Dataset Information

Systematic review of escalated imatinib doses compared with sunitinib or best supportive care, for the treatment of people with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours whose disease has progressed on the standard imatinib dose.

ABSTRACT: We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the effectiveness of imatinib at escalated doses of 600 mg/day or 800 mg/day for treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), following progression on imatinib at the 400 mg/day dose, compared with sunitinib and/or 'best supportive care'.Electronic searches were undertaken to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies, and case series reporting outcome data on survival, quality of life or adverse events. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers and full text reports of potentially relevant studies assessed for inclusion. Included studies were quality assessed by two reviewers and data were extracted. Five studies reported data on the relevant population and were included.Median overall survival for imatinib (800 mg/day) and sunitinib both were less than 2 years. Around 25% of patients required either an imatinib dose delay or reduction. Approximately one-third of patients receiving dose escalated imatinib (either dose) showed either response or stable disease. Amongst those responding to the escalated 800 mg/day dose, median progression-free survival was over 25 months. The statistical likelihood of response may depend on exon mutational status. There were few data and those that were available were potentially biased, due to their non-randomised nature. Further data are needed to justify international guideline recommendations on imatinib dose escalation.A prospective audit of management and outcomes for unresectable GIST patients treated with dose escalation upon progression at 400 mg/day may be appropriate as an RCT may be unfeasible.

SUBMITTER: Hislop J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3348468 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of escalated imatinib doses compared with sunitinib or best supportive care, for the treatment of people with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours whose disease has progressed on the standard imatinib dose.

Hislop Jennifer J Mowatt Graham G Sharma Pawana P Fraser Cynthia C Elders Andrew A Jenkinson David D Vale Luke L Petty Russell R

Journal of gastrointestinal cancer 20120601 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>We conducted a systematic review of evidence on the effectiveness of imatinib at escalated doses of 600 mg/day or 800 mg/day for treatment of adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), following progression on imatinib at the 400 mg/day dose, compared with sunitinib and/or 'best supportive care'.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic searches were undertaken to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies, and case se ...[more]

PMID: 21971958

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew treatment options remain for patients with metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) after objective progression on approved tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We aimed to assess efficacy of imatinib rechallenge in these patients.MethodsIn our prospective, randomised, double-blind trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years) who had previously benefited from first-line imatinib (initial response or stable disease for ≥6 months) but whose metastatic or unresectable GIST had progressed on at least imatinib and sunitinib. We randomly allocated participants in a 1:1 ratio, with a centralised computer-generated allocation procedure (random permuted blocks of two, four, and six) and stratified by previous treatment and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, to receive best supportive care with imatinib 400 mg per day or matched placebo. Crossover to open-label imatinib was allowed after investigator-adjudicated disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), as determined by a masked external radiological review. All analyses were done for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug.FindingsBetween July 20, 2010, and Jan 17, 2013, we randomly allocated 41 patients to the imatinib group and 40 patients to the placebo group. After a median follow-up of 5·2 months (IQR 3·4-9·4), median PFS was 1·8 months (95% CI 1·7-3·6) with imatinib compared with 0·9 months (0·9-1·7) with placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death 0·46, 95% CI 0·27-0·78; p=0·005). 37 (93%) patients in the placebo group crossed over to open-label imatinib after progression. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (12 [29%] of 41 patients in the imatinib group vs three [8%] of 40 in the placebo group), fatigue (four [10%] vs none), and hyperbilirubinaemia (three [7%] vs one [3%]).InterpretationIn patients with GIST that is refractory to treatment with all standard tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, the disease continues to harbour many clones that are sensitive to kinase inhibitors. Continued kinase suppression might slow, although not halt, disease progression.

Project description:ObjectivesSpasticity is an incurable chronic condition, and patients with spasticity frequently experience symptoms such as muscle stiffness, restricted mobility, fatigue, spasms, and pain. The study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone for the early treatment of adult lower limb spasticity following an acute event (e.g. stroke or traumatic brain injury), from an Australian payer perspective.MethodsUsing clinical data from published pivotal trials, an economic model based on a Markov model was developed to capture changes in treatment costs, healthcare resource use costs, functional outcomes, and health-related quality of life over a lifetime horizon. Scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the uncertainty in the model parameters and assumptions used in the base case.ResultsAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care was cost-effective versus best supportive care, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35,721 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the base case, with most results remaining below the commonly acceptable cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of $75,000 per quality-adjusted life year for cost-effectiveness in Australia. Inputs and assumptions that produced the top four highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios include the application of different health resource utilisation source, short time horizon, unweighted regression analyses to determine regression probabilities, and no stopping rule. AbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care has a 74% probability of being cost-effective compared with best supportive care alone at the willingness to pay threshold.ConclusionAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care treatment is cost-effective in Australia for the management of adult lower limb spasticity in patients treated within 2 years of an acute event.

Project description:BackgroundNilotinib inhibits the tyrosine kinase activity of ABL1/BCR-ABL1 and KIT, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs), and the discoidin domain receptor. Gain-of-function mutations in KIT or PDGFRα are key drivers in most gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). This trial was designed to test the efficacy and safety of nilotinib versus imatinib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced GISTs.MethodsIn this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial (ENESTg1), participants from academic centres were aged 18 years or older and had previously untreated, histologically confirmed, metastatic or unresectable GISTs. Patients were stratified by previous adjuvant therapy and randomly assigned (1:1) via a randomisation list to receive oral imatinib 400 mg once daily or oral nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was centrally reviewed progression-free survival. Efficacy endpoints were assessed by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00785785.FindingsBecause the futility boundary was crossed at a preplanned interim analysis, trial accrual terminated in April, 2011. Between March 16, 2009, and April 21, 2011, 647 patients were enrolled; of whom 324 were allocated nilotinib and 320 were allocated imatinib. At final analysis of the core study (data cutoff, October, 2012), 2-year progression-free survival was higher in the imatinib group (59·2% [95% CI 50·9-66·5]) than in the nilotinib group (51·6% [43·0-59·5]; hazard ratio 1·47 [95% CI 1·10-1·95]). In the imatinib group, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypophosphataemia (19 [6%]), anaemia (17 [5%]), abdominal pain (13; 4%), and elevated lipase level (15; 5%), and in the nilotinib group were anaemia (18; 6%), elevated lipase level (15; 5%), elevated alanine aminotransferase concentration (12; 4%), and abdominal pain (11; 3%). The most common serious adverse event in both groups was abdominal pain (11 [4%] in the imatinib group, 14 [4%] in the nilotinib group).InterpretationNilotinib cannot be recommended for broad use to treat first-line GIST. However, future studies might identify patient subsets for whom first-line nilotinib could be of clinical benefit.FundingNovartis Pharmaceuticals.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of escalated imatinib doses compared with sunitinib or best supportive care, for the treatment of people with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours whose disease has progressed on the standard imatinib dose.

Publications

Systematic review of escalated imatinib doses compared with sunitinib or best supportive care, for the treatment of people with unresectable/metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours whose disease has progressed on the standard imatinib dose.

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets