The Role of Systemic Therapy in Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple randomized trials, the role of perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is still under debate. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we aim to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative systemic therapies for patients with CRLM. METHODS: We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through May 2021.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of perioperative (post, pre, or both) systemic therapies to surgery alone in patients with CRLM. The outcomes were compared according to the chemotherapy regimen using a random effects model. Outcomes of interest included disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Seven RCTs with a total of 1504 patients with CRLM were included. Six studies included post-operative treatment and one evaluated perioperative (pre- and postoperative) therapy. Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was the most used systemic therapy. NMA showed benefit of adding perioperative therapy to surgery in terms of DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). However, these findings did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05). NMA did not show any advantage of one regimen over another including oxaliplatin or irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and NMA of 7 RCTs found that the addition of perioperative systemic treatment for resectable CRLM could improve disease-free survival but not overall survival. Based on the findings, addition of perioperative treatment in resectable CRLM should be individualized weighing the risks and benefits.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in adults.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is an underrecognized disorder due to the variability of its presentation and the fact that in adults, its diagnosis is based on cumbersome, pediatric-based criteria. Data regarding demographics, underlying causes, clinical features, laboratory results, complications, treatments received, and clinical outcomes were collected and analyzed in 41 patients who were diagnosed and treated at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences between 2007 and 2019. In this group, 51% were male, the median age at diagnosis was 47 years, and 85% (35/41) met the HLH-2004 diagnostic criteria (5/8 variables). When evaluating seven extended variables easily obtained by routine laboratory test, 93% (38/41) of patients met 8 out of 15 criteria. The overall mortality in our patient population was 54% (22/41). The 30-day and 1-year overall survival estimates were 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.56, 0.84) and 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.62), respectively. Thirty-five patients (85.4%) received HLH-directed therapy, and 19 patients (46.3%) achieved remission. The most common regimen for treating HLH was dexamethasone plus etoposide (53.7%). The patients with malignancy-related HLH had a worse prognosis than those without underlying malignancy, with a 73.33% (11/15) vs 34.62% (9/26) mortality (P = 0.02). In conclusion, despite increasing recognition, HLH remains an enigmatic disorder with increased mortality, even more so with malignancy-associated HLH.

How to read a published clinical trial: A practical guide for clinicians.

Over the last 5 years, there have been more than 140 new drug approvals in the field of Oncology alone, all based on newly published clinical trials. These approvals have led to an ongoing change in clinical practice, offering new therapeutic options for patients. Therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to be able to appraise a clinical trial and determine its validity, understand its results, and be able to apply such results to their patients. In this guide, we provide a simplified approach tailored to practicing clinicians and trainees. The same concepts and principles apply to other medical specialties.

The Role of Maintenance Strategies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: In metastatic colorectal cancer, induction combination chemotherapy with a targeted agent is considered the mainstay of treatment. Multiple randomized clinical trials have examined different strategies of continuing cytotoxic therapy until progression compared with a period of either observation or the use of various maintenance agents. However, those randomized clinical trials have shown inconsistent efficacy results that make it challenging to draw any conclusion on which strategy is preferred. Therefore, a network meta-analysis is helpful to compare different agents across randomized clinical trials. Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different treatment strategies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials evaluating different strategies for patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Trials of interest included those including patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated with an initial period of cytotoxic chemotherapy (with or without a biologic) and then switched to one of the following strategies: observation; maintenance with bevacizumab (Bev), fluoropyrimidine (FP), or both (FP + Bev); or continuing the induction regimen until progression. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects consistency model to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Higher SUCRA scores correspond to greater efficacy. Initial analysis was performed on December 18, 2018. An updated search was performed in April 2019, and no additional studies were added. Findings: Twelve trials at low risk of bias (5540 patients; age range, 23-85 years; 64.4 % male) were included. Network meta-analysis showed no benefit of continuing full cytotoxic chemotherapy until progression vs observation in terms of PFS (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-1.09) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.07). Compared with observation, maintenance therapy showed a PFS benefit (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.77) but not an OS benefit (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01). All maintenance strategies (FP, FP + Bev, and Bev) showed significant improvement in PFS vs observation. On SUCRA analysis, maintenance treatment (FP or FP + Bev) had the highest likelihood of achieving improved PFS (67.1% for FP, 99.8% for FP + Bev, and 36.5% for Bev) and OS (81.3% for FP, 73.2% for FP + Bev, and 32.6% for Bev). Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, there is no benefit to continuing the full induction regimen until progression, without a period of either observation or maintenance treatment. A maintenance strategy with a fluoropyrimidine, with or without the addition of bevacizumab, is preferred. However, given the lack of a clear OS benefit, shared decision-making should include observation as an acceptable alternative.

