Meta-analysis of quality of life in patients with cancer treated with antibody-drug conjugates in randomized controlled trials

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Drago JZ, Modi S, Chandarlapaty S. Unlocking the potential of antibody–drug conjugates for cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 18(6), 327–344 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2. Professional Committee on Clinical Research of Oncology Drugs, Chinese Anti-Cancer Association, Expert Committee for Monitoring the Clinical Application of Antitumor Drugs, Breast Cancer Expert Committee of National Cancer Quality Control Center, Cancer Chemotherapy Quality Control Expert Committee of Beijing Cancer Treatment Quality Control and Improvement Center. Expert consensus on the clinical application of antibody-drug conjugates in the treatment of malignant tumors (2021 edition). Cancer Innov. 1(1), 3–24 (2022). • Contains the latest views and suggestions on antibody-drug combinations in the treatment of malignant tumors, which has great reference value.
  Google Scholar
• 3. Thomas A, Teicher BA, Hassan R. Antibody–drug conjugates for cancer therapy. Lancet Oncol. 17(6), e254–e262 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4. Fu Z, Li S, Han S, Shi C, Zhang Y. Antibody-drug conjugate: the “biological missile” for targeted cancer therapy. Sig. Transduct. Target Ther. 7(1), 93 (2022). • Gives a detailed description of antibody-drug conjugates.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5. ADCs' revival. Nat. Biotechnol. 41(6), 740 (2023). • Reports on the unstoppable power of antibody-drug conjugates in new drug development.
  Google Scholar
• 6. Fallowfield L. Quality of life: a new perspective for cancer patients. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2(11), 873–879 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Boutros A, Bruzzone M, Tanda ET et al. Health-related quality of life in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 159, 154–166 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8. Hamidou Z, Dabakuyo TS, Mercier M et al. Time to deterioration in quality of life score as a modality of longitudinal analysis in patients with breast cancer. Oncologist 16(10), 1458–1468 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: a Conceptual Framework to Assess the Value of Cancer Treatment Options. JCO 33(23), 2563–2577 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U et al. Corrections to “A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).” Ann. Oncol. 28(11), 2901–2905 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366, l4898 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. JNCI J. Natl Cancer Inst. 85(5), 365–376 (1993).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med. 33(5), 337–343 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. King MT, Stockler MR, Cella DF et al. Meta-analysis provides evidence-based effect sizes for a cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire, the FACT-G. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63(3), 270–281 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 15. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Quality-of-Life instrument. JCO 15(3), 974–986 (1997).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials 8(1), 16 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17. Tolaney SM, Tayob N, Dang C et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine versus paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab for stage I HER2-positive breast cancer (ATEMPT): a randomized clinical trial. JCO 39(21), 2375–2385 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. Bartley K, Wildiers H, Kim S-B et al. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from TH3RESA, a phase 3 study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with pretreated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 32(26), (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 19. Kantarjian HM, Su Y, Jabbour EJ et al. Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial of inotuzumab ozogamicin versus standard therapy for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia: PROs from the INO-VATE study. Cancer 124(10), 2151–2160 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Welslau M, Diéras V, Sohn J-H et al. Patient-reported outcomes from EMILIA, a randomized phase 3 study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus capecitabine and lapatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: PROs From Phase 3 T-DM1 HER2+ MBC Study. Cancer 120(5), 642–651 (2014). •• Based on the large clinical study EMILIA, the effect of trastuzumab emtansine treatment on quality of life and disease-related symptoms was measured by analyzing patient-reported outcomes.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Dummer R, Prince HM, Whittaker S et al. Patient-reported quality of life in patients with relapsed/refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma: results from the randomised phase III ALCANZA study. Eur. J. Cancer 133, 120–130 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Conte P, Schneeweiss A, Loibl S et al. Patient-reported outcomes from KATHERINE: a phase 3 study of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine versus trastuzumab in patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer. Cancer 126(13), 3132–3139 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Hurvitz SA, Dirix L, Kocsis J et al. Phase II randomized study of trastuzumab emtansine versus trastuzumab plus docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive metastatic breast cancer. JCO 31(9), 1157–1163 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Rugo HS, Bardia A, Marmé F et al. Primary results from TROPiCS-02: a randomized phase 3 study of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients (Pts) with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 40(17), (2022).
  Google Scholar
• 25. Ramsey SD, Nademanee A, Masszi T et al. Quality of life results from a phase 3 study of brentuximab vedotin consolidation following autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant for persons with Hodgkin lymphoma. Br. J. Haematol. 175(5), 860–867 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Mamtani R, Rosenberg JE, Powles T et al. Quality of life, functioning, and symptoms in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma from EV-301: A randomized phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 39(15), (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 27. Loibl S, Loirat D, Tolaney SM et al. Health-related quality of life in the phase III ASCENT trial of sacituzumab govitecan versus standard chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 178, 23–33 (2023).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Ueno NT, Jacot W, Yamashita T et al. 217O Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from DESTINY-Breast04, a randomized phase III study of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) vs treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Ann. Oncol. 33, S632–S633 (2022). •• Provides important data for evaluating the therapeutic effect and quality of life of trastuzumab deruxtecan on patients with HER2-low expression breast cancer, which is of great significance for guiding the treatment choice for patients and improving their quality of life.
  Google Scholar
• 29. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. JCO 34(24), 2925–2934 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 30. Gross CP, Filardo G, Mayne ST, Krumholz HM. The impact of socioeconomic status and race on trial participation for older women with breast cancer. Cancer 103(3), 483–491 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31. Osoba D. Health-related quality of life and cancer clinical trials. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 3(2), 57–71 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar