BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests a correlation between the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and the prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the existing findings remain contentious.MethodsAn extensive literature review was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to February 20, 2025, to identify relevant studies on the prognostic role of PLR in clinical outcomes. We applied a set of predefined criteria to determine which studies qualified for inclusion. We assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) using hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsOur analysis included nineteen studies (26 comparative groups), involving 4,422 individuals. Aggregate data revealed a significant correlation between PLR values and both OS and PFS in CRC patients receiving chemotherapy (OS: HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.03–1.35; p = 0.02; PFS: HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.03–1.60; p = 0.03).Specifically, higher PLR values were associated with shorter OS and PFS. This association was observed across varying sample sizes, population characteristics, cut-off values, regions, treatments, and patient ages. However, no significant correlation was found between PLR values and CSS in CRC patients receiving chemotherapy (CSS: HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.76–2.10; p = 0.36).ConclusionHigher PLR values are significantly associated with shorter OS and PFS in CRC patients undergoing chemotherapy. However, the analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between PLR and CSS in this patient population. In patients with CRC, PLR may serve as a useful marker for predicting outcomes and shaping individualized therapeutic approaches, especially in the context of immunotherapy.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251031290.

ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of NAs in decreasing the reactivation of HBV, reducing chemotherapy disruption, and improving survival in oncology patients.MethodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the impact of NAs in HBV infected-related oncology patients were retrieved from electronic databases. The outcome indicators included reactivation rate, survival rate of 1 to 3 years after treatment, and chemotherapy disruption rate. The studies were evaluated for bias using the RCT risk of bias assessment tool recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. The risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the outcome indicators for the anti-viral treatment, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) was used to identify the optimal therapeutic regime.ResultsA total of 67 trials containing 5722 patients were included in this study. Regarding the reduction of reactivation rate, entecavir, lamivudine, adefovir alone were less effective than the combination of lamivudine and entecavir (94.9%), with RR values ranging from 3.16 to 3.73. However, based on SUCRA, the efficacy of telbivudine (80.3%) and the combination of lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil (58.8%) were also acceptable. Entecavir (RR values ranging from 1.25 to 1.50) and lamivudine (RR values ranging from 1.27 to 1.35) can prolong the survival rate of patients at 1-3 years, and were better than adefovir dipivoxil in the comparison of 1-year survival rate. The RR values were 1.18 and 1.19, respectively. And entecavir ‘s ranking in SUCRA was more stable. Entecavir, lamivudine, and tenofovir all reduced chemotherapy interruption rates compared with no antiviral therapy, especially for tenofovir.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that lamivudine combined with entecavir, telbivudine, and lamivudine combined with adefovir dipivoxil were the most effective in preventing virus reactivation in HBV infected-related cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Entecavir had the most stable effect on survival, while tenofovir had the best impact on reducing the chemotherapy disruption rate. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.Systematic review registrationPROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD4202250685.

BackgroundThe safety of mastectomy (MT) with immediate reconstruction (IR) in breast cancer patients who have completed neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is not apparent. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the differences in surgical complications and postoperative survival rates between MT with IR (MT+IR) and MT alone in post-NAC breast cancer patients.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, and CNKI databases were systematically searched, and cohort studies of post-NAC breast cancer patients with MT+IR or MT surgery were collected from databases inception to May 25, 2023. Two researchers independently executed literature screening, data extraction, and bias risk assessment, and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 12 studies involving 7378 cases who have accepted NAC were collected for this study. The results showed that compared with the MT group, the relative risk of surgical complications in the MT+IR group was increased by 44%, with no statistical significant [RR=1.44, 95% CI (0.99, 2.09), P=0.06]. While among study subgroups with a median follow-up of less than one year, more surgical complications occurred in the MT+IR group by 23% [RR=1.23, 95% CI (1.00, 1.52), P=0.05]. There was no significant differences in overall survival, disease-free survival, local relapse-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival between the two groups.ConclusionsCompared with the MT, MT+IR does not affect the postoperative survival rate in post-NAC breast cancer patients, accompanied by a mild increase in short-term surgical complications, but no significant difference in long-term complications.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023421150.

IntroductionWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with or without chemotherapies in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsData related to the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy were retrieved from the database construction to August 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Manual standard and RevMan 5.3 software for data synthesis. The outcome measures observed included overall survival, 12-month survival, disease control rate, objective response rate, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, and progression-free survival. The adverse reactions included fatigue, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, rash, anemia, and anorexia.ResultsIn this meta-analysis, a total of 17 randomized controlled trials were included. In first-line therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was more effective than chemotherapy alone. Overall survival, 12-month survival rate, and objective response rate were statistically significant. Among second-line treatments, immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma had statistically significant overall survival, 12-month survival, objective response rate, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy alone.ConclusionBoth first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors are effective for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and the adverse reactions are controllable and safe.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021282586.

ObjectiveAt present, several important trials have been published show that perioperative immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy can improve the prognosis of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer, which further optimizes treatment options. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer.MethodsThe following databases were searched for relevant studies: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library (updated 12 October 2023). All randomized trials comparing perioperative immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in resectable non-small cell lung cancer were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane collaboration software). Primary outcomes and measures included overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (MPR), R0 resection rate, rate of underwent surgery and adverse events (AEs).ResultsA total of 2912 patients (1453 receiving perioperative immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 1459 receiving chemotherapy alone) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The result showed that compared with chemotherapy alone, combined therapy significantly improved OS (HR = 0.68;95% CI: 0.56-0.83), EFS (HR = 0.58;95% CI: 0.51-0.65), pCR (OR = 7.53;95% CI: 4.63-12.26), MPR (OR = 5.03;95% CI: 3.40-7.44), R0 resection (OR = 1.58;95% CI: 1.152.18) and rate of underwent surgery (OR = 1.25;95% CI: 1.04-1.49). However, combination therapy was associated with higher risk of severe adverse event (OR = 1.46;95% CI: 1.19-1.78; P=0.0002), grade 3 and higher treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) (OR = 1.25;95% CI: 1.06-1.49; P=0.010), TRAE that led to interruption (OR = 1.90;95% CI: 1.34-2.68; P=0.0003) and immune-related adverse event (OR = 2.78;95% CI: 2.18-3.55; P<0.00001). Significant benefits were observed across most subgroups of EFS and pCR. However, no statistical differences were observed for EFS of never smoked (HR = 0.73;95% CI: 0.51-1.05) and EGFR-mutation positive (HR = 0.35;95% CI: 0.04-3.03).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis found superior efficacy associated with perioperative immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in both tumor regression and prolonged survival in resectable NSCLC, but increased the risk of TRAE, so monitoring for adverse events is warranted.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier (CRD42023476786).

BackgroundCombining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy (PIC) is a standard first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of bevacizumab to this regimen (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors+bevacizumab+chemotherapy [PIBC]) remains controversial regarding its potential to enhance antitumor efficacy in clinical practice. This meta-analysis aims to compare the antitumor effectiveness and safety profiles of PIBC with PIC.MethodsWe systematically searched six databases to identify eligible RCTs. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), while the secondary outcomes included treatment responses and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThree RCTs (IMpower150, jRCT2080224500, and ORIENT-31) comprising a total of 1529 patients were analyzed. The PIBC regimen significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76 [0.66, 0.87], P < 0.0001), objective response rate (risk ratio [RR]: 1.36 [1.22, 1.51], P < 0.00001), and disease control rate (RR: 1.06 [1.00, 1.12], P = 0.04). The PFS rates were also higher in the PIBC group at 6 and 18 months. Both groups showed similar results in terms of OS, 3–36 month OS rates, and total AEs. However, the PIBC group exhibited a higher incidence of grade 3–5 AEs, serious AEs, grade 3–5 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) and serious TRAEs. The most frequent grade 3–5 AEs in the PIBC group included anorexia (36.40%), decreased neutrophil count (16.25%), neutropenia (13.50%), reduced white blood cell count (12.12%), and febrile neutropenia (9.42%).ConclusionsPIBC appears to be better than PIC for advanced NSCLC offering improved PFS and response rates (ORR and DCR). However, its higher incidence of AEs requires cautious attention.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024559146, identifier CRD42024559146.

Snapshot img

Oncology Drugs Market Size 2025-2029

The oncology drugs market size is valued to increase by USD 215.9 billion, at a CAGR of 13.4% from 2024 to 2029. Increasing prevalence of cancer globally will drive the oncology drugs market.

Major Market Trends & Insights

North America dominated the market and accounted for a 45% growth during the forecast period.
By Therapy - Targeted therapy segment was valued at USD 82.20 billion in 2023
By Distribution Channel - Offline segment accounted for the largest market revenue share in 2023

Market Size & Forecast

Market Opportunities: USD 210.22 billion
Market Future Opportunities: USD 215.90 billion
CAGR : 13.4%
North America: Largest market in 2023

Market Summary

The market encompasses a continually evolving landscape shaped by advancements in core technologies and applications, service types, and regulatory frameworks. With the increasing prevalence of cancer globally, the market for oncology drugs is experiencing robust growth, driven by the rising adoption of innovative treatments such as immunotherapy. This sector is witnessing the integration of advanced technologies like next-generation sequencing (NGS), chips, and microarrays in clinical testing and clinical trials. According to recent reports, immunotherapy is expected to account for over 30% of the total oncology market by 2025. However, the high cost of cancer treatment drugs poses a significant challenge to market expansion, necessitating ongoing regulatory efforts to ensure affordability and accessibility.
As regional healthcare systems adapt to these trends, the Asia Pacific market is projected to witness the fastest growth due to its large and growing patient population. This dynamic market environment underscores the importance of staying informed about the latest developments and trends to capitalize on opportunities and navigate challenges.

What will be the Size of the Oncology Drugs Market during the forecast period?

Get Key Insights on Market Forecast (PDF) Request Free Sample

How is the Oncology Drugs Market Segmented and what are the key trends of market segmentation?

The oncology drugs industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments.

Therapy

  Targeted therapy
  Immunotherapy and hormonal therapy
  Chemotherapy


Distribution Channel

  Offline
  Online


Form Factor

  Solid
  Liquid
  Injectable


Indication

  Lung cancer
  Colorectal cancer
  Stomach cancer
  Others


Geography

  North America

    US
    Canada


  Europe

    France
    Germany
    Italy
    The Netherlands
    UK


  APAC

    China
    India
    Japan


  Rest of World (ROW)

By Therapy Insights

The targeted therapy segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

In the dynamic and evolving the market, hormone therapy and monoclonal antibodies have emerged as significant treatment modalities. Hormone therapy, which inhibits the production or action of hormones that promote cancer growth, has seen adoption increase by 15%. Meanwhile, monoclonal antibodies, which are lab-produced proteins that mimic the immune system's response, have experienced a growth surge of 18%. The development of targeted drug delivery systems, such as nanoparticles, is a key trend, enabling drugs to reach their intended targets more effectively. Toxicology studies and drug interactions are crucial aspects of oncology drug development, ensuring safety and efficacy.

Overall survival rates have improved due to advancements in targeted therapies, immunotherapy agents, and combination therapies. Phase 1 trials are essential for assessing a drug's safety and pharmacokinetics modeling. Epigenetic alterations and genetic mutations play a significant role in cancer development, necessitating patient stratification for personalized treatment approaches. Chemotherapy regimens continue to evolve, with a focus on minimizing adverse event rates and optimizing treatment efficacy. Immunotherapy agents, such as checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cells, have shown remarkable success in treating various types of cancer. Biomarker detection and tumor response assessment are crucial in determining treatment effectiveness and guiding patient care.

The healthcare costs associated with oncology drugs remain high, necessitating ongoing research for more cost-effective treatment options. Small molecule inhibitors and oncolytic viruses are promising new classes of drugs, with potential to revolutionize cancer treatment. Pharmacokinetics modeling and clinical trial design are essential components of bringing these innovative therapies to market. Regulatory approvals and progression-free survival rates are closely monitored indicators

BackgroundAdvanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) presents significant therapeutic challenges, particularly in Asian populations, which exhibit distinct biological and genetic characteristics. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising approach; however, its efficacy compared to chemotherapy alone remains under investigation. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy (PIC) versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced TNBC in Asian patients.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed across six databases for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only studies comparing the outcomes of PIC versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced TNBC, including subgroup analyses of Asian populations, were included. Data were pooled to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), responses, and safety profiles.ResultsA total of 1041 patients from five phase 3 RCTs were included in the final analysis. Compared to chemotherapy alone, PIC therapy significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74 [0.62, 0.88], P = 0.0008). No significant difference was observed in OS (HR: 0.78 [0.55, 1.12], P = 0.18), although a slight trend favoring PIC therapy was noted. Among PD-L1-positive patients, both OS (HR: 0.62 [0.44, 0.86], P = 0.005) and PFS (HR: 0.66 [0.50, 0.86], P = 0.003) were significantly improved in the PIC group. The PIC group also exhibited a substantially higher OS rate at 12–36 months and a higher PFS rate at 6–30 months. However, the incidence of immune-related AEs (irAEs) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.69 [1.33, 2.15], P < 0.0001) and grade 3–5 irAEs (RR: 3.11 [1.59, 6.10], P = 0.001) was significantly higher in the PIC group. The most common irAEs in the PIC group were hypothyroidism (14.40%), dermatitis (10.00%), and infusion reactions (8.85%). Both treatment groups exhibited similar response rates and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs).ConclusionsIn Asian patients with advanced TNBC, PIC significantly improved survival compared to chemotherapy alone. Although the combination therapy was associated with a higher incidence of irAEs, its clinical benefits support its use as a viable treatment option for this population.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024622428.

Snapshot img

Glioblastoma Multiforme Treatment Market Size 2024-2028

The glioblastoma multiforme treatment market size is forecast to increase by USD 1.36 billion at a CAGR of 8.2% between 2023 and 2028.

The glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treatment market is experiencing significant growth due to the rising incidence of this aggressive brain cancer and increasing research and development activities In the healthcare sector. According to the American Brain Tumor Association's Cancer Observatory, GBM accounts for approximately 15% of all primary brain tumors and is the most common malignant brain tumor in adults. Current treatment options include surgery, targeted therapy, and chemotherapy. Surgery remains the primary treatment modality for GBM, with various options such as awake craniotomy and awake craniotomy with intraoperative monitoring. This includes various strategies such as checkpoint inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and gene therapy. However, these procedures come with adverse effects such as cognitive impairment and motor deficits. Targeted therapies, such as temozolomide, are used in conjunction with surgery and chemotherapy to improve patient outcomes. The pharmaceutical supply chain plays a crucial role in ensuring the timely availability of these treatments to patients. Despite advancements in treatment options, the high mortality rate associated with GBM necessitates continued research and development efforts to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

What will be the Size of the Glioblastoma Multiforme Treatment Market During the Forecast Period?

Request Free Sample

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), a malignant tumor of the central nervous system (CNS), is a significant health concern worldwide. According to the Global Cancer Observatory, CNS cancers accounted for approximately 2.3% of all cancer diagnoses and 2.5% of cancer deaths in 2020. This article provides an overview of the current treatment landscape for GBM, focusing on surgical, radiation, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and emerging novel therapies. Surgery is the primary treatment modality for GBM, with the primary goal being to remove as much of the tumor as possible while minimizing damage to healthy brain tissue. Ambulatory surgical centers and hospitals offer various surgical procedures, including craniotomy and awake craniotomy. Following surgery, patients typically undergo radiation therapy to target any remaining cancer cells. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is the most common approach, delivering high-energy radiation to the tumor site. Chemotherapy is often used in combination with radiation therapy to enhance the therapeutic effect.
Moreover, temozolomide, a chemotherapeutic agent, is the most widely used drug for GBM treatment. Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are also frequently administered to reduce swelling and improve symptoms. Targeted therapies, such as bevacizumab, are designed to specifically target the molecular mechanisms of GBM. These therapies inhibit the growth and spread of cancer cells by blocking the action of specific proteins. Moreover, combination Therapies: Combination therapies, which involve the use of multiple treatment modalities, are increasingly being explored to improve treatment outcomes for GBM. For example, the combination of temozolomide and radiation therapy has been shown to improve survival rates compared to monotherapy. Immunotherapy: Immunotherapy, which harnesses the power of the immune system to fight cancer, is an emerging treatment approach for GBM. Personalized Medicine: The heterogeneity of GBM necessitates personalized treatment approaches.
Thus, drug classes and treatment procedures are being tailored to individual patients based on their unique tumor characteristics, such as genetic mutations and protein expression profiles. The treatment market for GBM is continually evolving, with a focus on developing novel therapies and combination strategies to improve patient outcomes. The pharmaceutical supply chain plays a crucial role in ensuring the availability and accessibility of these treatments. As the understanding of GBM biology deepens, so too will the range and effectiveness of treatment options.

How is this Glioblastoma Multiforme Treatment Industry segmented and which is the largest segment?

The glioblastoma multiforme treatment industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2024-2028, as well as historical data from 2018-2022 for the following segments.

End-user

  Hospitals
  Clinics
  Ambulatory surgical centers


Geography

  North America

    Canada
    US


  Europe

    Germany
    UK


  Asia

    China


  Rest of World (ROW)

By End-user Insights

The hospitals segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

The

Snapshot img

Breast Cancer Therapeutics Market Size 2024-2028

The breast cancer therapeutics market size is forecast to increase by USD 15.64 bn at a CAGR of 8.4% between 2023 and 2028.

The market is experiencing significant growth due to the rising prevalence of breast cancer and the emergence of novel therapeutics. Hormone therapy and radiation therapy continue to be popular treatment options, while oncology drugs such as monoclonal antibodies, biosimilars, and vaccines are gaining popularity. Artificial intelligence is revolutionizing cancer diagnostics and treatment plans, enabling early detection and personalized treatment. Online pharmacies and telemedicine are making treatments more accessible, especially in remote areas. The high cost of treatment remains a challenge, but education and nutrition programs are helping to mitigate this issue. Protein-based therapies, gelatin, and tablets are also key components of breast cancer therapeutics.In the US, the market is expected to grow steadily due to increasing awareness and advancements in technology and treatment methods.

What will be the Size of the Breast Cancer Therapeutics Market During the Forecast Period?

Request Free SampleThe market encompasses a range of treatments designed to combat this prevalent form of cancer among females. Key therapeutic approaches include chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Oncology drugs and therapeutics play a pivotal role in addressing breast cancer, targeting various proteins and cells, such as milk ducts, milk-producing lobules, and tumors. Breast cancer awareness initiatives and screening programs are instrumental in early detection, leading to improved patient outcomes. Artificial intelligence and advanced diagnostics are increasingly utilized to enhance the accuracy of diagnoses, enabling more effective interventions. Breast cancer can manifest as lumps, red patches, pain, swelling, or symptoms affecting the nipple, bones, breathing, or lymph nodes.Surgical tumor removal and medications, including hormonal therapies, are essential components of treatment plans. Despite advancements, breast cancer continues to pose significant health challenges, with ongoing research and innovation required to address the complexities of this disease.

How is this Breast Cancer Therapeutics Industry segmented and which is the largest segment?

The breast cancer therapeutics industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2024-2028, as well as historical data from 2018-2022 for the following segments. Disease TypeInvasive breast cancersDuctal carcinoma in situTherapyTargeted therapyHormonal therapyChemotherapyGeographyNorth AmericaCanadaUSEuropeGermanyUKAsiaChinaRest of World (ROW)

By Disease Type Insights

The invasive breast cancers segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period. Invasive ductal carcinoma, also known as infiltrating ductal carcinoma, is the most prevalent type of breast cancer, accounting for approximately 80% of diagnoses. This form of cancer arises when cancerous cells invade the fibrous or fatty tissue of the breast beyond the milk ducts. Symptoms include breast swelling, skin irritation, pain, nipple discomfort, redness, and nipple discharge, among others. Risk factors include genetics, hormonal imbalances, obesity, alcohol intake, and prior radiation therapy. Hormonal therapies, such as tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, targeted therapies, including Herceptin for HER2-positive tumors, and immunotherapies are common treatments. Early detection through breast cancer awareness campaigns, screening programs, and regular self-examinations contribute to improved survival probabilities and reduced morbidity.The development of oncology drugs and therapeutics, including proteins and biosimilars, continues to advance treatment options. Government support, hospital visits, and recovery rates are crucial aspects of breast cancer care. Hormonal therapy, obesity, and family history are significant factors in cancer type analysis. Hospital pharmacies and online pharmacies provide access to medications.

Get a glance at the market report of various segments Request Free Sample

The Invasive breast cancers segment was valued at USD 22.55 bn in 2018 and showed a gradual increase during the forecast period.

Regional Analysis

North America is estimated to contribute 46% to the growth of the global market during the forecast period. Technavio’s analysts have elaborately explained the regional trends and drivers that shape the market during the forecast period.

For more insights on the market size of various regions, Request Free Sample

The North American the market is experiencing significant growth due to the availability of reimbursement schemes in countries like the

IntroductionThe combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor with CTLA-4 inhibitor for advanced non-small cell lung cancer(NSCLC) is presently a significant area of research, however its clinical application remains contentious. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitor (CP) in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsA systemic search was conducted in four databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, and Web of Science) from their establishment until January 17, 2024, for randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of the first-line PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus CTLA-4 inhibitor in patients with advanced NSCLC. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were subjected to meta-analyses.ResultsTotally 7 eligible randomized controlled trials including 4682 people were included. Two comparative analyses were performed: CP versus chemotherapy, CP versus PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor (P). Compared with the chemotherapy group, CP improved OS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75-0.94, p<0.05) but not PFS (HR: 0.94, 95%CI: 0.73-1.20, p = 0.63) or ORR (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.79-1.71, p = 0.45). In terms of toxicity, CP had slightly fewer any AEs compared to chemotherapy (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97; p<0.05). Compared to the P group, there was no significant difference in OS (MD: -0,25, 95% CI: -2.47-1.98, p = 0.83), PFS (MD: -0.91, 95% CI: -3.19-1.36, p = 0.43), and ORR (OR:1.05, 95% CI. 0.80-1.36, p = 0.73). Subgroup analysis revealed that CP provided superior OS compared with P in patients with PD-L1 expression < 1%.ConclusionCP was a feasible and safe first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. Specifically, CP may function as a therapeutic alternative for individuals with low or negative PD-L1 expression, resulting in enhanced long-term outcomes compared to chemotherapy or P. Further randomized controlled trials with prolonged follow-up periods are necessary to validate these results, particularly focusing on efficacy in patients with differing PD-L1 expression levels, to improve the stratified implementation of immunotherapy.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024621116, identifier CRD42024621116.

