Does dual HER-2 blockade treatment increase the risk of severe toxicities of special interests in breast cancer patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

HER2 Amplification Level Predicts Pathological Complete Response in the Neoadjuvant Setting of HER2-Overexpressing Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Anti-HER2 therapies have dramatically improved the prognosis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-overexpressing cancers. However, the correlation between the HER2 copy number and the response rate to anti-HER2 remains unclear. Here, following the PRISMA method, we performed a meta-analysis in the neoadjuvant setting in breast cancer to study the association between the HER2 amplification level and the pathological complete response (pCR) to anti-HER2 therapies. Nine articles (four clinical trials, five observational studies) were retrieved after full-text screening, involving 11,238 women with locally advanced breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. The median HER2/CEP17 ratio cut-off value was 5.0 ± 5.0 (min-max = 1.0-14.0). For the overall population, the median pCR rate was 48% using the random effect model. The studies were categorized in quartiles as follows: ≤2 (Class 1); 2.1 to 5.0 (Class 2); 5.1 to 7.0 (Class 3); and >7.0 (Class 4). After grouping, the pCR rates were 33%, 49%, 57%, and 79%, respectively. When we excluded the study by Greenwell et al., which accounted for 90% of the patients, using the same quartiles, we still observed an increasing rate of pCR as the HER2/CEP17 ratio increased. This is the first meta-analysis demonstrating the relationship between the HER2 amplification level and the percentage of pCR in the neoadjuvant setting among women with HER2-overexpressing breast cancer, with potential therapeutic applications.

Targeted therapy for breast cancer: An overview of drug classes and outcomes

The last 25 years have seen significant growth in new therapeutic options for breast cancer, termed targeted therapies based on their ability to block specific pathways known to drive breast tumor growth and survival. Introduction of these drugs has been made possible through advances in the understanding of breast cancer biology. While the promise of targeted therapy for breast cancer has been clear for some time, the experience of the clinical use of multiple drugs and drug classes allows us to now present a summary and perspective as to the success and impact of this endeavor. Here we will review breast cancer targeted therapeutics in clinical use. We will provide the rationale for their indications and summarize clinical data in patients with different breast cancer subtypes, their impact on breast cancer progression and survival and their major adverse effects. The focus of this review will be on the development that has occurred within classes of targeted therapies and subsequent impact on breast cancer patient outcomes. We will conclude with a perspective on the role of targeted therapy in breast cancer treatment and highlight future areas of development.

Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the validity of data extraction in systematic reviews of adverse events, the effect of data extraction errors on the results, and to develop a classification framework for data extraction errors to support further methodological research.

DESIGN

Reproducibility study.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed was searched for eligible systematic reviews published between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2020. Metadata from the randomised controlled trials were extracted from the systematic reviews by four authors. The original data sources (eg, full text and ClinicalTrials.gov) were then referred to by the same authors to reproduce the data used in these meta-analyses.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews were included when based on randomised controlled trials for healthcare interventions that reported safety as the exclusive outcome, with at least one pair meta-analysis that included five or more randomised controlled trials and with a 2×2 table of data for event counts and sample sizes in intervention and control arms available for each trial in the meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was data extraction errors summarised at three levels: study level, meta-analysis level, and systematic review level. The potential effect of such errors on the results was further investigated.

RESULTS

201 systematic reviews and 829 pairwise meta-analyses involving 10 386 randomised controlled trials were included. Data extraction could not be reproduced in 1762 (17.0%) of 10 386 trials. In 554 (66.8%) of 829 meta-analyses, at least one randomised controlled trial had data extraction errors; 171 (85.1%) of 201 systematic reviews had at least one meta-analysis with data extraction errors. The most common types of data extraction errors were numerical errors (49.2%, 867/1762) and ambiguous errors (29.9%, 526/1762), mainly caused by ambiguous definitions of the outcomes. These categories were followed by three others: zero assumption errors, misidentification, and mismatching errors. The impact of these errors were analysed on 288 meta-analyses. Data extraction errors led to 10 (3.5%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the direction of the effect and 19 (6.6%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the significance of the P value. Meta-analyses that had two or more different types of errors were more susceptible to these changes than those with only one type of error (for moderate changes, 11 (28.2%) of 39 v 26 (10.4%) 249, P=0.002; for large changes, 5 (12.8%) of 39 v 8 (3.2%) of 249, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews of adverse events potentially have serious issues in terms of the reproducibility of the data extraction, and these errors can mislead the conclusions. Implementation guidelines are urgently required to help authors of future systematic reviews improve the validity of data extraction.

Cardiovascular Toxicity of Targeted Therapies for Cancer: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

Several targeted therapies for cancer have been associated with cardiovascular toxicity. The evidence for this association has not been synthesized systematically nor has the quality of evidence been considered. We synthesized systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity of individual targeted agents.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of cardiovascular outcomes for individual agents published to May 2020. We selected reviews according to prespecified eligibility criteria (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017080014). We classified evidence of cardiovascular toxicity as sufficient, probable, possible, or indeterminate for specific cardiovascular outcomes based on statistical significance, study quality, and size.

Results

From 113 systematic reviews, we found at least probable systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity for 18 agents, including high- and all-grade hypertension for bevacizumab, ramucirumab, axitinib, cediranib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib, aflibercept, abiraterone, and enzalutamide, and all-grade hypertension for nintedanib; high- and all-grade arterial thromboembolism (includes cardiac and/or cerebral events) for bevacizumab and abiraterone, high-grade arterial thromboembolism for trastuzumab, and all-grade arterial thromboembolism for sorafenib and tamoxifen; high- and all-grade venous thromboembolism (VTE) for lenalidomide and thalidomide, high-grade VTE for cetuximab and panitumumab, and all-grade VTE for bevacizumab; high- and all-grade left ventricular ejection fraction decline or congestive heart failure for bevacizumab and trastuzumab, and all-grade left ventricular ejection fraction decline/congestive heart failure for pazopanib and sunitinib; and all-grade corrected QT interval prolongation for vandetanib.

Conclusions

Our review provides an accessible summary of the cardiovascular toxicity of targeted therapy to assist clinicians and patients when managing cardiovascular health.

Incidence and Management of Diarrhea With Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The APHINITY (BIG 4-11) study showed that pertuzumab significantly improved the rates of invasive disease-free survival among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, operable breast cancer when added to adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy. Because diarrhea was a common adverse event that could compromise treatment administration, we evaluated the incidence and management of diarrhea in the APHINITY study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The APHINITY trial is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive standard adjuvant chemotherapy and 1 year of trastuzumab combined with pertuzumab or placebo. The diarrhea incidence, severity (National Cancer Institute common terminology criteria for adverse events, version 4.0), onset, and management were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 4805 patients were randomized. Diarrhea of any grade was the most common adverse event and occurred in 71% of patients in the pertuzumab arm versus 45% in the placebo arm. Diarrhea grade 3 to 4 was observed in 10% and 4% in the pertuzumab and placebo arms, respectively. The greatest incidence of diarrhea was reported during the concomitant administration of HER2-targeted therapy and taxane (61% vs. 34% of patients experienced an event with pertuzumab vs. placebo, respectively). A marked decrease was observed on chemotherapy cessation. Antidiarrheal agents were commonly used, and diarrhea rarely caused treatment dose modifications or discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Diarrhea was a common adverse event in the APHINITY study. Most episodes were low grade and were generally manageable with common antidiarrheal agents. The incidence of diarrhea was greater with the combination of a taxane and HER2-targeted treatment and decreased once chemotherapy was stopped.

Near-infrared remotely triggered drug-release strategies for cancer treatment

Remotely controlled, localized drug delivery is highly desirable for potentially minimizing the systemic toxicity induced by the administration of typically hydrophobic chemotherapy drugs by conventional means. Nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems provide a highly promising approach for localized drug delivery, and are an emerging field of interest in cancer treatment. Here, we demonstrate near-IR light-triggered release of two drug molecules from both DNA-based and protein-based hosts that have been conjugated to near-infrared-absorbing Au nanoshells (SiO2 core, Au shell), each forming a light-responsive drug delivery complex. We show that, depending upon the drug molecule, the type of host molecule, and the laser illumination method (continuous wave or pulsed laser), in vitro light-triggered release can be achieved with both types of nanoparticle-based complexes. Two breast cancer drugs, docetaxel and HER2-targeted lapatinib, were delivered to MDA-MB-231 and SKBR3 (overexpressing HER2) breast cancer cells and compared with release in noncancerous RAW 264.7 macrophage cells. Continuous wave laser-induced release of docetaxel from a nanoshell-based DNA host complex showed increased cell death, which also coincided with nonspecific cell death from photothermal heating. Using a femtosecond pulsed laser, lapatinib release from a nanoshell-based human serum albumin protein host complex resulted in increased cancerous cell death while noncancerous control cells were unaffected. Both methods provide spatially and temporally localized drug-release strategies that can facilitate high local concentrations of chemotherapy drugs deliverable at a specific treatment site over a specific time window, with the potential for greatly minimized side effects.