Abrogation of the negative influence of opioids on IL-2 immunotherapy of renal cell cancer by melatonin

Drawbacks of immune checkpoint inhibition and rigorous management for immune-related adverse events along with a mathematical model to assess therapy success and optimum therapy duration and a strategy against tumor plasticity

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibition therapy (ICIT) is an emerging field in oncology especially opening new horizons to chemotherapy refractory patients. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and undesired response patterns such as progression after the initial good response in a subset of patients pose a major challenge and drawback to ICIT. This paper provides deep insight into ICIT related bottlenecks and corresponding effective management and combat strategies for very complex complications.

METHODS

The relevant literatures from PubMed have been reviewed. Based on obtained information, rigorous and exhaustive analyses have been made to present novel methods and strategies against ICIT drawbacks and bottlenecks.

RESULTS

The results show that baseline biomarker tests are very crucial to identify suitable candidates for ICIT and frequent assessments throughout ICIT help to recognize possible irAEs at early stages. Equally important are the necessity for mathematical definitions for the ICIT success rate and optimum duration, and the development of combat mechanisms against loss of sensitivity within the tumor microenvironment (TME).

CONCLUSION

Rigorous management approaches are presented for mostly observed irAEs. Furthermore, for the first time in the literature, a non-linear mathematical model is invented to measure the ICIT success rate and to decide about the optimum ICIT duration. Finally, a strategy against tumor plasticity is introduced.

Effect of melatonin on quality of life and symptoms in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study systematically reviewed the effect of melatonin (MLT) on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms among patients with cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, China Biology Medicine (CBM), ProQuest and Open Grey were searched from inception to November 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of MLT on QoL, sleep quality, fatigue, depression, pain, stomatitis rate and stomatitis severity in adult patients with cancer, without language restrictions. Studies that reported the effects of MLT along with other interventions and had incomplete or absent outcome data were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data, and another two reviewers assessed the risk of bias. The risk of bias for each eligible study was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool. The mean difference or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was used in the computation of continuous variables to synthesise data. The relative risk was used for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (I² statistic).

RESULTS

A total of 19 qualified studies that included 2101 patients with cancer (MLT: 1078, control: 1023) were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that MLT had no significant effect on QoL (SMD=-0.01, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.11), p=0.83), sleep quality (SMD=-0.18, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.26), p=0.42), fatigue (SMD=-0.34, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.06), p=0.10), pain (SMD=-0.34, 95% CI (-0.7 to 0.02), p=0.06) or stomatitis severity (RR=0.78, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.30), p=0.35). MLT reduced stomatitis rate among patients with cancer (RR=0.47, 95% CI (0.26 to 0.88), p=0.02), except those with head and neck cancer (RR=1.09, 95% CI (0.92 to 1.29), p=0.35). MLT eased depression in patients who received administration for more than 14 days (SMD=-0.14, 95% CI (-0.27 to -0.01), p=0.03) and those who underwent surgery (SMD=-0.17, 95% CI (-0.32 to -0.03), p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that MLT did not improve the QoL, sleep quality, fatigue, pain or stomatitis severity among patients with cancer. It had a limited effect on decreasing the stomatitis rate and easing depression. Different treatments, durations and cancer types were the main sources of heterogeneity. Further large-scale RCTs are urgently needed. In addition, the effects of different combinations of MLT dosage and duration, administration types and joint measures are worthy of further study.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021292855.

Melatonin inhibits lipid accumulation to repress prostate cancer progression by mediating the epigenetic modification of CES1

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the main clinical treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). However, PCa eventually progresses to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), largely because of androgen receptor variation and increased intratumoral androgen synthesis. Several studies have reported that one abnormal lipid accumulation is significantly related to the development of PCa. Melatonin (MLT) is a functionally pleiotropic indoleamine molecule and a key regulator of energy metabolism. The aim of our study is finding the links between CRPC and MLT and providing the basis for MLT treatment for CRPC.

METHODS

We used animal CRPC models with a circadian rhythm disorder, and PCa cell lines to assess the role of melatonin in PCa.

RESULTS

We demonstrated that MLT treatment inhibited tumor growth and reversed enzalutamide resistance in animal CRPC models with a circadian rhythm disorder. A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that MLT is positively associated with an increased risk of developing advanced PCa. Restoration of carboxylesterase 1 (CES1) expression by MLT treatment significantly reduced lipid droplet (LD) accumulation, thereby inducing apoptosis by increasing endoplasmic reticulum stress, reducing de novo intratumoral androgen synthesis, repressing CRPC progression and reversing the resistance to new endocrine therapy. Mechanistic investigations demonstrated that MLT regulates the epigenetic modification of CES1. Ces1-knockout (Ces-/- ) mice verified the important role of endogenous Ces1 in PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide novel preclinical and clinical information about the role of melatonin in advanced PCa and characterize the importance of enzalutamide combined with MLT administration as a therapy for advanced PCa.

Melatonin as a potential inhibitor of kidney cancer: A survey of the molecular processes

Studies have shown that despite the decreasing mortality rates of kidney cancer patients, its incidence is increasing. Therefore, a comprehensive re-evaluation of treatment options is necessary to provide appropriate treatments for the increasing number of patients. Moreover, the side effects caused by surgery, which is the main treatment of this disease, may lead to higher morbidity rates. Consequently, new safer approaches must be examined and considered. Major advancements have been made in the field of targeted agents as well as treatments based on immunotherapy since renal cell carcinoma (RCC) does not respond well to chemotherapy. While the therapeutic options for this cancer are increasing, the resulting complexity of selecting the best strategy for treating the patients is daunting. Moreover, each therapeutic option must be evaluated concerning toxicity, cost, and clinical advantages. Several characteristics, which are beneficial for cancer therapies have been attributed to melatonin. For decades, investigations have explored the application of melatonin in the treatment of cancer; insufficient attention has been paid to this molecule at the clinical level. Melatonin plays a role in cancer therapy due to its anti-tumor effects as well as by enhancing the efficacy of other drugs as an adjuvant. In this review, we discuss different roles of melatonin in the treatment of kidney cancer. The studies concerned with the applications of melatonin as an adjuvant in the immunotherapy of patients with kidney cancer are summarized. Also, we highlight the apoptotic and anti-angiogenic effects of melatonin on renal cancer cells which are mediated by different molecules (e.g., HIF-1 and VEGF, ADAMTS1, and MMP-9) and signaling pathways (e.g., P56, P52, and JNK). Furthermore, we take a look into available data on melatonin's ability to reduce the toxicities caused by kidney carcinogens, including ochratoxin A, potassium bromate, and Fe-NTA.

Melatonin and urological cancers: a new therapeutic approach

Urological cancers are responsible for thousands of cancer-related deaths around the world. Despite all developments in therapeutic approaches for cancer therapy, the absence of efficient treatments is a critical and vital problematic issue for physicians and researchers. Furthermore, routine medical therapies contribute to several undesirable adverse events for patients, reducing life quality and survival time. Therefore, many attempts are needed to explore potent alternative or complementary treatments for great outcomes. Melatonin has multiple beneficial potential effects, including anticancer properties. Melatonin in combination with chemoradiation therapy or even alone could suppress urological cancers through affecting essential cellular pathways. This review discusses current evidence reporting the beneficial effect of melatonin in urological malignancies, including prostate cancer, bladder cancer, and renal cancer.

Role of Melatonin in the Regulation of Pain

Melatonin is a pleiotropic hormone synthesized and secreted mainly by the pineal gland in vertebrates. Melatonin is an endogenous regulator of circadian and seasonal rhythms. Melatonin is involved in many physiological and pathophysiological processes demonstrating antioxidant, antineoplastic, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory properties. Accumulating evidence has revealed that melatonin plays an important role in pain modulation through multiple mechanisms. In this review, we examine recent evidence for melatonin on pain regulation in various animal models and patients with pain syndromes, and the potential cellular mechanisms.

Melatonin ameliorates the drug induced nephrotoxicity: Molecular insights

BACKGROUND

Drug-induced nephrotoxicity is a frequent adverse event that can lead to acute or chronic kidney disease and increase the healthcare expenditure. It has high morbidity and mortality incidence in 40-70% of renal injuries and accounts for 66% cases of renal failure in elderly population.

OBJECTIVE

Amelioration of drug-induced nephrotoxicity has been long soughed to improve the effectiveness of therapeutic drugs. This study was conducted to review the melatonin potential to prevent the pathogenesis of nephrotoxicity induced by important nephrotoxic drugs.

METHODS

We analyzed the relevant studies indexed in Pubmed, Medline, Scielo and Web of science to explain the molecular improvements following melatonin co-administration with special attention to oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis as key players of drug-induced nephrotoxicity.

RESULTS

A robust consensus among researchers of these studies suggested that melatonin efficiently eradicate the chain reaction of free radical production and induced the endogenous antioxidant enzymes which attenuate the lipid peroxidation of cellular membranes and subcellular oxidative stress in drug-induced nephrotoxicity. This agreement was further supported by the melatonin role in disintegration of inflammatory process through inhibition of principle pro-inflammatory or apoptotic cytokines such as TNF-α and NF-κB. These studies highlighted that alleviation of drug-induced renal toxicity is a function of melatonin potential to down regulate the cellular inflammatory and oxidative injury process and to stimulate the cellular repair or defensive mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

The comprehensive nephroprotection and safer profile suggests the melatonin to be a useful adjunct to improve the safety of nephrotoxic drugs.

Melatonin: A new inhibitor agent for cervical cancer treatment

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers between women and is known as the third leading cause of female cancer related deaths annually. Its detection in early stages allows it to be a preventable and generally treatable disease. Increasing evidence revealed, a variety of internal and external factors are associated with initiation and progression of cervical cancer pathogenesis. Human papilloma virus infection is found as a major cause of cervical cancer. Other molecular and biochemical alterations as well as genetic and epigenetic changes are related cervical cancer progression. Current treatment options often have severe side effects and toxicities thus, new adjuvant agents having synergistic effects and ability to decrease different side effects and toxicities are needed. Melatonin is an indolamine compound secreted from the pineal gland which shows wide range anticancer activities. A large amount of studies indicated inhibitory effects of melatonin against various types of cancers. In addition, experimental evidence reports inhibitory effects of melatonin as an adjuvant therapy on cervical cancer by targeting a sequence of different molecular mechanisms. Herein, for first time, we summarized anticervical cancer effects of melatonin and its underlying molecular mechanisms.

Therapeutic strategies of melatonin in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Melatonin (MLT), a kind of neuroendocrine active substance, has been reported to function in the treatment of tumors. However, there remain controversies about the curative effect of MLT in tumors in clinical studies. This study investigates the efficacy of MLT on tumor therapeutic strategies by meta-analysis.

Methods

After searching several main literature databases, a total of 5,057 articles were obtained and screened by inclusion and exclusion criteria. The tumor remission rate, overall survival rate, and incidence of side effects were recorded and analyzed in the included study patients. Group analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to examine the sources of heterogeneity in the pooled studies.

Results

The tumor remission rate in the MLT group was significantly higher than that in the control group (relative risk [RR] =2.25; 95% CI, 1.86–2.71; P<0.00001; I²=9%). Likewise, the MLT group had an overall survival rate of 28.24% (n=294/1,041), which was greatly increased compared with the control group (RR =2.07; 95% CI, 1.55–2.76; P<0.00001; I²=55%). And, MLT could significantly enhance the overall survival rate in non-small-cell lung cancer patients (RR =2.13; 95% CI, 1.41–3.24; P=0.0004; I²=0%) and various solid tumor patients (RR =2.31; 95% CI, 1.78–2.99; P<0.00001; I²=0%). It was further proved that MLT could effectively reduce the incidence of neurotoxicity (RR =0.30, 95% CI, 0.19–0.45; P<0.00001), thrombocytopenia (RR =0.23; 95% CI, 0.16–0.33; P<0.00001), and asthenia (RR =0.43, 95% CI, 0.38–0.49; P<0.00001) during chemotherapy.

Conclusion

MLT exerts positive influence in tumor therapeutic strategies, including improving tumor remission rate and overall survival rate, while reducing the incidence of chemotherapy side effects. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are urgently required to verify therapeutic effects of MLT in tumors by various clinical research centers.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with melatonin for targeting human cancers: A review

Melatonin is a multifunctional hormone that has long been known for its antitumoral effects. An advantage of the application of melatonin in cancer therapy is its ability to differentially influence tumors from normal cells. In this review, the roles of melatonin adjuvant therapy in human cancer are discussed. Combination of melatonin with chemotherapy could provide synergistic antitumoral outcomes and resolve drug resistance in affected patients. This combination reduces the dosage for chemotherapeutic agents with the subsequent attenuation of side effects related to these drugs on normal cells around tumor and on healthy organs. The combination therapy increases the rate of survival and improves the quality of life in affected patients. Cancer cell viability is reduced after application of the combinational melatonin therapy. Melatonin does all these functions by adjusting the signals involved in cancer progression, re-establishing the dark/light circadian rhythm, and disrupting the redox system for cancer cells. To achieve effective therapeutic outcomes, melatonin concentration along with the time of incubation for this indoleamine needs to be adjusted. Importantly, a special focus is required to be made on choosing an appropriate chemotherapy agent for using in combination with melatonin. Because of different sensitivities of cancer cells for melatonin combination therapy, cancer-specific targeted therapy is also needed to be considered. For this review, the PubMed database was searched for relevant articles based on the quality of journals, the novelty of articles published by the journals, and the number of citations per year focusing only on human cancers.

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Since the mid-2000s, the field of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has experienced a paradigm shift from non-specific therapy with broad-acting cytokines to specific regimens, which directly target the cancer, the tumour microenvironment, or both.Current guidelines recommend targeted therapies with agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib or temsirolimus (for people with poor prognosis) as the standard of care for first-line treatment of people with mRCC and mention non-specific cytokines as an alternative option for selected patients.In November 2015, nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-1 (PD-1), was approved as the first specific immunotherapeutic agent as second-line therapy in previously treated mRCC patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunotherapies either alone or in combination with standard targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and their efficacy to maximize patient benefit.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science and registers of ongoing clinical trials in November 2016 without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with or without blinding involving people with mRCC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected and analyzed studies according to the published protocol. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology and summarized the quality and magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each primary outcome in our 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight studies with 4732 eligible participants and an additional 13 ongoing studies. We categorized studies into comparisons, all against standard therapy accordingly as first-line (five comparisons) or second-line therapy (one comparison) for mRCC.Interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy probably increases one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapies with temsirolimus or sunitinib (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; 2 studies; 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence), may lead to similar quality of life (QoL) (e.g. MD -5.58 points, 95% CI -7.25 to -3.91 for Functional Assessment of Cancer - General (FACT-G); 1 study; 730 participants; low-quality evidence) and may slightly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or greater (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; 1 study; 408 participants; low-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between IFN-α plus temsirolimus and temsirolimus alone for one-year overall mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; 1 study; 419 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of AEs of 3 or greater may be increased (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 1 study; 416 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no information on QoL.IFN-α alone may slightly increase one-year overall mortality compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.36; 2 studies; 1381 participants; low-quality evidence). This effect is probably accompanied by a lower incidence of AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 2 studies; 1350 participants; moderate-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with IFN-α plus bevacizumab or standard targeted therapy (sunitinib) may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.08; 1 study; 83 participants; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.62; 1 study; 82 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with vaccines (e.g. MVA-5T4 or IMA901) or standard therapy may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; 2 studies; 1065 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.In previously treated patients, targeted immunotherapy (nivolumab) probably reduces one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapy with everolimus (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 1 study; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), probably improves QoL (e.g. RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.78 for clinically relevant improvement of the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS); 1 study, 704 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of AEs grade 3 or greater (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.65; 1 study; 803 participants; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of moderate quality demonstrates that IFN-α monotherapy increases mortality compared to standard targeted therapies alone, whereas there is no difference if IFN is combined with standard targeted therapies. Evidence of low quality demonstrates that QoL is worse with IFN alone and that severe AEs are increased with IFN alone or in combination. There is low-quality evidence that IFN-α alone increases mortality but moderate-quality evidence on decreased AEs compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab. Low-quality evidence shows no difference for IFN-α plus bevacizumab compared to sunitinib with respect to mortality and severe AEs. Low-quality evidence demonstrates no difference of vaccine treatment compared to standard targeted therapies in mortality and AEs, whereas there is moderate-quality evidence that targeted immunotherapies reduce mortality and AEs and improve QoL.

The therapeutic application of melatonin in supportive care and palliative medicine

Melatonin is a hormone produced mainly in the pineal gland. Plasma levels exhibit a circadian variation with the highest concentration occurring at night. The human biologic effects of melatonin depend upon the time of day it is made available. One of these effects is the setting and resetting of circadian clocks (chronobiotic effect). Additionally, it may be a potent antioxidant and immunomodulator and has been shown to have anti-tumor, anticytokine, anti-insomnia, and anticachexia effects. Melatonin has also been shown to improve survival and performance status in patients with advanced cancer. Objective tumor response occurs with melatonin alone or when combined with interleukin-2 (IL-2). Further, melatonin reduces radiation- and chemotherapeutic-induced toxicity. Symptomatic and circadian disruption is linked to increased cancer risk. The chronobiotic capacity of melatonin to reset circadian clocks may provide a verifiable strategy to reduce cancer risk and enhance quality of life by diminishing cancer-induced circadian disruption.

WITHDRAWN: Immunotherapy for advanced renal cell cancer

This review is being updated and replaced following the publication of a new protocol (Unverzagt S, Moldenhauer I, Coppin C, Greco F, Seliger B. Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma [Protocol]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011673. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011673). It will remain withdrawn when the new review is published.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Effects of melatonin on physical fatigue and other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care: A double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer often experience fatigue and other symptoms that negatively impact their quality of life. The current trial investigated the effect of melatonin on fatigue and other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

Patients who were aged ≥18 years, had a histologically confirmed stage IV cancer (TNM Classification), and who reported feeling significantly tired were recruited from the palliative care unit at the study institution. The study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Patients received 1 week of melatonin at a dose of 20 mg or a placebo orally each night, before crossing over and receiving the opposite treatment for 1 week. Between the 2 periods, a washout period of 2 days was implemented. Outcomes were measured using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) and The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. Physical fatigue from the MFI-20 was the primary outcome. The primary analysis was a complete complier analysis (ie, it included only those patients who had consumed at least 5 capsules per week and who had answered the MFI-20 on days 1, 7, 10, and 17). Sensitivity analysis using multiple imputations including all randomized patients and all patients completing the intervention were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were randomized. Fifty patients completed the intervention and 44 patients were complete compliers. No significant differences between the placebo and melatonin periods were found for physical fatigue, secondary outcomes, or explorative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current study, oral melatonin at a dose of 20 mg was not found to improve fatigue or other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

The efficacy and safety of melatonin in concurrent chemotherapy or radiotherapy for solid tumors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recently, melatonin has been associated with cancer both in vitro and in vivo. However, the value of melatonin in the treatment of cancer remains disputable. Hence, we performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of melatonin in solid tumor cancer patients and observed its effect on tumor remission, 1-year survival, and side effects due to radiochemotherapy.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CNKI, from inception to November 2011. Trials using melatonin as adjunct treatment concurrent with chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer were included. Pooled relative risk (RR) for the tumor remission, 1-year survival, and radiochemotherapy-related side effects were calculated using the software Revman 5.0.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 8 eligible RCTs (n = 761), all of which studied solid tumor cancers. The dosage of melatonin used in the 8 included RCTs was 20 mg orally, once a day. Melatonin significantly improved the complete and partial remission (16.5 vs. 32.6%; RR = 1.95, 95% CI, 1.49-2.54; P < 0.00001) as well as 1-year survival rate (28.4 vs. 52.2%; RR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.28-2.83; P = 0.001), and dramatically decreased radiochemotherapy-related side effects including thrombocytopenia (19.7 vs. 2.2%; RR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06-0.28; P < 0.00001), neurotoxicity (15.2 vs. 2.5%; RR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.40; P < 0.0001), and fatigue (49.1 vs. 17.2%; RR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.28-0.48; P < 0.00001). Effects were consistent across different types of cancer. No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Melatonin as an adjuvant therapy for cancer led to substantial improvements in tumor remission, 1-year survival, and alleviation of radiochemotherapy-related side effects.

Melatonin as adjuvant cancer care with and without chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Melatonin (MLT) is known to possess potent antioxidant, antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and hormone-modulating properties. Clinical evidence suggests that MLT may have a possible role in the treatment of cancer. The authors systematically reviewed the effects of MLT in conjunction with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, supportive care, and palliative care on 1-year survival, complete response, partial response, stable disease, and chemotherapy-associated toxicities.

METHODS

The authors searched 7 databases: MEDLINE (1966-February 2010), AMED (1985-February 2010), Alt HealthWatch (1995-February 2010), CINAHL (1982-February 2010), Nursing and Allied Health Collection: Basic (1985-February 2010), the Cochrane Database (2009), and the Chinese database CNKI (1979-February 2010). They included all trials that randomized patients to treatment, including MLT or a similar control group without MLT.

RESULTS

The authors included data from 21 clinical trials, all of which dealt with solid tumors. The pooled relative risk (RR) for 1-year mortality was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.53-0.74; P < .001). Improved effect was found for complete response, partial response, and stable disease with RRs of 2.33 (95% CI = 1.29-4.20), 1.90 (1.43-2.51), and 1.51 (1.08-2.12), respectively. In trials combining MLT with chemotherapy, adjuvant MLT decreased 1-year mortality (RR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.54-0.67) and improved outcomes of complete response, partial response, and stable disease; pooled RRs were 2.53 (1.36-4.71), 1.70 (1.37-2.12), and 1.15 (1.00-1.33), respectively. In these studies, MLT also significantly reduced asthenia, leucopenia, nausea and vomiting, hypotension, and thrombocytopenia.

CONCLUSION

MLT may benefit cancer patients who are also receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy, supportive therapy, or palliative therapy by improving survival and ameliorating the side effects of chemotherapy.

Randomized phase II trial of high-dose melatonin and radiation therapy for RPA class 2 patients with brain metastases (RTOG 0119)

PURPOSE

To determine if high-dose melatonin for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class 2 patients with brain metastases improved survival over historical controls, and to determine if the time of day melatonin was given affected its toxicity or efficacy. RTOG 0119 was a phase II randomized trial for this group of patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

RTOG RPA Class 2 patients with brain metastases were randomized to 20 mg of melatonin, given either in the morning (8-9 AM) or in the evening (8-9 PM). All patients received radiation therapy (30 Gy in 10 fractions) in the afternoon. Melatonin was continued until neurologic deterioration or death. The primary endpoint was overall survival time. Neurologic deterioration, as reflected by the Mini-Mental Status Examination, was also measured.

RESULTS

Neither of the randomized groups had survival distributions that differed significantly from the historic controls of patients treated with whole-brain radiotherapy. The median survivals of the morning and evening melatonin treatments were 3.4 and 2.8 months, while the RTOG historical control survival was 4.1 months.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose melatonin did not show any beneficial effect in this group of patients.

Melatonin in the treatment of cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis

Most observational studies show an association between melatonin and cancer in humans. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of melatonin in solid tumor cancer patients and its effect on survival at 1 yr. With the aid of an information specialist, we searched 10 electronic databases from inception to October 2004. We included trials using melatonin as either sole treatment or as adjunct treatment. Prespecified criteria guided our assessment of trial quality. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random effects model. We included 10 RCTs published between 1992 and 2003 and included 643 patients. All trials included solid tumor cancers. All trials were conducted at the same hospital network, and were unblinded. Melatonin reduced the risk of death at 1 yr (relative risk: 0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.73, I2=0%, heterogeneity P<or=0.56). Effects were consistent across melatonin dose, and type of cancer. No severe adverse events were reported. The substantial reduction in risk of death, low adverse events reported and low costs related to this intervention suggest great potential for melatonin in treating cancer. Confirming the efficacy and safety of melatonin in cancer treatment will require completion of blinded, independently conducted RCTs.

Immunotherapy for advanced renal cell cancer

BACKGROUND

The course of advanced renal cell carcinoma is extremely variable, ranging from spontaneous remission to disease progression refractory to chemotherapy. Immunotherapy has held promise of improved outcomes based on uncontrolled studies and randomized controlled trials generally limited by small size and low power.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate immunotherapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma by comparing: (1) high dose interleukin-2 to other options and (2) interferon-alfa to other options. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival at one year, with remission as the main secondary outcome of interest.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was conducted for the period 1966 through end of December 2003. Handsearches were made of the proceedings of the periodic meetings of the American Urologic Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ECCO - the European Cancer Conference, and the European Society of Medical Oncology for the period 1995 to June 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that selected (or stratified) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, utilized an immunotherapeutic agent in at least one study arm, and reported remission or survival by allocation. Fifty-three identified studies involving 6117 patients were eligible and all but one reported remission; 32 of these studies reported the one-year survival outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently abstracted each article by following a prospectively designed protocol. Dichotomous outcomes for treatment remission (partial plus complete) and for deaths at one year were used for the main comparisons. Survival hazard ratios were also used for studies of interferon-alfa versus controls, and for two randomized studies of the value of initial nephrectomy prior to interferon-alfa in fit patients with metastases detected at the time of diagnosis.

MAIN RESULTS

Combined data for a variety of immunotherapies gave an overall chance of partial or complete remission of only 12.9% (99 study arms), compared to 2.5% in 10 non-immunotherapy control arms, and 4.3% in two placebo arms. Twenty-eight percent of these remissions were designated as complete (data from 45 studies). Median survival averaged 13.3 months (range by arm, 6 to 27+ months). The difference in remission rate between arms was poorly correlated with the difference in median survival so that remission rate is not a good surrogate or intermediate outcome for survival for advanced renal cancer. We were unable to identify any published randomized study of high-dose interleukin-2 versus a non-immunotherapy control, or of high-dose interleukin-2 versus interferon-alfa reporting survival. It has been established that reduced dose interleukin-2 given by intravenous bolus or by subcutaneous injection provides equivalent survival to high dose interleukin-2 with less toxicity. Results from four studies (644 patients) indicate that interferon-alfa is superior to controls (OR for death at one year = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.77). Using the method of Parmar 1998, the pooled overall hazard ratio for death was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.88). The weighted average median improvement in survival was 3.8 months. T he optimal dose and duration of interferon-alfa remains to be elucidated. The addition of a variety of enhancers, including lower dose intravenous or subcutaneous interleukin-2, has failed to improve survival compared to interferon-alfa alone. Two recent randomized studies have examined the role of initial nephrectomy prior to interferon-alfa therapy in highly selected fit patients with metastases at diagnosis and minimal symptoms: despite minimal improvement in the chance of remission, both studies of up-front nephrectomy improved median survival by 4.8 months over interferon-alfa alone. Recent studies have been examining anti-angiogenesis agents. A landmark study of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, was associated with significant prolongation of the time to progression of disease when given at high dose compared to low-dose or placebo therapy though frequency of remissions or survival were not improved.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

interferon-alfa provides a modest survival benefit compared to other commonly used treatments and should be considered for the control arm of future studies of systemic agents. In fit patients with metastases at diagnosis and minimal symptoms, nephrectomy followed by interferon-alfa gives the best survival strategy for fully validated therapies. The need for more effective specific therapy for this condition is apparent.

A systematic review of the relation between interleukin-2 schedule and outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer

In Europe, interleukin 2 (IL-2) is one of the two treatment modalities officially approved for patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. Traditionally, IL-2 has been administered by three different routes: intermittent bolus injection (BIV), continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) and subcutaneous injection (SC). There have been few randomized trials designed to compare these routes of administration. This paper describes a systematic review of the literature in which an attempt has been made to determine which schedule of administration is superior. Heterogeneity of the data makes firm conclusions difficult. It appears that the number of complete remissions (CR) is similar between BIV and SC routes and that these are higher than for CIV schedules. The durability of the CRs induced by BIV appeared superior to those induced by SC IL-2 and definitely higher than with CIV protocols. This analysis highlights some of the difficulties of using evidence-based medicine to determine standard of care when the clinical-trial data are heterogeneous. These data emphasize the importance of randomized clinical trials in determining what should be regarded as optimum therapy.