Search Results

Background: VEGFR, KIT, RET, and MET pathways are implicated in several solid tumors. Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of these kinase pathways, and hence has found its use in treatment of multiple malignancies. However, it has several side effects that can limit tolerance amongst patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to determine the risk of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) events in patients with advanced solid tumors treated with cabozantinib. Methods: We systematically conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE databases, and meeting abstracts through September 30, 2018. Phase 3 trials that mention HRQOL events like pain, arthralgia, fatigue, and reduced appetite as adverse effects were incorporated in the analysis. Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the estimated pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Random effects model was applied. Results: 4 phase 3 RCTs with a total of 2,703 patients with medullary thyroid cancer, prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma were eligible. Studies comparing cabozantinib (C) vs everolimus, C vs placebo, C vs prednisone were included in the analysis. The relative risks of all-grade side effects were as follows: fatigue, 1.378 (95% CI: 1.236–1.536; P<.0001); asthenia, 1.704 (95% CI: 1.190–2.441; P=.004); reduced appetite, 2.088 (95% CI: 1.471–2.964; P<.0001); back pain, 1.047 (95% CI: 0.871–1.259; P=.626); pain in limbs, 1.444 (95% CI: 1.128–1.847; P=.004); arthralgia, 0.982 (95% CI: 0.707–1.363; P=.912). The RR of high-grade side effects were as follows: fatigue, 1.937 (95% CI: 1.483–2.528; P<.0001); asthenia, 2.211 (95% CI: 1.536–3.184; P<.0001); reduced appetite, 4.329 (95% CI: 2.372–7.900; P<.0001); back pain, 1.227 (95% CI: 0.738–2.040; P=.431); pain in limbs, 2.933 (95% CI: 1.127–7.635; P=.028); arthralgia, 0.820 (95% CI: 0.394–1.709; P=.597). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that cabozantinib contributed to significant toxicity of all grades of fatigue, asthenia, pain in limbs, and reduced appetite. Identifying and addressing these toxicities will be important in improving quality of life for these patients.

Background: Ibrutinib targets Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, a kinase involved in signaling of B-cell and chemokine receptors, which are implicated in the pathogenesis of hematologic malignancies. Ibrutinib has been shown to improve survival in hematologic malignancies, and yet the tolerability has not been elucidated. We undertook systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials (RTCs) to determine the risk of gastrointestinal toxicities and the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and meeting abstracts through September 2018. Phase 3 RCTs that mention gastrointestinal toxicities and the rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were incorporated in the analysis. Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the estimated pooled risk ratio with 95% CI. Random effects model was applied. Results: 6 phase III RCTs with a total of 1,811 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia were included. Studies comparing ibrutinib vs ofatumumab, ibrutinib vs chlorambucil, ibrutinib + bendamustine + rituximab vs placebo + bendamustine + rituximab, ibrutinib vs temsirolimus, and ibrutinib vs rituximab were included in the analysis. The incidence of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 9.30% in the ibrutinib group vs 13.13% in the control arm. The relative risk (RR) for treatment discontinuation was 0.740 (95% CI: 0.385–1.423; P=.367). The pooled RR of all-grade side effects were as follows: diarrhea, 1.955 (95% CI: 1.304–2.933; P=.001); nausea, 1.038 (95% CI: 0.702–1.534; P=.852); vomiting, 1.048 (95% CI: 0.547–2.007; P=.888); and stomatitis, 1.262 (95% CI: 0.112–14.173; P=.850). The RR of high-grade adverse effects were as follows: diarrhea, 1.749 (95% CI: 0.866–3.530; P=.119); nausea, 2.237 (95% CI: 0.478–10.471; P=.306); vomiting, 0.429 (95% CI: 0.111–1.659; P=.220); and stomatitis, 0.309 (95% CI: 0.028–3.440; P=.340). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that patients on ibrutinib arm noted increased risk of all-grade diarrhea. Nevertheless, other GI toxicities as well as treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were not statistically significant in the ibrutinib group compared with the control arm.