The efficacy and safety of angiogenesis inhibitors for recurrent ovarian cancer: a meta‑analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To investigate the efficacy and safety of angiogenesis inhibitors in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer (OC).Methods
Electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find eligible studies until August 10, 2021. The data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were pooled. Furthermore, grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were investigated.Results
A total of 13 studies with 3953 patients were included. Compared with control group, angiogenesis inhibitors resulted in significant improvement in PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61, 95%CI, 0.54-0.69), OS (HR = 0.88, 95%CI, 0.81-0.95), and ORR (odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% CI, 1.74-2.65). However, angiogenesis inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of grade ≥ 3 AEs (relative risk (RR), 1.20, 95% CI, 1.04-1.38).Conclusion
Angiogenesis inhibitors can improve ORR, PFS, and OS in patients with recurrent OC, but they can increase the incidence of AEs ≥ 3.
SUBMITTER: Zhang C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9396859 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The efficacy and safety of angiogenesis inhibitors for recurrent ovarian cancer: a meta‑analysis.
Zhang Chunmei C Zhao Wancheng W
Journal of ovarian research 20220822 1
<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the efficacy and safety of angiogenesis inhibitors in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer (OC).<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find eligible studies until August 10, 2021. The data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were pooled. Furthermore, grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were investigated.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 13 s ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:(1) Background: Among new anti-angiogenesis agents being developed and ever-changing guidelines indications, the question of the benefits/safety ratio remains unclear. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review combined with a meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (12,081 patients), evaluating overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity (grade ≥ 3 toxic effects, type, and number of all adverse effects. (3) Results: The analysis showed improvement of pooled-PFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78; I2 = 77%; p < 0.00001) in first-line (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; p = 0.0003) or recurrent cancer (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.70; p < 0.00001) and regardless of the type of anti-angiogenesis drug used (Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, VEGF-receptors (VEGF-R) inhibitors or angiopoietin inhibitors). Improved OS was also observed (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99; p = 0.03). OS benefits were only observed in recurrent neoplasms, both platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant neoplasms. Grade ≥ 3 adverse effects were increased across all trials. Anti-angiogenetic therapy increased the risk of hypertension, infection, thromboembolic/hemorrhagic events, and gastro-intestinal perforations but not the risk of wound-related issues, anemia or posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome. (4) Conclusions: Although angiogenesis inhibitors improve PFS, there are little-to-no OS benefits. Given the high risk of severe adverse reactions, a careful selection of patients is required for obtaining the best results possible.
| S-EPMC10046967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of mortality among women with gynecological malignancies, largely due to its asymptomatic nature in early stages and frequent late diagnosis. Targeted therapies, such as angiogenesis inhibitors and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), have emerged as promising treatments by disrupting tumor vasculature and impairing DNA repair mechanisms, particularly in patients with BRCA mutations. The objective of the present study was to comprehensively evaluate the combined use of different angiogenesis inhibitors and PARPi in ovarian cancer treatment by meta-analysis. This included assessing their impact on objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS), understanding the role of BRCA mutation status, and comparing the effects of various angiogenesis inhibitors when used in combination with PARPi. The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to February 2024. Only studies on the combined treatment of ovarian cancer with angiogenesis inhibitors and PARPi were included. Duplicate studies, studies with incomplete data, animal studies, literature reviews and systematic studies were excluded. The results underscored a noteworthy improvement in the ORR and median PFS (mPFS) among patients receiving combination therapy compared with those on monotherapy. Specifically, the pooled ORR for combination therapy was significantly higher than that of monotherapy, indicating a substantial benefit in terms of tumor response. Furthermore, combination therapy was found to significantly prolong PFS, offering patients a longer duration without disease progression. Subgroup analyses of patients treated with angiogenesis inhibitors combined with PARPi provided deeper insights, revealing that patients with BRCA mutations exhibited an ORR of 90% compared with 61% in those without BRCA mutations. Additionally, when different angiogenesis inhibitors were compared, patients treated with anti-VEGF agents combined with PARPi showed a longer mPFS (15.53 months) than those treated with TKIs combined with PARPi (7.49 months). In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that combinations of angiogenesis inhibitors and PARPi show great potential for improving treatment outcomes in ovarian cancer, particularly in patients with BRCA mutations. The observed differences in efficacy between various angiogenesis inhibitors highlight the importance of personalized treatment approaches. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term benefits of these combination strategies and refine them to obtain optimal patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC11542167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This meta-analysis investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitor monotherapy as maintenance treatment in platinum sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant RCTs. The primary endpoint was PFS. The results were stratified based on three categories: BRCA mutated patients, HRD patients, and overall population. The secondary outcome were discontinuations due to adverse events and grade 3 or 4 adverse events in maintenance phase. Five eligible RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. For patients with BRCA mutated ovarian cancer, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.21 with 95% CrI: 0.081-0.55), rucaparib (HR = 0.23 with 95% CrI: 0.16-0.34), olaparib (HR = 0.27 with 95% CrI: 0.20-0.35), and niraparib (HR = 0.26 with 95% CrI: 0.17-0.41) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For HRD patients, both rucaparib (HR = 0.32 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.42) and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.24-0.60) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. For the overall population, olaparib-throughout (HR = 0.51 with 95% CrI: 0.34-0.76), rucaparib (HR = 0.37 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.45), olaparib (HR = 0.35 with 95% CrI: 0.25-0.49), and niraparib (HR = 0.38 with 95% CrI: 0.30-0.48) were all highly effective in comparison with placebo at improving PFS. Regarding grade 3 or 4 adverse events, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicity reactions to rucaparib and niraparib were significantly higher than in the olaparib group. In terms of discontinuations due to adverse events, the treatment discontinuations were not significantly different between the three drugs. In summary, all the included maintenance treatment regimens are effective regardless of BRCA mutational status, and no statistically significant differences between rucaparib, niraparib and Olaparib in terms of PFS. In terms of safety profile, the three drugs present manageable adverse events. Clinicians should consider potential adverse events related to each of these interventions in clinical practice, and the adverse events are generally manageable.
| S-EPMC7937863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThis meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of angiogenesis inhibitors (Ais) combined with poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (OC).Materials and methodsA systematic search was conducted in four databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) for articles published from the inception of the databases until January 15, 2024. The focus of the search was on articles investigating the combination of Ais with PARPi in the maintenance treatment of ovarian cancer. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the risk of Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (Grade≥ 3 AEs).ResultsTotally nine studies were included for meta-analysis. The overall pooled ORR of Ais combined with PARPi was 57% (95% CI, 35% to 77%). Subgroup analyses showed that the ORR for patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer, platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer and newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer were 30% (95% CI, 12% to 52%), 70% (95% CI, 61% to 78%) and 59% (95% CI, 55% to 63%), respectively. The median PFS was 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 7.1), 12.4 months (95% CI, 10.6 to 13.2) and 22.4 months (95% CI, 21.5 to 24.2), respectively. The median OS was 15.5 months (95% CI, 12.3 to 24.8), 40.8 months (95% CI, 33.4 to 45.2) and 56.3 months (95% CI, 49.0 to 62.0), respectively. The rate Grade≥ 3 TRAEs rate was found to be 0.22 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.33).ConclusionsOur results confirmed that PARPi plus Ais was a feasible and safe option for the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. The combination therapy should be recommended as the first-line maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. PARPi plus Ais yielded more favorable oncological prognosis for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, compared to patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024543590, identifier CRD42024543590.
| S-EPMC11609078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe present COVID-19 pandemic has tended toward normality. To provide convenient, safe, and effective home treatment programs for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), the clinical efficacy and safety of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) (including olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib) monotherapy as a maintenance treatment for platinum-sensitive ROC were systematically evaluated.MethodsNumerous electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PARPi maintenance treatment for ROC that were published before June 2021. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoint was grade 3-4 adverse effects (AEs). After data extraction and the quality evaluation of the included studies, Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using R software. The ability of each treatment was ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.ResultsThe analysis included five studies and 1390 patients. The NMA results demonstrated that compared with the placebo, olaparib and niraparib exhibited significant benefits in the gBRCA-mutated population, and respectively reduced the risk of death by 31% (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) and 34% (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44-0.99). Olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib were all found to be very effective in prolonging PFS in patients with ROC. All three PARPi treatments increased the number of grade 3-4 AEs in patients with ROC as compared with the placebo.ConclusionsOverall, olaparib and niraparib maintenance treatment can significantly prolong the OS of patients with gBRCA mutations. Furthermore, the three investigated PARPi monotherapy maintenance treatments can prolong PFS regardless of BRCA mutation status. Although the incidence of AEs in the treatment groups was found to be significantly higher than that in the placebo group, the patients in the treatment group tolerated the treatment. Home oral PARPi treatment can balance tumor treatment and pandemic prevention and control, and is the most convenient, safe, and effective home treatment method available against the background of the current COVID-19 pandemic.Systematic review registrationhttps://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-6-0033/.
| S-EPMC8652073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThough it is known to all that PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective when used as maintenance alone for women with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), little is known about whether using them in combination with other drugs would contribute to a better efficacy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of PARPi combination therapy compared with monotherapy.Materials and methodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that offered the date we needed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and major conference. Data extraction and processing were completed by three investigators to compare OS, PFS, and ORR both in intervention and in control subset. Then, we calculated the pooled RR and 95% CI of all-grade and high-grade adverse effects to study its safety. And we evaluated the within-study heterogeneity by using subgroup and sensitivity analysis.Results and conclusionA total of three eligible RCTs covering 343 women were included. In PFS analysis, PARP inhibitor (PARPi) combination therapy can significantly improve PFS for women with ROC when compared with the controls (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), especially for those with mutated BRCA (HR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.45). And in OS analysis, combination therapy is not inferior to monotherapy (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.61). As for ORR, the effectiveness of combination therapy and monotherapy was almost the same (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.31). Additionally, combination therapy seldom causes more adverse events, both in all-grade and in high grade.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (identifier, CRD42018109933).
| S-EPMC8414886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To explore the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in treating recurrent/refractory ovarian cancer (OC). Methods: The online databases, including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, were searched for relevant literatures on exploring the efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of recurrent/refractory OC. The keywords are as follows: Ovarian neoplasms, programmed death receptor, PD-1, PD-L1, immunotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitor. Furthermore, qualified studies were screened for further meta-analysis. Results: In this study, 11 studies (990 patients) were analyzed to evaluate the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of recurrent/refractory OC. The combined results proved that the objective response rate (ORR) was 6.7%, 95% CI (4.6%,9.2%), disease control rate (DCR) was 37.9%, 95% CI (33.0%, 42.8%), median overall survival (OS) was 10.70 months, 95% CI (9.23, 12.17), and median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.24 months, 95% CI (2.05, 2.43). In addition, in terms of the safety of patients suffering from recurrent/refractory OC and receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, the combined treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were 70.9% (61.7%-80.2%), and the combined immune related adverse events (iAEs) were 29%, 95% CI (14.7%, 43.3%). Conclusion: In patients with recurrent/refractory OC, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were used alone and there was no obvious evidence of improved efficacy and survival. As for safety, the incidences of TRAEs and iAEs are high, so PD1/PD-L1 inhibitors should be applied according to individual conditions. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=367525, identifier CRD42022367525.
| S-EPMC10042289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This study aimed to establish a pharmacodynamic model and to screen reasonable covariates to quantitatively describe the efficacy of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC). Methods: The log normal hazard function model was established by using progression-free survival (PFS) data of 1,169 patients from published randomized trials on FDA-approved PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib). Monte Carlo simulation was used to compare PFS values in different scenarios, such as monotherapy (administered alone) and combination therapy (PARPis combined with chemo- or target-therapies), different biomarker statuses, and different PARP inhibitors. PFS was also estimated. Results: The study showed that the median PFS was 8.5 months with monotherapy and 16.0 months with combination therapy. The median PFS of patients with the BRCA mutation, BRCA wild-type, and HRD-positivity were 11.0, 7.5, and 9.0 months in monotherapy, respectively, and 23.0, 14.0 and 17.5 months, in combination therapy, respectively. In addition, the median PFS of olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib monotherapy were about 9.5, 10.5, and 12.0 months, respectively, and about 19.0, 20.0, and 25 months, respectively, in combination therapy. The median PFS values in combination with cediranib, bevacizumab, and chemotherapy were approximately 17.0, 12.5 and 19.5 months, respectively. Conclusion: PARPi combination therapy is more effective as maintenance treatment for ROC than monotherapy, and the efficacy of PARPis in combination with chemotherapy is higher than that of the combination with antiangiogenic drugs. We found that the PFS of BRCA wild-type was similar to that of HRD-positive patients, and there was no significant difference in PFS between olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib, which provides necessary quantitative information for the clinical practice of PARPis in the treatment of ROC.
| S-EPMC8606554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Targeted agents such as bevacizumab (BEV) or poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) which have been added as concomitant or maintenance therapies have been shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PS rOC). In the absence of direct comparison, we performed a network meta-analysis considering BRCA genes status. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for trials involving patients with PS rOC treated with BEV or PARPi. Different comparisons were performed for patients included in the PARPi trials, according to BRCA genes status as follows: all comers (AC) population, BRCA 1/2 mutated (BRCAm), and BRCA wild type patients (BRCAwt). In the overall population, PARPi prolonged PFS with respect to BEV (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.91). In the BRCA mutated carriers, the PFS improvement in favor of PARPi appeared to be higher (HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.36-0.59) while in BRCAwt patients the superiority of PARPi over BEV failed to reach a statistically significance level (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.63-1.20); however, according to the SUCRA analysis, PARPi had the highest probability of being ranked as the most effective therapy (90% and 60%, for PARPi and BEV, respectively). PARPi performed better as compared with BEV in terms of PFS for the treatment of PS rOC, especially in BRCAm patients who had not previously received PARPi.
| S-EPMC7312982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Ovarian cancer is a significant contributor to gynecological cancer-related mortality, necessitating innovative treatment strategies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of combining PARP inhibitors with anti-angiogenic agents (AAAs) in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Methods: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022319461). A systematic search of three electronic databases, including MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy. Subgroup analyses were based on BRCA mutation status. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events, respectively. The combination therapy was compared to PARP inhibitors alone and to chemotherapy. Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins and Thompson's I2 statistic where applicable. Results: Seven RCTs involving 2397 patients were included. Combination therapy did not show a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared to PARP inhibitor monotherapy in the general population (HR 0.63, CI 0.37-1.06), or in BRCA-mutated (HR 0.70, CI 0.30-1.63) and BRCA wild-type subgroups (HR 0.39, CI 0.14-1.07). When compared to chemotherapy, combination therapy produced no significant PFS benefit in recurrent ovarian cancer (HR 0.83, CI 0.42-1.63) in the total population. Safety analysis revealed that hypertension and diarrhea were significantly more frequent in combination therapy compared with PARP inhibitors alone (RR 6.80, CI 2.87-16.06 and RR 10.04, CI 2.25-44.75) or chemotherapy alone (RR 13.80, CI 3.43-55.57 and RR 6.57, CI 2.84-15.24). Conclusions: The combination of PARP inhibitors and AAAs did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit in PFS compared to PARP inhibitors or chemotherapy alone in recurrent ovarian cancer. While the combination therapy was generally well tolerated, hypertension and diarrhea occurred significantly. These findings suggest that combination therapy may not provide a clear survival advantage in the recurrent setting. Further high-quality, biomarker-driven clinical trials are needed to refine patient selection, optimize toxicity management, and determine the potential role of combination therapy in ovarian cancer treatment.
| S-EPMC11901299 | biostudies-literature