Search

Abstract Background Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and high burden of cancer-related symptoms. It is necessary to assess the trade-off of clinical benefits and possible harms of treatments with anticancer drugs (TAD). This systematic review aims to compare the effectiveness of TAD versus supportive care or no treatment, considering all patient-important outcomes. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos. Two reviewers performed selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included 14 randomised controlled trials. Chemotherapy may result in a slight increase in overall survival (MD: 2.97 months (95%CI 1.23, 4.70)) and fewer hospital days (MD: -6.7 (-8.3, -5.1)), however, the evidence is very uncertain about its effect on symptoms, quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. Targeted/biological therapy may result in little to no difference in overall survival and a slight increment in progression-free survival (HR: 0.83 (95%CI 0.63, 1.10)), but probably results in more adverse events (RR: 5.54 (95%CI 1.24, 23.97)). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of immunotherapy in overall survival and functional status. Conclusions The evidence is very uncertain about whether the benefits of using treatment with anticancer drugs outweigh their risks for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. This uncertainty is further highlighted when considering immunotherapy or a second line of chemotherapy and thus, best supportive care would be an appropriate alternative. Future studies should assess their impact on all patient-important outcomes to inform patients in setting their goals of care.

Abstract Little is known about the impact of control group therapy on clinical benefit scales such as American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks and ASCO Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC). We searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drugs approved between January 2012 and December 2021 based on randomized trials (RCTs). Definition of substantial clinical benefit was based on recommendations for each scale. Associations between characteristics of control group therapy and clinical benefit were explored using logistic regression. RCTs with a control group of active treatment plus placebo were associated with significantly lower odds of substantial benefit with ESMO-MCBS (OR 0.27, P = 0.003) and ASCO-VF (OR 0.30, P = 0.008) but not with NCCN Evidence Blocks or ASCO-CRC. This effect was attenuated and lost statistical significance without adjustment for quality of life (QoL) and/or toxicity (ESMO-MCBS OR 0.50, P = 0.17; ASCO-VF OR 0.49, P = 0.11). Clinical benefit scales can be sensitive to control group therapy. RCTs with substantial overlap between experimental and control therapy showed lower magnitude of clinical benefit using ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF scales; possibly due to differences in the weighting of QoL and toxicity between different frameworks.

Secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) expression has been proposed as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for some cancer types, but knowledge about the predictive value of SPARC polymorphisms in the context of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer (BC) is lacking. In 132 HER2-negative BC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, we determined polymorphisms in the SPARC gene and analyzed their association with outcome. We also determined SPARC protein expression in tumor tissue. SPARC rs19789707 was significantly associated with response to treatment according to the Miller and Payne system in the breast (multivariate: odds ratio (OR), 3.81; p = 0.028). This association was significant in the subgroup of patients with luminal tumors (univariate: p = 0.047). Regarding survival, two SPARC variants showed significant associations with event-free survival: the rs19789707 variant in the subgroup of luminal A tumors (univariate: p = 0.006), and the rs4958487 variant in the subgroup of luminal B tumors (univariate: p = 0.022). In addition, SPARC rs4958487, rs10065756, and rs12153644 were significantly correlated with SPARC protein expression. Our findings suggest that SPARC polymorphisms could be good predictors of treatment response and survival in BC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially those with luminal tumors.

Background: In the FLIPPER trial, palbociclib/fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo/fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer (ABC). Objective: We assessed health-related quality of life (QoL) using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Design and methods: In this phase II double-blinded study, PROs were assessed at baseline after every three cycles and at the end of the treatment using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration (TTD) in global health status (GHS)/QoL was defined as a decrease of ⩾10 points. Changes from baseline (CFB) and TTD were analysed using linear mixed-effect and Cox regression models, respectively. Results: Of the 189 randomised (1:1) patients, 178 (94%) completed ⩾1 post-baseline assessment; 50% received ⩾22 cycles of study treatment, with a questionnaire compliance >90%. Mean baseline scores were comparable between arms. GHS/QoL scores were maintained throughout the palbociclib/fulvestrant treatment. CFB showed significant differences for GHS/QoL, appetite loss, constipation and systemic therapy side effect scores favouring placebo/fulvestrant. TTD in GHS/QoL was delayed in placebo/fulvestrant versus palbociclib/fulvestrant [30.3 versus 11.1 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.57, 95% CI: 1.03–2.39, p = 0.036]; this difference was not significant in patients with progressive disease (aHR: 1.2, 95% CI: 0.6–2.2, p = 0.658). No statistically significant differences in TTD were found for the other QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 scales. Conclusions: Although TTD in GHS/QoL was prolonged with placebo/fulvestrant, no differences were observed on other functional or symptom scales. This finding and the improvement in PFS support the combination of palbociclib/fulvestrant as a beneficial therapeutic option for HR+/HER2− ABC. Trial registration number: Sponsor Study Code: GEICAM/2014-12 EudraCT Number: 2015-002437-21 ClinTrials.gov reference: NCT02690480

