Dataset Information

Sorafenib in breast cancer treatment: A systematic review and overview of clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: AIM:To evaluate the current role of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor in the treatment of breast cancer. METHODS:An extensive search of the literature until March 2016 was carried out in Medline and clinicaltrials.gov, by using the search terms "sorafenib" and "breast cancer". Papers found were checked for further relevant publications. Overall, 21 relevant studies were found, 18 in advanced breast cancer (16 in stage IV and two in stages III-IV) and three in early breast cancer. RESULTS:Among studies in advanced breast cancer, there were two trials with sorafenib as monotherapy, four trials of sorafenib in combination with taxanes, two in combination with capecitabine, one with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine, one with vinorelbine, one with bevacizumab, one with pemetrexed and one with ixabepilone, three trials of sorafenib in combination with endocrine therapy and two trials in women with brain metastases undergoing whole brain radiotherapy. In addition, there was one trial of sorafenib added to standard chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting, and two trials in the neoadjuvant setting. In general, sorafenib was well tolerated in breast cancer patients, though its dosage had to be adjusted in some trials, and discontinuation rates were high, particularly for the combination of sorafenib with anastrozole. Sorafenib monotherapy and combinations with taxanes, bevacizumab and ixabepilone showed inadequate efficacy, while efficacy results from combinations with gemcitabine and/or capecitabine and possibly tamoxifen were more promising. CONCLUSION:At present, sorafenib should not be used for the treatment of breast cancer outside of clinical trials and more clinical data are needed in order to support its standard use in breast cancer therapy.

SUBMITTER: Zafrakas M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4974240 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sorafenib in breast cancer treatment: A systematic review and overview of clinical trials.

Zafrakas Menelaos M Papasozomenou Panayiota P Emmanouilides Christos C

World journal of clinical oncology 20160801 4

<h4>Aim</h4>To evaluate the current role of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor in the treatment of breast cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>An extensive search of the literature until March 2016 was carried out in Medline and clinicaltrials.gov, by using the search terms "sorafenib" and "breast cancer". Papers found were checked for further relevant publications. Overall, 21 relevant studies were found, 18 in advanced breast cancer (16 in stage IV and two in stages III-IV) and three in early breast c ...[more]

PMID: 27579253

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterest in the use of wearables in medical care is increasing. Wearables can be used to monitor different variables, such as vital signs and physical activity. A crucial point for using wearables in oncology is if patients already under the burden of severe disease and oncological treatment can accept and adhere to the device. At present, there are no specific recommendations for the use of wearables in oncology, and little research has examined the purpose of using wearables in oncology.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to explore the use of wearables in clinical trials during cancer treatment, with a special focus on adherence.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched prior and up to October 3, 2019, with no limitation in the date of publication. The search strategy was aimed at studies using wearables for monitoring adult patients with cancer during active antineoplastic treatment. Studies were screened independently by 2 reviewers by title and abstract, selected for inclusion and exclusion, and the full-text was assessed for eligibility. Data on study design, type of wearable used, primary outcome, adherence, and device outcome were extracted. Results were presented descriptively.ResultsOur systematic search identified 1269 studies, of which 25 studies met our inclusion criteria. The types of cancer represented in the studies were breast (7/25), gastrointestinal (4/25), lung (4/25), and gynecologic (1/25); 9 studies had multiple types of cancer. Oncologic treatment was primarily chemotherapy (17/25). The study-type distribution was pilot/feasibility study (12/25), observational study (10/25), and randomized controlled trial (3/25). The median sample size was 40 patients (range 7-180). All studies used a wearable with an accelerometer. Adherence varied across studies, from 60%-100% for patients wearing the wearable/evaluable sensor data and 45%-94% for evaluable days, but was differently measured and reported. Of the 25 studies, the most frequent duration for planned monitoring with a wearable was 8-30 days (13/25). Topics for wearable outcomes were physical activity (19/25), circadian rhythm (8/25), sleep (6/25), and skin temperature (1/25). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were used in 17 studies; of the 17 PRO studies, only 9 studies reported correlations between the wearable outcome and the PRO.ConclusionsWe found that definitions of outcome measures and adherence varied across studies, and limited consensus among studies existed on which variables to monitor during treatment. Less heterogeneity, better consensus in terms of the use of wearables, and established standards for the definitions of wearable outcomes and adherence would improve comparisons of outcomes from studies using wearables. Adherence, and the definition of such, seems crucial to conclude on data from wearable studies in oncology. Additionally, research using advanced wearable devices and active use of the data are encouraged to further explore the potential of wearables in oncology during treatment. Particularly, randomized clinical studies are warranted to create consensus on when and how to implement in oncological practice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine concordance between treatment effects in animal experiments and clinical trials. Study design Systematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, SIGLE, NTIS, Science Citation Index, CAB, BIOSIS.Study selectionAnimal studies for interventions with unambiguous evidence of a treatment effect (benefit or harm) in clinical trials: head injury, antifibrinolytics in haemorrhage, thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, tirilazad in acute ischaemic stroke, antenatal corticosteroids to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis. Review methods Data were extracted on study design, allocation concealment, number of randomised animals, type of model, intervention, and outcome.ResultsCorticosteroids did not show any benefit in clinical trials of treatment for head injury but did show a benefit in animal models (pooled odds ratio for adverse functional outcome 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.83). Antifibrinolytics reduced bleeding in clinical trials but the data were inconclusive in animal models. Thrombolysis improved outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tissue plasminogen activator reduced infarct volume by 24% (95% confidence interval 20% to 28%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 23% (17% to 29%). Tirilazad was associated with a worse outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29% (21% to 37%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 48% (29% to 67%). Antenatal corticosteroids reduced respiratory distress and mortality in neonates whereas in animal models respiratory distress was reduced but the effect on mortality was inconclusive (odds ratio 4.2, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 20.9). Bisphosphonates increased bone mineral density in patients with osteoporosis. In animal models the bisphosphonate alendronate increased bone mineral density compared with placebo by 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.2% to 12.9%) in the combined results for the hip region. The corresponding treatment effect in the lumbar spine was 8.5% (5.8% to 11.2%) and in the combined results for the forearms (baboons only) was 1.7% (-1.4% to 4.7%).ConclusionsDiscordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately.

Dataset Information

Sorafenib in breast cancer treatment: A systematic review and overview of clinical trials.

Publications

Sorafenib in breast cancer treatment: A systematic review and overview of clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets