BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of vandetanib in the second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized clinical trials that compared therapy with vandetanib versus standard second-line treatment, including docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, or gefitinib, as second-line treatment for patients with histologically proven non-small-cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall response rate, and grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata version 10.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials (N = 3,292 patients) were eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was significant improvement in PFS (hazards ration (HR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-1.00; P = 0.039) and overall response rate (relative risk (RR), 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.14; P = 0.03) in therapy with vandetanib group compared with standard second-line therapy group, although the pooled HR for overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P = 0.191) showed no significant difference between the two groups. In addition, there were less incidences of grade 3 or 4 anemia (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67; P = 0.001) in therapy with vandetanib group. With regard to the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.0-1.43; P = 0.054), diarrhea (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.0-1.94; P = 0.059), nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.48-1.26; P = 0.308), rash (RR, 2.83; 95% CI, 0.73-10.9; P = 0.131), cough (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.0-1.43; P = 0.054), and fatigue (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.747-1.35; P = 0.971), there was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with vandetanib offered a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in PFS and ORR in patients with advanced NSCLC but did not benefit overall survival. Therapy with vandetanib regimens might be suggested as second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC based on a similar toxicity profile compared with standard second-line therapy.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of vandetanib in the second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized clinical trials that compared therapy with vandetanib versus standard second-line treatment, including docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, or gefitinib, as second-line treatment for patients with histologically proven non-small-cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall response rate, and grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Data were extracted from the studies by two independent reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata version 10.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials (N = 3,292 patients) were eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was significant improvement in PFS (hazards ration (HR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-1.00; P = 0.039) and overall response rate (relative risk (RR), 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.14; P = 0.03) in therapy with vandetanib group compared with standard second-line therapy group, although the pooled HR for overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; P = 0.191) showed no significant difference between the two groups. In addition, there were less incidences of grade 3 or 4 anemia (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67; P = 0.001) in therapy with vandetanib group. With regard to the risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.0-1.43; P = 0.054), diarrhea (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.0-1.94; P = 0.059), nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.48-1.26; P = 0.308), rash (RR, 2.83; 95% CI, 0.73-10.9; P = 0.131), cough (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.0-1.43; P = 0.054), and fatigue (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.747-1.35; P = 0.971), there was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with vandetanib offered a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in PFS and ORR in patients with advanced NSCLC but did not benefit overall survival. Therapy with vandetanib regimens might be suggested as second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC based on a similar toxicity profile compared with standard second-line therapy.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Frances A Shepherd; José Rodrigues Pereira; Tudor Ciuleanu; Eng Huat Tan; Vera Hirsh; Sumitra Thongprasert; Daniel Campos; Savitree Maoleekoonpiroj; Michael Smylie; Renato Martins; Maximiliano van Kooten; Mircea Dediu; Brian Findlay; Dongsheng Tu; Dianne Johnston; Andrea Bezjak; Gary Clark; Pedro Santabárbara; Lesley Seymour Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alan Sandler; Robert Gray; Michael C Perry; Julie Brahmer; Joan H Schiller; Afshin Dowlati; Rogerio Lilenbaum; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald B Natale; Sumitra Thongprasert; F Anthony Greco; Michael Thomas; Chun-Ming Tsai; Patrapim Sunpaweravong; David Ferry; Clive Mulatero; Robert Whorf; Joyce Thompson; Fabrice Barlesi; Peter Langmuir; Sven Gogov; Jacqui A Rowbottom; Glenwood D Goss Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard H de Boer; Óscar Arrieta; Chih-Hsin Yang; Maya Gottfried; Valorie Chan; Johann Raats; Filippo de Marinis; Raymond P Abratt; Jürgen Wolf; Fiona H Blackhall; Peter Langmuir; Tsveta Milenkova; Jessica Read; Johan F Vansteenkiste Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anne S Tsao; Suyu Liu; J Jack Lee; Christine M Alden; George R Blumenschein; Roy Herbst; Suzanne E Davis; Edward Kim; Scott Lippman; John Heymach; Hai Tran; XiMing Tang; Ignacio Wistuba; Waun Ki Hong Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 15.609