Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. Although surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only about 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these interventions. Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include ablative and transarterial interventions - selective yttrium-90 microsphere transarterial radioembolisation - in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 (Y-90) microsphere transarterial radioembolisation given as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional interventions for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index - Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until September 2019. We manually checked the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted information on participants, interventions, outcomes, trial design, and trial methods. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined domains and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary review outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality, time to progression of the tumour, tumour response, non-serious adverse events, and liver transplantation. For dichotomous variables, we calculated risk ratio (RR), and for continuous variables, we planned to calculate mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We based time-to-event data analyses on hazard ratios (HRs).

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised trials with 1340 participants in total fulfilled the review inclusion criteria and provided data for one or more of our analysed outcomes. All trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low to very low. One trial compared radioembolisation plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to progression, and tumour response rates were not reported. Serious adverse events were reported in 63 trial participants (39.6%) in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus 70 trial participants (38.5%) in the sorafenib group (very low-certainty evidence). Hyperbilirubinaemia was approximately three times more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus the sorafenib group (14.5% versus 4.4%; very low-certainty evidence). Fatigue was more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group than in the sorafenib group, at 35.2% versus 24.2% of trial participants. Two trials compared radioembolisation versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, one-year all-cause mortality was 62.7% in the radioembolisation group versus 53.0% in the sorafenib group (1 trial; n = 360; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the quality of life between radioembolisation and sorafenib groups (1 trial). Global health status subscore was better in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.0048; 1 trial). Fewer participants had serious adverse events in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (27 (20.8%) in the radioembolisation group versus 57 (35.2%) in the sorafenib group; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 6.1 months versus 5.4 months in the sorafenib group (1 trial). The RR for disease control rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; n = 748; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor sorafenib. In two trials with 734 participants, radioembolisation seemed to be less likely to be associated with hand-foot skin reaction (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence), skin rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), diarrhoea (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), and hypertension (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported cancer-related mortality. Three trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, none of these trials reported all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality. The RR for serious adverse events was 1.41 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.14; n = 97; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor chemoembolisation. One trial reported quality of life and noted no differences between intervention groups with regard to this outcome at week 12 (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to progression was not reached in the radioembolisation group and was 6.8 months in the chemoembolisation group (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.557; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 371 days versus 336 days in the chemoembolisation group (P = 0.5764; 1 trial). Disease control rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 73.3% with radioembolisation versus 76.9% with chemoembolisation (1 trial). According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, tumour response was reported in 52% of participants who received radioembolisation versus 63% of those who received chemoembolisation (1 trial). Patients in the chemoembolisation group experienced diarrhoea (P = 0.031; 1 trial) and hypoalbuminaemia (P < 0.001; 1 trial) more frequently. Four trials were sponsored by industry, and two by University. We found two ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation with or without sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is highly insufficient. We cannot determine if radioembolisation plus sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone affects all-cause mortality or the occurrence of adverse events. Radioembolisation compared with sorafenib seemed to achieve equivalent survival and to cause fewer adverse effects, but our certainty was very low. Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is also highly insufficient. Radioembolisation did not seem to differ from chemoembolisation in terms of serious adverse events and quality of life, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Further high-quality placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials are needed to assess patient-centred outcomes.

Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Biliary tract cancers are a group of rare heterogeneous malignant tumours. They include intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, gallbladder carcinomas, and ampullary carcinomas. Surgery remains the optimal modality of therapy leading to long-term survival for people diagnosed with resectable biliary tract carcinomas. Unfortunately, most people with biliary tract carcinomas are diagnosed with either unresectable locally-advanced or metastatic disease, and they are only suitable for palliative chemotherapy or supportive care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus placebo, or no intervention, or other treatments (excluding gemcitabine) in adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science up to June 2017. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually, for further related articles (cross-references).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language or publication status, comparing intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based combination to placebo, to no intervention, or to treatments other than gemcitabine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risks of bias of the included trials using definitions of predefined bias risk domains, and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven published randomised clinical trials with 600 participants. All included trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. Cointerventions were equally applied in three trials (gemcitabine plus S-1 (a combination of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil) versus S-1 monotherapy; gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine monotherapy versus S-1 monotherapy; and gemcitabine plus vandetanib versus gemcitabine plus placebo versus vandetanib monotherapy), while four trials compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin; gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus chemoradiotherapy; and gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. The seven trials were conducted in India, Japan, France, China, Austria, South Korea, and Italy. The median age of the participants in the seven trials was between 50 and 60 years, and the male/female ratios were comparable in most of the trials. Based on these seven trials, we established eight comparisons. We could not perform all planned analyses in all comparisons because of insufficient data.Gemcitabine versus vandetanibOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine versus vandetanib versus both drugs in combination. It reported no data for mortality, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the increased risk of serious adverse events, anaemia, and overall response rate as very low-certainty evidence.Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatinFrom one trial of 96 participants, we found very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine can lower the risk of mortality at one year when used with cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.98; P = 0.04; participants = 96). The trial did not report data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour response outcomes. There is very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination leads to a higher risk of high-grade thrombocytopenia compared with S-1 plus cisplatin combination (RR 5.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 22.55; P = 0.02; participants = 96).Gemcitabine plus S-1 versus S-1From two trials enrolling 151 participants, we found no difference between the two groups in terms of risk of mortality at one year or risk of serious adverse events. Gemcitabine plus S-1 combination was associated with a higher overall response rate compared with S-1 alone (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.75; P = 0.007; participants = 140; trials = 2; I² = 0%; very low certainty of evidence). Neither of the trials reported data for health-related quality of life or time to progression of the tumour.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive careOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. It reported no data for serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality and for overall response rate as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapyOne trial of 34 participants compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy. It reported no data for quality of life, overall response rate, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the evidence for mortality and serious adverse events as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin COne trial of 51 participants compared gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C. It reported no data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality, overall response rate and thrombocytopenia as of very low certainty.We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating outcomes of interest for our review, which we can incorporate in future updates.For-profit bias: there was a high risk of for-profit bias in two trials (because of industry sponsorship) while there was a low risk of for-profit bias in another three trials, and unclear risk in two trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas, the effects of gemcitabine or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are uncertain on mortality and overall response compared with a range of inactive or active controls. The very low certainty of evidence is due to risk of bias, lack of information in the analyses and hence large imprecision, and possible publication bias. The confidence intervals do not rule out meaningful benefits or lack of effect of gemcitabine in all comparisons but one on mortality where gemcitabine plus cisplatin is compared with S-1 plus cisplatin. Gemcitabine-based regimens showed an increase in non-serious adverse events (particularly haematological toxicities). Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory, to further explore the best therapeutic options for adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.

Radical multimodality therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an almost always fatal tumour, for which palliative platinum-based chemotherapy is currently the standard treatment. Multimodal therapeutic strategies incorporating surgery, radiation therapy or photodynamic therapy and chemotherapy have been recommended for selected patients but there is no consensus about their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of radical multimodal treatment options (including radical surgery ± radical radiotherapy ± photodynamic therapy ± systemic therapy) compared to each other or to palliative treatments, for people with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

SEARCH METHODS

We reviewed data from the Cochrane Lung Cancer group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies, review articles and relevant conference proceedings manually for further related articles up to 21 March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of multimodal therapy for people with malignant pleural mesothelioma (stages I, II or III) that measured at least one of the following endpoints: overall survival, health-related health-related quality of life, adverse events or progression-free survival. We considered studies regardless of language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted relevant information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes for this review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the studies. Two review authors assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using pre-defined 'Risk of bias' domains. We assessed the methodological quality using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We conducted this review in accordance with the published Cochrane protocol. Two randomised clinical trials with 104 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Both trials were at high risk of bias (for outcomes other than overall survival), and we rated the evidence as moderate quality for overall survival and low quality for all other outcomes. One trial compared combined extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) plus neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus postoperative high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy with combined EPP plus platinum-based chemotherapy. The other trial compared EPP plus postoperative hemithoracic radiotherapy with standard (non-radical) therapy alone following platinum-based chemotherapy (patients in the standard therapy arm received continued oncological management according to local policy, which could include further chemotherapy or palliative radiotherapy).For the first trial, median overall survival calculated from registration was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 14.4 to 27.8) in the no-radiotherapy group and 19.3 months (95% CI 11.5 to 21.8) in the radiotherapy group. For the second trial, median overall survival was 14.4 months (95% CI 5.3 to 18.7) for patients allocated to EPP and 19.5 months (95% CI 13.4 to time not yet reached) for patients randomised to standard non-radical therapy. In the second trial, 12 serious adverse events were reported during the study period: ten in the EPP group and two in the non-radical therapy group. Overall health-related quality of life scores were not different between the two arms in either study. We could not perform a meta-analysis of the two included trials due to clinical heterogeneity. We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating the topic of our review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall strength of the evidence gathered in this review is low and there is a lack of available evidence to support the use of radical multimodality therapy in routine clinical practice (particularly as one trial suggests greater harm). Given the added cost of multimodality treatment and the possible increase in risk of adverse effects, the lack of evidence of their effectiveness probably means that these interventions should currently be limited to clinical trials alone.

External beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm, the sixth most common cancer worldwide, and the third most common cause of cancer mortality. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically in the past decade. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and transarterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of external beam radiotherapy in the management of localised unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and clinicaltrials.gov registry. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to October 6, 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing external beam radiotherapy either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used a random-effects model as well as a fixed-effect model meta-analysis but in case of discrepancy between the two models (e.g. one giving a significant intervention effect, the other no significant intervention effect), we reported both results; otherwise, we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using predefined risk of bias domains; assessed risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis; and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine randomised clinical trials with 879 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low quality. All of the included trials compared combined external beam radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma; moreover, three of the trials compared external beam radiotherapy alone versus chemoembolisation alone. All trials were conducted in China. The median age in most of the included trials was around 52 years, and most trial participants were male. The median follow-up duration ranged from one to three years. None of the trials reported data on cancer-related mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, or time to progression of the tumour. For the comparison of radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.62; P < 0.001; 9 trials; low-quality evidence); for complete response rate was 2.14 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.13; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence); and for overall response rate defined as complete response plus partial response was 1.58 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.78; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence), all in favour of combined treatment with external beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation and seemingly supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis. Additionally, the combined treatment was associated with a higher risk of elevated total bilirubin and elevated alanine aminotransferase. The risk ratio for the risk of elevated alanine aminotransferase was 1.41 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.84; P = 0.01; very low-quality evidence), while for elevated total bilirubin it was 2.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 5.40; P = 0.005; very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of radiotherapy versus chemoembolisation, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 1.21 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.50; 3 trials; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) which was not supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis.In addition, we found seven ongoing randomised clinical trials evaluating different external beam radiotherapy techniques for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low- and low-quality evidence suggesting that combined external beam radiotherapy and chemoembolisation may be associated with lower mortality and increased complete and overall response rates, despite an increased toxicity as expressed by a higher rise of bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase. A high risk of systematic errors (bias) as well as imprecision and inconsistency suggest that these findings should be considered cautiously and that high-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of external beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.