Evaluation of efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Many breast cancer clinical trials with PARPi have been completed or are currently carried out, either by monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of PARPi in breast cancer patients as compared to chemotherapy.Methods
A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference meetings and clinical trial registry was performed. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR). The secondary outcome was safety profile. The comparative effects were measured using hazard ratio (HR) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on types of intervention and baseline characteristics of patients.Results
Six RCTs (n = 1953) were included. Two RCTs were recognized as high risk. PARPi was associated with an improved PFS (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74), OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.01), and a higher ORR (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82). PARPi, however, significantly increased risk of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06-2.52). Monotherapy was observed with lower risk of disease progression and higher ORR rate than combination therapy, 0.56 to 0.65 and 2.21 to 1.05, respectively. For patients without prior platinum treatment, PARPi significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79).Conclusions
PARPi was observed with a significantly improved efficacy in aspects of PFS and ORR, but also higher risk of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia as compared to chemotherapy. PARPi was a better choice for patients who had not received previous platinum treatment.
SUBMITTER: Chang XF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215282 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposePoly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown promising results in metastatic triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs). We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this drug in patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for synonyms of "PARP inhibitors" and "breast cancer" was carried out. All published phase II/III clinical studies of PARP inhibitors in patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC were screened. Data were extracted independently by two authors and analyzed using Review Manager software version 5.3. End points include overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events.ResultsTen clinical trials were identified, with a total of 1,495 patients included. Pooled analyses showed that PARP inhibitors could provide a significant improvement of ORR [risk ratio (RR) = 2.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-3.50; p = 0.02) and PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68; 95%Cl, 0.59-0.77; p < 0.0001) compared to chemotherapy in the whole population. In subgroup analysis, patients with BRCA mutation had a higher objective response to PARP inhibitor, with an RR of 2.85 (95%CI, 1.34-6.06; p = 0.007) compared to BRCA wild-type patients. However, no significant difference in ORR was observed between the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) positive and non-HRD subgroups (RR = 1.82; 95%CI, 0.81-4.08; p = 0.14). Hematological toxicity is a common adverse event of PARP inhibitors.ConclusionsPARP inhibitors are effective options for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC. Compared with patients without germline BRCA mutation, patients with germline BRCA mutation could benefit more from PARP inhibitors. In clinical setting, hematological toxicity associated with PARP inhibitors should be monitored regularly.
| S-EPMC8581463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer patients comprehensively.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature research through PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), wanfang, China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with available data comparing PARP inhibitors versus control therapy in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer were eligible for analysis. Statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4 and R version 4.0.3.Results1706 studies were retrieved in total, and 4 RCTs with 1540 patients were eligible for meta-analysis finally. The results showed that progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly improved in germline BRCA-mutated breast cancer patients with PARP inhibitors (HR 0.64, 95% CI [0.56-0.74]; HR 0.86, 95% CI [0.74-0.99], respectively) with no significant heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 22%, χ2 p = 0.28; I2 = 0%, χ2 p = 0.70, respectively). There was no significant difference in the overall adverse events (AEs), grade≥3 AEs and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation between PARP inhibitor arms and control arms (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.99-1.02]; RR 0.95, 95% CI [0.83-1.09]; RR 1.17, 95% CI [0.87-1.57], respectively). Based on the available data, PARP inhibitors provided comparable or better results than control arms in improving the quality of life in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer patients.ConclusionsPARP inhibitors prolonged PFS and OS among patients with BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer with tolerable safety and improved quality of life.
| S-EPMC8399371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have breakthrough designations for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We performed a meta-analysis of current clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in mCRPC patients based on their genetic status. Methods: On August 2020, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for phase II/III clinical studies on PARP inhibitors in mCRPC patients. Data were extracted independently by two investigators and analyzed using Review Manager software version 5.3. Primary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Nine clinical trials were identified and analyzed for the clinical benefit of PARP inhibitors in mCRPC patients (n = 1,219). Pooled analyses demonstrated that PARP inhibitors could provide a significant improvement of ORR and PFS in patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) when compared with non-HRD patients. Within the HRD subgroup, BRCA mutation patients achieved significantly higher ORR [odds ratio (OR): 9.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.08-16.35] and PFS rates at 12 months (OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 1.71-6.10) when compared with BRCA wild-type patients. Furthermore, patients harboring HRD without BRCA mutations have a higher objective response after PARP inhibitor treatment compared with non-HRD patients. Conclusion: PARP inhibitor is an effective treatment option for mCRPC patients with mutations in genes related to the HR DNA repair pathway when compared with non-HRD patients. In addition to BRCA mutations, other HRD-related gene aberrations may also be used as novel biomarkers to predict the efficacy of PARP inhibitors.
| S-EPMC8718674 | 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:Purpose: PARP inhibitors are a novel targeted anti-cancer drug and a large number of clinical studies on PARP inhibitors have been accomplished. This updated meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PARP inhibitors in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched to identify the eligible trials up to April 2020. ClinicalTrials.gov was also screened for additional unpublished trials. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent investigators, respectively. The hazard ratios (HRs) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time-to-event data of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and the risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI for dichotomous data of overall response rate (ORR) and occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were calculated by Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Results: A total of 12 trials with 5,347 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, PARP inhibitors significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40-0.65; P < 0.00001) and ORR (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.43; P = 0.0003). Specifically, PFS was improved regardless of BRCA genes mutations and homologous-recombination status. However, no difference was observed in OS between the PARP inhibitors group and the control group (95% CI, 0.73-1.01; P = 0.06). PARP inhibitors were associated with a statistically significant higher risk of hematologic events and different PARP inhibitors had different toxicities profiles. Conclusion: PARP inhibitors are an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.
