4.6 Review

Targeting mTOR pathway in gynecological malignancies: Biological rationale and systematic review of published data

Journal

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages 1-12

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.10.003

Keywords

Ovarian cancer; Endometrial cancer; Cervical cancer; Everolimus; Temsirolimus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: mTOR inhibitors are widely used in different malignancies with several trials testing their efficacy and safety in gynecological malignancies. We aimed to review the current evidence that support the expansion of using such drugs in the treatment of advanced gynecological cancers. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of literature has been conducted to include prospective trials that used everolimus, temsirolimus or ridaforolimus in the management of gynecological cancers and have available efficacy and toxicity results. Results: A total of 23 studies including 980 patients were considered eligible for our review. Our review included 16 phase II and 7 phase I studies with the majority of patients having uterine cancers. Regarding Endometrial cancer, the CBR ranged from 21% to 60% and median PFS from 2.8 months to 73 months. In Ovarian cancers, CBR ranged from 24% to 50% and median PFS from 3.2 months to 5.9 months. In the single phase II study in cervical cancer the CBR was 61% and median PFS was 3.5 months. The toxicity profile was consistent with what was observed previously in other malignancies with fatigue, mucositis, and hematological toxicities being the most common adverse events observed. Conclusion: mTOR inhibitors seem to be a promising option in the second line management of advanced gynecological cancers with best safety and efficacy outcomes when given as a single agent or in combination with hormonal treatment. More research is needed for better patient selection. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available