| 1. |
- Bjartell, Anders, et al.
(författare)
-
Real-World Safety and Efficacy Outcomes with Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone or Prednisolone as the First- or Second-Line Treatment for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer : Data from the Prostate Cancer Registry
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Targeted Oncology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1776-2596 .- 1776-260X. ; 16:3, s. 357-367
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Despite standard-of-care androgen-deprivation therapy and an increasing number of treatment options, the mortality rate for prostate cancer remains high. Progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) necessitates additional treatments. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) prolongs survival in chemotherapy-naive and docetaxel-experienced patients. Objective: To evaluate the real-world safety and efficacy of AAP as first-line and second-line [post-docetaxel only (AAP-PD)] treatment in patients with mCRPC. Patients and methods: The Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) was a prospective, international, observational study of patients with mCRPC in routine clinical practice. Men aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed mCRPC were included. Baseline characteristics, safety (treatment-emergent adverse events, treatment-emergent severe adverse events), and efficacy [progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)] were analyzed. Results: At baseline, patients who received first-line AAP (n = 754) were generally older than patients who received AAP-PD (n = 354); median age was 76 years and 70 years, respectively. However, the rate of visceral metastasis was higher in the AAP-PD cohort than in the AAP cohort (17.7% vs. 9.6%, respectively). Demographics and disease characteristics of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease were similar to those of the overall registry population. Efficacy outcomes were similar for all patients, regardless of the line of AAP therapy. For first-line AAP and AAP-PD, respectively, the median PFS was 8.9 and 5.8 months for all patients and 9.1 and 6.0 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities; median OS was 27.1 and 23.4 months for all patients, and 27.4 and 23.1 months for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities. There were no unexpected adverse events in any patient subgroup. Conclusions: These real-world data complement the findings from randomized controlled trials, indicating that first- and second-line AAP is well tolerated and effective in patients with mCRPC, including those with underlying CV comorbidities. Trial Registration Number: NCT02236637, registered 8 September 2014.
|
|
| 2. |
- Digkas, Evangelos, et al.
(författare)
-
Randomized Versus Real-World Evidence on the Efficacy and Toxicity of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer or Melanoma : A Meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Targeted oncology. - : Springer. - 1776-2596 .- 1776-260X. ; 17:5, s. 507-515
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies provide results regarding the efficacy and toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients. The results from these two sources are considered complementary but whether they are comparable remains unknown.OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors between RCTs and RWE studies in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies, either RCTs or RWE studies, investigating the efficacy or toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors given for indications that were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) at the date of the last search. A meta-analysis was performed and the pooled estimates of objective response rates (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity and treatment discontinuation between RCTs and RWE studies were compared.RESULTS: In total, 43 RWE studies and 15 RCTs were eligible, with adequate data for pooled estimates for immunotherapy indications regarding NSCLC and melanoma. No statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in terms of pooled PFS, OS, or rates of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity between RCTs and RWE studies were observed. In some indications, a higher rate of response rates and lower rate of toxicity in favor of RWE was observed.CONCLUSION: In patients with melanoma or NSCLC, the clinical value of checkpoint inhibitors is evident in both RCTs and real-world settings. Some differences in response or toxicity rates in favor of RWE mainly reflects the inherent difficulties in evaluating these outcomes in RWE studies.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