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Regorafenib and TAS-102 in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these different strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched different databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS-102 or regorafenib in patients with refractory mCRC who failed prior oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White's multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. RESULTS: Six trials at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to best-supportive care (BSC) in terms of PFS (Rego 160: hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence ratio [CI], 0.26-0.63; TAS-102: HR, 0.46 CI, 0.40-0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.48-0.93; TAS-102: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.57-0.80). Network analysis showed no statistically difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.23-0.84) and PFS (HR, 0.37; CI, 0.21-0.66). Rego 80+ was associated with statistically nonsignificant improvement in OS and PFS compared with TAS-102 and Rego 160. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib at a dose of 160 mg and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib with a dose escalation strategy is superior to best-supportive care. Given its tolerability and the observed trend in survival benefit compared with regorafenib 160, dose escalation strategy of regorafenib (80+) may be the preferred option in this setting.

Neutropenic diets to prevent cancer infections: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple studies have questioned the benefit of neutropenic diets in decreasing infections in patients with cancer, but recent surveys showed that such diets are still prescribed. In this study, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of neutropenic diet in decreasing infection and mortality in neutropenic patients with cancer with neutropenia. This review is an update of a previously published systematic review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched different databases to identify comparative studies that investigated the effect of neutropenic diet compared with regular diet in neutropenic adults and children with cancer. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses using the Der-Simonian and Laird method to pool treatment effects from included studies. Outcomes of interest were mortality, bacteremia/fungemia, major infections, quality of life, and the composite outcome for neutropenic fever and/or infection. RESULTS: We included six studies (five randomised) with 1116 patients, with 772 (69.1%) having underwent haematopoietic cell transplant. There was no statistically significant difference between neutropenic diet and regular diet in the rates of major infections (relative risk [RR] 1.16; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.42) or bacteremia/fungemia (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.53). In haematopoietic cell transplant patients, neutropenic diet was associated with a slightly higher risk of infections (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54). No difference in mortality was seen between neutropenic diet and regular diet (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.50). CONCLUSION: There is currently no evidence to support the use of neutropenic diet or other food restrictions in neutropenic patients with cancer. Patients and clinicians should continue to follow the safe food-handling guidelines as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Choosing a Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Regimen for Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation, Fludarabine/Busulfan versus Fludarabine Melphalan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Fludarabine with busulfan (FB) or melphalan (FM) are 2 more commonly used reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HCT).We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing these 2 RIC regimens. We searched electronic databases from inception through November 1, 2017 for literature searches to identify relevant studies. A DerSimonian random effects model was used to measure efficacy outcomes; hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Seven studies, including a total of 1955 patients, met criteria for inclusion, of which 6 were included in the overall pooled analysis because of repetition of some patients in 2 studies. Three studies were included in the subgroup analysis of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and 2 in the subgroup analysis of lymphoid malignancies. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were not statistically significantly different between the 2 RIC regimens in analysis of all studies. However, OS was better with FM in subgroup analysis of AML/MDS studies (HR, .83; 95% CI, .73 to .95). Nonrelapse mortality was lower with FB (HR, .64; 95% CI, .46 to .89), whereas relapse was lower with FM (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.06) in the analysis of all studies. This meta-analysis shows that FB and FM are associated with a similar OS in patients undergoing HCT. Relapse rates are lower with FM but at the cost of higher nonrelapse mortality.

