Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy最新文献

Introduction: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks three common receptors, making traditional treatments less effective. This review highlights the importance of radiotherapy and emerging therapeutic strategies to enhance treatment outcomes in TNBC.

Areas covered: We conducted a literature search on PubMed for publications from 2000 to 2023 to discuss the critical role of radiotherapy in managing TNBC, emphasizing its applications from locoregional control to improving survival rates. The review explores molecular mechanisms underlying TNBC's radiotherapy response, including DNA damage repair and apoptosis, with a focus on BRCA1/2 mutations and Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition. We summarize preclinical and clinical research on radiosensitization strategies, from gene-targeted therapies to immunotherapy combinations, and the impact of post-mastectomy radiation therapy on locoregional control. The potential of personalized treatment approaches, integrating molecular profiling, targeted radiosensitizers, and the synergistic effects of radiotherapy with immunotherapy, is also discussed.

Expert opinion: Future TNBC treatment strategies should focus on precision medicine, integrating immunotherapy, developing novel radiosensitizers, and targeting biological pathways to overcome radioresistance. The integration of radiomics and artificial intelligence offers promising avenues for enhancing treatment personalization and efficacy, aiming to improve patient outcomes in TNBC.

Introduction: Despite the evidence that photodynamic therapy (PDT) associated with chemotherapy presents great potential to overcome the limitations of monotherapy, little is known about the current status of this combination against cervical cancer. This systematic review aimed to address the currently available advances in combining PDT and chemotherapy in different research models and clinical trials of cervical cancer.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review based on PRISMA Statement and Open Science Framework review protocol using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane databases. We selected original articles focusing on 'Uterine Cervical Neoplasms' and 'Photochemotherapy and Chemotherapy' published in the last 10 years. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using the CONSORT and SYRCLE tools.

Results: Twenty-three original articles were included, focusing on HeLa cells, derived from endocervical adenocarcinoma and on combinations of several chemotherapeutics. Most of the combinations used modern drug delivery systems for improved simultaneous delivery and presented promising results with increased cytotoxicity compared to monotherapy.

Conclusion: Despite the scarcity of animal studies and the absence of clinical studies, the combination of chemotherapy with PDT presents a potential option for cervical cancer therapy requiring additional studies.

Osf registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WPHN5 [Figure: see text].

Objectives: To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the efficacy and safety profile of cabozantinib versus placebo in malignant tumors, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This involved analyzing a collection of published randomized controlled trials to assess the outcomes.

Methods: We used RevMan5.3 software to evaluate the outcomes of the collected studies. The primary outcome we focused on was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease control rate (DCR).

Results: Our findings revealed that compared to placebo, cabozantinib significantly extended the PFS of patients [hazard ratios (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.32, 0.43, p < 0.00001]. Additionally, cabozantinib improved the OS of patients [HR 0.78, 95%CI: 0.68, 0.91, p = 0.002]. While it is important to note that cabozantinib was associated with a higher likelihood of causing digestive, cutaneous, and cardiovascular related adverse events [relative risk (RR) 4.40, 95% CI: 3.10, 6.25, p < 0.00001].

Conclusion: Based on our analysis, cabozantinib significantly prolonged the PFS and OS of patients with malignant tumors (p < 0.01). We recommend the use of cabozantinib in treating advanced malignant tumors. However, it is important to continuously monitor and manage the drug-related adverse events.

Registration: PROSPERO (No. CRD42023449261).

Introduction: The outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved significantly in the last few decades. Metastatic colorectal cancer is a highly heterogenous cancer. Beyond second line chemotherapy, treatment decisions are often based on molecular testing.

Method: In this narrative review, we provide a comprehensive summary of data from key clinical trials and discuss how to integrate these agents into the current treatment landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Expert opinion: In the era of precision medicine, molecular testing plays an increasingly important role in the management of mCRC. Efforts need to be made to target treatment based on molecular test results.

Background: Annual melanoma incidence in the US is escalating.

Objective: Comprehensive evaluation of nivolumab alone or with ipilimumab for advanced melanoma treatment.

Research design and methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, extending until August 2023. A range of outcomes were evaluated, encompassing overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), adverse events (both any and serious), complete response rate, mortality rate, and recurrence rate in patients with advanced melanoma.

Results: This analysis was conducted on seven relevant studies, involving 2,885 patients. The baseline characteristics of both groups were found to be comparable across all outcomes, with the exception of tumor size. The pooled analysis did not reveal any significant disparities, except for PFS, where the nivolumab-ipilimumab treatment group demonstrated a significantly longer PFS compared to the nivolumab group. However, there was a notable discrepancy in any adverse events (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.69; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.96, 3.69; p < 0.00001) and serious adverse events (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.88, 4.49, p < 0.00001) between the two groups, suggesting that the safety profile of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab was inferior.

Conclusions: Given diversity and potential biases, oncologists should base immunotherapy decisions on professional expertise and patient characteristics.

Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023453484.

Background: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients are often older and use concurrent medications that increase the potential for drug-drug interactions (pDDIs). This study assessed pDDI prevalence in real-world nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide, darolutamide, or enzalutamide.

Research design and methods: Castrated prostate cancer patients without metastases prior to androgen receptor inhibitor initiation were identified retrospectively via Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data (8/2019-3/2021). The top 100 concomitant medications were assessed for pDDIs.

Results: Among 1,515 patients (mean age: 77 ± 8 years; mean Charlson Comorbidity Index: 3 ± 3), 340 initiated apalutamide, 112 darolutamide, and 1,063 enzalutamide. Common concomitant medication classes were cardiovascular (80%) and central nervous system (52%). Two-thirds of the patients received ≥5 concomitant medications; 30 (30/100 medications) pDDIs were identified for apalutamide and enzalutamide each and 2 (2/100 medications) for darolutamide. Most pDDIs had risk ratings of C or D, but four for apalutamide were rated X. Approximately 58% of the patients on apalutamide, 5% on darolutamide, and 54% on enzalutamide had ≥1 identified pDDI.

Conclusions: Results showed a higher frequency of pDDIs in patients receiving apalutamide and enzalutamide vs darolutamide. The impact of these could not be determined retrospectively. DDI risk should be carefully evaluated when discussing optimal therapy for patients with nmCRPC.