Patient-reported outcomes at discontinuation of anti-angiogenesis therapy in the randomized trial of chemotherapy with bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: an NRG Oncology Group study

High grade adverse event reporting and enrolment in gynecologic oncology clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective is to assess factors associated with treatment related high grade (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) adverse event (AE) reporting among participants in gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

All AEs recorded in the Princess Margaret Clinical Trial adverse event database between 01/2016 and 12/2018 were evaluated. Gynecologic oncology clinical trials assessing systemic therapy were included. Inferential statistics on risk factors of related grade ≥ 3 adverse event reporting and GEE logistic models with Odds Ratios (OR) were performed. Multivariable analysis adjusting for age, clinical trial phase, sponsor, and therapy type.

RESULTS

The gynecology cancer clinical trials accrued 317 unique patients (359 nested on trials) in 42 systemic therapy trials. In the period, 17,175 related AEs were reported in the gynecological cancer trials, 7.4% were grade ≥ 3. On multivariable analysis, no odds differences of grade ≥ 3 related AEs were detected according to study phase. Patients in immunotherapy clinical trials had lower odds of related grade ≥ 3 AEs than patients on targeted or other therapy (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.43; 95% CI 0.24-0.75). There was greater odds of related grade ≥ 3 AEs in clinical trials assessing combination vs single therapeutics (aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.34-3.80). Patients aged ≥65 (aOR 1.77; 95% CI 1.08-2.89) had greater odds of related grade ≥ 3 AEs than patients aged 50 to 65 years. When compared to other disease sites, the odds of having a grade  ≥ 3 related AE reported in gynecology clinical trials was no different.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, factors influencing the odds of related grade ≥ 3 AE reporting in gynecologic trials included type of therapy and age. The study phase did not correlate with odds of high-grade AE reporting.

Knowledge mapping of immunotherapy in cervical carcinoma: a bibliometric analysis (2000-2023)

Background

Cervical carcinoma is a type of malignant tumor that primarily develops in the cervix, the lower part of the uterus. In recent years, Despite the considerable progress made in immunotherapy research for cervical carcinoma, an important aspect has been largely overlooked - the absence of a comprehensive bibliometric analysis in this field. By employing bibliometric techniques, this study aims to fill this gap and provide a comprehensive overview of the knowledge structure and research hotspots within the realm of immunotherapy in cervical carcinoma.

Method

A comprehensive search was conducted on the web of science core collection(WoSCC) database to identify publications related to immunotherapy specifically for the treatment of cervical carcinoma. The search spanned the period from the year 2000 to 2023. Several analytical tools were employed. These included VOSviewers, CiteSpace, and the R package "bibliometrix".

Results

A total of 654 research articles from 66 different countries have been included in the analysis. The United States and China have emerged as the leading countries in publishing research on immunotherapy in cervical carcinoma. Leiden University and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center from the Netherlands and the United States respectively have a close cooperation. Fudan University from China and the German Cancer Research Center are also among the key institutions leading research in this area. Frontiers in Oncology has emerged as the most popular and widely recognized publication in the field of immunotherapy in cervical carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology is frequently cited by researchers in this area. Van Der Burg, Sjoerd H has published the highest number of papers. Tewari, Krishnansu S has been the most co-cited author. Keywords such as PD-L1, chemotherapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors have gained significant attention in recent years.

Conclusion

This is the first bibliometric study that comprehensively summarizes the research trends and developments of immunotherapy in cervical carcinoma. This groundbreaking study not only summarizes the current research trends and developments in immunotherapy for cervical carcinoma but also provides a reference for scholars studying the treatment of cervical cancer.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeting therapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of VEGF targeting agents in the management of persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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 chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy Treatment with apatinib plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy/brachytherapy may or may not result in similar risk of death compared to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy/brachytherapy alone (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.60; 1 study, 52 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, hypertension events may occur at a higher incidence as compared to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy/brachytherapy alone (RR 5.14, 95% CI 1.28 to 20.73; 1 study, 52 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pazopanib plus lapatinib versus lapatinib Treatment with pazopanib plus lapatinib may result in higher risk of death compared to lapatinib alone (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.31; 1 study, 117 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 5.58; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and thromboembolic events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.50; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of hypertension events is probably higher (RR 12.00, 95% CI 2.94 to 49.01; 1 study, 152 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may or may not be a similar incidence of serious adverse events as compared to lapatinib alone (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.26; 1 study, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pazopanib versus lapatinib Treatment with pazopanib may or may not result in similar risk of death as compared to lapatinib (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.38; 1 study, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very uncertain results for the incidences of specific adverse events, including gastrointestinal perforations or fistulae (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.12; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.40; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and thromboembolic events (RR 3.08, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.42; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the incidence of hypertension events is probably higher (RR 11.81, 95% CI 2.89 to 48.33; 1 study, 150 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of serious adverse events may or may not be similar as compared to lapatinib (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.