首页 > 最新文献

Cancer treatment reviews最新文献

英文 中文
Corrigendum to "First versus second-generation molecular profiling tests: How both can guide decision-making in early-stage hormone-receptor positive breast cancers?" [Cancer Treat. Rev. 135 (2025) 102909]. “第一代与第二代分子分析测试:两者如何指导早期激素受体阳性乳腺癌的决策?”的勘误表(癌症治疗。Rev. 135(2025) 102909]。
IF 10.5 Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-27 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2026.103088
Flora Nguyen Van Long, Brigitte Poirier, Christine Desbiens, Marjorie Perron, Claudie Paquet, Cathie Ouellet, Caroline Diorio, Julie Lemieux, Hermann Nabi
{"title":"Corrigendum to \"First versus second-generation molecular profiling tests: How both can guide decision-making in early-stage hormone-receptor positive breast cancers?\" [Cancer Treat. Rev. 135 (2025) 102909].","authors":"Flora Nguyen Van Long, Brigitte Poirier, Christine Desbiens, Marjorie Perron, Claudie Paquet, Cathie Ouellet, Caroline Diorio, Julie Lemieux, Hermann Nabi","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2026.103088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2026.103088","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93922,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"143 ","pages":"103088"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146151342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Checkpoint inhibitor benefit in perioperative gastro-esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis of phase III trials. 检查点抑制剂对围手术期胃食管癌的益处:一项III期试验的荟萃分析。
IF 10.5 Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-06 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103002
Joseph J Zhao, Kennedy Yao Yi Ng, Raghav Sundar, Samuel J Klempner

Background: The integration of immunotherapy (IO) with perioperative chemotherapy represents an advance in locally advanced, resectable gastroesophageal cancers. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded discordant findings with respect to event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS), particularly when differing chemotherapy backbones and IO agents are employed. Understanding the sources and implications of these discrepancies is essential for optimizing treatment strategies. Here, we sought to compare outcomes between perioperative FLOT-based and cisplatin/fluoropyrimidine based regimens when combined with IO, and to evaluate the consistency of FLOT-only arms across major RCTs in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancers.

Methods: RCTs investigating the role of perioperative combination chemotherapy with IO in patients with locally advanced gastro-esophageal cancer were included. Kaplan-Meier curves were digitally reconstructed to obtain individual patient data. Survival analyses incorporated testing for the proportional hazards assumption and were supplemented with piecewise and pooled random-effects analyses to address time-dependent effects and between-study heterogeneity.

Results: No significant difference in EFS was observed between the FLOT-durvalumab and FLOT-pembrolizumab arms (HR = 0.907, 95 %-CI: 0.637-1.290, p = 0.586). FLOT-IO regimens showed superior EFS compared to Cis/fluoropyrimidine-IO (HR = 0.790, 95 %-CI: 0.647-0.966, p = 0.021) as well as FLOT-only (HR = 0.732, 95 %-CI: 0.610-0.878, p < 0.001). While EFS curves for FLOT-only arms converged on long-term follow-up, OS curves diverged, with increased heterogeneity across FLOT-only arms apparent beyond 24 months. Notwithstanding, these analyses should be interpreted with caution due to the lack of patient-level covariate adjustment across trials.

Conclusion: As we await the mature OS data from MATTERHORN, the addition of IO to perioperative FLOT should be considered the preferred standard-of-care in resectable, locally-advanced gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma. Our comparative analyses suggest that FLOT remains a favored chemotherapy backbone for perioperative IO, but confirmation from future randomized trials with mature survival data is needed.

背景:免疫治疗(IO)与围手术期化疗的结合代表了局部晚期可切除胃食管癌的进展。然而,随机对照试验(rct)在无事件生存期(EFS)和总生存期(OS)方面得出了不一致的结果,特别是当使用不同的化疗骨干和IO药物时。了解这些差异的来源和影响对于优化治疗策略至关重要。在这里,我们试图比较围手术期以flot为基础的方案与以顺铂/氟嘧啶为基础的方案联合IO的结果,并评估局部晚期胃食管癌中主要随机对照试验中仅以flot为基础的方案的一致性。方法:采用随机对照试验,探讨局部晚期胃食管癌围手术期联合化疗联合IO治疗的作用。Kaplan-Meier曲线进行数字重建以获得个体患者数据。生存分析纳入了比例风险假设的检验,并辅以分段和合并随机效应分析,以解决时间依赖性效应和研究间异质性。结果:FLOT-durvalumab组和FLOT-pembrolizumab组的EFS无显著差异(HR = 0.907, 95% -CI: 0.637-1.290, p = 0.586)。与Cis/氟吡啶-IO相比,FLOT-IO方案显示出更好的EFS (HR = 0.790, 95% -CI: 0.647-0.966, p = 0.021)以及仅FLOT (HR = 0.732, 95% -CI: 0.610-0.878, p)。结论:在我们等待MATTERHORN成熟的OS数据时,在围手术期FLOT中添加IO应被认为是可切除的局部晚期胃食管腺癌的首选标准治疗。我们的比较分析表明,FLOT仍然是围手术期IO的首选化疗骨干,但需要未来具有成熟生存数据的随机试验的证实。
{"title":"Checkpoint inhibitor benefit in perioperative gastro-esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis of phase III trials.","authors":"Joseph J Zhao, Kennedy Yao Yi Ng, Raghav Sundar, Samuel J Klempner","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103002","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of immunotherapy (IO) with perioperative chemotherapy represents an advance in locally advanced, resectable gastroesophageal cancers. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded discordant findings with respect to event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS), particularly when differing chemotherapy backbones and IO agents are employed. Understanding the sources and implications of these discrepancies is essential for optimizing treatment strategies. Here, we sought to compare outcomes between perioperative FLOT-based and cisplatin/fluoropyrimidine based regimens when combined with IO, and to evaluate the consistency of FLOT-only arms across major RCTs in locally advanced gastroesophageal cancers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>RCTs investigating the role of perioperative combination chemotherapy with IO in patients with locally advanced gastro-esophageal cancer were included. Kaplan-Meier curves were digitally reconstructed to obtain individual patient data. Survival analyses incorporated testing for the proportional hazards assumption and were supplemented with piecewise and pooled random-effects analyses to address time-dependent effects and between-study heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference in EFS was observed between the FLOT-durvalumab and FLOT-pembrolizumab arms (HR = 0.907, 95 %-CI: 0.637-1.290, p = 0.586). FLOT-IO regimens showed superior EFS compared to Cis/fluoropyrimidine-IO (HR = 0.790, 95 %-CI: 0.647-0.966, p = 0.021) as well as FLOT-only (HR = 0.732, 95 %-CI: 0.610-0.878, p < 0.001). While EFS curves for FLOT-only arms converged on long-term follow-up, OS curves diverged, with increased heterogeneity across FLOT-only arms apparent beyond 24 months. Notwithstanding, these analyses should be interpreted with caution due to the lack of patient-level covariate adjustment across trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As we await the mature OS data from MATTERHORN, the addition of IO to perioperative FLOT should be considered the preferred standard-of-care in resectable, locally-advanced gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma. Our comparative analyses suggest that FLOT remains a favored chemotherapy backbone for perioperative IO, but confirmation from future randomized trials with mature survival data is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":93922,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"140 ","pages":"103002"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144805387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Oncological outcomes of local excision versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 在分期和监测的背景下,早期直肠癌局部切除与根治术的肿瘤治疗效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
Pub Date : 2024-05-12 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753
Michael G Fadel, Mosab Ahmed, Annabel Shaw, Matyas Fehervari, Christos Kontovounisios, Gina Brown

Background: Local resection (LR) methods for rectal cancer are generally considered in the palliative setting or for patients deemed a high anaesthetic risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare oncological outcomes of LR and radical resection (RR) for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance assessment.

Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare databases was performed for studies that reported data on clinical outcomes for both LR and RR for early rectal cancer from January 1995 to April 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. The quality of assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials.

Results: Twenty studies with 12,022 patients were included: 6,476 patients had LR and 5,546 patients underwent RR. RR led to an improvement in 5-year overall survival (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.54-2.20; p < 0.0001; I2 20 %) and local recurrence (OR 3.06; 95 % CI 2.02-4.64; p < 0.0001; I2 39 %) when compared to LR. However, when staging and surveillance methods were clearly adopted in LR cases, there was an improvement in R0 rates (96.7 % vs 85.6 %), 5-year disease-free survival (93.0 % vs 77.9 %) and overall survival (81.6 % vs 79.0 %) compared to when staging and surveillance was not reported/performed.

Conclusions: LR may be appropriate for selected patients without poor prognostic factors in early rectal cancer. This study also highlights that there is currently no single standardised staging or surveillance approach being adopted in the management of early rectal cancer. A more specified and standardised preoperative staging for patient selection as well as clinical and image-based surveillance protocols is needed.

背景:直肠癌的局部切除术(LR)方法一般用于姑息治疗或麻醉风险较高的患者。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在从分期和监测评估的角度比较早期直肠癌局部切除术和根治性切除术(RR)的肿瘤学结果:方法:对MEDLINE、Embase和Emcare数据库中1995年1月至2023年4月期间报告早期直肠癌LR和RR临床疗效数据的研究进行文献检索。采用随机效应模型进行了 Meta 分析,并评估了研究间的异质性。对观察性研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估,对随机对照试验采用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 工具进行评估:共纳入 20 项研究,12,022 名患者:6476名患者接受了LR治疗,5546名患者接受了RR治疗。与 LR 相比,RR 可提高 5 年总生存率(OR 1.84;95 % CI 1.54-2.20;P 2 20 %)和局部复发率(OR 3.06;95 % CI 2.02-4.64;P 2 39 %)。然而,如果在 LR 病例中明确采用分期和监测方法,与未报告/未进行分期和监测时相比,R0 率(96.7 % vs 85.6 %)、5 年无病生存率(93.0 % vs 77.9 %)和总生存率(81.6 % vs 79.0 %)均有所提高:结论:对于没有不良预后因素的特定早期直肠癌患者,LR可能是合适的选择。这项研究还强调,目前在早期直肠癌的治疗中还没有采用单一的标准化分期或监测方法。有必要制定更加明确和标准化的术前分期,以便选择患者,并制定基于临床和图像的监测方案。
{"title":"Oncological outcomes of local excision versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Michael G Fadel, Mosab Ahmed, Annabel Shaw, Matyas Fehervari, Christos Kontovounisios, Gina Brown","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102753","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Local resection (LR) methods for rectal cancer are generally considered in the palliative setting or for patients deemed a high anaesthetic risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare oncological outcomes of LR and radical resection (RR) for early rectal cancer in the context of staging and surveillance assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Emcare databases was performed for studies that reported data on clinical outcomes for both LR and RR for early rectal cancer from January 1995 to April 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. The quality of assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty studies with 12,022 patients were included: 6,476 patients had LR and 5,546 patients underwent RR. RR led to an improvement in 5-year overall survival (OR 1.84; 95 % CI 1.54-2.20; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> 20 %) and local recurrence (OR 3.06; 95 % CI 2.02-4.64; p < 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> 39 %) when compared to LR. However, when staging and surveillance methods were clearly adopted in LR cases, there was an improvement in R0 rates (96.7 % vs 85.6 %), 5-year disease-free survival (93.0 % vs 77.9 %) and overall survival (81.6 % vs 79.0 %) compared to when staging and surveillance was not reported/performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LR may be appropriate for selected patients without poor prognostic factors in early rectal cancer. This study also highlights that there is currently no single standardised staging or surveillance approach being adopted in the management of early rectal cancer. A more specified and standardised preoperative staging for patient selection as well as clinical and image-based surveillance protocols is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":93922,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"128 ","pages":"102753"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140961133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Cancer treatment reviews
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1