pazopanib and Uterine-Cervical-Neoplasms

Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth leading cause of death from cancer in women. Historically, women with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer have had limited treatment options. New anti-angiogenesis therapies, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting agents, offer an alternative strategy to conventional chemotherapy; they act by inhibiting the growth of new blood vessels, thereby restricting tumour growth by blocking the blood supply.. To assess the benefits and harms of VEGF targeting agents in the management of persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.. We performed searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, online registers of clinical trials, and abstracts of scientific meetings up until 27 May 2020.. We examined randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of VEGF targeting agents alone or in combination with conventional chemotherapy or other VEGF targeting agents.. Three review authors independently screened the results of search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to the standard methods expected by Cochrane. The certainty of evidence was assessed via the GRADE approach.. A total of 1634 records were identified. From these, we identified four studies with a total of 808 participants for inclusion. We also identified two studies that were awaiting classification and nine ongoing studies. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy Treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy may result in lower risk of death compared to chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.95; 1 study, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there are probably more specific adverse events when compared to chemotherapy alone, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (risk ratio (RR) 18.00, 95% CI 2.42 to 133.67; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); serious thromboembolic events (RR 4.5, 95% CI 1.55 to 13.08; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and hypertension (RR 13.75, 95% CI 5.07 to 37.29; 1 study, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be a higher incidence of serious haemorrhage (RR 5.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 22.56; 1 study, 440 participants; low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of serious adverse events is probably higher (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.79; 1 study, 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 295,164 per quality-adjusted life-year (1 study, 452 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cediranib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy Treatment with cediranib plus chemotherapy may or may not result in similar risk of death when compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.65; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.57; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious haemorrhage (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 109.49; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious thromboembolic events (RR 3.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 80.59; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and serious hypertension (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.62; 1 study, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, there may or may not be a similar incidence of serious adverse events compared to chemotherapy alone (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.78; 1 study, 67 participants; low-certainty evidence). Apatinib plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy versus chemot. We found low-certainty evidence in favour of the use of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. However, bevacizumab probably increases specific adverse events (gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae, thromboembolic events, hypertension) and serious adverse events. We found low-certainty evidence that does not support the use of cediranib plus chemotherapy, apatinib plus chemotherapy, apatinib plus chemotherapy/brachytherapy, or pazopanib monotherapy. We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that pazopanib plus lapatinib worsens outcomes. The VEGF inhibitors apatinib and pazopanib may increase the probability of hypertension events.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Bevacizumab; Bias; Brachytherapy; Combined Modality Therapy; Confidence Intervals; Female; Gastric Fistula; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Hypertension; Indazoles; Intestinal Fistula; Intestinal Perforation; Lapatinib; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sulfonamides; Thromboembolism; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Young Adult

Pazopanib and lapatinib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors that target vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/neu), respectively. In cervical cancer, EGFR and HER2/neu overexpression and high microvascular density correlate with survival.. Patients with measurable stage IVB persistent/recurrent cervical carcinoma not amenable to curative therapy and at least one prior regimen in the metastatic setting were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1 to pazopanib at 800 mg once daily, lapatinib at 1,500 mg once daily, or lapatinib plus pazopanib combination therapy (lapatinib at 1,000 mg plus pazopanib at 400 mg once daily or lapatinib at 1,500 mg plus pazopanib at 800 mg once daily). Therapy continued until progression or withdrawal because of adverse events (AEs). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary end points were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and safety. The futility boundary was crossed at the planned interim analysis for combination therapy compared with lapatinib therapy, and the combination was discontinued.. Of 230 patients enrolled, 152 were randomly assigned to the monotherapy arms: pazopanib (n = 74) or lapatinib (n = 78). Most patients (62%) had recurrent cancer. Pazopanib improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 90% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; P = .013) and OS (HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.46 to 0.99; P = .045). Median OS was 50.7 weeks and 39.1 weeks and RRs were 9% and 5% for pazopanib and lapatinib, respectively. The only grade 3 AE > 10% was diarrhea (11% pazopanib and 13% lapatinib). Grade 4 AEs were 9% (lapatinib) and 12% (pazopanib).. This study confirms the activity of antiangiogenesis agents in advanced and recurrent cervical cancer and demonstrates the benefit of pazopanib based on the prolonged PFS and favorable toxicity profile.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Delivery Systems; Female; Humans; Indazoles; Lapatinib; Middle Aged; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pyrimidines; Quinazolines; Recurrence; Retreatment; Sulfonamides; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms