Comparison of Nedaplatin- and Cisplatin-Based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score Analysis

Metal-based approaches to fight cervical cancer

Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the leading causes of death among women worldwide. The current treatments for this cancer consist of invasive methods such as chemotherapeutic drugs, radiation, immunotherapy and surgery, which could lead to severe side effects and hinder the patient's life quality. Although metal-based therapies, including cisplatin and ruthenium-based compounds, offer promising alternatives, they lack specificity and harm healthy cells. Combining metal nanoparticles with standard approaches has demonstrated remarkable efficacy and safety in the fight against CC. Overall, this review is intended to show the latest advancements and insights into metal-based strategies, creating a promising path for more effective and safer treatments in the battle against CC.

Propensity score matching analysis to comparing cisplatin versus nedaplatin based doublet agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of cisplatin and nedaplatin in three-week doublet agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). We retrospectively enrolled patients with stage IIB-IIIC2 cervical cancer who received doublet agent CCRT from January 2015 to December 2020. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox proportional hazards model. Propensity score (PS) matching analysis was used to compare cisplatin plus docetaxel group and nedaplatin plus docetaxel group. A total of 295 patients were included. The 5-year overall survival rate (OS) and progression free survival rate (PFS) were 82.5% and 80.4%, respectively. After PS matching, there were 83 patients each in the nedaplatin group and cisplatin group. There were no significant differences in objective response rates (97.6% and 98.8%, p = 0.212), 5-year OS rate (96.5 vs 69.8, p = 0.066), PFS rate (90.8 vs 72.4, p = 0.166), and toxicity between the two groups. Doublet agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy is feasible, safe, and shows high efficacy in LACC patients. Here, cisplatin group has a trend of better prognosis, suggesting that cisplatin is preferred and nedaplatin can be considered for replacement when cisplatin is intolerant.

Docetaxel Plus Nedaplatin or Carboplatin as Second-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Real-World Practice: A Single-Center Experience

Although single-drug chemotherapy regimens were used as second-line chemotherapy for advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) patients, there are still no standard guidelines for second-line chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel combined with nedaplatin or carboplatin in the second-line treatment of advanced LSCC patients. One hundred and ninety-six LSCC patients receiving docetaxel plus nedaplatin (DN, n = 96) or carboplatin (DC, n = 100) were retrospectively collected until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed in the two groups. The ORR was 18.8% versus 16.0%, and the DCR was 39.6% versus 34.0% in DN group and DC group (P > .05 and P > .05), respectively. The PFS was 5.3 versus 3.8 months, and the OS was 8.5 and 6.7 months in DN group and DC group (P = .013 and P = .404), respectively. The rate of digestive reaction and hepatotoxicity was similar in DN and DC groups, whereas more patients in DC group than in DN group suffered from leucopenia (P < .05). Docetaxel combined with nedaplatin is an effective regimen for advanced LSCC patients. Compared with a similar regimen with carboplatin, the response rate was similar; however, nedaplatin regimen shows some superiority as regards survival and some treatment side effect.

A phase III randomized, controlled trial of nedaplatin versus cisplatin concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the non-inferiority of nedaplatin-based and cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer patients.

DESIGN

Patients aged 28-82 years with pathologically diagnosed cervical cancer (stage IB-IVA) were randomly chosen for the study. Patients in both the cisplatin and nedaplatin groups received radiotherapy and weekly intravenous nedaplatin 30 mg/m² or cisplatin 40 mg/m² concurrently.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty patients who received treatment between 10 May 2018 and 31 August 2020 were included. The 3-year overall survival in the nedaplatin group (median 30.5 months) was not significantly different from that in the cisplatin group (28.5 months; hazard ratio 0.131, 95% confidence interval 0.016-1.068; P = 0.058). No significant differences in hematological toxicity were observed between the two groups. Vomiting (40 versus 61), nausea (44 versus 67), and anorexia (52 versus 71) were more common in the cisplatin group whereas effects on liver function, including total bilirubin (7 versus 3), alanine aminotransferase (7 versus 2), and aspartate aminotransferase (6 versus 2), were more common in the nedaplatin group. Four patients in the cisplatin group had grade I creatinine elevation, whereas none in the nedaplatin group had abnormal creatinine levels. Two patients in the nedaplatin group discontinued concurrent chemotherapy because of infusion, and one patient in the cisplatin group discontinued treatment because of infusion-induced dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that nedaplatin has a milder gastrointestinal reaction but a more significant effect on liver function than cisplatin. In patients with cervical cancer, nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy could serve as an alternative treatment to cisplatin.

Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy With Nedaplatin Versus Cisplatin in Patients With Stage IIB-IVA Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial

Background

In this trial, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of radiotherapy with nedaplatin or cisplatin in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, non-inferiority, phase III, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA cervical carcinoma were randomly assigned to receive either nedaplatin or cisplatin for two cycles concurrently with radiotherapy. We reported the therapy-associated harms and survival. The study was registered with chictr.org.cn, number ChiCTR1800020527.

Results

We randomly assigned 68 patients to nedaplatin-based or cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Study treatment was stopped early after a data analysis found a higher number of patients suffered severe hematologic harms in the nedaplatin group than in the cisplatin group. Patients in the nedaplatin group had a significantly higher frequency of grade 3-4 neutropenia (19·4% vs. 13%; P < 0·001), severe thrombocytopenia (16·1% vs. 4·3%), and grade 1-2 anemia (51·6% vs. 43·5%) than patients in the cisplatin group. The 1-year PFS and OS in the nedaplatin and cisplatin groups were similar.

Conclusion

Our findings showed that nedaplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy expressed remarkably higher severe hematologic harms which were mortal. Though the results were negative, the experiences and lessons we learned from it were important.

Comparison of survival, acute toxicities, and dose-volume parameters between intensity-modulated radiotherapy with or without internal target volume delineation method and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in cervical cancer patients: A retrospective and propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate whether the use of the internal target volume (ITV) delineation method improves the performance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in terms of survival, acute toxicities, and dose-volume parameters.

METHODS

A total number of 477 cervical cancer patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) from January 2012 to December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into four groups: the non-ITV (N-ITV) + IMRT, ITV + IMRT, N-ITV + 3DCRT, and ITV + 3DCRT groups, with 76, 41, 327, and 33 patients, respectively. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank tests, and acute toxicity analysis was performed with the chi-squared test and the binary logistic regression test. Using the propensity score matching (PSM) method, 92 patients were matched among the four groups, and their dose-volume parameters were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis method.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 49 months (1-119) for overall survival (OS). The 5-year OS rate was 66.4%. The ITV delineation method was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR [95% CI]: 0.52 [0.27, 0.98], p = 0.044) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.36, 0.99], p = 0.045). The ITV + IMRT group had the lowest incidence rate (22%) and the N-ITV + IMRT group had the highest incidence rate of grade ≥3 hematological toxicity (HT) (46.1%) among the four groups. The pelvic bone marrow relative V10, V20, and V30 in the N-ITV + IMRT group was higher than those in the ITV + IMRT and N-ITV + 3DCRT groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ITV for IMRT treatment planning was associated with improved overall survival and progression-free survival, with lower HT rate.

Pelvic bone marrow sparing radiotherapy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer has significant hematologic toxicities (HT), leading to treatment disruption and affecting patient prognosis. We performed the meta-analysis to assess the clinical benefit of pelvic (active) bone marrow (BM) sparing radiotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic methodological search of six primary electronic databases was performed. This systematic review mainly assessed the differences in pelvic (active) BM dose-volume parameters (DVP), hematologic toxicity of pelvic (active) BM sparing versus non-sparing radiotherapy plans. The secondary objective was to explore optimal dose limitation regimens and evaluate other radiation-induced toxicities (gastrointestinal and urological toxicity (GT/UT)). Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Final 65 publications that met inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis and descriptive tables. Meta-analysis of mean pelvic BM-DVP differences showed that pelvic BM-V_10,20,40,50 (Vx: volume of BM receiving ≥ X Gy) were reduced by -4.6% [95% CI: -6.6, -2.6], -10.9% [-13.2, -8.6], -7.3% [-9.5, -5.2] and -3.4% [-4.3, -2.4] in pelvic BM-sparing plans. Pelvic BM sparing radiotherapy decreased G2/3+ HT [odds ratio (OR) 0.31, (0.23, 0.41)/0.42, (0.28, 0.63)], without increasing GT [G2/3+: OR 0.76, (0.51, 1.14)/0.90, (0.47, 1.74)] and UT [G2/3+: OR 0.91, (0.57, 1.46)/0.54, (0.25, 1.17)]. Pelvic active BM sparing radiotherapy also reduced HT [G2/3+ HT: OR 0.42, (0.23, 0.77)/0.34, (0.16, 0.72)]. There were significant variations between publications in dose restriction regimens.

CONCLUSION

The pelvic BM protection radiotherapy can decrease BM dose and HT. Moreover, it does not increase GT and UT. The clinical benefit of pelvic active BM protection needs to be further validated in randomized controlled trials.

A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Analysis of Oncologic Outcomes for Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Undergoing Platinum-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

Objective:

To evaluated the oncologic outcomes associated with platinum-based adjuvant chemotherapy following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in the management of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC).

Methods:

A total of 695 patients with FIGO stage IB2, IIA2, IIB-IVA LACC treated at 6 medical facilities were enrolled and divided into 2 groups: 478 were assigned to CCRT alone (CCRT group) and 217 to adjuvant chemotherapy after CCRT (CCRT-ACT group). The treatment outcomes were retrospectively compared and reported after the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results:

With a median follow-up of 56.4 months, no statistically significant differences were found in overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and distance metastasis-free survival (DMFS) between 2 groups. In CCRT-ACT group, patients with lymph nodes involvement or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) had significantly longer DMFS, but no significant benefit in survival outcomes were observed with more than 2 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Moreover, patients with a high level of CA125 (>20.5U/mL) or SCC-Ag (>22.8μg/L) had a relatively better DFS or PFS, and grade 3-4 acute hematological toxicity, late urinary and lower gastrointestinal complications and diarrhea symptom were more frequent in CCRT-ACT group.

Conclusions:

Adjuvant chemotherapy after CCRT has a potential role in further improving disease control for LACC patients with lymph nodal-metastasis or SCC with a high level of CA125 or SCC-Ag. Due to increased treatment-related complications and diarrhea symptom affecting the quality of life, post-CCRT adjuvant chemotherapy with excessive cycles was not be considered as the most appropriate choice in general.