Abstract Background It has been suggested that the results from fragile trials are less likely to translate into benefit in routine clinical practice. Methods We searched the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) archives to identify drug approvals for solid organ malignancies between 2010 and 2019. We calculated the Fragility Index (FI) supporting each approval, using methods to account for time‐to‐event. We compared FI and trial and approval characteristics using Mann‐Whitney U and Kruskal‐Wallis test. Using logistic regression, we examined study characteristics associated with withdrawal of consent or lost to follow‐up (WCLFU) exceeding the calculated FI. Results The median FI among 125 included studies was 23 (range 1–322). The FI was ≤10 in 35 studies (28%), 11–20 in 21 (17%), and >20 in 69 (55%). The median FI/Nexp was 7.7% (range 0.1–51.7%). The median FI was significantly lower among approvals processed through the accelerated vs regular pathway (5.5 vs 25, p = 0.001), but there was no difference in median FI/Nexp. The WCLFU exceeded FI in 42% of studies. Overall survival endpoints were more likely to have a WCLFU exceeding FI (OR 3.16, p = 0.003). WCLFU exceeding FI was also associated with a lesser magnitude of effect (median HR 0.69 vs 0.55, p FI. Conclusion The median FI among all trials was 23, and WCLFU exceeded FI in 42%. Comparative trials in solid tumors supporting approval through the accelerated pathway are more fragile compared to trials approved through the regular pathway, an observation likely explained by a lower sample size in the experimental arm.

Background It is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool). Patients and methods An electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010–2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen’s Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression. Results In the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, PConclusions At the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and topoisomerase II alpha (TOP2A) genes have been proposed as predictive biomarkers of sensitivity to anthracycline chemotherapy. Recently, chromosome 17 centromere enumeration probe (CEP17) duplication has also been associated with increased responsiveness to anthracyclines. However, reports are conflicting and none of these tumor markers can yet be considered a clinically reliable predictor of response to anthracyclines. We studied the association of TOP2A gene alterations, HER2 gene amplification, and CEP17 duplication with response to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 140 patients with operable or locally advanced breast cancer. HER2 was tested by fluorescence in situ hybridization and TOP2A and CEP17 by chromogenic in situ hybridization. Thirteen patients (9.3%) achieved pathologic complete response (pCR). HER2 amplification was present in 24 (17.5%) of the tumors. TOP2A amplification occurred in seven tumors (5.1%). CEP17 duplication was detected in 13 patients (9.5%). CEP17 duplication correlated with a higher rate of pCR [odds ratio (OR) 6.55, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.25-34.29, P = .026], and analysis of TOP2A amplification showed a trend bordering on statistical significance (OR 6.97, 95% CI 0.96-50.12, P = .054). TOP2A amplification and CEP17 duplication combined were strongly associated with pCR (OR 6.71, 95% CI 1.66-27.01, P = .007). HER2 amplification did not correlate with pCR. Our results suggest that CEP17 duplication predicts pCR to primary anthracycline-based chemotherapy. CEP17 duplication, TOP2A amplifications, and HER2 amplifications were not associated with prognosis.

BACKGROUND:Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are the most frequent known hereditary causes of familial breast cancer. Little is known about the interaction of age at diagnosis, estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) expression and outcomes in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. METHODS:A PubMed search identified publications exploring the association between BRCA mutations and clinical outcome. Hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival were extracted from multivariable analyses. Hazard ratios were weighted and pooled using generic inverse-variance and random-effect modeling. Meta-regression weighted by total study sample size was conducted to explore the influence of age, ER and PgR expression on the association between BRCA mutations and overall survival. RESULTS:A total of 16 studies comprising 10,180 patients were included in the analyses. BRCA mutations were not associated with worse overall survival (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84-1.34, p = 0.61). A similar finding was observed when evaluating the influence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations on overall survival independently (BRCA1: HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.89-1.61, p = 0.24; BRCA2: HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.80-1.27, p = 0.95). Meta-regression identified an inverse association between ER expression and overall survival (β = -0.75, p = 0.02) in BRCA1 mutation carriers but no association with age or PgR expression (β = -0.45, p = 0.23 and β = 0.02, p = 0.97, respectively). No association was found for BRCA2 mutation status and age, ER, or PgR expression. CONCLUSION:ER-expression appears to be an effect modifier in patients with BRCA1 mutations, but not among those with BRCA2 mutations.