Background: Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive cancer that spreads and metastasizes quickly. In recent years, the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab has been trialed to treat malignant melanoma. We conducted the first meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with other drugs in malignant melanoma.Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-comparative clinical studies of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy, targeted medicine, and interferon to treat malignant melanoma in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Meta-analysis of RCT was performed using Review Manager (version 5.4), and non-comparative meta-analysis was performed using R (version 4.0.3). The primary outcome was the objective response rate. Depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies, the pooled outcomes and 95% CI were calculated using either random-effects or fixed-effect models. Subgroup outcomes were calculated with possible relevant variables. Sensitivity analyses were carried out by excluding each study from the highly heterogeneous pooled results in turn. Funnel plot and Begg’s test were used to test the included studies' potential publication bias. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.Results: This meta-analysis included 20 trials: five RCTs and 15 non-comparative clinical studies with a total of 23 bevacizumab intervention arms. In 14 treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with chemotherapy drugs such as fotemustine, dacarbazine, carboplatin/paclitaxel, and temozolomide. In six treatment arms, bevacizumab was combined with targeted medicines such as imatinib, everolimus, sorafenib, erlotinib, and temsirolimus. There were also six treatment arms that used bevacizumab in combination with interferon. The pooled objective response rate was 15.8% (95% CI, 11.4%–20.2%). Bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly increased the overall survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel (HR = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.49-0.85, p < 0.01). Fatigue, nausea, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were the most common adverse events. The pooled incidence of hypertension of all bevacizumab arms in malignant melanoma was 32.4% (95% CI, 24.5%–40.3%).Conclusion: This study showed that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy might be effective and well-tolerated in patients with stage III or IV unresectable malignant melanoma.Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=304625], identifier [CRD42022304625].

BackgroundAdvanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) presents significant therapeutic challenges, particularly in Asian populations, which exhibit distinct biological and genetic characteristics. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising approach; however, its efficacy compared to chemotherapy alone remains under investigation. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy (PIC) versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced TNBC in Asian patients.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed across six databases for phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only studies comparing the outcomes of PIC versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced TNBC, including subgroup analyses of Asian populations, were included. Data were pooled to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), responses, and safety profiles.ResultsA total of 1041 patients from five phase 3 RCTs were included in the final analysis. Compared to chemotherapy alone, PIC therapy significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74 [0.62, 0.88], P = 0.0008). No significant difference was observed in OS (HR: 0.78 [0.55, 1.12], P = 0.18), although a slight trend favoring PIC therapy was noted. Among PD-L1-positive patients, both OS (HR: 0.62 [0.44, 0.86], P = 0.005) and PFS (HR: 0.66 [0.50, 0.86], P = 0.003) were significantly improved in the PIC group. The PIC group also exhibited a substantially higher OS rate at 12–36 months and a higher PFS rate at 6–30 months. However, the incidence of immune-related AEs (irAEs) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.69 [1.33, 2.15], P < 0.0001) and grade 3–5 irAEs (RR: 3.11 [1.59, 6.10], P = 0.001) was significantly higher in the PIC group. The most common irAEs in the PIC group were hypothyroidism (14.40%), dermatitis (10.00%), and infusion reactions (8.85%). Both treatment groups exhibited similar response rates and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs).ConclusionsIn Asian patients with advanced TNBC, PIC significantly improved survival compared to chemotherapy alone. Although the combination therapy was associated with a higher incidence of irAEs, its clinical benefits support its use as a viable treatment option for this population.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024622428.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is an aggressive hematological disorder comprised of a hierarchy of quiescent leukemic stem cells and fast proliferating blasts with limited self-renewal ability. Significant plasticity in the AML epigenome and metabolome results in a high rate of drug resistance and relapse, with extremely low 2-year survival rates in the poorest cytogenetic risk patients. The current backbone of clinical induction chemotherapy reduces total disease burden, but does not deplete leukemic stem cells which reconstitute the disease in vivo, and also suffers from severe toxicity of healthy hematopoietic cells. Whilst much work has been done to identify epigenetic vulnerabilities in AML, little is known about protein dynamics, and here we explored the therapeutic inhibition of highly specific CKS1-dependent protein degradation. We report a dual role for CKS1-depdent protein degradation in specifically targeting AML, whilst protecting normal hematopoietic cells from chemotherapeutic toxicity.

ObjectiveTo compare cervical cancer recurrence and patient survival after radical hysterectomy followed by either adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) or adjuvant radiotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy (AR/CCRT).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov to identify studies reporting recurrence or survival of cervical cancer patients who received AC or AR/CCRT after radical hysterectomy. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 14 non-randomized studies and two randomized controlled trials, altogether involving 5,052 cervical cancer patients. AC and AR/CCRT groups did not differ significantly in rates of total or local recurrence or mortality. Nevertheless, AC was associated with significantly lower risk of distant recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.81] and higher rates of overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.85] and disease-free survival rate (HR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62-0.92).ConclusionsAC may be an effective alternative to AR/CCRT for cervical cancer patients after radical hysterectomy, especially younger women who wish to preserve their ovaries and protect them from radiation damage.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021252518).

BackgroundPD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy (PC) are now broadly acknowledged as effective for treating stage IIIb–IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, data specific to Asian populations remain limited, and updated evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is warranted. In this study, the efficacy and safety of PC are analyzed and compared with those of chemotherapy in this population.MethodsSix databases were systematically explored to locate applicable phase 3 RCTs. Eligible studies involved Asian patients with stage IIIb–IV NSCLC and compared PC treatment with conventional chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were regarded as primary endpoints.ResultsA total of 16 phase 3 RCTs involving 4,452 Asian patients were included. Compared with chemotherapy alone, PC significantly improved OS (HR: 0.68 [0.63, 0.75], p < 0.00001, I2 = 30%) and PFS (HR: 0.50 [0.47, 0.54], p < 0.00001, I2 = 39%). The survival benefits were consistent across most subgroups and increased as survival time increased. The objective response rate (RR: 1.62 [1.51, 1.74], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and disease control rate (RR: 1.09 [1.05, 1.12], p < 0.00001, I2 = 7%) were also better in the PC group. Brain metastasis and a PD-L1 CPS >50% were favorable factors in the PC group. However, more immune-related AEs (irAEs) were found in the PC group.ConclusionAmong Asian patients with stage IIIb–IV NSCLC, PC therapy still has a notable advantage in prolonging survival. Nonetheless, the increased frequency of AEs, particularly irAEs, warrants close attention.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251022604, PROSPERO identifier CRD420251022604.

IntroductionWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with or without chemotherapies in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsData related to the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy were retrieved from the database construction to August 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Manual standard and RevMan 5.3 software for data synthesis. The outcome measures observed included overall survival, 12-month survival, disease control rate, objective response rate, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, and progression-free survival. The adverse reactions included fatigue, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, rash, anemia, and anorexia.ResultsIn this meta-analysis, a total of 17 randomized controlled trials were included. In first-line therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was more effective than chemotherapy alone. Overall survival, 12-month survival rate, and objective response rate were statistically significant. Among second-line treatments, immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma had statistically significant overall survival, 12-month survival, objective response rate, treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy alone.ConclusionBoth first- and second-line immune checkpoint inhibitors are effective for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and the adverse reactions are controllable and safe.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021282586.

BackgroundPrevious research has confirmed that integrating PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy (PC) represents a more effective strategy for treating advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, with the increasing number of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in recent years, it is essential to re-evaluate the validity of this conclusion and to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety across diverse patient subgroups.MethodsWe systematically reviewed phase 3 RCTs comparing PC with chemotherapy alone for stage IIIb-IV NSCLC. Data were extracted and analyzed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, and adverse events (AEs). Subgroup analyses were performed based on factors such as disease stage, pathological type, etc.ResultsAfter screening, 19 phase 3 RCTs involving 9335 patients were included. Our updated analysis confirmed at PC therapy significantly improves OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73 [0.69, 0.77], P < 0.00001), PFS (HR: 0.56 [0.52, 0.60], P < 0.00001), duration of response (DOR, HR: 0.50 [0.45, 0.54], P < 0.00001) and objective response rate (ORR, risk ratio [RR]: 1.59 [1.51, 1.67], P < 0.00001) compared to chemotherapy alone. The survival benefits were consistent across all subgroups and increases with longer follow-up. Brain metastases and PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) > 50% were the favorable factors for PC group. However, the combined treatment was associated with an increased incidence of total/grade 3–5 treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs), and immune-related AEs (irAEs), although the overall safety profile remained manageable. The most common AEs in the PC group were blood toxicity related AEs (anemia, neutrophil count decreased, etc).ConclusionThe PC therapy continues to provide a substantial survival benefit for patients with stage IIIb-IV NSCLC. However, its higher incidence of AEs, especially irAEs, needs to be taken seriously.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251005925, identifier CRD420251005925.

ObjectiveIt remains unclear what the best second-line treatment is for patients with small-cell lung cancer sensitive to previous platinum-based chemotherapy.MethodsWe systematically screened randomized controlled trials from several online databases. The primary outcome was objective response rate (ORR), and the secondary outcomes were disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and hematological complications graded 3 to 5. The efficacy of included treatments was ranked by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value.ResultsWe included eleven trials involving 1560 patients in quantitative analysis. Triple chemotherapy containing platinum (TP, combination of cisplatin, etoposide, and irinotecan) was associated with favorable ORR (intravenous topotecan vs TP; odds ratio: 0.13, 95% CI:0.03-0.63; SUCRA, 0.94) and PFS (vs intravenous topotecan; hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI: 0.25-0.99; SUCRA, 0.90). Belotecan ranked highest for OS (SUCRA, 0.90), while intravenous topotecan plus Ziv-aflibercept ranked highest for DCR (SUCRA, 0.75). TP was more likely to cause anemia and thrombocytopenia while intravenous topotecan plus Ziv-aflibercept resulted in most neutrocytopenia.ConclusionTP is the first recommendation for the second-line treatment of sensitive relapsed SCLC. TP achieved priority in ORR and PFS with the most frequent adverse effects in anemia and thrombocytopenia. For patients who cannot tolerate the hematological adverse effects of triple chemotherapy, amrubicin is an optional option. Amrubicin had relatively good ORR and PFS, accompanied by fewer hematological complications. The rechallenge of the platinum doublet is inferior to amrubicin in ORR, DCR, and PFS. Oral topotecan has a similar effect compared with IV topotecan, but oral topotecan was associated with slightly higher safety and less stress in nursing. Belotecan contributed to the best PFS with slightly better safety but was not ideal in other outcomes.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022358256.

BackgroundWith the emergence of new anti-angiogenic treatments and the ongoing updates to clinical guidelines, the effectiveness and safety of these agents in treating platinum-sensitive/resistant ovarian cancer (OC) are yet to be fully determined. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-angiogenic drugs combined with chemotherapy (CT) for platinum-sensitive OC (PSOC) or platinum-resistant OC (PROC).MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across several databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, encompassing all pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 31 May 2024. The primary outcomes for the meta-analysis were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), while the objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs) of any grade, and grade ≥3 AEs were considered secondary endpoints. Data synthesis involved the computation of hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR), along with their 95% confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI). Trial sequential analysis was carried out using STATA 12.0, R software 4.3.1, and TSA v0.9.5.10 Beta software.ResultsThis meta-analysis encompassed 15 RCTs. The overall analysis revealed that compared to CT alone (or plus placebo), anti-angiogenic drugs combined with CT significantly improved PFS (HR [95% CI] = 0.573 [0.518–0.633], 95% PI: 0.383-0.876) and ORR (RR [95% CI] = 1.362 [1.260–1.472], 95% PI: 0.824–2.251), but also increased the incidence of grade ≥3 AEs (RR [95% CI] = 1.115 [1.070–1.162], 95% PI: 0.870–1.422) in PSOC patients. For PROC patients, this combination therapy notably improved PFS (HR [95% CI] = 0.542 [0.475–0.619], 95% PI: 0.322–0.930), OS (HR [95% CI] = 0.752 [0.646–0.875], 95% PI: 0.554-0.997), and ORR (RR [95% CI] = 2.141 [1.702–2.694], 95% PI: 0.839–5.307), whilst simultaneously elevating the risk of grade ≥3 AEs (RR [95% CI] = 1.487 [1.216–1.819], 95% PI: 0.755–2.828).ConclusionOur research verified the advantages of combining anti-angiogenic agents with CT in enhancing PFS and ORR for patients with PSOC, and also confirmed improvements in PFS, OS, and ORR for those with PROC. It is crucial for medical practitioners to remain alert to the potential occurrence of AEs when implementing this combined therapeutic approach in a clinical milieu.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024552010.