Next Article in Journal
Intra-Operative Tumour Detection and Staging in Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: An Integrative Review of Current Standards and Future Directions
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Treatment Outcomes Between First-Line Chemotherapy With or Without Bevacizumab for Advanced Ovarian Clear Cell Carcinoma (Tohoku Gynecologic Cancer Unit: TGCU-RS001A Study)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cytotoxic Autophagy: A Novel Treatment Paradigm against Breast Cancer Using Oleanolic Acid and Ursolic Acid
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/cancers16223802
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Camptothecin and Its Derivatives from Traditional Chinese Medicine in Combination with Anticancer Therapy Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Paul O. Odeniran
1,
Paradise Madlala
2,
Nompumelelo P. Mkhwanazi
2,* and
Mahmoud E. S. Soliman
3,*
1
Department of Veterinary Parasitology and Entomology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan 200001, Nigeria
2
HIV Pathogenesis Programme, School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Science, The Doris Duke Medical Research Institute, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
3
Molecular Bio-Computation and Drug Design Lab, School of Health Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2024, 16(22), 3802; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16223802
Submission received: 11 September 2024 / Revised: 4 November 2024 / Accepted: 5 November 2024 / Published: 12 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Anticancer Drug Discovery Based on Natural Products: From Computational Approaches to Clinical Studies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of camptothecin derivative-based drug combinations, such as irinotecan and topotecan, in treating various cancers, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer, oesophageal/gastric cancer, and small cell lung cancer. By reviewing phase II and III clinical trials, the research focused on comparing objective response rates (RR), survival outcomes, and toxicity profiles across different chemotherapy regimens. Findings highlight that irinotecan combined with cisplatin showed superior RR and progression-free survival in NSCLC, while bevacizumab-irinotecan combinations demonstrated better outcomes in colorectal cancer. The results from this meta-analysis may inform clinical decision-making, guiding oncologists toward more effective treatment combinations for different cancer types and improving patient outcomes.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Camptothecin (CPT) and its derivatives, irinotecan and topotecan, are integral components of cancer chemotherapy, often used in combination therapies. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of CPT-based combination treatments in cancer patients. Methods: We systematically searched the literature database using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for articles published between 2000 and 2022. Published studies were retrieved through an electronic search on the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. A total of 138 studies were downloaded and examined, and 71 eligible studies were selected for meta-analysis after excluding studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Results: Ultimately, a total of 71 studies were included in the analysis, comprising non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer (COLRC), oesophageal/gastric cancer (O/GC), and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). For NSCLC, the objective response rate (RR) was 31.8% (95% CI: 27.3–37.1%, p = 0.025), with irinotecan plus cisplatin showing significantly higher efficacy compared to other irinotecan-based combinations. In COLRC, irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus bevacizumab demonstrated superior efficacy with a RR of 44% (95% CI: 34–58, p < 0.001) and minimal haematological toxicity. In O/GC, irinotecan-based combinations showed an average RR of 43% (95% CI: 27–70, p < 0.001) and average overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates of 10.2 and 5.5 months, respectively. For SCLC, irinotecan-based combinations had a higher control response than topotecan-based ones, while the latter exhibited higher rates of stable and progressive disease. The overall RR for SCLC was 45% (95% CI: 34.3–60.2, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The existing evidence underscored the potential of CPT-based combination therapy in various cancers. Among the various combinations discussed in this analysis, irinotecan plus cisplatin demonstrated the highest objective RR in 12 trials focused on NSCLC. This study provides valuable insights into potential treatment strategies for various types of cancer, emphasising the importance of personalised and tailored approaches to maximise efficacy and minimise adverse effects.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Globally, cancer remains a significant health challenge, with nearly 10.0 million deaths and an estimated 19.3 million new cases reported in 2020 [1]. Female breast cancer ranks as the most diagnosed cancer, accounting for approximately 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed closely by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0%), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Despite advancements in treatment, lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, claiming nearly 1.8 million lives (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Projections suggest a significant rise in cancer cases by 2040, with an anticipated 28.4 million new cases globally, representing a 47% increase from 2020 [1]. In 2020, lung cancer accounted for 2.21 million new cases and resulted in 1.8 million deaths globally. The age-standardised incidence rate stood at 22.4 per 100,000 individuals, with a higher incidence among males (31.5 per 100,000) than females (14.6 per 100,000). Similarly, the age-standardised mortality rates were 18.0 per 100,000 overall, with males experiencing a higher mortality rate (25.9 per 100,000) compared to females (11.2 per 100,000) [2]. This meta-analysis investigates the effective treatment combinations for different cancer types using camptothecin (CPT) and its derivatives from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).
The utilisation of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) among cancer patients has increased in popularity. Notably, studies indicate that approximately one-third of individuals diagnosed with cancer incorporate CAMs into their treatment regimen [3]. Over the past five decades, extensive clinical research has highlighted the potential benefits of TCM in cancer therapy. Evidence suggests that TCM may reduce treatment-related toxicity, enhance the effectiveness of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, prolong survival in advanced cancer patients, and aid in preventing and managing recurrence and metastasis [4]. Given its widespread use, further research is imperative to elucidate TCM’s clinical efficacy and safety profile in cancer management.
Camptothecin, derived from Camptotheca acuminata, a tree native to China and a recognised traditional Chinese medicine, garnered interest in cancer treatment research in the late 1950s and mid to late 1960s [5]. Despite its potent anticancer properties, CPT’s unpredictable pharmacological behaviour and adverse effects (AEs) hampered its clinical success. Efforts to enhance CPT’s pharmacological profile and reduce side effects led to the development of semi-synthetic and synthetic analogues [6]. Topotecan and irinotecan, the first Food and Drug Administration-approved analogues, are now widely used in chemotherapy. Irinotecan is indicated for metastatic colorectal carcinoma, while topotecan serves as a second-line treatment for ovarian and small cell lung cancer [6]. The incorporation of front-line chemotherapy in cancer treatment strategies has expanded, particularly for advanced disease stages, through multimodal approaches [7]. Numerous clinical trials spanning five decades have explored CPT derivatives in cancer treatment. Previous studies have focused on the pharmacological profile, clinical evaluations, structural modifications, and therapeutic efficacy of CPT and its various forms [8,9,10]. However, no study has conducted a detailed, case-by-case clinical analysis of CPT analogues to thoroughly assess their combinational efficacy and identify the most suitable options for specific cancer therapies. This comprehensive meta-analysis aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of CPT derivative-based combinations in clinical trial settings, offering insights into their role in cancer therapy and the best choices at clinicians’ disposal.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Searches

The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria (PRISMA) [11] to ensure comprehensive inclusion of relevant data. A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Key search terms such as “camptothecin”, “irinotecan”, “topotecan”, “response rate”, “cancer”, “colorectal”, “gastric,” “oesophagus”, “small cell”, “non-small cell”, “lung cancer”, and “stomach” were employed.
Only studies published between January 2000 and December 2022 were considered, and inclusion criteria stipulated that articles must have full texts or abstracts available in English. Trials must be completed within the specified timeframe, objective response rates (RR) must be reported, clear details on the chemotherapeutic regimen must be provided, and a sample size of at least 10 must be used for statistical analysis. Articles lacking these characteristics were excluded from the study. The systematic review followed the recommendations of the PRISMA in Table S1 (Prisma 2020 checklist). The protocol has not been registered.

2.2. Quality of the Studies

The risk of bias within the included studies was assessed using a quality evaluation checklist based on criteria earlier outlined [12]. Each item was rated as yes, no, or uncertain and graded on a scale from 1 to 10. The checklist covered the following topics: clarity of study objectives, mention of therapy duration, documentation of gender distribution, mention of previous treatment, disclosure of sample size and RR, evaluation of progression-free and patient survival times, specification of substance class, division of examined subjects into subgroups, accurate description of therapy duration, and mention of patients’ performance status. These criteria were employed to systematically assess the quality and potential biases within the selected studies.

2.3. Data Extraction

Study characteristics (first author’s name, year of publication, impact factor, response rate, including control response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progression disease (PD)); median age, prior therapies, toxicity effects, survival time, progression-free survival, performance status, and overall survival time (Supplementary File S1) were all noted.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

To evaluate the efficacy of cancer chemotherapy, the primary outcome measure utilised was the objective RR, presented alongside its corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). All descriptive analyses employed 95% confidence intervals, while the raw data were processed in Microsoft Excel. In certain instances, standard deviation (StD) and standard error of the mean (SEM) were also examined. The objective response encompasses control and partial response, whereas the disease control rate incorporates control response, partial response, and stable disease. These metrics provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer chemotherapeutic interventions. The response rate from each trial was combined using the Microsoft Excel meta-analysis program METAXL version 3.1 [13,14]. The quality effects model computed the estimated response rate and 95% confidence intervals (CI). According to this model’s quality ratings, research is ranked according to its quality and sample size [13]. Prevalence information was taken from various sub-group analyses. I2 (degree of inconsistency) was used to evaluate heterogeneity in the study (Cochran’s Q). According to Barendregt and Doi [14], the I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicated low, moderate, and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively. Both Doi plots and funnel plots were used to evaluate the risk of bias. According to Barendregt and Doi [14], a Luis Frya-Kanamori (LFK) score greater than 2 denotes significant asymmetry (publication bias). Plotting the z-score versus double arcs in the prevalence of the analysed publications yields the LFK index. The total number of sampled population (n − 1), where “n” is the sample population, is denoted by the degree of freedom (df) in the text.

3. Results

3.1. Meta-Analysis Trial Flow

The literature database searches yielded 2257 articles, including references from relevant studies (Figure 1). After diligent observation, 1051 studies were removed as they were unrelated to the subject being considered. Thereafter, 1019 articles were excluded based on screening titles and abstracts from the initial 1206 records. Additionally, 49 duplicate studies were identified. Upon review of the full texts of the remaining articles, 67 did not meet the inclusion criteria out of the 138 downloaded. Ultimately, 71 studies were included in the analysis, comprising 23 for NSCLC, 14 for colorectal cancer (COLRC), 5 for oesophageal/gastric cancer (O/GC), and 29 for SCLC.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Analysis with Irinotecan-Based Combinations

The objective response rate in studies focusing on non-small cell lung cancer was determined to be 31.8% (n = 23 studies), based on 1092 individuals assessed for response (Figure 2). The overall pooled control response rates for CR, PR, SD, and PD were calculated as follows: CR = 0.15 (StD = 0.6708, SEM = 0.15), PR = 13.6 (StD = 10.84, SEM = 2.42), SD = 18.3 (StD = 10.70, SEM = 2.52), and PD = 13 (StD = 9.35, SEM = 2.20), respectively (Figure 3). The overall analysis revealed heterogeneity among the studies (RR = 31.8%, 95% CI: 27.3–37.1%, I2 = 40.8%, Cochran’s Q = 35.5, p = 0.025, df = 21, Q-index = 15.0).

3.2. NSCLC Study Analyses

The average median age across the studies examined was 62 years (df = 19). The one-year overall survival rate (OS), as observed in four studies, was determined to be 22.2% (17.1–28.1). Evaluating the overall statuses of the examined studies based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG), the results were as follows: ECOG 0 = 30.0% (95% CI: 26.3–33.9, StD = 0.1276, SEM = 0.0191); ECOG 1 = 60.0% (95% CI: 55.9–64.1, StD = 0.1419, SEM = 0.020); and ECOG 2 = 12.2% (95% CI: 9.9–14.8, StD = 0.074, SEM = 0.0119). Patients with an ECOG status of IIIB (24.7%) showed significantly lower rates compared to those with IV status (74.5%) (χ2 = 507.5; p < 0.0001). Recurrent patients accounted for 0.8% of the total. The median survival time estimated across 20 studies was 10.5 months, while the average progression-free survival time, evaluable in 15 studies, was 4.9 months. Toxicity reports were limited to patients experiencing grade III and IV AEs. The observed AEs and their respective percentages (with 95% CI and sample sizes) were as follows: nausea (13.5%, 95% CI: 11.1–16.2, n = 98/727, df = 14), diarrhoea (15.6%, 95% CI: 13.2–18.3, n = 129/826, df = 16), neutropenia (39.3%, 95% CI: 35.9–42.8, n = 311/791, df = 17), anaemia (12.2%, 95% CI: 9.9–14.7, n = 92/755, df = 16), leukopenia (22.0%, 95% CI: 18.1–26.4, n = 91/413, df = 7), anorexia (25.0%, 95% CI: 16.4–35.4, n = 22/88, df = 1), thrombocytopenia (12.1%, 95% CI: 9.8–14.7, n = 87/718, df = 14), fatigue (8.1%, 95% CI: 5.4–11.4, n = 27/335, df = 6), and vomiting (9.9%, 95% CI: 5.4–16.4, n = 13/131, df = 2).

3.3. Irinotecan Drug Combinations and Responses

More studies were observed investigating the combination of irinotecan plus cisplatin against NSCLC compared to other drug combinations, as shown in Table 1. The average objective response rate was also higher in the irinotecan plus cisplatin combination compared to other combinations. The RR analysis indicated that irinotecan plus cisplatin had a significantly higher response rate compared to combinations such as irinotecan plus gemcitabine, irinotecan plus docetaxel, and irinotecan plus carboplatin, but not significantly different (p > 0.05) from others like irinotecan plus paclitaxel and irinotecan plus ifosfamide. The median age of patients during chemotherapy was statistically similar across all combinations and did not appear to affect the efficacy of the drugs. Survival analysis revealed that irinotecan plus gemcitabine and irinotecan plus paclitaxel had the lowest OS compared to other irinotecan combinations in the studies that reported higher OS, while irinotecan plus docetaxel exhibited the highest OS. Additionally, progression-free survival (PFS) was notably higher for irinotecan plus cisplatin and irinotecan plus carboplatin than other combinations.

3.4. Drug Toxicity Among Patients in Grades III and IV

For all irinotecan combinations used against NSCLC, neutropenia is the most severe drug toxicity observed in all the irinotecan-based combinations (Table 2). The low toxicity observed in irinotecan plus ifosfamide could be due to only one study examined in that group.

3.5. Colorectal Cancer

The objective response rate of camptothecin derivatives with or without other drugs against COLRC demonstrates a pooled rate of 44% (95%CI: 34–58) (Figure 4), encompassing 2018 patients. However, the analysis indicates significant heterogeneity between studies (Q = 129.2; p = 0.001; I2 = 90%). The breakdown of response categories reveals a CR of 4.0% (95%CI: 3.2–5.0), PR at 35.4% (95%CI: 33.3–37.6), SD at 30.6% (95%CI: 28.5–32.8), and PD at 20.5% (95%CI: 18.6–22.4). The median age of the examined studies is 63 years. The OS stands at 19.1 months, while PFS is estimated at 10.1 months across the studies. Notably, approximately 49.1% (95CI: 46.0–52.2) of patients exhibit metastases at one site, 34.6% (95%CI: 30.8–38.4) at two sites, and 18.4% (95%CI: 15.5–21.5) at more than two sites. Considering the performance status of patients, ECOG 0 is reported in 66.1% (95%CI: 63.4–68.7, n = 9 studies), ECOG 1 in 36.9% (95%CI: 33.9–40.0, n = 8 studies), and ECOG 2 in 4.5% (95%CI: 3.1–6.4, n = 6 studies).

3.6. Irinotecan-Based Combinations Response

Most studies focused on folinic acid (also known as leucovorin, calcium folinate, or FA), fluorouracil (also known as 5FU), and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) combinations for the treatment of COLRC. Notably, combining bevacizumab with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) demonstrated significantly higher OS, PFS, RR, and disease control rate (DCR) comparable safety profiles (Table 3). Among irinotecan-based regimens for first-line metastatic COLRC, an infusion schedule of fluorouracil (FU) should be preferred.

3.7. Drug Toxicity

The toxicity was only for grade III and IV patients, with severity signs of anaemia, neutropenia, and leucopenia, most pronounced with patients treated with BEVFOLFIRI. Diarrhoea and vomiting were most severe with CAPIRI (Table 4). In all the analyses, AEs between FOLFIRI and CAPIRI were comparable, as patients’ reactions were similar.

3.8. Oesophageal/Gastric Cancer

The pooled rate from six studies on the effect of irinotecan-based chemotherapy with other drug combinations revealed a response rate of 43% (95%CI: 27–70) among 355 patients (Figure 5). The most common regimen across studies is FOLFIRI (LV 200 mg/m2 i.v. followed by FU 400 mg/m2–600 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 2 every 14 days plus irinotecan 180 mg/m2). The study showed heterogeneity (Q = 24.6, p < 0.0001, I2 = 84%) (Figure 5). Observed responses across studies include CR = 2.2%, PR = 36.2%, SD = 27.0%, and PD = 20.5%. The overall median age was 63.4 years in the five studies. A total of 16.8% of 137 patients have prior surgical resection before chemotherapy. Based on performance status, ECOG 0 = 70.6%, ECOG 1 = 27.2%, and ECOG 2 = 2.2%. The median survival time was 10.2 months, while progression-free survival time was 5.5 months. Based on metastatic sites, patients with one organ metastatic sites were 39.7% (95%CI: 33.8–45.8), and two organs were 39.0% (95%CI: 33.1–45.1). while greater than two organs were 21.3% (95%CI: 17.0–26.8). Effects of toxicity were reported in nausea 10.3% (95%CI: 7.4–14.0), diarrhoea 22.4% (95%CI: 18.1–27.0), stomatitis 4.7% (95%CI: 2.4–8.0), anaemia 12.1 (95%CI: 8.7–16.2), neutropenia 26.3% (95%CI: 21.8–31.1), leukopaenia 14.6% (95%CI: 10.1–20.0), anorexia 5.6% (95%CI: 3.2–9.0), and vomiting 7.8% (95%CI: 3.5–14.9).

3.9. Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)

From 2002 to 2022, the chemotherapeutic treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) predominantly involved two major camptothecin-based drugs: irinotecan and topotecan, either administered alone or in combination with other drugs. A forest plot analysis revealed a pooled overall response rate of 45.4% (95%CI: 34.3–60.2) across 28 studies involving 2704 patients (Figure 6). However, notable asymmetry and heterogeneity were observed among the studies (Q = 309.4, p < 0.001, I2 = 91%) (Figure 6). Specifically, the SCLC analysis indicated control response rates of 4.0% (95%CI: 3.3–4.9), partial response rates of 32.7% (95%CI: 30.8–34.8), stable disease rates of 24.3% (95%CI: 22.5–26.1), and progressive disease rates of 16.0% (95%CI: 15.0–17.6). The median age across all 29 studies encompassing 2704 patients was 64 years. Performance status assessed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) revealed ECOG 0 at 27.2% (95%CI: 25.0–29.6), ECOG 1 at 64.3% (95%CI: 61.8–66.8), and ECOG 2 at 8.8% (95%CI: 7.4–10.4). The median survival time across all SCLC studies was 8.9 months, with a progression-free survival of 4.5 months. Notably, 46.4% (95%CI: 42.5–50.3) of patients had undergone prior radiotherapy, while surgical resection was reported in 14.9% (95%CI: 10.6–20.1) from two studies. The analysis of toxicity revealed varying incidences, including nausea (7.5%), diarrhoea (10.6%), anaemia (22.8%), neutropenia (51.0%), leukopenia (41.7%), anorexia (3.1%), thrombocytopenia (32.0%), fatigue (15.2%), and vomiting (5.1%).

3.10. Comparison of Topotecan-Based Combinations with Irinotecan-Based Combinations Against SCLC from 29 Studies Analysed

A total of 14 and 16 studies investigated the efficacy of topotecan and irinotecan-based combinations in chemotherapy for SCLC. The average response rate was significantly higher in studies utilising irinotecan than those employing topotecan. However, there was no significant difference in the DCR. The median age was comparable between the two groups. Overall survival rate and PFS were higher in irinotecan-based combinations. Drug response analysis revealed a higher control response in irinotecan-based combinations compared to topotecan, although the difference was not significant. Additionally, partial response was significantly higher in irinotecan-based combinations than topotecan (Table 5). Conversely, topotecan-based combinations exhibited a higher rate of stable disease and progressive disease, statistically significant compared to irinotecan-based combinations. Toxicity analysis indicated that irinotecan-based combinations had a greater impact on non-haematological parameters such as anaemia and diarrhoea, while topotecan-based combinations showed higher effects on haematological parameters.

3.11. Sensitivity Test on Analysis

For sensitivity tests of each MetaXL analysis, the stability and dependability of the processed articles were assessed. The Doi plot (LFK index) used for sensitivity analysis eliminated any chance of major bias in the study. NSCLC provides an LFK index of −3.17, colorectal cancer analysis shows −2.07, O/GC LFK index is −0.30, and SCLC analysis LFK index shows −4.95. All except O/GC analysis show major asymmetry.

4. Discussion

The meta-analysis focused on phase II and III studies investigating the efficacy of irinotecan and topotecan in combination with other drugs (such as cisplatin, carboplatin, fluorouracil, etc.) across four cancer types (SCLC, NSCLC, COLRC, and O/GC), with a total cohort of 6169 patients.
Irinotecan-based regimens, augmented with additional medications, predominated in the treatment of NSCLC, yielding an average RR of 32%. However, the CR rate was notably low, with less than 0.2% reported across 23 studies. Notably, irinotecan administration has been linked to suboptimal CR outcomes, particularly in patients classified as grade IV [26,30,34]. The analysis underscored the significant incidence of severe AEs, encompassing haematologic and non-haematologic manifestations commonly associated with CPT chemotherapies [82,83]. Irinotecan plus cisplatin had the best OS and PFS time, which could be why more studies were conducted on this combination for NSCLC. The analysis revealed that irinotecan plus cisplatin demonstrated the highest objective RR among the combinations studied in 12 trials focused on NSCLC (Table 1). While irinotecan plus ifosfamide exhibited the highest DCR%, its relatively low RR% might deter its widespread use. Notably, the chemotherapy regimen comprising irinotecan plus cisplatin consistently outperformed other combinational regimens across multiple parameters, including objective response rate, median time to tumour progression, median survival time, and 1-year survival in the studies analysed for NSCLC. This suggests that the irinotecan plus cisplatin combination may be the preferred treatment option among the examined regimens.
In studies involving metastatic COLRC patients, phase III randomised trials indicated improved PFS with CPT derivative-based combination therapies. Notably, CAPIRI and FOLFIRI emerged as the most frequently utilised drugs, according to literature databases. Compared to other combination therapies, BEVFOLFIRI exhibited superior OS and PFS. However, inconsistencies in OS and PFS observed in studies focusing on FOLFIRI may be attributed to data from phase II trials [47]. Overall, no significant difference was observed in the RR and DCR between FOLFIRI and CAPIRI. The enhanced outcomes associated with BEVFOLFIRI may be attributed to including Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody known for inhibiting the formation of blood vessels crucial for cancer growth. Additionally, the higher dose of irinotecan (150–180 mg/m2) in BEVFOLFIRI compared to other regimens may contribute to its efficacy. Notably, severe AEs such as anaemia and neutropenia were more pronounced with BEVFOLFIRI, while CAPIRI was associated with more severe diarrhoea compared to previous medication options. The high proportion of patients with an ECOG performance status of zero (66.1%) suggests that a more intensive treatment regimen may be feasible without compromising patient selection criteria. Overall survival notably improved, underscoring the importance of incorporating irinotecan into the treatment regimen. Esteemed guidelines and established data advocate for a maintenance phase and continuum of care for individuals grappling with metastatic colorectal cancer [84,85,86].
The reviewed trials demonstrated objective response rates (RR) falling within the reported range (25–79%) for phase II and III investigations in O/GC. While one study encompassed both stomach and oesophageal cancer, four studies focused solely on gastric cancer. These irinotecan-based combinations show promise, as evidenced by the average OS and PFS rates of 10.2 and 5.5 months, respectively. A detailed examination reveals a low CR rate with a moderately robust partial response, consistent with prior research findings [87,88,89]. With oncologists prioritising the extension of meaningful survival, consideration of treatment-related toxicity is imperative. Patients with shorter survival times and/or disease progression often experience a diminished quality of life, potentially impacting the reliability of the LFK index analyses due to varying RR reports across sub-groups. Irinotecan, etoposide, and 5-FU/LV exhibited safety profiles commensurate with the observed toxicities in this trial overall. Notably, the FOLFIRI combination demonstrated minimal and acceptable incidences of haematological toxicity, rendering it well tolerated. Gastrointestinal toxicity, a known side effect of FOLFIRI therapy, may necessitate hospitalisation and immediate medical attention [45]. However, overall toxicity reports may be lower compared to other studies, possibly attributable to the inclusion of studies employing weekly irinotecan (80 mg/m2) alongside an AIO-based regimen of 24 h high-dose 5-FU (2300 mg/m2) preceded by 2 h LV 500 mg/m2, with 44% of patients experiencing grade III/IV [45].
In small cell lung cancer (SCLC) studies, irinotecan-based combinations demonstrated significantly longer overall survival than topotecan-based combinations. These trials primarily enrolled patients with relapsed SCLC, predominantly with favourable Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) statuses. Predominantly phase II cases with substantial objective response rates underscore the efficacy of salvage chemotherapy with irinotecan. Notably, other parameters, including disease control rate, were comparable, suggesting both combinations as viable options. The heightened AEs on haematological parameters observed with topotecan could be linked to the prevalent topotecan dose of 1.5 mg/m2 in most patients, representing an overdose, particularly in relapsed SCLC patients, thereby depleting bone marrow reserves. This study revealed significantly higher levels of anaemia, neutropenia, and leucopenia than irinotecan-based combinations. Notably, some authors have explored trials employing lower dose ranges of 1.0–1.25 mg/m2 [59]. Irinotecan-based combinations were predominantly paired with cisplatin, etoposide, carboplatin, and bevacizumab. However, cisplatin-based combinations emerged as the most frequently observed and demonstrated superior efficacy compared to topotecan-based combinations. Additionally, the overall toxicity profile favoured irinotecan-based combinations. These findings align with previous meta-analyses suggesting that topotecan-based therapy does not outperform other agents in relapsed SCLC. However, weak evidence indicates its inferiority to platinum-based combinations in sensitive diseases [90]. Previous research has shown that the irinotecan and cisplatin combination was unsuccessful in phase III trials conducted in SCLC patients from the USA, Canada, the Republic of Korea, and Australia [66,78,91]. The study’s limitations included missing data in some studies, preventing a comprehensive analysis. For example, the impact of pharmacogenetics on treatment outcomes and specific details regarding first-line treatments were not available in cases where the studies only reported on second-line treatments. Advances in targeted drug delivery systems—particularly those employing nanotechnology and sophisticated combinational formulations—offer promising solutions to longstanding challenges with CPT bioavailability and delivery. Despite these obstacles, CPT derivatives show immense promise as cancer therapies due to their strong cytotoxic effects on cancer cells. Extensive efforts have been devoted to optimising CPT derivatives through structural modifications to gain mechanistic insights, developing innovative targeted delivery systems to enhance CPT’s pharmacological properties, and overcoming existing limitations [9,10]. This meta-analysis offers critical insights into irinotecan-based chemotherapy, highlighting considerable efficacy in NSCLC with an objective response rate of 31.8% across 23 studies. Irinotecan combined with cisplatin consistently demonstrated superior response rates compared to alternative drug pairings, supporting its preferential use for NSCLC. Despite significant heterogeneity and asymmetry across studies, the results affirm irinotecan’s efficacy in improving progression-free survival, particularly with combinations involving cisplatin and carboplatin. However, elevated toxicity, especially neutropenia, necessitates cautious clinical application. For COLRC and SCLC, irinotecan with bevacizumab and fluorouracil showed optimal survival benefits, but toxicity risks remain a significant challenge. Likewise, the combination therapy of irinotecan with folinic acid and fluorouracil proved most effective for treating O/GC. This review explains the need for tailored therapeutic strategies to balance efficacy and safety across cancer types.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, trials involving camptothecin derivative-based combinations are ongoing and remain the standard treatment regime for cancer therapy. The future of cancer treatment is poised for significant advancements through several emerging trends. Genomic, proteomic, and pharmacogenomic innovations will enable personalised treatments based on individual tumours’ genetic and molecular profiles. Immunotherapy and the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in analysing large datasets from clinical trials and genetic studies will enhance treatment precision. Liquid biopsies will improve early detection and real-time monitoring of cancer progression. Clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and other gene-editing technologies hold promise for correcting cancer-driving mutations. Combination therapies, integrating modalities like chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiation, are expected to improve treatment efficacy. Additionally, advancements in nanotechnology, telemedicine, stem cell research, preventive oncology, and lifestyle interventions will contribute to more effective and comprehensive cancer care.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers16223802/s1, Table S1: Prisma 2020 checklist; File S1: Total number of references used. Reference [92] is cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.E.S.S. and P.O.O.; methodology, P.O.O.; software, M.E.S.S.; validation, M.E.S.S., P.O.O. and N.P.M.; formal analysis, P.O.O.; investigation P.O.O.; resources, P.O.O.; data curation, P.O.O.; writing—original draft preparation, P.O.O.; writing—review and editing, N.P.M., P.M., M.E.S.S. and P.O.O.; supervision, M.E.S.S.; project administration, P.O.O.; funding acquisition, M.E.S.S. and N.P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Research Office.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge our administration staff and all the personnel that was involved in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sharma, R. Mapping of global, regional and national incidence, mortality and mortality-to-incidence ratio of lung cancer in 2020 and 2050. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022, 27, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sanford, N.N.; Sher, D.J.; Ahn, C.; Aizer, A.A.; Mahal, B.A. Prevalence and Nondisclosure of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Patients with Cancer and Cancer Survivors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2019, 5, 735–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Liu, J.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, H.T.; Lin, H.S. Traditional Chinese medicine and cancer: History, present situation, and development. Thorac. Cancer 2015, 6, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schultz, A.G. Camptothecin. Chem. Rev. 1973, 73, 385–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Legarza, K.; Yang, L.X. Novel Camptothecin Derivatives. In Vivo 2005, 19, 283–292. [Google Scholar]
  7. Georgoulias, V.; Agelidou, A.; Kouroussis, A.; Samonis, N.; Kakolyris, H.; Tsiafaki, I.; Vardakis, V.; Souglakos, J. Second-line treatment with irinotecan plus cisplatin vs cisplatin of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer pretreated with taxanes and gemcitabine: A multicenter randomised phase II study. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 93, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kamle, M.; Pandhi, S.; Mishra, S.; Barua, S.; Kurian, A.; Mahato, D.K.; Rasane, P.; Büsselberg, D.; Kumar, P.; Calina, D.; et al. Camptothecin and its derivatives: Advancements, mechanisms and clinical potential in cancer therapy. Med. Oncol. 2024, 41, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, Z.; Liu, M.; Wang, N.; Xiao, W.; Shi, J. Unleashing the Potential of Camptothecin: Exploring Innovative Strategies for Structural Modification and Therapeutic Advancements. J. Med. Chem. 2024, 67, 3244–3273, Erratum in J. Med. Chem. 2024, 67, 9772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ghanbari-Movahed, M.; Kaceli, T.; Mondal, A.; Farzaei, M.H.; Bishayee, A. Recent Advances in Improved Anticancer Efficacies of Camptothecin Nano-Formulations: A Systematic Review. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, 1006–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hoy, D.; Brooks, P.; Woolf, A.; Blyth, F.; March, L.; Bain, P.; Williams, E.; Smith, T.L. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: Modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012, 65, 934–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barendregt, J.J.; Doi, S.A.; Lee, Y.Y.; Norman, R.E.; Vos, T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2013, 67, 974–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Barendregt, J.J.; Doi, S.A. MetaXL User Guide. 2015. Available online: www.epigear.com (accessed on 7 August 2023).
  15. Nagao, K.; Saito, H.; Mori, S.; Yamazaki, T.; Inoue, M.; Matsui, T. A phase II study of irinotecan combined with cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer. CPT-11 Lung Cancer Study Group. Gan Kagaku Ryoho 2000, 27, 413–421. [Google Scholar]
  16. Takiguchi, Y.; Ohta, H.; Hirata, K.; Morita, S.; Kawahara, T. The final results of a randomized phase III trial comparing irinotecan (CPT-11) and cisplatin (CDDP) with vindesine (VDS) and CDDP in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2000, 1 (Suppl. 1), 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ueoka, H.; Kiura, Y.; Tabata, T.; Takigawa, M.; Segawa, S.; Kamei, S.; Hiraki, T.; Harada, M. Fractionated administration of irinotecan and cisplatin for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase II study of Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group. Br. J. Cancer 2001, 85, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jagasia, M.H.; Langer, C.J.; Johnson, D.H.; Yunus, F.; Rodgers, J.S.; Schlabach, L.L.; Cohen, A.G.; Shyr, Y.; Carbone, D.P.; Devore, R.F. Weekly irinotecan and cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter phase II study. Clin. Cancer Res. 2001, 7, 68–73. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kakolyris, S.; Kouroussis, C.; Souglakos, J.; Agelaki, S.; Kalbakis, K.; Vardakis, N.; Vamvakas, L.; Georgoulias, V. Cisplatin and Irinotecan (CPT-11) as Second-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer 2001, 34, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Takeda, K.; Takifuji, N.; Uejima, H.; Yoshimura, N.; Terakawa, K.; Negoro, S. Phase II Study of Irinotecan and Carboplatin for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer 2002, 38, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ichiki, M.; Hanada, M.; Sasaki, K.; Yoshida, M.; Koike, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Nishi, Y.; Motoyoshi, Y.; Umehara, T. Phase II study of irinotecan and ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Oncology 2003, 64, 306–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Negoro, S.; Masuda, Y.; Takada, M.; Katakami, K.; Kudoh, H.; Sawa, H.; Matsui, H.; Fukuoka, M. Randomised phase III trial of irinotecan combined with cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2003, 88, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Cardenal, F.; Domine, M.; Massutí, B.; Carrato, A.; Felip, E.; Garrido, P.; Juan, O.; Artal, A.; Barneto, I.; Lopez-Vivanco, G.; et al. Three-Week Schedule of Irinotecan and Cisplatin in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicentre Phase II Study. Lung Cancer 2003, 39, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fukuda, M.; Kudoh, Y.; Nakabayashi, H.; Shimoyama, H.; Hishida, K.; Fukuoka, T.; Ohe, T. Phase II study of irinotecan combined with carboplatin in previously untreated non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2004, 54, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yamamoto, N.; Nakagawa, K.; Nishiwaki, K.; Yoshimori, K.; Aokage, H.; Hanada, S.; Mitsuoka, T.; Eguchi, K. Randomised phase II study of docetaxel/cisplatin vs docetaxel/irinotecan in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group Study (WJTOG9803). Br. J. Cancer 2004, 90, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Raez, L.E.; Rosado, M.F.; Santos, E.S.; Reis, I.M. Irinotecan and docetaxel as first line chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer—Experience from a prematurely closed phase II study. Lung Cancer 2004, 45, 131–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lima, C.M.S.R.; Herndon, L.; Kosty, D.R.; Green, G.P.; Eckardt, L.A.; Richards, S.; Crawford, R.; Hensing, D. Randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus irinotecan or docetaxel in stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC. Ann. Oncol. 2004, 15, 410–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ziotopoulos, P.; Kouvatseas, A.; Samantas, N.; Pavlidis, P.; Kalofonos, E.; Fountzilas, G. Front-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with irinotecan and docetaxel: A multicentre phase II study. Lung Cancer 2005, 50, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stathopoulos, G.P.; Veslemes, D.; Georgatou, I.; Koutantos, A.; Malamos, S.; Kostouros, V. Front-line paclitaxel and irinotecan combination chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase I-II trial. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 93, 1106–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Murren, J.R.; Kao, F.T.; Bodkin, D.; Heald, J.P. Evaluation of irinotecan plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2005, 4, 1311–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Saito, H.; Takada, M.; Ichinose, S.; Kato, T.; Mori, K.; Tanimoto, H.; Eguchi, K. Phase II study of 3-week scheduling of irinotecan in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. Cancer Clin. Trials 2006, 29, 503–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hino, M.; Kobayashi, K.; Yoshimura, A.; Takeda, Y.; Hisakatsu, S.; Yoneda, S.; Gemma, A.; Moriya, H.; Kudoh, S.; Group, E.J.C. Weekly administration of irinotecan (CPT -11) plus cisplatin for non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res. 2006, 26, 4697–4704. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Zhang, X.R.; Zhu, Y.Z.; Xiu, Q.Y.; Han, F.C.; Liu, D.Q.; Chu, D.T. Irinotecan plus cisplatin for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Chin. J. Oncol. 2006, 28, 777–779. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pillot, G.A.; Souquet, F.; Guy, C.; Dumontet, C. A Phase II Study of Irinotecan and Carboplatin in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with Pharmacogenomic Analysis: Final Report. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2006, 1, 972–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Charoentum, C.; Thongprasert, S.; Chewasakulyong, B.; Euathrongchit, J.; Sorraritchingchai, S.; Munprakan, S. Phase II Study of Cisplatin Combined to Irinotecan Administered Alternatingly with Docetaxel in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. J. Med. Assoc. Thail. 2007, 90, 2506–2512. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bajetta, E.; Di Bartolomeo, L.; Mariani, P.; Buzzoni, A.; Beretta, M.; Ferrario, M.; Di Leo, S.; Vullo, S.L. Uracil/ftorafur/leucovorin combined with irinotecan (TEGAFIRI) or oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: Results of randomised phase II study. Br. J. Cancer 2007, 96, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grothey, A.; Jordan, K.; Kellner, O.; Constantin, C.; Dietrich, G.; Kroening, H.; Mantovani, L.; Schlichting, C.; Forstbauer, H.; Schmoll, H.J. Capecitabine plus irinotecan (CAPIRI) vs capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) as first-line therapy of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC): Updated results of a randomized phase II trial. Eur. J. Cancer 2003, 1, S90–S91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Comella, P.; Casaretti, S.; Sandomenico, A.; Avallone, E.; Franco, F.; Monfardini, P.D.; Massidda, F. Oxaliplatin plus high-dose folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil i.v. bolus (OXAFAFU) versus irinotecan plus high-dose folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil i.v. bolus (IRIFAFU) in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma: A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group phase III trial. Ann. Oncol. 2005, 16, 878–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Feliu, J.; Escudero, A.; Llosa, I.; Baron, L.G.; Carrato, M.A.; Nistal, A. Phase II randomised trial of raltitrexed-oxaliplatin vs raltitrexed-irinotecan as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 93, 1230–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Seymour, M.T.; Thompson, J.R.; Wasan, T.; Middleton, A.P.; Brewster, R.S.; Shepherd, C.J.; Stenning, J. Different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007, 370, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Borner, M.M.; Koeberle, S.; von Moos, M.; Saletti, M.; Cathomas, P.; Caspar, A. A randomized phase II trial of capecitabine and two different schedules of irinotecan in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Efficacy, quality-of-life and toxicity. Ann. Oncol. 2005, 16, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rosati, G.; Cordio, F.; Bordonaro, C.; Bavetta, G.A.; Ferrara, F.; Russo, S.; Barbarino, A. Capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer: Results of a randomized phase II study. Ann. Oncol. 2009, 21, 781–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moosmann, N.; Heinemann, C.; Laubender, H.; Bokemeyer, G.; Schöberl, T.M.; von Weikersthal, A.F. Cetuximab plus capecitabine and irinotecan compared with cetuximab plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: AIO KRK-0104—A randomized trial of the German AIO CRC study group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 1050–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Colucci, G.; Gebbia, A.; Paoletti, R.; Giuliani, P.; Biganzoli, G.G.; Rabitti, P.; Pancera, L. Phase III randomized trial of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX4 in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: A Multicenter Study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell’Italia Meridionale. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 4866–4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Douillard, J.Y.; Cunningham, D.; Roth, A.D.; Navarro, M.; James, R.D.; Karasek, P.; Jandik, P.; Iveson, T.; Carmichael, P.J.; Alakl, M. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2000, 355, 1041–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Köhne, C.H.; Greil, R.; Wils, G.; Bodoky, F.; Keilholz, W.; Burkitt, P.; Kerr, D.J. Phase III study of weekly high-dose infusional fluorouracil plus folinic acid with or without irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group Study 40986. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 4856–4865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fuchs, C.S.; Goldberg, R.B.; Sargent, R.J.; Meyerhardt, M.; Zhu, T.L.; Hecht, M. Randomized, controlled trial of irinotecan plus infusional, bolus, or oral fluoropyrimidines in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from the BICC-C study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 4779–4786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yamazaki, K.; Nagase, M.; Suzuki, T.; Ando, S.; Hayashi, Y.; Fujimoto, T.; Nishimura, H. Randomized phase III study of bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI and bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WJOG4407G). Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 1539–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Loupakis, F.; Cremolini, G.; Masi, M.; Lonardi, A.; Zagonel, S.; Salvatore, P.; Falcone, A. Initial Therapy with FOLFOXIRI and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 1609–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bouché, O.; Bondoux, P.Y.; Brouquet, C.; Sobrin, J.M.; Saint-Aubert, E.; Louvet, P.C. Randomized multicenter phase II trial of a biweekly regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin (LV5FU2), LV5FU2 plus cisplatin, or LV5FU2 plus irinotecan in patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric cancer: A Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive Group Study-FFCD 9803. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 4319–4328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Moehler, M.; Siebler, A.; Hoehler, F.; Kaiser, R. Randomised phase II evaluation of irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (ILF) vs 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and etoposide (ELF) in untreated metastatic gastric cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 92, 2122–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dank, M.; Zitt, M.; Mai, A.; Greil, G.; Samonigg, W. Randomized phase III study comparing irinotecan combined with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid to cisplatin combined with 5-fluorouracil in chemotherapy naive patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction. Ann. Oncol. 2008, 19, 1450–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Nakashima, K.; Takinami, Y.; Akai, S.; Iizuka, T.; Tsumura, T.; Saito, T.; Nishio, N. Irinotecan plus cisplatin therapy and S-1 plus cisplatin therapy for advanced or recurrent gastric cancer in a single institution. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 38, 810–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Komatsu, Y.; Doki, K.; Takahashi, S.; Nakayama, S.; Mori, M.; Fujiwara, T.; Oda, M. Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with tailored irinotecan plus S-1 therapy versus S-1 monotherapy for advanced or recurrent gastric carcinoma (JFMC31-0301). Anti-Cancer Drugs 2011, 22, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Noda, K.; Nishiwaki, M.; Kawahara, H.; Sato, Y.; Komuta, T.; Yokoyama, T. Irinotecan plus cisplastin compared with etoposide plus cisplastin for extensive small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 346, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hirose, T.; Tamiya, K.; Segawa, M.; Nakano, K.; Nishizawa, H.; Miura, T. Phase II study of irinotecan and carboplatin in patients with the refractory or relapsed small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2003, 40, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schuette, W.; Meisel, C.E.; Seeber, P.; Gross, J. Phase II trial of gemcitabine/irinotecan in refractory or relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Clin. Lung Cancer 2005, 7, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. O’Brien, M.E.R.; Szczesna, D.; Burtin, H.J.; Stawicka, J.; Leyes, C.; Kordyjal, P.; Kropf, F. Phase III trial comparing supportive care alone with supportive care with oral topotecan in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 5441–5447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Huber, R.M.; Reck, A.; von Pawel, U.; Thomas, K.; Gauler, M.; Spengler, F.; Stahel, R.H. Efficacy of a toxicity-adjusted topotecan therapy in recurrent small cell lung cancer. Eur. Respir. J. 2006, 27, 1183–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kinoshita, A.; Eguchi, H.; Tokoro, Y.; Ishikawa, K.; Mase, T.; Takemoto, H.; Yoshida, M. Phase II study of irinotecan combined with carboplatin in previously untreated small-cell lung cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2006, 94, 1267–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Eckardt, J.R.; von Pawel, M.; Pujol, A.; Enns, H.; Stelmakh, R.; O’Brien, A.F.; Meehan, W.A. Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 2086–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ohyanagi, F.; Yokoyama, M.; Nakazawa, M.; Hino, K.; Kobayashi, M.; Sakuma, T.; Minami, K. Phase II trial of gemcitabine and irinotecan in previously treated patients with small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2008, 61, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Inoue, A.; Takahashi, M.; Fujiwara, N.; Arai, S.; Sugiyama, H.; Tanaka, H.; Fujita, T. Randomized phase II trial comparing amrubicin with topotecan in patients with previously treated small-cell lung cancer: North Japan lung cancer study group trial 0402. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 5401–5406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Park, S.H.; Lee, M.; Son, K.; Kim, H.; Kim, J. Salvage treatment with topotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory small cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2008, 62, 1009–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Chen, G.; Tashkin, A.H.; Ryder, C.C. Phase II Trial of Irinotecan and Carboplatin for Extensive or Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lara, P.N.; Chansky, S.; Davies, R.A.; Gumerlock, R.H.; Mack, H.E.T.; Pham, K. Phase III trial of irinotecan/cisplatin compared with etoposide/cisplatin in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: Clinical and pharmacogenomic results from SWOG S0124. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 2530–2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zatloukal, P.; Spicka, M.R.; Hainz, P.; Sedlák, J.; Pavlik, F.; Zemanová, B. A multicenter international randomized phase III study comparing cisplatin in combination with irinotecan or etoposide in previously untreated small-cell lung cancer patients with extensive disease. Ann. Oncol. 2010, 21, 1810–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Jotte, R.; von Pawel, L.; Spicer, R.; Zimmermann, M.; Guns, K. Randomized phase II trial of single-agent amrubicin or topotecan as second-line treatment in patients with small-cell lung cancer sensitive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schmittel, A.; Sebastian, M.; von Weikersthal, L.F.; Martus, P.; Gauler, T.C.; Kaufmann, C.; Hortig, P.; Fischer, J.R.; Link, H.; Binder, D.; et al. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie Thoracic Oncology Study Group. A German multicenter, randomized phase III trial comparing irinotecan-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2011, 22, 1798–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xenidis, N.; Zografos, E.; Koukourakis, G.; Koumakis, C.; Fountzilas, T.; Tsavaris, S. A multicenter phase II study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in combination with irinotecan as second-line treatment of patients with refractory small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2011, 68, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Von Pawel, J.; Gervais, R.; Eckardt, M.; Spira, G.; Harvey, A.; von Dehn, T. Randomized phase III trial of Amrubicin versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 4012–4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shi, Y.; Hu, Y.; Hu, X.; Li, X.; Lin, L.; Han, X. Cisplatin combined with irinotecan or etoposide for untreated extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Thorac. Cancer 2015, 6, 785–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Evans, T.L.; Cho, M.N.; Shih, M.; McCusker, C.; Hanna, D.W. Cabazitaxel versus topotecan in patients with small-cell lung cancer with progressive disease during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015, 10, 1221–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Goto, K.; Ohe, Y.; Sekine, M.; Kunitoh, H.; Saito, M.; Takada, N.; Nishiwaki, T. Combined chemotherapy with cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan versus topotecan alone as second-line treatment for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer (JCOG0605): A multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016, 17, 1147–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chiappori, A.A.; Otterson, J.A.; Dowlati, T.; Shah, S.; Goff, J.E.; Govindan, A.R. A Randomized Phase II Study of Linsitinib (OSI-906) Versus Topotecan in Patients with Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Oncologist 2016, 21, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Trafalis, D.T.; Alifieris, C.; Stathopoulos, G.P.; Sitaras, N. Phase II study of bevacizumab plus irinotecan on the treatment of relapsed resistant small cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2016, 77, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kondo, R.; Watanabe, K.; Sato, M.; Matsuo, N. A Phase II Study of Irinotecan for Patients with Previously Treated Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Oncology 2018, 94, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, D.W.; Kim, S.K.; Shin, J.S.; Lee, C.H.; Kim, S.W.; Park, J.H.; Ahn, H.S. Randomized phase III trial of irinotecan plus cisplatin versus etoposide plus cisplatin in chemotherapy-naïve Korean patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 51, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Baize, N.; Monnet, C.; Voisin, B.F.; Daniel, F.; Leonce, A.; Cortot, A. Carboplatin plus etoposide versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer: An open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1224–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kang, J.H.; Lee, M.W.; Oh, J.H.; Ryu, J.S. A randomised phase 2b study comparing the efficacy and safety of belotecan vs. topotecan as monotherapy for sensitive-relapsed small-cell lung cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2021, 124, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Borghaei, H.; Paz-Ares, N.; Horn, C.; Baas, P.; Reck, M.; Spigel, D. OA12.05 Phase 1 Updated Exploration and First Expansion Data for DLL3-targeted T-cell Engager Tarlatamab in Small Cell Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2022, 17, S33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Edelman, M.J.; Pang, S.S.; Kotsakis, J.A.; Gralla, R.J.; Reck, M.; Kerrigan, J. Randomized phase 3 study of the anti-disialoganglioside antibody dinutuximab and irinotecan vs irinotecan or topotecan for second-line treatment of small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2022, 166, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Hermes, A.; Gatzemeier, D.; Koschel, C.; Bauer, T.; Wilke, U.; Beyer, H. Irinotecan plus carboplatin versus oral etoposide plus carboplatin in extensive small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 4261–4267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Goldberg, R.M.; Alberts, M.S.; Venook, J.; Haller, N.; Rothenberg, C.K. The continuum of care: A paradigm for the management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2007, 12, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schmoll, H.J.; Van Cutsem, E.; Stein, K.; Valentini, J.; Nordlinger, P.C. ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. A personalized approach to clinical decision making. Ann. Oncol. 2012, 23, 2479–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ikoma, N.; Raghav, K.; Chang, G. An Update on Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma. Surg. Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 2017, 26, 667–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zeng, C.; Zhou, H.; Wei, Y.; Wang, L.Y.; Xie, H.; Yao, W.X. Chemotherapy with or without irinotecan in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.) 2014, 127, 951–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nishikawa, K.; Aoyama, T.; Fukuda, H.; Kawano, S.; Nakamura, Y. Meta-analysis of biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone as second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, VIII228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Cho, Y.H.; Yoon, S.Y.; Kim, S.N. Irinotecan Monotherapy Versus Irinotecan-Based Combination as Second-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Cancer Res. Treat. 2016, 49, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Petrelli, F.; Ghidini, A.; Luciani, A. Topotecan or other agents as second-line therapy for relapsed small-cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized studies. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hanna, N.; Einhorn, S.B.; Crowley, S.O.; Shibles, J.G.; Blackburn, R.W.; Brown, J.N. Randomized phase III trial comparing irinotecan/cisplatin with etoposide/cisplatin in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006, 24, 2038–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 16 03802 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram on the exclusion and inclusion of articles in a systematic approach for the camptothecin derivative-based combinations on some specific cancer treatments.
Figure 1. Flow diagram on the exclusion and inclusion of articles in a systematic approach for the camptothecin derivative-based combinations on some specific cancer treatments.
Cancers 16 03802 g001
Cancers 16 03802 g002
Figure 2. Forest plot of studies on NSCLC among 1092 patients (Georgoulias [7], Nagao [15], Takiguchi [16], Ueoka [17], Jagasia [18], Kakolyris [19], Takeda [20], Ichiki [21], Negoro [22], Cardenal [23], Fukuda [24], Yamamoto [25], Raez [26], Rocha Lima [27], Ziotopoulos [28], Stathopoulos [29], Murren [30], Saito [31], Hino [32], Zhang [33], Pillot [34], Charoentum [35]). Abbreviations: NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 2. Forest plot of studies on NSCLC among 1092 patients (Georgoulias [7], Nagao [15], Takiguchi [16], Ueoka [17], Jagasia [18], Kakolyris [19], Takeda [20], Ichiki [21], Negoro [22], Cardenal [23], Fukuda [24], Yamamoto [25], Raez [26], Rocha Lima [27], Ziotopoulos [28], Stathopoulos [29], Murren [30], Saito [31], Hino [32], Zhang [33], Pillot [34], Charoentum [35]). Abbreviations: NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Cancers 16 03802 g002
Cancers 16 03802 g003
Figure 3. Responses to irinotecan combinations against NSCLC from patient metadata. Abbreviations: CPT, camptothecin; CR, control response; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; StD, standard deviation.
Figure 3. Responses to irinotecan combinations against NSCLC from patient metadata. Abbreviations: CPT, camptothecin; CR, control response; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; StD, standard deviation.
Cancers 16 03802 g003
Cancers 16 03802 g004
Figure 4. Forest plot of studies on COLRC among 2018 patients using camptothecin-based derivatives with other drugs (Bajetta [36], Grothey [37], Comella [38], Feliu [39], Seymour [40], Borner [41], Rosati [42], Moosmann [43], Colucci [44], Douillard [45], Kohne [46], Fuchs [47], Yamazaki [48], Loupakis [49]). Abbreviations: COLRC, colorectal cancer; Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 4. Forest plot of studies on COLRC among 2018 patients using camptothecin-based derivatives with other drugs (Bajetta [36], Grothey [37], Comella [38], Feliu [39], Seymour [40], Borner [41], Rosati [42], Moosmann [43], Colucci [44], Douillard [45], Kohne [46], Fuchs [47], Yamazaki [48], Loupakis [49]). Abbreviations: COLRC, colorectal cancer; Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Cancers 16 03802 g004
Cancers 16 03802 g005
Figure 5. Forest plot of studies conducted on oesophageal/gastric cancer (Bouche [50], Moehler [51], Dank [52], Nakashima [53], Komatsu [54]). Abbreviations: Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 5. Forest plot of studies conducted on oesophageal/gastric cancer (Bouche [50], Moehler [51], Dank [52], Nakashima [53], Komatsu [54]). Abbreviations: Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Cancers 16 03802 g005
Cancers 16 03802 g006
Figure 6. Forest plot of studies on SCLC patients (Noda [55], Hirose [56], Schuette [57], O’Brien [58], Huber [59], Kinoshita [60], Eckardt [61], Ohyanagi [62], Inoue [63], Park [64], Chen [65], Lara [66], Zatloukal [67], Jotte [68], Schmittel [69], Xenidis [70], von Pawel [71], Shi [72], Evans [73], Goto [74], Chiappori [75], Trafalis [76], Kondo [77], Kim [78], Baize [79], Kang [80], Borghaei [81], Edelman [82]). Abbreviations: SCLC, small cell lung cancer; Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 6. Forest plot of studies on SCLC patients (Noda [55], Hirose [56], Schuette [57], O’Brien [58], Huber [59], Kinoshita [60], Eckardt [61], Ohyanagi [62], Inoue [63], Park [64], Chen [65], Lara [66], Zatloukal [67], Jotte [68], Schmittel [69], Xenidis [70], von Pawel [71], Shi [72], Evans [73], Goto [74], Chiappori [75], Trafalis [76], Kondo [77], Kim [78], Baize [79], Kang [80], Borghaei [81], Edelman [82]). Abbreviations: SCLC, small cell lung cancer; Q, measure of heterogeneity; p, p-value; I2, degree of inconsistency; CI, confidence interval.
Cancers 16 03802 g006
Table 1. Irinotecan-based combinations of chemotherapeutic effects on NSCLC patients.
Table 1. Irinotecan-based combinations of chemotherapeutic effects on NSCLC patients.
Combinational TherapyNo. of StudiesPatients InvestigatedAverage RR%Average DCR%Median AgeOSPFS
IRI + CIS1269334.166.86110.55.5
IRI + CAR313725.672.36510.65.5
IRI + DOC311025.561.86110.83.5
IRI + PAC26930.466.7629.24.4
IRI + GEM13912.871.86383.5
IRI + IFO14429.588.66512.55.3
Abbreviations: NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; IRI, irinotecan; CIS, cisplastin; CAR, carboplatin; DOC, docetaxel; PAC, paclitaxel; GEM, gemcitabine; IFO, ifosfamide; OS, overall survival rate; PFS, progression-free survival rate.
Table 2. Non-haematologic and haematologic responses to irinotecan-based combinations on NSCLC patients.
Table 2. Non-haematologic and haematologic responses to irinotecan-based combinations on NSCLC patients.
Toxicity (%)
Combinational TherapyNauseaDiarrhoeaAnaemiaNeutropeniaLeucopeniaThrombo
IRI + CIS19.619.610.537.917.29.7
IRI + CAR10.17.927.363.335.133.1
IRI + DOC0.016.93.826.4N/A0.0
IRI + PAC1.37.67.620.3N/A1.8
IRI + GEM17.9N/A5.125.612.82.6
IRI + IFO0.06.84.538.627.30.0
Abbreviations: NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; IRI, irinotecan; CIS, cisplastin; CAR, carboplatin; DOC, docetaxel; PAC, paclitaxel; GEM, gemcitabine; IFO, ifosfamide; thrombo, thrombocytopenia.
Table 3. Irinotecan-based combinations’ chemotherapeutic effects on COLRC patients.
Table 3. Irinotecan-based combinations’ chemotherapeutic effects on COLRC patients.
Combinational TherapyNo. of StudiesPatients
Investigated		Average RR%Average DCR%Median AgeOSPFS
FOLFIRI468644.574.56118.77.5
CAPIRI318937.073.074147.5
BEVFOLFIRI244157.688.06128.610.9
Abbreviations: COLRC, colorectal cancer; FOLFIRI, folinic acid + fluorouracil + irinotecan; CAPIRI, capecitabine + irinotecan; BEVFOLFIRI, bevacizumab + folinic acid + fluorouracil + irinotecan; DCR, disease control rate; OS, overall survival rate; PFS, progression-free survival rate.
Table 4. Non-haematologic and haematologic responses to irinotecan-based combinations on COLRC patients.
Table 4. Non-haematologic and haematologic responses to irinotecan-based combinations on COLRC patients.
Toxicity (%)
NauseaDiarrhoeaAnaemiaNeutropeniaLeukopaeniaVomiting
FOLFIRI3.813.71.320.45.05.0
CAPIRIN/A28.76.416.4N/A6.4
BEVFOLFIRI4.79.845.131.411.33.8
Common treatment plans across studies
FOLFIRIFA 500 mg/m2 as a 2 h infusion and FU 2.6 g/m2 by intravenous 24 h infusion, irinotecan 80 mg/m2
CAPIRIIrinotecan 80 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally b.i.d. days 1–14; q21d
BEVFOLFIRIBevacizumab (5 mg/kg) followed by FOLFIRI (irinotecan 150–180 mg/m2; leucovorin 200 mg/m2; i.v. bolus of fluorouracil 400 mg/m2, continuous infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2)
Abbreviations: COLRC, colorectal cancer; FOLFIRI, folinic acid + fluorouracil + irinotecan; CAPIRI, capecitabine + irinotecan; BEVFOLFIRI, bevacizumab + folinic acid + fluorouracil + irinotecan.
Table 5. Comparison of camptothecin derivative-based combinations on SCLC patients.
Table 5. Comparison of camptothecin derivative-based combinations on SCLC patients.
Camptothecin Derivatives with/Without Other Drugs Class Against SCLC
Drug of InterestNo of StudiesPatients InvestigatedAverage RR%, X2, pAverage DCR%Median Age (Yrs)PFS (Months)OS (Months)
Topotecan combination14125126.8177.2, p < 0.0064.5633.87.0
Irinotecan combination16145352.0 *74.5645.010.3
Responses (%, X2, pvalue)
CRPRSDPD
Topotecan combination3.725.0126.8,
p < 0.00		32.9 *14.8,
p < 0.00		25.8 *87.8,
p < 0.00
Irinotecan combination5.550.3 * 24.4 10.6
Toxicity (%, X2, pvalue)
NauseaDiarrhoeaAnaemiaNeutropeniaLeukopaeniaTHROMB
Topotecan combination1.537.7, p < 0.001.966.5, p < 0.0027.2 *13.6, p < 0.0067.4 *115.8, p < 0.0045.139.4 *20.9, p < 0.00
Irinotecan combination10.0 *14.5 *20.142.839.724.7
* p < 0.001. Abbreviations: SCLC, small cell lung cancer; p, p value; X2, chi-square; THROMB, thrombocytopenia; RR, response rate; DCR, disease control rate; PFS, progression-free survival rate; CR, control response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Odeniran, P.O.; Madlala, P.; Mkhwanazi, N.P.; Soliman, M.E.S. Camptothecin and Its Derivatives from Traditional Chinese Medicine in Combination with Anticancer Therapy Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2024, 16, 3802. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16223802

AMA Style

Odeniran PO, Madlala P, Mkhwanazi NP, Soliman MES. Camptothecin and Its Derivatives from Traditional Chinese Medicine in Combination with Anticancer Therapy Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2024; 16(22):3802. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16223802

Chicago/Turabian Style

Odeniran, Paul O., Paradise Madlala, Nompumelelo P. Mkhwanazi, and Mahmoud E. S. Soliman. 2024. "Camptothecin and Its Derivatives from Traditional Chinese Medicine in Combination with Anticancer Therapy Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cancers 16, no. 22: 3802. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16223802

APA Style

Odeniran, P. O., Madlala, P., Mkhwanazi, N. P., & Soliman, M. E. S. (2024). Camptothecin and Its Derivatives from Traditional Chinese Medicine in Combination with Anticancer Therapy Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers, 16(22), 3802. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16223802

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop