The risk of febrile neutropenia in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wailoo A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2658551 | biostudies-other | 2009 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the activity, efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel versus docetaxel plus cisplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.MethodsA literature search was performed in the EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Internet, Wan-fang databases. The trials that were found were then evaluated for eligibility. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software was used to perform the meta-analyses.ResultsNine clinical trials including 1257 patients were included. The docetaxel plus cisplatin regimens had higher overall response rates compared with the docetaxel regimen (RR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.80; P < 0.00001). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two regimens with respect to the one-year survival rate (RR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19; P = 0.62). Patients treated with the DP regimen were more likely to experience anemia, thrombocytopenia, nausea/vomiting, nephrotoxicity, hyponatremia, mucositis and treatment-related deaths compared with patients treated with docetaxel alone. No significant difference was observed between the two regimens with respect to the occurrence of neurotoxicity, diarrhea, fatigue, pneumonitis, neutropenia and leucopenia.ConclusionsThe docetaxel plus cisplatin combination regimen resulted in a high response rate and a high adverse effect rate compared with docetaxel monochemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.
| S-EPMC5593648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to determine whether docetaxel increases the risk of severe infections in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. A thorough literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed (up to February 28, 2017) without any language restrictions. In addition, we searched the www.clinicaltrials.gov website and checked each reference listed in the included studies, relevant reviews and guidelines. We also included randomized controlled trials that reported severe infections in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who were administered docetaxel. A meta- analysis was conducted using relative risk and random effects models in Stata 14.0 software. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed using Stata 14.0 software. We identified 354 records from the initial search, and this systematic review ultimately included 43 trials with 12,447 participants. The results of our meta- analysis showed that docetaxel increased the risk of severe infections [relative risk: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.51-2.93, I2 = 69.6%, P = 0.000]. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the type of intervention was a major source of heterogeneity. Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that docetaxel is associated with the risk of severe infections.
| S-EPMC6142895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFebrile neutropenia (FN) is a common complication to chemotherapy, associated with increased short-term morbidity and mortality. However, the long-term outcomes after FN are poorly elucidated. We examined the long-term risk of infection and mortality rates in cancer patients with and without FN.MethodsPatients aged >16 years treated with firstline chemotherapy were followed from 180 days after initiating chemotherapy until first infection, a new treatment with chemotherapy, death, or end of follow-up. Risk factors for infections were analyzed by competing risks regression, with death or another treatment with chemotherapy as competing events. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of infection and death were analyzed using Poisson regression. In analyses of mortality, infection was included as a time-updated variable.ResultsWe included 7190 patients with a median follow-up (interquartile range) of 0.58 (0.20-1.71) year. A total of 1370 patients had an infection during follow-up. The aIRRs of infection were 1.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56-2.22) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.54-3.11) for patients with 1 or >1 episode of FN compared with those without FN. Mortality rate ratios were 7.52 (95% CI, 6.67-8.48) <1 month after, 4.24 (95% CI, 3.80-4.75) 1-3 months after, 2.33 (95% CI, 1.63-3.35) 3-6 months after, and 1.09 (95% CI, 0.93-1.29) >6 months after an infection, compared with the time before infection.ConclusionsFN during chemotherapy is associated with a long-term increased risk of infection. Mortality rates are substantially increased for 6 months following an infection.
| S-EPMC6201153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 2011 4th European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL4) guidelines recommend antibiotics de-escalation/discontinuation in selected febrile neutropenia (FN) patients. We aimed to assess the impact of an antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program based on these guidelines on antibiotics use and clinical outcomes in high-risk FN patients.MethodsWe conducted an observational study in the hematology department of Cochin University Hospital in Paris, France. An ECIL4-based antibiotics de-escalation and discontinuation strategy was implemented jointly by the hematologists and the AMS team. The pre-intervention (January-October 2018) and post-intervention (January-October 2019) periods were compared. We retrospectively collected clinical and microbiological data. We compiled antibiotics consumptions via hospital pharmacy data and standardized them by calculating defined daily doses per 1000 patient-days. We analyzed the two-monthly antibiotic consumption using an interrupted time series method and built a composite endpoint for clinical outcomes based on transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and/or hospital death.ResultsOverall, 273 hospital stays (164 patients) in the pre-intervention and 217 (148 patients) in the post-intervention periods were analyzed. Patients were mainly hospitalized for intensive chemotherapy for acute leukemia or autologous stem-cell transplant for myeloma. Patients were slightly younger in the pre-intervention compared to the post-intervention period (median age 60.4 vs 65.2 years, p = 0.049), but otherwise comparable. After implementation of the AMS program, glycopeptide and carbapenem use decreased by 85% (p = 0.03) and 72% (p = 0.04), respectively. After adjustment on confounders, the risk of transfer to the ICU/death decreased significantly after implementation of the AMS program (post-intervention period: odds-ratio = 0.29, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.15-0.53, p < 0.001).ConclusionImplementation of a multidisciplinary AMS program for high-risk neutropenic patients was associated with lower carbapenem and glycopeptide use and improved clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC8961889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBavituximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets phosphatidylserine in the presence of β2 glycoprotein 1 (β2GP1) to exert an antitumor immune response. This phase III trial determined the efficacy of bavituximab combined with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsKey eligibility criteria included advanced non-squamous NSCLC with disease progression after treatment with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, evidence of disease control after at least two cycles of first-line therapy, presence of measurable disease, ECOG performance status 0 or 1, adequate bone marrow and organ function, and no recent history of clinically significant bleeding. Eligible patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive up to six 21-day cycles of docetaxel plus either weekly bavituximab 3 mg/kg or placebo until progression or toxicity. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 597 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 10.5 months in the docetaxel + bavituximab arm and was 10.9 months in the docetaxel + placebo arm (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.88-1.29; P = 0.533). There was no difference in progression-free survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.82-1.22; P = 0.990). Toxicities were manageable and similar between arms. In subset analysis, among patients with high baseline serum β2GP1 levels ≥200 µg/ml, a nonsignificant OS trend favored the bavituximab arm (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.63-1.06; P = 0.134). Among patients who received post-study immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, OS favored the bavituximab arm (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.81; P = 0.006).ConclusionsThe combination of bavituximab plus docetaxel is not superior to docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. The addition of bavituximab to docetaxel does not meaningfully increase toxicity. The potential benefit of bavituximab observed in patients with high β2GP1 levels and in patients subsequently treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors requires further investigation.Clinical trial numberNCT01999673.
| S-EPMC6887726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEvidence regarding real-world effectiveness of therapies for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors are resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy is lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab (programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitor) and nivolumab (programmed cell death 1 inhibitor) and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study compared patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC who initiated atezolizumab, docetaxel, or nivolumab and who had previously been exposed to platinum-based chemotherapy using nationally representative real-world data from more than 280 US cancer clinics. Patients were followed-up from May 2011 to March 2020. Data analysis was performed between April and June 2021. Comparisons of interest were between atezolizumab vs docetaxel and atezolizumab vs nivolumab.ExposuresInitiation of atezolizumab, nivolumab, or docetaxel monotherapy.Main outcome and measuresThe main outcome was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 3336 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [9.49] years; 1820 [54.6%] men and 1516 [45.4%] women) were assessed in the main analysis, including 206 patients receiving atezolizumab, 500 receiving docetaxel, and 2630 receiving nivolumab. Patients receiving atezolizumab were older than those treated with docetaxel (mean age [SD], 68.3 [9.4] years vs 65.6 [9.5] years), and were more likely to have been treated in an academic setting (39 patients [18.9%]) than those receiving docetaxel (49 patients [9.8%]) and nivolumab (128 patients [4.9%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer OS compared with docetaxel (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97). No significant difference in OS was observed between atezolizumab and nivolumab (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). These findings were consistent across all patient subgroups tested, and robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in real-world data (eg, the tipping point for loss of a significantly beneficial effect for atezolizumab vs docetaxel was achieved if patients in the docetaxel group missing baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had a mean performance status of 1.43 higher than expected).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study, atezolizumab was superior to docetaxel and matched nivolumab in prolonging OS in a real-world cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC8590169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Tislelizumab, a new high-affinity programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, significantly prolonged the overall survival in pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus docetaxel for this population in China. Methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate advanced NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were based on a global phase 3 clinical trial (RATIONALE 303). Utilities were mainly extracted from previously published resources. Costs were calculated from the Chinese healthcare system's perspective, and only direct medical costs were covered. The main outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried to test the uncertainty of the modeling results. In addition, several scenarios including tislelizumab price before negotiation, different docetaxel price calculation, 50-year time horizon, and alternative utility values were assessed. Results: The model predicted an average gain of 0.62 LYs and 0.51 QALY for tislelizumab vs. docetaxel, at the additional cost of $9,219. The resulting ICER was $15,033.92/LY and $18,122.04/QALY, both below the cost-effective threshold (CET) of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results are robust over a plausible range for majority of inputs. Utility of progression-free survival (PFS), followed by the price of tislelizumab, had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probability of being cost-effective for tislelizumab was 96.79% at the CET we set. Conclusion: Tislelizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered a cost-effective option at current price compared with docetaxel for pretreated advanced NSCLC in China.
| S-EPMC9124929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:The economic assessment of immuno-oncology agents in Chinese patients is limited despite a need for new therapies. Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China, and it significantly prolongs overall survival. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab, it is urgent to assess its value in China in terms of both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line setting for NSCLC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS:A Markov model consisting of three health states, was designed to evaluate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients. Clinical data was derived from the CheckMate 078 phase III clinical trial, which included 504 patients predominantly from China. Parametric survival models to fit and extrapolate survival data were chosen based on clinical rationality, visual fit and statistical goodness-of-fit. Lifetime costs and health outcomes were calculated, and US$28,899 and $63,564 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were selected as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values for general regions and affluent regions, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the model. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS:In base case analysis, Nivolumab yielded an additional 0.24 QALYs, at a cost of $93,307 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the results to be most sensitive to the price of nivolumab per kg (mean $60.00; range $26.00-$60.00) and the mean patient weight (65 kg, range 52-78 kg). Utility values in progression-free survival state (mean 0.804; range 0.643-0.965) and overall survival hazard ratio (0.68; 97.7% CI 0.52-0.90) had moderate impact on the model results. Subgroup analyses indicated that nivolumab was most cost-effective for patients who were 65 years of age or older ($85,171/QALY), followed by female patients ($85,273/QALY) and patients with tumor PD-L1 expression at least 1% ($90,309/QALY). CONCLUSIONS:Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC in China. Ensuring that nivolumab is included in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) may be a valid mean of meeting extensive treatment demands in China.
| S-EPMC6989620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies have been proved one of the most promising treatments against non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, whether anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies can provide added benefits for pretreated patients with advanced NSCLC and which patients are most likely to benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy remain controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety between anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies and docetaxel in previously treated, advanced NSCLC. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched for eligible studies. Five studies with a total of 3,025 patients were included. Our results showed that, for all patients, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy prolonged overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63-0.75) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94). For patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1%, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy had higher objective response rates. In subgroup analysis according to the tumor PD-L1 expression level, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy was associated with longer OS and PFS in patients with high PD-L1 expression (≥1%, ≥5%, ≥10% and ≥50%), but not in those with low expressions. In subgroup analysis of patients' characteristics, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies showed OS benefits across most prespecified subgroups, except for patients with EGFR mutation-positive and never smokers. For patients with EGFR mutation, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy was an unfavorable factor of PFS. The grade 3 or 4 adverse events rates of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment were significantly lower than that of docetaxel. Our results suggest that anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy significantly improves survival compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced NSCLC, and has a distinct safety profile from chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC5800935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIn pandemic conditions, patients with febrile neutropenia are also at risk of COVID-19. Aim of this systematic review is to evaluate COVID-19 cases presented with febrile neutropenia and provide information regarding incidence, clinical course and prognosis.MethodsWe systematically searched on COVID-19 and febrile neutropenia cases in PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science.ResultsA total of 19 febrile neutropenic patients were analyzed. A male predominance was noted. Eleven cases had hematological malignancies. Fourteen of the cases were previously received chemotherapy. Five patients had severe neutropenia: 3 had hematologic cancer and none died. 17 (89.5%) cases have pulmonary involvement and seven of them had severe disease with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Three cases with ARDS were died. 12 of them received G-CSF for treatment. Five cases were developed respiratory failure after G-CSF use. Overall mortality was 15.8%, while death was not observed in patients without malignancy and solid organ tumors, the mortality rate was 27% in cases with hematological malignancies.ConclusionIn ongoing pandemic, febrile neutropenic patients should be precisely evaluated for COVID-19 disease. It should be remembered that there may not be typical signs and symptoms and laboratory findings of COVID-19 disease because of the immunosuppression.
| S-EPMC8901240 | biostudies-literature