Comparison of dose-dense vs. 3-weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer in a propensity score-matched cohort.

BACKGROUND: Benefit of carboplatin and dose-dense weekly paclitaxel (ddCT) in first line treatment of ovarian cancer patients has been different in Western and Asian studies. In the present study we compare progression-free survival (PFS) of ddCT to three-weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT) in first-line treatment of ovarian carcinoma in a single institution in a Western population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of medical records from patients with ovarian carcinoma treated in a tertiary cancer center from 2007 to 2018. All patients treated with ddCT or CT in the first-line setting were included. Patients who received first-line bevacizumab were not included. PFS and overall survival (OS) were compared in a propensity score-matched cohort to address selection bias. Patients were matched according to age, ECOG performance status, CA 125, FIGO stage, residual disease, and histological subtype, in a 1:2 ratio. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-eight patients were eligible for propensity score matching, the final cohort consisted of 69 patients treated with ddCT and 138 CT group. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced. After a median follow-up of 65.1 months, median PFS was 29.3 vs 20.0 months, favouring ddCT treatment (p = 0.035). In the multivariate cox regression ddCT showed a 18% lower risk of progression (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99, p = 0.04). Overall survival data is immature, but suggested better outcomes for ddCT (not reached versus 78.8 months; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study has shown superior PFS of ddCT over CT regimen in first-line treatment of ovarian carcinoma in a Western population not treated with bevacizumab.

Metformin plus lrinotecan in patients with refractory colorectal cancer: a phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory colorectal (CRC) cancer have few treatment options. This trial tests the combination of metformin and irinotecan in this setting. METHODS: A phase 2 single-arm trial was conducted, patients received metformin 2500 mg orally a day plus irinotecan 125 mg/m2 intravenously weekly D1 and D8 every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Between December 2015 and January 2018, 41 patients were enrolled. Seventeen patients (41%) met the primary endpoint of disease control in 12 weeks; hence, the study was deemed positive. The median progression-free survival was 3.3 months (CI 95%, 2.0-4.5 months), and the median overall survival was 8.4 months (CI 95%, 5.9-10.8 months). Both mutation RAS status and disease control at 12 weeks impacted overall survival in the multivariate model (HR 2.28, CI 95%, 1.12-4.7, p = 0.02; and HR 0.21, CI 95%, 0.08-0.5, p = 0.001, respectively). The most common adverse event was diarrhoea (29.2% grade 3). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, metformin plus irinotecan demonstrated disease control in patients with refractory CRC. Further trials with optimised diarrhoea control are needed to confirm these results.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of immunotherapy and targeted therapy for advanced melanoma.

Immune and BRAF-targeted therapies have changed the therapeutic scenario of advanced melanoma, turning the clinical decision-making a challenging task. This Bayesian network meta-analysis assesses the role of immunotherapies and targeted therapies for advanced melanoma. We retrieved randomized controlled trials testing immune, BRAF- or MEK-targeted therapies for advanced melanoma from electronic databases. A Bayesian network model compared therapies using hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for response rate (RR), along with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI), and probabilities of drugs outperforming others. We assessed the impact of PD-L1 expression on immunotherapy efficacy. Sixteen studies evaluating eight therapies in 6849 patients were analyzed. For OS, BRAF-MEK combination and PD-1 single agent ranked similarly and outperformed all other treatments. For PFS, BRAF-MEK combination surpassed all other options, including CTLA-4-PD-1 dual blockade hazard ratio (HR: 0.56; 95% CrI: 0.33-0.97; probability better 96.2%), whereas BRAF single agent ranked close to CTLA-4-PD-1 blockade. For RR, BRAF-MEK combination was superior to all treatments including CTLA-4-PD-1 (OR: 2.78; 1.18-6.30; probability better 97.1%). No OS data were available for CTLA-4-PD-1 blockade at the time of systematic review, although PFS and RR results suggested that this combination could also bring meaningful benefit. PD-L1 expression, as presently defined, failed to inform patient selection to PD-1-based immunotherapy. BRAF-MEK combination seemed an optimal therapy for BRAF-mutated patients, whereas PD-1 inhibitors seemed optimal for BRAF wild-type patients. Longer follow-up is needed to ascertain the role of CTLA-4-PD-1 blockade. Immunotherapy biomarkers remain as an unmet need.

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.

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.