0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Hematological Toxicity of PARP Inhibitors in Metastatic Prostate Cancer Patients with Mutations of BRCA or HRR Genes: A Systematic Review and Safety Meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          PARP inhibitors (PARPis) are effective treatment options for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) as single agents or in combination with androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA). However, a clinically relevant adverse effect of these agents is hematological toxicity, a typical class adverse event (AE), which can lead to treatment modifications and discontinuations.

          Objective

          We aimed to analyze the risk of hematological AEs, including anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia secondary to PARPi treatments in mCRPC.

          Patients and Methods

          This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meeting abstracts for clinical trials concerning the use of PARPis, both as single agents and in combination, in patients with mCRPC. The search deadline was 30 June, 2023. We analyzed the pooled incidence of all grades of and ≥ G3 anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. We subsequently calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all grades of and ≥ G3 AEs of PARPis versus non-PARPis from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

          Results

          Eleven phase 2/3 trials with olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib administered as single agents or combined with ARTA were selected. Anemia was the most common all grades (38.6%) and ≥ G3 AE (24.9%). In the analysis of relative risk, six RCTs were included. The administration of PARPis significantly increased the risk of developing all grades of anemia (RR = 2.44), neutropenia (RR = 3.15), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 4.66) compared with non-PARPis. Similarly, a significant increase in the risk of ≥ G3 anemia (RR = 5.73) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 5.44), and a not significant increased risk of neutropenia (RR = 3.41), were detected.

          Conclusions

          In mCRPC, PARPis increase the risk of hematological toxicity compared with other treatments, both as single agents or combined with ARTA (high-quality evidence). Clinicians should be aware of this risk and the correct management, especially with the expected increased PARPis use in mCRPC.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11523-023-01016-x.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                b.maiorano@operapadrepio.it , brigidamaiorano@gmail.com
                Journal
                Target Oncol
                Target Oncol
                Targeted Oncology
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1776-2596
                1776-260X
                22 November 2023
                22 November 2023
                2024
                : 19
                : 1
                : 1-11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Oncology Unit, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, ( https://ror.org/00md77g41) San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.419563.c, ISNI 0000 0004 1755 9177, Department of Medical Oncology, , IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo Per Lo Studio Dei Tumori (IRST) “Dino Amadori”, ; Meldola, Italy
                [3 ]Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, ( https://ror.org/05dwj7825) Milan, Italy
                [4 ]Unit of Medical Oncology and Biomolecular Therapy, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, ( https://ror.org/01xtv3204) Policlinico Riuniti, Foggia, Italy
                [5 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, ( https://ror.org/048tbm396) Turin, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5423-3158
                Article
                1016
                10.1007/s11523-023-01016-x
                10830661
                37993604
                7cb1ff2e-667d-46d9-afaa-a36677951af3
                © The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 1 November 2023
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article