| S-EPMC7350528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy and tolerability of poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS:The meta-analysis searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane libraries from inception to February 2020 to identify relevant studies. And the main results of this study were long-term prognosis and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS:The results showed that the addition of PARP inhibitors could significantly prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with ovarian cancer (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34-0.53, p < 0.001; HR, 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p < 0.001, respectively). In the BRCA 1/2 mutation patients, the HR of PFS was 0.29 (p < 0.001), and the HR was 0.51 (p < 0.001) in the no BRCA 1/2 mutation patients. The HR of PFS was 0.40 (p < 0.001) in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) mutation patients, while the HR was 0.80 (p < 0.001) in the no HRD mutation patients. Moreover, the analysis found that the use of PARP inhibitors did not significantly increase the risk of all grade adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.04, p = 0.16). But the incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs was increased (RR = 1.87, p = 0.002). In general, the AEs were mainly manifested in the blood system. CONCLUSIONS:PARP inhibitors can improve the prognosis of ovarian cancer patients with and without genetic mutations (BRCA 1/2 or HRD). Furthermore, PARP inhibitors were tolerable to patients when added to their current therapy, although it inevitably adds the grade 3 and higher AEs.
| S-EPMC7335450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of bevacizumab in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is controversial. This meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the regimen including bevacizumab among patients with pretreated MBC.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for previously treated MBC patients. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the identified studies. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.ResultsFour studies involving 1,640 individuals were included. Pooling results showed that the PFS of bevacizumab-containing groups (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.93, p = 0.002) was significantly better than that of the control groups, especially when bevacizumab was administered as the second-line treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative MBC (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.66-0.88, p = 0.0002). The ORR in the bevacizumab-containing group was superior to that in the control group, both in the general (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.18-1.78, p = 0.0004) and HER2-negative groups (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.03-1.63, p = 0.03). However, no significant effect on OS was demonstrated for the addition of bevacizumab to the second-line treatment for HER2-negative MBC (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.10, p = 0.39). Comparatively, proteinuria was more common in the bevacizumab-containing group. In addition, the application of bevacizumab tended to result in therapy discontinuation due to treatment-related toxicity.ConclusionsBevacizumab-containing chemotherapy, in light of its favorable effects on clinical outcomes, could be a preferred therapeutic option for patients with MBC, for whom the disease must be rapidly relieved. Further studies are warranted for exploring the advantageous patients with the receipt of bevacizumab in multiline treatment.
| S-EPMC9677857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsWe sought to conduct a meta-analysis regarding the safety and efficacy of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsMEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to November 2020 for placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials were selected if they reported at least one of the prespecified outcomes in patients with HF. Hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of seven trials including 16 820 HF patients (N = 8884 in the SGLT2 inhibitor arms; N = 7936 in the placebo arms) were included. In the overall HF cohort, SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo significantly reduced the risk of the composite endpoint of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death [HR: 0.77 (0.72-0.83); P < 0.001; I2 = 0%], time to first HF hospitalization [HR: 0.71 (0.64-0.78); P < 0.001; I2 = 0], cardiovascular mortality [HR: 0.87 (0.79-0.96); P = 0.005; I2 = 0%], and all-cause mortality [HR: 0.89 (0.82-0.96); P = 0.004; I2 = 0%]. Results remained consistent across HF-specific trials and according to diabetes mellitus status. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction for the composite of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death [HR: 0.80 (0.63-1.00); P = 0.05; I2 = 29%]. No increased risk of hypovolaemia, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension was seen with SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo.ConclusionsSGLT2 inhibitors significantly improve cardiovascular outcomes including cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with HF without an increased risk of serious adverse events. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.
| S-EPMC7755023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment paradigm of many cancers, however, its effectiveness in prostate cancer patients is still under question. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought for assessing the efficacy and safety of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with prostate cancer. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases were searched on Aguste 19, 2022. Thirty five studies met the eligibility criteria. The median overall survival (mOS) of all treatments was 14.1 months, with the longest and shortest mOS was seen among patients who received anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy and anti-PD-1/PD-L1+anti-CTLA-4 regimen at 24.9 and 9.2 months, respectively. Noteworthy, all types of adverse events had the lowest incidence in the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy group. Considering the ICI monotherapy regimens, we found that fatigue, diarrhea, and infusion reaction had the highest incidence rates. Future studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of novel combination therapies with ICIs are warranted.
| S-EPMC10644317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with advanced breast cancer usually have poor prognosis. Apatinib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and the reports regarding the efficacy and safety of apatinib monotherapy for advanced breast cancer in the current literature are controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to collect and pool efficacy and safety data of apatinib monotherapy for advanced breast cancer with the aim of providing up-to-date evidence to aid clinical practice.MethodsThis study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020190049). Three literature databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, were searched. For evaluating efficacy, the objective response rate and disease control rate were extracted or calculated. Safety was evaluated in terms of the proportions of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events. The pooled proportions of the outcomes and their 95% confidence interval were shown. The Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival and progression-free survival were pooled from the extracted data of the included studies. Furthermore, pooled medians for overall survival and progression-free survival were calculated. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsSix studies were included and deemed eligible for further quality evaluation and analysis. The pooled objective response rate and disease control rate were 20.4% and 71.6%, respectively. The pooled proportions of four hematologic adverse events ranged from 2.6% to 6.9%. The pooled proportions of hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, transaminase increased, and proteinuria ranged from 4.1% to 24.3%, and other non-hematologic adverse events were <1%. The pooled median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.00 and 10.43 months, respectively, in cases of advanced breast cancer treated with apatinib.ConclusionsThis study confirms the reliable efficacy of apatinib monotherapy for advanced breast cancer. However, non-hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events, especially hypertension, are more frequently observed during apatinib treatment than during treatment with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as sunitinib or sorafenib.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020190049.
| S-EPMC9376484 | biostudies-literature