High-Dose Chemotherapy with Early Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Compared to Standard Dose Chemotherapy or Delayed Transplantation in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) is the standard of care for all transplantation-eligible patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM). Various studies have compared clinical outcomes with frontline SCT ("early SCT") versus standard-dose therapy (SDT) alone, with or without salvage SCT ("SDT/late SCT"). In this meta-analysis, we compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes between these 2 treatment approaches. Twelve studies were identified, including a total of 3633 patients, of whom 1811 received early SCT and 1822 received SDT/late SCT. In our analysis of all 12 studies, OS was not significantly different between the 2 groups (hazard ratio [HR], .86; 95% confidence interval [CI], .70 to 1.04), but PFS was better with early SCT (HR, .67; 95% CI, .54 to .82). In a subgroup analysis of 3 studies in which novel agents were used for induction, OS again was similar in the 2 groups, and PFS was favorable with early SCT (HR, .50; 95% CI, .36 to .70). This analysis shows that over the years, early SCT has been associated with prolonged PFS, but this did not consequently translate into prolonged OS in patients with newly diagnosed MM. The benefit of early SCT in terms of OS is less clear in the era of novel agents, given the limited follow-up of these studies.

Adjuvant Antiangiogenic Agents in Post-nephrectomy Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The role of antiangiogenic agents in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is well established. However, it is still not clear whether this benefit can be extrapolated to the adjuvant setting. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of antiangiogenic agents in patients with RCC and a high risk of relapse after nephrectomy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of any oral antiangiogenic agent compared to placebo in post-nephrectomy RCC patients. Prespecified data elements were extracted from each trial. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Three RCTs comparing antiangiogenics to placebo among 3693 patients met our inclusion criteria and were used in meta-analyses. Overall, antiangiogenics did not improve DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.07) or OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.25). These results persisted when restricting the analysis to patients with clear cell carcinoma and patients with highest risk of relapse. Similarly, sunitinib did not show any improvement in the entire cohort for either DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19) or OS (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, antiangiogenics did not improve OS and DFS over placebo in high-risk RCC after nephrectomy. Further studies are needed to identify the patient population that might derive a benefit from antiangiogenics in the adjuvant setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this article, we found that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of oral antiangiogenics in nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. In addition, the use of oral antiangiogenics was associated with a 2.7-fold higher rate of significant side effects compared to placebo.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing azacitidine and decitabine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hypomethylating agents (HMA), azacitidine, and decitabine are frequently used in the management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, there are no clinical trials that have directly compared these agents. We conducted a systematic review and indirectly compared the efficacy of azacitidine to decitabine in MDS. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) through June 28, 2018, without language or time restrictions. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers, and differences were resolved by consensus. The fixed effect model and adjusted indirect comparison methods were used to pool relative risks (RR) of major outcomes of interest (mortality, response rate, quality of life, hematologic improvement, hospitalization, leukemia transformation, transfusion independence). RESULTS: Only four trials met the eligibility criteria. Two trials compared azacitidine to the best supportive care (BSC) and included 549 patients, and the other two compared decitabine to BSC and included 403 patients. The risk of bias was unclear overall. Compared to BSC, azacitidine was significantly associated with lower mortality (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94, I2 = 89%) whereas decitabine did not significantly reduce mortality (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.00, I2 = 53%). Both drugs were associated with higher partial and complete response compared to BSC. Indirect comparisons were not statistically significant for all the studied outcomes, except for complete response where azacitidine was less likely to induce complete response compared to decitabine (RR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.01-0.86, very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Azacitidine and decitabine are both associated with improved outcomes compared to BSC. The available indirect evidence comparing the two agents warrants very low certainty and cannot reliably confirm the superiority of either agent. Head-to-head trials are needed. In the meantime, the choice of agent should be driven by patient preferences, adverse effects, drug availability, and cost.