A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Safety and Efficacy of Cediranib in the Treatment of Cancer Patients

Wang, Yan; Cai, Yan; Wang, Qi-Ming

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9245663

Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 9245663 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9245663

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Safety and Efficacy of Cediranib in the Treatment of Cancer Patients

Yan Wang,¹Yan Cai,¹and Qi-Ming Wang¹

Academic Editor: Pranshu Sahgal

Received01 Nov 2022

Revised16 Jun 2023

Accepted01 Aug 2023

Published22 Aug 2023

Abstract

Objective. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are exciting new anticancer strategies. As one of the most promising oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, cediranib has been proven effective in treating various solid malignant tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cediranib in cancer patients. Methods. A comprehensive literature review was conducted for phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to June 31, 2021, using databases from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. Relevant clinical trials reporting the efficacy and toxicity characteristics of cediranib in cancer patients were analyzed using Stata 15.1. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system was used to assess the strength of the evidence. Results. The systematic review yielded 14 eligible trials, comprising 4,387 patients with solid malignant tumors. The analysis results of RCTs showed that the cediranib-containing group had a significantly better PFS than the control group (HR: 0.75; 95% CI 0.69–0.82; < 0.001), and the pooled OS of the cediranib-containing group was significantly higher than that of the control group (HR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.84–1.00; = 0.041). The sensitivity analysis revealed that the pooled HR was stable and excluding a single study had no effect on the significance of the pooled HR. In addition, the meta-analysis passed Begg’s and Egger’s tests, indicating no publication bias. Regarding safety, the most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, hypertension, fatigue, sensory neuropathy, dyspnea, vomiting, headache, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. Conclusion. Cediranib treatment responds better than noncediranib therapy but can increase the risk of specific treatment-related toxicities.

1. Introduction

Irrespective of the level of human development, cancer is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in every region of the world and threatens human health [1]. More than 18 million new cancer cases were diagnosed in 2018, with more than 9.5 million deaths [2]. Although most cancer patients experience effective treatment and diagnosis progression, the 5-year overall survival rate remains low, and other active treatment methods are required to improve the effectiveness of maintenance therapy [3]. An essential step in tumor growth and metastasis is the process of new blood vessel formation and angiogenesis. The VEGF binds to the VEGF receptor (VEGFR) on the cell surface, resulting in dimerization and passage through the cell phosphorylation of the internal tyrosine kinase region ultimately, which leads to the activation of the neovascularization cascade. Therefore, VEGF and VEGFR are essential targets for antitumor angiogenesis therapy and inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has become an essential strategy for cancer treatment. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are molecules that bind to the intracellular ATP-binding catalytic site of the activated tyrosine kinase domain and block the latter, such as the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and the platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), all of which play crucial roles in the pathophysiology of cancer [4]. Regarding pharmacokinetics (PK), cediranib demonstrated a linear relationship in the dose range of 0.5–60 mg, with the maximum plasma concentration (C_max) observed 1 to 8 hours after administration [5]. Patients typically have a terminal half-life of 12 to 36 hours, with an average terminal half-life of 22 [6]. Cediranib belongs to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets all three VEGFRs (VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, and VEGFR-3) and c-Kit. It inhibits the VEGF signaling pathway in endothelial and cancer cells, resulting in antitumor activity in solid cancer patients. As a result, cediranib is regarded as a potentially effective drug added to standard chemotherapy [7]. In previous studies, cediranib is effective in the following cancers: malignant pleural mesothelioma [8], biliary tract cancer [9], cervical cancer [10], nonsmall cell lung cancer [11], colorectal cancer [12], renal cell carcinoma [13], breast cancer [14], and glioblastoma [15]. In addition, studies on the maintenance treatment of cediranib in recurrent ovarian cancer are ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03278717 and NCT03117933) [16, 17]. Furthermore, preclinical data show that antiangiogenic drugs may enhance the efficacy of PARP inhibitors [18], which is supported by two randomized phase II studies and a recent phase III trial. Combining antiangiogenic drugs with olaparib or olaparib resulted in more prolonged progression-free survival than PARP inhibitors alone [19–21]. In this paper, we aimed to review the current evidence on the role of cediranib in solid cancer and to conduct a meta-analysis in order to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cediranib in those patients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Electronic Search

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cediranib were conducted for this study. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science used medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and text words related to cediranib and neoplasms. The search was completed through June 31, 2021. Relevant articles and abstracts from retrieved articles were browsed for additional eligible studies.

2.2. Study Selection

The selection of literature was performed independently by two reviewers as part of the assessment of research eligibility. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved by consensus between both reviewers. According to PICOS criteria, relevant clinical studies of cediranib maintenance therapy for patients with solid malignant tumors were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) P (population): patients with solid malignant tumors were included in the study; (2) I (Intervention) and C (comparison): participants were randomly assigned to cediranib-containing or control treatment; (3) O (outcome): studies reported the progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events; (4) S (study design): the trial was designed as a randomized controlled trial (RCT); and (5) articles that have been published in English. Studies would be excluded for the following reasons: (1) studies with unclear outcome indicators; (2) not RCTs but retrospective trials, observational studies, or case reports; and (3) conferences, abstracts, guidelines, letters, meta-analyses, and reviews. When an unpublished date on cediranib could not be obtained, efforts were made to contact the trial authors. Single-armed studies were excluded due to the lack of control groups. Studies in which progression-free survival was not a primary or secondary endpoint and trials conducted in a first-line setting were excluded.

2.3. Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted the data from eligible primary studies. They converted them into a standard data extraction form, and if disagreement occurred, it was resolved by two authors for consensus. The following information was extracted from each trial: first author, publication year, country, and clinical trials, Gov number, study design, number of patients enrolled, participant’s age, primary treatment received, intervention details, the dosage of cediranib, duration of maintenance, median follow-up, PFS, OS, and adverse events. We also extracted the logarithm of the hazard ratio (log (HR)) and its standard error from each eligible study for time-to-event data (PFS). To estimate the risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes (such as adverse events), we extracted the number of participants in each eligible trial who experienced this event. Wherever available, the complete protocol of each trial was included to verify relevant information regarding study design and execution. The most recent or complete publication reporting the information of interest was considered for publications reporting results from the same trail. Adverse events were classified using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) (grade 1, mild; grade 2, moderate; grade 3, severe or medically significant; grade 4, life-threatening).

2.4. Assessment of Risk of Bias

We assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for RCTs. We used the tool to assess the risk of bias (ROB) in the following domains: randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. We rated each domain as “some concerns,” “low,” or “high.”

2.5. Grading the Certainty of Evidence for Major Outcomes

We assessed the certainty of the evidence for major outcomes based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. This approach incorporates five key domains: (1) risk of bias, (2) inconsistency, (3) indirectness, (4) imprecision of the evidence, and (5) reporting bias. Two reviewers graded each domain for the major outcome and resolved differences by consensus discussion. We documented all decisions regarding up- or downgrading the certainty of evidence to ensure transparency.

2.6. Data Handling and Statistical Methods

The efficacy of cediranib in the treatment of solid malignant tumors was determined by calculating pooled PFS, OS, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on data from all trials. Furthermore, in terms of safety, the binary data (adverse events) were calculated using the risk ratio (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). For data analysis, Stata 15.1 software packages were utilized. < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for heterogeneity, representing the percentage of total variation across studies. A fixed-effect model was used when substantial heterogeneity or I² < 50% ( ≥ 0.1) was not observed. On the contrary, a random-effect model was adopted to obtain a more appropriate estimation of the average treatment effect in the case of between-study heterogeneity. A forest plot was used to display all the data analysis results. Moreover, sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of the results by omitting individual studies sequentially, and publication bias was assessed using Begg’s and Egger’s tests. A value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

2.7. Patient and Public Involvement

Given that this systematic review will be carried out based on published studies, patients and members of the public will not be involved directly. Only data from published literature and/or the aforementioned sources will be used.

2.8. Ethics and Dissemination

This meta-analysis will be performed on published studies without involving any private and confidential patient data, so no approval is required from an ethics committee. The results will be reported by publishing them in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in the relevant conferences. No ethical issues will be raised.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

One thousand three hundred and seven potentially relevant studies were obtained electronically from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the excluded 1,293 studies were met by screening each record’s titles, abstracts, and keywords. Three hundred and fifty four duplicates and 939 articles that did not meet the criteria were excluded. Finally, 14 studies were further assessed for eligibility, and the latest publication of each trial was adopted for the meta-analysis. The trial selection process was summarized in the PRISMA plot (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

In total, 4,387 patients from fourteen RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 546 patients were with ovarian cancer, 62 patients were with breast cancer, 69 patients were with cervical cancer, 644 patients were with nonsmall cell lung cancer, 2454 patients were with colorectal cancer, 71 patients were with renal cell cancer, 124 patients were with biliary tract cancer, 325 patients were with glioblastoma, and 92 patients were with malignant pleural mesothelioma. The included trials included five phase III RCTs and nine phase II RCTs. All studies reported sufficient data on PFS and adverse events, and nine reported sufficient data on OS. Cediranib dosages varied across fourteen RCTs, with nine trials administering 20 mg once daily, while the other five trials gave participants 30 mg or 45 mg per day. The characteristics of patients in the fourteen articles are shown in Table 1.

3.3. Risk of Bias and Certainty of Evidence for Major Outcomes

Among the fourteen RCTs we included, the word “random” was mentioned in all articles, and specific random methods were mentioned in nine RCTs, such as a computer program. The seven RCTs described allocation concealment in great detail. The RCTs have complete outcome data, and none were selectively reported. A detailed risk of bias assessment is described in Figure 2. The GRADE assessment indicated a moderate quality for PFS and OS.

(a)

(b)

(c)

3.4. Progression-Free Survival

All studies reported the outcome of PFS. The combined HR for PFS was 0.75 (95% CI 0.69–0.82, < 0.001; Figure 3), indicating that cediranib-containing treatment significantly improved PFS compared to the control therapy. The pooled HR was calculated using the fixed-effect model because there was significant heterogeneity among trials (I²= 37.7%, = 0.083).

3.5. Overall Survival

The pooled HR was calculated using a fixed-effect model since nine out of fourteen trials reported data on OS, which showed no significant between-study heterogeneity among trials (overall: I-squared = 0.0%, = 0.724). In addition, patients receiving cediranib-containing therapy had a statistically significant improvement in OS (HR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.84–1.00; = 0.041; Figure 4) compared to control therapy.

3.6. Safety

According to the reports, the incidence of diarrhea (RR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.65-2.33, < 0.001) and fatigue (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03-1.25, = 0.008) in the cediranib-containing group was higher than that in the control group. The incidence of tertiary and above adverse events was higher (Table 2). The following aspects were included in the analysis of the most common adverse events: hypertension, fatigue, sensory neuropathy, dyspnea, anorexia, vomiting, headache, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia. Furthermore, we discovered that the incidence of hypertension (RR = 2.73, 95% CI = 2.00–2.71, < 0.001), anorexia (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16–1.40, < 0.001), stomatitis (RR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.36–1.74, < 0.001), vomiting (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.06–1.30, = 0.002), constipation (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76–0.98, = 0.023), hand-foot syndrome (RR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.31–3.58, = 0.002), headache (RR = 2.78, 95% CI = 1.69–4.58, < 0.001), abdominal pain (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.08–1.43, = 0.003), dysphonia (RR = 5.43, 95% CI = 1.25–23.61, = 0.024), neutropenia (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.20–1.41, < 0.001), and thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.37–1.70, < 0.001) in the cediranib-containing group was higher compared to that of the control group.

Furthermore, there was no difference in the risk of occurrence of these adverse events in the cediranib-containing group and the control group for nausea, anemia, sensory neuropathy, dyspnea, leukopenia, epistaxis, and venous thromboembolism (Table 3).

3.7. Sensitivity Analysis

We conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the stability and reliability of the pooled HR (for PFS and OS) and RR (for all-grade adverse events). As shown in Figure 5, the horizontal box plot of the leave-one-out method confirmed a study (Schmoll, 2012) that affects the aggregate HR of PFS. Before removing this article, the combined HR for PFS was 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.87, < 0.001), and after removing it, PFS was 0.75 (95% CI 0.69–0.82, < 0.001). However, the horizontal box plot of the leave-one-out method confirmed that no single study had a qualitative influence on the pooled HR of OS. Simultaneously, we performed a sensitivity analysis for all-grade adverse events, and after excluding each study in turn, the overall RR value remained unchanged.

(a)

(b)

3.8. Publication Bias

This meta-analysis performed a funnel chart analysis on the outcome indicators (PFS and OS) and included adverse events with subgroups ≥10. We utilized Begg’s adjusted rank correlation test and Egger’s test to assess the publication bias of works of literature. The Z-value (continuity corrected) of Begg’s adjusted rank correlation test was 1.77 ( = 0.077) on PFS (Figure 6(a)), and Egger’s test ( > |t| = 0.128) was used to detect publication bias (Figure 6(b)). In addition, Begg’s test (Pr > |z| = 0.175; Figure 6(c)) and Egger’s test ( > |t| = 0.141; Figure 6(d)) were used to detect the publication bias of OS and found no publication bias. The publication bias results for adverse events with subgroups ≥10 showed that the funnel charts of these outcome indicators were symmetrical. Therefore, the present results were statistically steady and robust.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

4. Discussion

Cediranib is an oral, potent, small molecule antitumor drug developed by Astra Zeneca in the United States. Cediranib is an effective ATP-competitive VEGF signaling inhibitor that can inhibit in vivo and in vitro and prevent VEGF-induced angiogenesis vivo [23]. It can also inhibit tumor cell growth by inhibiting lymphangiogenesis, which VEGFR-3 mediates [24]. Previously, many researchers such as Chen et al. in 2021 were concerned about the efficacy and safety of Cediranib in treating malignant tumors. The combination of cediranib and lomustine showed the highest incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events [25]. The combination of antiangiogenesis and PARP inhibitors provided a significant PFS benefit for women newly diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer who tested positive for homologous recombination defects, indicating a new treatment option [26]. Currently, phase II and phase III clinical trials to evaluate the role of cediranib in solid malignant tumors are underway. Cediranib has an excellent clinical effect but exploring the best combination of chemotherapy and other targets is more important. Research on the combination of cediranib and PARP inhibitors has gradually increased. PARP inhibitors can reduce VEGF-induced angiogenesis while increasing VEGF2 phosphorylation, indicating that using PARP inhibitors in combination with antiangiogenic drugs has a synergistic effect [27]. Our previous publication revealed the efficacy and safety of olaparib in the treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer [28]. Furthermore, the efficacy of cediranib and olaparib combined maintenance therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer after platinum therapy is still being investigated [14]. The research found that cediranib may have antitumor activity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cells [29]. Meanwhile, cediranib is also being tested in a large-scale clinical trial, and it is expected to improve the treatment of solid malignant tumors in the future. As the most promising oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, cediranib has undergone systematic clinical evaluation as both a single agent and in combination therapy in various malignant tumors. Until now, cediranib has shown a stable response in ovarian, nonsmall cell lung cancer, and so on [9, 14]. We systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of cediranib in cancer patients for the first time. Several new RCTs of cediranib in ovarian cancer and malignant pleural mesothelioma have recently been completed, and thus the efficacy and safety of cediranib should be evaluated. As a result, we systematized the available information in order to conduct this meta-analysis on the role of cediranib in cancer treatment. This meta-analysis examined nine types of tumor, including ovarian cancer [30, 31], breast cancer [12], cervical cancer [8], nonsmall cell lung cancer [9, 32, 33], colorectal cancer [10, 34, 35], renal cell carcinoma [11], biliary tract cancer [7], glioblastoma [13], and malignant pleural mesothelioma [6]. We evaluated the survival data of 4,387 cancer patients treated with cediranib, and 14 different studies were systematically included.

In summary, the results indicated that the cediranib-containing group had a significantly better PFS than the control group (HR: 0.75; 95% CI = 0.69–0.82; < 0.001), and the pooled OS of the cediranib-containing group was significantly higher than that of the control group (RR: 0.91; 95% CI = 0.84–1.00; = 0.041). Moreover, the toxicity of cediranib is similar to that of the other VEGFR inhibitors. Toxic reactions are the most common reason for treatment discontinuation. During cediranib treatment, the most common toxic reactions were diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, anorexia, stomatitis, vomiting, constipation, hand-foot syndrome, headache, abdominal pain, dysphonia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. Therefore, more research is needed to determine the most beneficial population and the best treatment plan, while reducing adverse reactions and overcoming resistance, which can maximize the prognosis of patients and reduce the potential negative impact on life.

Despite the clinical potential of cediranib therapy, several limitations should be considered in our meta-analysis. First, there were potential differences among the studies included, such as drug doses, different types of malignancies, race, age, and even study quality, making interpreting a meta-analysis more difficult. Second, not all OS data and AEs have been reported, or OS was not the primary endpoint for most studies, which may lead to immature data for OS and AEs. Third, the exclusion of non-English articles may have influenced our meta-analysis. Although we conducted a comprehensive search, some data will inevitably be lost. Finally, due to the limited number of included studies, this study did not perform the subgroup analysis, which may lead to differences in the antitumor effects of cediranib on different malignancies. As a result of the limitations of this meta-analysis, more comprehensive perspectives and large-scale sample studies are required to assess cediranib’s efficacy and safety.

In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrates that cediranib treatment has a better treatment response than noncediranib therapy. Even though cediranib is associated with an increased risk of specific treatment-related toxicities such as diarrhea and fatigue, cediranib significantly improved the quality of life and patient outcomes in multiple clinical trials, providing a new potential therapeutic option for cancer patients. Trials on cediranib, the most promising oral antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor, are currently in progress. In the future, the ongoing randomized, double-masked phase II/III clinical trials will help to understand better the role of cediranib in the treatment of solid malignant tumors, and toxicities associated with its use should be given more attention in order to provide stricter monitoring and management and continuously improve the prognosis of patients.

Data Availability

Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

Yan Wang and Qi-Ming Wang designed the study; Yan Wang performed the study and wrote the paper; Yan Wang and Yan Cai assessed the studies included in this review and collected the data; Yan Wang and Yan Cai analyzed the data; and Qi-Ming Wang reviewed the manuscript. All authors contributed to the data analysis, drafting, and revising the article, gave final approval of the version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Ningbo Health Branding Subject Fund (Grant no. PPXK2018-06).

References

F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 394–424, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ferlay, M. Colombet, I. Soerjomataram et al., “Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 144, no. 8, pp. 1941–1953, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Allemani, H. K. Weir, H. Carreira et al., “Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2),” The Lancet, vol. 385, no. 9972, pp. 977–1010, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Brave, K. Ratcliffe, Z. Wilson et al., “Assessing the activity of cediranib, a VEGFR-2/3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, against VEGFR-1 and members of the structurally related PDGFR family,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 861–873, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Li, N. Al-Huniti, A. Henningsson, W. Tang, and E. Masson, “Population pharmacokinetic and exposure simulation analysis for cediranib (AZD2171) in pooled Phase I/II studies in patients with cancer,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 83, no. 8, pp. 1723–1733, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Tang, A. McCormick, J. Li, and E. Masson, “Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cediranib,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 689–702, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Morotti, C. M. Becker, M. V. Menada, and S. Ferrero, “Targeting tyrosine-kinases in ovarian cancer,” Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1265–1279, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Tsao, J. Miao, I. I. Wistuba et al., “Phase II trial of cediranib in combination with cisplatin and pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naïve patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (SWOG S0905),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 37, no. 28, pp. 2537–2547, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. W. Valle, H. Wasan, A. Lopes et al., “Cediranib or placebo in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-03): a randomised phase 2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 967–978, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. P. Symonds, C. Gourley, S. Davidson et al., “Cediranib combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer (CIRCCa): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 16, no. 15, pp. 1515–1524, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Laurie, B. J. Solomon, L. Seymour et al., “Randomised, double-blind trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with daily oral cediranib or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group study BR29,” European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 706–712, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. M. Hoff, A. Hochhaus, B. C. Pestalozzi et al., “Cediranib plus FOLFOX/CAPOX versus placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study (HORIZON II),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 29, pp. 3596–3603, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Mulders, R. Hawkins, P. Nathan et al., “Cediranib monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomised phase II study,” European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England), vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 527–537, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Hyams, A. Chan, C. de Oliveira et al., “Cediranib in combination with fulvestrant in hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer: a randomized Phase II study,” Investigational New Drugs, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1345–1354, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. T. Batchelor, P. Mulholland, B. Neyns et al., “Phase III randomized trial comparing the efficacy of cediranib as monotherapy, and in combination with lomustine, versus lomustine alone in patients with recurrent glioblastoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 26, pp. 3212–3218, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Elyashiv, J. Ledermann, G. Parmar et al., “ICON 9-an international phase III randomized study to evaluate the efficacy of maintenance therapy with olaparib and cediranib or olaparib alone in patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer following a response to platinum-based chemotherapy,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 134–138, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Mansouri, N. McGregor, R. Dunn et al., “Randomised phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OCTOVA): a study protocol,” BMJ Open, vol. 11, no. 1, Article ID 41463, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Kaplan, S. E. Gueble, Y. Liu et al., “Cediranib suppresses homology-directed DNA repair through down-regulation of BRCA1/2 and RAD51,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 11, no. 492, p. 4508, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Liu, W. T. Barry, M. Birrer et al., “Overall survival and updated progression-free survival outcomes in a randomized phase II study of combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 551–557, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Mirza, E. Åvall Lundqvist, M. J. Birrer et al., “Niraparib plus bevacizumab versus niraparib alone for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (NSGO-AVANOVA2/ENGOT-ov24): a randomised, phase 2, superiority trial,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1409–1419, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Liu, M. F. Brady, U. A. Matulonis et al., “A phase III study comparing single-agent olaparib or the combination of cediranib and olaparib to standard platinum-based chemotherapy in recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 38, no. 15, p. 6003, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Higgins, D. G. Altman, P. C. Gøtzsche et al., “The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials,” BMJ, vol. 343, no. oct18 2, p. 5928, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kendrew, R. Odedra, A. Logié et al., “Anti-tumour and anti-vascular effects of cediranib (AZD2171) alone and in combination with other anti-tumour therapies,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1021–1032, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Wedge, J. Kendrew, L. F. Hennequin et al., “AZD2171: a highly potent, orally bioavailable, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor for the treatment of cancer,” Cancer Research, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 4389–4400, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Chen, Y. Wang, B. Zhao et al., “Optimal therapies for recurrent glioblastoma: a bayesian network meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 11, Article ID 641878, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Alvarez Secord, D. M. O'Malley, A. K. Sood, S. N. Westin, and J. F. Liu, “Rationale for combination PARP inhibitor and antiangiogenic treatment in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a review,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 162, no. 2, pp. 482–495, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kim, E. George, R. Ragland et al., “Targeting the ATR/CHK1 Axis with PARP inhibition results in tumor regression in BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer models,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 3097–3108, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Yan, C. Yan, and W. Qiming, “Efficacy and safety of olaparib in the treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 46–52, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Momeny, G. Sankanian, S. Hamzehlou et al., “Cediranib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor kinases, inhibits proliferation and invasion of prostate adenocarcinoma cells,” European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 882, Article ID 173298, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Liu, W. T. Barry, M. Birrer et al., “Combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib alone for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1207–1214, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Ledermann, A. C. Embleton-Thirsk, T. J. Perren et al., “Cediranib in addition to chemotherapy for women with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): overall survival results of a phase III randomised trial,” ESMO open, vol. 6, no. 2, Article ID 100043, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. D. Goss, A. Arnold, F. A. Shepherd et al., “Randomized, double-blind trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with either daily oral cediranib or placebo in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: NCIC clinical trials group BR24 study,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 49–55, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. K. Dy, S. J. Mandrekar, G. D. Nelson et al., “A randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and carboplatin with or without cediranib as first-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: north Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0528,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79–88, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kato, K. Muro, K. Yamaguchi et al., “Cediranib in combination with mFOLFOX6 in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the randomised phase II part of a phase I/II study,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 933–941, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Schmoll, D. Cunningham, A. Sobrero et al., “Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a double-blind, randomized phase III study (HORIZON III),” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 30, no. 29, pp. 3588–3595, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Yan Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

393

Downloads

191

Citations