16–3.21, p = 0.65) for OS, respectively. No publication bias was found across the trials. Conclusion. Compared to IT alone, the addition of SBRT improved the best response but failed to prolong the survival outcomes in treating advanced lung cancer patients. Future studies are necessary to explore new modalities of the combination of IT and SBRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cemiplimab has been widely recommended by international guidelines to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis to integrate the efficacy and safety data in the published prospective and retrospective studies for better understanding the application of cemiplimab. The online databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE) were searched to find out eligible studies from inception to November 4, 2021. The "R" software and the "meta" package were used to synthesize the objective response rates (ORRs), disease control rates (DCRs), and the incidences of treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs). Overall, three retrospective studies with 398 patients and three prospective studies with 219 patients were enrolled. The pooled ORR and DCR were 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46–59) and 70% (95% CI 57–82) for retrospective studies versus 45% (95% CI 39–52) and 68% (95% CI 56–79) for prospective studies. In regard of toxicities, prospective studies reported much higher incidences of any grade (99% vs. 47%) and grade 3–4 TRAEs (43% vs. 15%) against retrospective studies. The most reported TRAE was fatigue, followed by diarrhea and pruritus. In addition, nine treatment‐related deaths (four in retrospective studies vs. five in prospective studies) were documented. In both retrospective and prospective clinical practices, cemiplimab could be an effective regimen for locally advanced or metastatic CSCC patients, but toxicities during the treatment deserve further attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Ubiquitin-like with PHD and ring-finger domain 1 (UHRF1) has been defined as an oncogene in tumor cells. However, the role of UHRF1 in mediating metastasis in thyroid cancer remains unexplored. In this study, we aimed to investigate the metastatic function and the potential mechanisms of UHRF1 in thyroid cancer. Methods. Transwell assays were used to detect the metastatic capability of thyroid cancer. Dual-luciferase reporter assays were applied to examine the activation of transcription factors. Coimmunoprecipitation assays and immunofluorescence staining assays were used to elucidate the potential mechanisms of UHRF1 in promoting the metastasis of thyroid cancer. Results. In this study, we found that overexpression of UHRF1 promoted the metastasis of papillary thyroid cancer cells, and suppression of UHRF1 decreased the metastasis of anaplastic thyroid cancer cells. Regarding the signaling pathway in regulating metastasis, UHRF1 directly combined and activated the transcription factor c-Jun/AP-1 in the nucleus, subsequently increasing the transcription of IL-6 and MIF. Conclusion. Our results suggest that UHRF1 could induce the metastasis of thyroid cancer, and the potential signaling pathway might be that UHRF1 activates c-Jun/AP-1 to increase the expression of IL-6 and MIF. These findings provide a novel mechanism of UHRF1 and illustrate that UHRF1/AP-1 complex could be a potential therapeutic target for patients with thyroid cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prognosis of patients with relapsed Ewing sarcoma is poor. In this study, we aimed to pooled-analyze the efficacy and safety of the combination of irinotecan and temozolomide in treating patients with relapsed Ewing sarcoma.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE were systematically searched on September 27, 2021. The primary outcomes were rates of objective response and disease control, and the secondary outcomes were toxicities.Results: Six retrospective studies with 184 patients were enrolled in the analysis. The median age ranged from 14 to 21. The integrated rates were 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31-58) for objective response and 66% (55-77) for disease control. Grade 3-4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and diarrhea occurred in 8% (3-16), 7% (3-11), and 8% (5-10) of chemotherapeutic cycles, respectively. 18% (7-32) and 6% (2-11) of patients suffered grade 3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia after irinotecan plus temozolomide treatment.Conclusion: Irinotecan plus temozolomide combination chemotherapy showed antitumor activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with relapsed Ewing sarcoma. More future prospective studies are needed to confirm the retrospective results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The major aim of this Bayesian network analysis was to determine the optimal treatment strategy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LANPC). Method: We systematically searched databases and extracted data from randomized clinical trials involving LANPC patients randomly assigned to receive induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (IC+CCRT), CCRT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT+AC), or CCRT. Results: In the network analysis, IC+CCRT was significantly better than CCRT alone for 5-year FFS (odds ratio [OR]: 1.63, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.16–2.29), DMFS (OR: 1.56, 95% CrI 1.08–2.22), and LFRS (OR: 1.62, 95% CrI 1.02–2.59), but not OS (OR: 1.35, 95% CrI 0.92–2.00). Rank probabilities showed that IC+CCRT was ranked the best followed by CCRT+AC and CCRT for all 5-year outcomes. Although compared to IC+CCRT and CCRT, CCRT+AC did not significantly improve survival but had the highest 5-year survival rates. Conclusions: IC+CCRT could be recommended as a front-preferred primary definitive therapy for patients with LANPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: As an antipsychotic agent that targets multiple neurotransmitter receptors, olanzapine has been added to antiemetic therapies. For better understanding the application of olanzapine in antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients who suffered anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-induced nausea and vomiting, we comprehensively reviewed the antiemetic researches related to olanzapine and pooled-analyzed the results to confirm the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in breast cancer. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception through Sep 15, 2021. Both prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. The primary outcomes were complete response (defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medications) and no nausea rate, and the secondary outcome was treatment-related adverse events. Results: Four studies with 466 breast cancer patients were identified in the pooled analysis. In the acute period (0–24 h), the olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of complete response (71.3% vs 48.1%, odds ratio [OR]: 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39–5.11, p = 0.003) and no nausea (70.0% vs 43.0%, OR: 3.55, 95% CI 1.76–7.18, p = 0.04) than the placebo group, while in the delayed period, the olanzapine group was also superior to the placebo group in terms of the complete response (82.5% vs 63.3%, OR: 3.81, 95% CI 1.58–9.15, p = 0.003) and no nausea (66.3% vs 51.9%, OR: 2.08, 95% CI 1.03–4.21, p = 0.04) rates. During the overall period in prospective studies, the proportions of complete response (50.0% vs 34.2%, OR: 1.93, p = 0.04) and no nausea (51.3% vs 25.3%, OR: 3.40, p = 0.0006) in the olanzapine group were higher than those in the placebo group. Conclusion: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy breast patients could benefit from olanzapine-contained antiemetic therapy. Furthermore, since the cost is low, olanzapine is worth further clinical application and promotion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Doxorubicin/Adriamycin (ADM) alone or combined with ifosfamide (IFO) (AI) is available for previously untreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS). However, the clinical choice between them remains controversial. In this pooled analysis, we comprehensively compared the efficacy and tolerability of AI versus ADM in patients with ASTS. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to April 14, 2021. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials comparing AI to ADM. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Discontinuation rate (DR) and toxic death (TD) were explored as secondary outcomes. Results: Overall, three open-label randomized phase 2/3 clinical trials with a total of 1108 newly diagnosed ASTS patients were enrolled. Between AI and ADM, pooled hazard ratios were 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.58-1.50, p = 0.78) for OS and 0.85 (0.57-1.25, p = 0.41) for PFS. While pooled risk ratios for ORR, DR, and TD were 1.37 (0.94-1.99, p = 0.10), 1.04 (0.74-1.46, p = 0.82), and 0.68 (0.19-2.36, p = 0.54) respectively. No publication bias was observed across the studies. Conclusion: In the first-line setting, adding IFO to ADM failed to benefit ASTS patients against ADM alone, even with comparable tolerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The prognosis of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is poor. Adding an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) to chemotherapy may exert a synergistic effect and improve survival outcomes. However, for treatment-naive extensive-stage SCLC patients, the efficacy of immunotherapy in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy remains controversial. Objective. To evaluate the benefits and risks of the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy and to assess the comparative effectiveness of different first-line treatment strategies for extensive-stage SCLC. Methods. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials studying different immunotherapeutics for patients with previously untreated extensive-stage SCLC up to Feb 16, 2020. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events. Results. We identified 141 published records, and 4 studies (comprising 2202 patients) were included in the analysis. Immunotherapy (including ipilimumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) plus chemotherapy was associated with better OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75–0.93; risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81–1.00) and PFS (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.74–0.88; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93–0.99) than placebo plus chemotherapy. The addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy showed similar improvement in ORR, DCR, and adverse events versus placebo plus chemotherapy. On the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) analysis, the anti-PD-L1 agent, atezolizumab, had the highest likelihood of achieving improved OS (93.4%) and PFS (95.0%). Conclusion. In the first-line setting, combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy is better than standard chemotherapy in terms of OS and PFS. Across the eligible studies, PD-L1 inhibitors might be preferred. Further explorations of more ICIs in the first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC patients should be needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Induction chemotherapy (IC) combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been recommended as the first-line therapy for locoregional nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Due to the different chemotherapeutic drugs used in the IC and CCRT, the results remain controversial.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically retrieved to search potentially eligible clinical trials up to Sep 11, 2019. Eligible studies were registered and prospective randomized controlled clinical trials.Results: From 526 records, nine articles including seven randomized controlled clinical trials were eligible, with a total of 2311 locoregional advanced NPC patients. IC + CCRT had significantly lower risks of death (3-year hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.89, p = 0.003; 5-year HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.94, p = 0.01), disease progression (3-year HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.80, p < 0.001; 5-year HR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.83, p < 0.0001), distant metastasis (3-year HR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.45-0.74, p < 0.0001; 5-year HR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.87, p = 0.001) and locoregional relapse (3-year HR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.95, p = 0.02; 5-year HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.86, p = 0.002) than CCRT. Compared with CCRT, IC + CCRT showed higher relative risks of grade 3 or more neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, vomiting and hepatotoxicity throughout the course of treatment, and higher relative risks of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia and vomiting during CCRT.Conclusion: IC combined with CCRT significantly improved the survival in locoregional advanced NPC patients. Moreover, toxicities were well tolerated during IC and CCRT. Further clinical trials are warranted to confirm the optimal induction chemotherapeutic regimen in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

REFERENCES 1 Wang B.-C., Xiao B.-Y., Li P.-C. Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immunotherapy in Combination with Chemotherapy for Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. In the article titled "Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immunotherapy in Combination with Chemotherapy for Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis" [[1]], the information was omitted in the Acknowledgments section: the Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation (grant number: 2020 to Bi-Cheng Wang). [Extracted from the article]