Hormone receptor positive breast cancer is characterized by the potential for disease recurrence many years after initial diagnosis. Endocrine therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of such recurrence, but the optimal duration of endocrine therapy remains unclear.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the benefits and harms of extended adjuvant tamoxifen (>5 years of therapy) compared with adjuvant tamoxifen (5 years of therapy). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for disease recurrence, death and adverse events. Subgroup analyses by timing of recurrence and baseline lymph node and menopause status were carried.Five trials comprising 21,554 patients were included. Extended adjuvant tamoxifen was not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of recurrence (OR:0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.05, p = 0.17). There was no association between extended adjuvant tamoxifen and all-cause death (OR:0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.16, p = 0.88). There was an apparent reduction in risk of recurrence occurring after completion of extended adjuvant tamoxifen with little evidence of effect during therapy, however, this difference was not significant (p for difference 0.10). Subgroup analysis suggested that a greater effect size among lymph node positive patients compared with those who are lymph node negative (NNT: 25 vs. 49). There was no apparent difference in the effect between pre- and post-menopausal patients. Endometrial carcinoma was substantially more frequent with extended adjuvant tamoxifen (OR:2.06, 95% CI 1.65-2.58, p

Purpose Modifications in cancer drug indications, dosing, and related toxicities after Food and Drug Administration approval are common. It is unclear whether drug approval without a supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) influences the probability of such modifications. Methods We searched the Drugs@FDA Web site for new drug indications for solid tumors approved between January 2006 and December 2016. Study characteristics, regulatory pathways, and label modifications from approval to October 2017 were collected from drug labels. Label modifications were considered to be major if defined as such in the drug label. Indications approved with and without supporting RCTs were compared using logistic regression. The Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate method was used to adjust for multiplicity. Results We identified 59 individual drugs for 109 solid tumor indications. Of these, 17 indications (15.6%) were not supported by an RCT, with no change over time. Indications not supported by RCTs were more likely to require companion diagnostic tests (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; P = .02), to include surrogate end points as primary outcomes (OR, 7.88; P < .001), and to receive breakthrough therapy designation (OR, 7.62; P = .006) or accelerated approval (OR, 17.67; P < .001). Indications not supported by RCTs were associated with significantly higher odds of postapproval modifications in common adverse events (71% v 29%; OR, 5.78; P = .002). A nonsignificantly higher odds of postapproval major modifications in warnings and precautions was also observed (88% v 62%; OR, 4.61; P = .051). Postapproval major modifications in indication and usage, dosing and administration, boxed warnings, and contraindications were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Cancer drug indications not supported initially by RCTs are associated with more postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Health care professionals should be vigilant for unrecognized adverse effects when prescribing drugs approved without a supporting RCT.

Purpose: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are used to apply evidence-based medicine or expert recommendations to clinical practice. Here we explore author financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs), sources of guideline funding, and their relationship with endorsement of specific drugs., Methods: An electronic search of MEDLINE was conducted to identify CPGs and CSs for common solid cancers published between January 2003 and October 2013. The search was restricted to articles evaluating systemic therapy. We extracted data on self-reported author FCOIs, funding sources, use of manuscript writers, and endorsement of specific drugs in the abstract of the article., Results: Of 142 articles evaluated, 64% were CPGs, and 36% were CSs. The proportion of articles reporting FCOIs improved from 11% in 2003 to 93% in 2013 (P for trend < .001). Only 45% of articles explicitly reported funding sources. Of these, 65% disclosed partial or full industry sponsorship. Use of manuscript writers was declared in 13%, but many articles did not explicitly report the role of authors in the writing of the manuscript. Endorsement of specific drugs was significantly associated with author FCOIs (odds ratio [OR], 7.29; P = .001), but not with industry funding (OR, 0.95; P = .37)., Conclusion: Reporting of FCOIs in CPGs and CSs has improved over time. Despite prevalent funding of guideline development by industry, such funding is not associated with endorsement of specific drugs. Author FCOIs are prevalent, and endorsement of a specific drug seems to be more common when authors have FCOIs with the pharmaceutical company marketing that drug., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)