Dataset Information

Pharmacogenomics of second-line drugs used for treatment of unresponsive or relapsed osteosarcoma patients.

ABSTRACT: Second-line treatment of high-grade osteosarcoma (HGOS) patients is based on different approaches and chemotherapy protocols, which are not yet standardized. Although several drugs have been used in HGOS second-line protocols, none of them has provided fully satisfactory results and the role of rescue chemotherapy is not well defined yet. This article focuses on the drugs that have most frequently been used for second-line treatment of HGOS, highlighting the present knowledge on their mechanisms of action and resistance and on gene polymorphisms with possible impact on treatment sensitivity or toxicity. In the near future, validation of the so far identified candidate genetic biomarkers may constitute the basis for tailoring treatment by taking the patients' genetic background into account.

SUBMITTER: Hattinger CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5558522 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacogenomics of second-line drugs used for treatment of unresponsive or relapsed osteosarcoma patients.

Hattinger Claudia M CM Vella Serena S Tavanti Elisa E Fanelli Marilù M Picci Piero P Serra Massimo M

Pharmacogenomics 20161124 18

Second-line treatment of high-grade osteosarcoma (HGOS) patients is based on different approaches and chemotherapy protocols, which are not yet standardized. Although several drugs have been used in HGOS second-line protocols, none of them has provided fully satisfactory results and the role of rescue chemotherapy is not well defined yet. This article focuses on the drugs that have most frequently been used for second-line treatment of HGOS, highlighting the present knowledge on their mechanisms ...[more]

PMID: 27883291

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of second-line palliative chemotherapy in patients with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma is not well defined. Several small studies (6-19 patients) have reported on ifosfamide as second-line treatment. In this study we report our single-center experience with second-line ifosfamide monotherapy in patients treated for recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma.MethodsA chart review was conducted of all patients with osteosarcoma treated with ifosfamide from 1978 until 2017. Until 1997 a 5 g/m2 regimen was used, and from 1997 onwards a 9 g/m2 regimen was used. Overall survival (OS) from start of ifosfamide was the primary endpoint. Progression-free survival (PFS) from start of treatment was also studied. To assess difference in survival between groups the log rank test was applied. To investigate the effect of ifosfamide dose and World Health Organization performance status (PS) a Cox proportional hazard regression model was estimated.ResultsSixty-two patients were selected with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma treated with second-line ifosfamide monotherapy (dose of 5 g/m2 , n = 26; 9 g/m2 , n = 36). OS was significantly better in univariate analysis for 9 g/m2 compared with 5 g/m2 (10.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 9.3-12.6] vs. 6.7 months [95% CI, 5.9-7.6], respectively) and for PS (median OS PS 0, 13.0 months [95% CI, 2.3-23.8]; PS 1, 8.2 months [95% CI, 5.4-11.1]; PS ≥2, 6.2 months [95% CI, 2.2-10.3]; and unknown PS, 5.4 months [95% CI, 2.2-8.5]). In multivariate analysis only PS showed a significant difference. No difference in PFS was found between 5 and 9 g/m2 ifosfamide treatment or PS.ConclusionThis study suggests that ifosfamide is an effective second-line treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic osteosarcoma.Implications for practiceIfosfamide monotherapy is commonly used as second-line treatment in osteosarcoma, although large series to support this are lacking. This retrospective study reports overall and progression-free survival for regimens with 5 g/m2 and with 9 g/m2 . This study was unable to show a significant difference in survival between 5 and 9 g/m2 but showed an important impact of World Health Organization performance status on overall survival. This study sets a standard and reference for comparison with the multiple phase II studies under development.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) for newer antidiabetic drugs is increasingly influencing revised recommendations for second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of newer antidiabetic drugs specified as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) for T2D in a second-line setting.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, and all relevant published studies were searched comprehensively in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and International Health Technology Assessment database published from April 2023. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 reporting checklists.ResultsWe included 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS 2022 recommendations. The CORE and Cardiff models were the most frequently utilized for pharmacoeconomic evaluation in T2D. Four studies consistently discovered that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA in T2D who were not adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Four studies compared GLP-1RA with DPP-4i, sufonylurea (SU), or insulin. Except for one that demonstrated SU was cost-effective, all were GLP-1RA. Five studies revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than DPP-4i or SU. Eleven studies indicated that DPP-4i was more cost-effective than traditional antidiabetic drugs. Four additional studies explored the cost-effectiveness of various antidiabetic drugs as second-line options, indicating that SU, SGLT2i, or meglitinides were more economically advantageous. The most common driven factors were the cost of new antidiabetic drugs.ConclusionNewer antidiabetic drugs as second line are the cost-effective option for T2D from the cost-effectiveness perspective, especially SGLT2i.

Dataset Information

Pharmacogenomics of second-line drugs used for treatment of unresponsive or relapsed osteosarcoma patients.

Publications

Pharmacogenomics of second-line drugs used for treatment of unresponsive or relapsed osteosarcoma patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets