Safety of first-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yanrong Zhan,Xianwen Cheng,Pingping Mei,Shufa Tan,Wenzhe Feng,Hua Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12662-3

IF: 4.638

2024-07-25

BMC Cancer

Abstract:To evaluate the safety of first-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer through network meta-analysis.

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Network Meta-analysis of First-Line Systemic Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Shan Xu,Ali Sak,Yasin Bahadir Erol

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748211033497

Cancer Control

Abstract:Purpose: To assess the relative efficacy and safety of first-line systemic therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Experimental design: A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to and including July 15, 2019. We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was either chemotherapeutic agents (such as fluorouracil, irinotecan, or oxaliplatin) or antibodies targeting angiogenesis (such as bevacizumab) or agents that act on the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway (such as cetuximab and panitumumab) or studies reported at least one of the following outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or Grade 3 + adverse events (AEs). Using a random effect model, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to analyze the probability of optimal therapeutic regime obtained from direct comparisons with indirect evidences. We estimated hazard ratios for OS and PFS. Results: A total of 30 RCTs comprising 12,146 mCRC patients with 25 different treatment strategies were included. The triple combination FOLFOXIRI [fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan] plus bevacizumab provided significant survival benefits with improved OS over all other treatments. The network meta-analysis also indicated a significant advantage of using FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in comparison to other treatment strategies for PFS. Besides, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab was associated with the well-tolerated adverse events. Conclusions: Our study supported the use of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as the best first-line regimen and potentially effective and safe strategy for the management of patients with mCRC.
Overall survival with non-proportional hazards in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Fatemeh Keshavarzi,Nader Salari,Sara Jambarsang,Seyyed Mohammad Tabatabaei,Soodeh Shahsavari,Andrew J Fournier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36464

IF: 3.776

2024-08-16

Heliyon

Abstract:This study aimed to identify the most effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer based on overall survival, identify the most commonly used treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available treatments based on their relative effectiveness. Researchers used the ANOVA parametrization method to fit the second-order fractional polynomial network meta-analysis with a random-effect model. Using a non-proportional hazards network meta-analysis, 46 treatments were compared by considering a combination of direct and indirect evidence extracted from clinical trial studies. Included in the review were 46 trials involving 21350 patients. Between January 2000 and January 2023, researchers conducted a thorough search through Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Scopus. To undertake a secondary analysis of this data, we recreate individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curves and assess the accuracy of that reconstruction. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled overall survival and hazard ratio with a 95 percent confidence interval. The predicted survival curves for the network meta-analysis showed that GOLFIG and FOLFOX + Cetuximab treatments have higher survival, respectively. Our results provide moderate quality evidence and comparative effective estimates for various available first-line treatments for metastasis colorectal cancer based on network meta-analysis.
Efficacy and safety of first-line therapy in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Junxiao Wang,Yushuai Yu,Qisheng Lin,Jie Zhang,Chuangui Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05530-3

2024-01-21

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

Abstract:The numerous first-line treatment regimens for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) necessitate a comprehensive evaluation to inform clinical decision-making. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of different interventions.

oncology
A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety for first-line and second/further-line therapies in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer

Hanqiao Shao,Mingye Zhao,Ai-Jia Guan,Taihang Shao,Dachuang Zhou,Guo Yu,Wenxi Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03238-2

IF: 9.3

2024-01-14

BMC Medicine

Abstract:Hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR + /HER2 −) advanced breast cancer is a prevalent subtype among postmenopausal women. Despite the growing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) exploring this topic, the efficacy and safety of first-line and second/further-line treatments remain uncertain. Accordingly, our aim was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of these therapies through network meta-analysis.

medicine, general & internal
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of first- and second-line immunotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Kaiqi Chen,Wei Chen,Rui Yue,Danping Zhu,Shikui Cui,Xijian Zhang,Zhao Jin,Tong Xiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1439624

2024-09-18

Abstract:Background: A multitude of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in both the initial and subsequent treatment settings for patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have provided clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of immunotherapy with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In light of these findings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of several ICIs in specific subpopulations of mCRC patients. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of direct comparative RCTs evaluating various treatment options. Consequently, the most effective ICI therapeutic strategy for microsatellite-stable (MSS) subgroup and microsatellite instability (MSI) subgroup in the first- and second-line therapies remains undefined. To address this gap, the present study employs a Bayesian network meta-analysis to ascertain the most effective first- and second-line ICI therapeutic strategies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, with the retrieval date ranging from the databases' inception to August 20, 2024. A total of 875 studies were identified, and seven were ultimately included in the analysis after a screening process. A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted on the basis of the search results. Results: This comprehensive analysis, comprising seven RCTs, evaluated first-line and second-line immunotherapy regimens in 1,358 patients diagnosed with mCRC. The treatments under investigation consisted of five initial treatments, including three focusing on MSS patients and two on MSI patients, as well as two secondary immunotherapy regimens, both focusing on MSS patients. A total of 1051 individuals underwent first-line treatment, while 307 received second-line treatment. The application of ICIs proved to offer varying degrees clinical benefits when compared to standard-of-care therapy alone, both in two subgroups of the first and the second treatment phases. Of particular note is the performance of Nivolumab combination with ipilimumab, which demonstrated superior efficacy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34),. Moreover, the treatment demonstrated an optimal safety profile, with a relatively low risk of adverse events (OR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.56), compared to other first-line treatment modalities for MSI subgroup. Regarding MSS subgroup, the improvement of PFS by Nivolumab plus standard-of-care (SOC) was relatively significant (HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.02). In the realm of second-line therapies for MSS subgroup, the administration of Atezolizumab plus SOC has proven to be an effective approach for prolonging PFS, exhibiting an HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.44-0.99). These findings underscore the clinical benefits and safety profiles of ICIs in the treatment of mCRC across various treatment lines. Conclusions: The clinical application of ICIs in both first- and second-line treatment strategies for patients with mCRC yields substantial therapeutic benefits. A detailed assessment in this study indicates that first-line treatment with Nivolumab combination with ipilimumab may represent an efficacious and well-tolerated therapeutic approach for MSI subgroup. In terms of MSS subgroup in first-line therapy, Nivolumab plus SOC may be a relative superior choice. In the context of second-line therapy for MSS subgroup, it is evident that a combination of Atezolizumab and SOC represents a preferable option for enhancing PFS. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that other ICIs treatment regimens also exhibit great value in various aspects, with the potential to inform the development of future clinical treatment guidelines and provide a stronger rationale for the selection of ICIs in both first- and second-line therapeutic strategies for mCRC. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42024543400.
The Optimal First-Line Treatment for Patients with Left-Sided RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Double-drug Regimen or Triple-Drug Regimen Therapy

Changjing Cai,Qingqing Luo,Yihan Liu,Yinghui Peng,Xiangyang Zhang,Zhaohui Jiang,Ziyang Feng,Yaru Qi,Yan Gao,Yongting Liu,Ping Liu,Yihong Chen,Cao Guo,Hong Shen,Shan Zeng,Ying Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1015510

IF: 5.6

2022-01-01

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:There are many treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Among them, uncertainty remains especially concerning the clinical benefit of different regimens for left-sided RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC in the triple-drug therapy era. No studies have been conducted to answer this critical clinical issue. We performed a comprehensive analysis of published data and real-world data. First, we conducted analyses of the published trials to show the landscape of efficacy and safety in the treatments of left-sided RAS WT mCRC. Then, we initiated a multicenter real-world study as the validation dataset. This study included six published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a total of 1925 patients. The double-drug regimen plus cetuximab/panitumumab (D + C/P) achieved the longest overall survival (OS) in patients with left-sided mCRC (HR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.57–0.98), while triple-drug regimen with bevacizumab (T + B, HR = 1.1, 95%CI: 0.63–2.0), compared with double-drug with bevacizumab (D + B). The D + C/P had the highest overall response rate (ORR) in patients with left-sided mCRC (OR = 1.8, 95%CI: 0.89–3.8), while T + B (OR = 1.8, 95%CI: 0.70–4.8), compared with D + B. The multicenter real-world cohort showed the double-drug regimen plus cetuximab had longer progression-free survival (PFS) in left-sided mCRC patients than the triple-drug regimen with bevacizumab. The safety analysis showed the incidence of the adverse events (grade≥3) in the triple-drug therapy plus bevacizumab was higher than that in the double-drug therapy plus cetuximab/panitumumab. This work demonstrates the ranking of three regimens for therapeutic efficacy and safety in patients with left-sided RAS WT mCRC. The double-drug regimen plus cetuximab/panitumumab appears more effective and safer than double-drug and triple-drug based regimens with bevacizumab. Further trials and cohort analyses on this topic would increase confidence in these results.
A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety for first-line and maintenance therapies in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases

Yunlin Jiang,Taihang Shao,Mingye Zhao,Yahong Xue,Xueping Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1374136

IF: 5.6

2024-07-27

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: Evidence comparing the efficacy of different treatments for patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) receiving first-line or maintenance therapy is sparse. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these treatments, with a distinct focus on evaluating first-line and maintenance treatments separately. Methods: We conducted Bayesian network meta-analyses, sourcing English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through July 2023 from databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and key conference proceedings. Phase II or III trials that assessed two or more therapeutic regimens were included. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events graded as 3 or above (SAE), and R0 liver resection rate. Hazards Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect size for OS and PFS, Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were used for ORR, SAEs and R0 resection rate. Subgroup and sensitive analyses were conducted to analysis the model uncertainty (PROSPERO: CRD42023420498). Results: 56 RCTs were included (50 for first-line treatment, six for maintenance therapies), with a total of 21,323 patients. Regarding first-line, for OS, the top three mechanisms were: local treatment + single-drug chemotherapy (SingleCT), Targeted therapy (TAR)+SingleCT, and TAR + multi-drug chemotherapy (MultiCT). Resection or ablation (R/A)+SingleCT, S1, and Cetuximab + intensified fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy (ICTFU) were identified as the best treatments. For PFS, the top three mechanisms were: Immune therapy + TAR + MultiCT, multi-targeted therapy (MultiTAR), TAR + SingleCT. The top three treatments were: Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy (CTFU), TAS-102+bevacizumab, Bevacizumab + ICTFU. Cetuximab + CTFU was the best choice for RAS/RAF wild-type patients. Regarding maintenance treatment, Bevacizumab + SingleCT and Adavosertib were the best options for OS and PFS, respectively. For safety, MultiCT was the safest, followed by local treatment + MultiCT, TAR + MultiCT caused the most SAEs. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy was found to be the safest among all targeted combination therapies. Conclusion: In first-line, local treatment or targeted therapsy plus chemotherapy are the best mechanisms. R/A + SingleCT or CTFU performed the best for OS, Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + ICTFU was the best option regarding PFS. For RAS/RAF wild-type patients, Cetuximab + CTFU was the optimal option. Monotherapy may be preferred choice for maintenance treatment. Combination therapy resulted in more SAEs when compared to standard chemotherapy.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Treatments in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: a Network Meta Analysis Based on Phase 3 RCTs

Xiaofeng Chang,Fan Zhang,Tieshi Liu,Rong Yang,Changwei Ji,Xiaozhi Zhao,Linfeng Xu,Guangxiang Liu,Hongqian Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7511

2016-01-01

Oncotarget

Abstract:It is impossible to conduct head-to-head trials of all the therapies to determine optimal treatment in the rapidly advancing era of therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In this network meta-analysis,we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for mRCC. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and unpublished studies were also sought through "clinicaltrials.gov" from their inception through January 31, 2016. A database search identified 1253 articles, with 11 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. A total of 7597 patients in twelve different treatment arms were assessed. Network meta-analysis showed sunitinib had a significantly longer PFS than IFN-α (SMD=-5.68; 95%CI: -10.76,-0.86; P<0.001) and placebo (SMD=-6.71; 95%CI: -12.65,-0.79; P<0.001), meanwhile, pazopanib had a significantly longer PFS compared with placebo (SMD=5.13; 95%CI: 0.43, 10.09; P<0.001). The cumulative ranking probability curve indicated that sunitinib had the highest probability of being the best treatment modality in terms of PFS and it also had the highest probability of being the safest drugs as the first-line treatment when it came to SAE. Thus, sunitinib might be the best choice of first-line treatment for patients with mRCC because it has the most favorable balance between efficacy and safety.
The safety and effectiveness of carbon nanoparticles suspension in tracking lymph node metastases of colorectal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Renjie Wang,Shaobo Mo,Qi Liu,Wenming Zhang,Zhaozhen Zhang,Yiping He,Guoxiang Cai,Xinxiang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyaa011

IF: 2.925

2020-01-01

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Objective: This study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of carbon nanoparticles suspension in tracking lymph node metastases of colorectal cancer. Methods: Eligible patients diagnosed with stages I-III colorectal cancer in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between 1 May 2017 and 31 May 2018 fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in this prospective randomized controlled study. All the patients were randomly allocated to two groups: the nanocarbon group and the control group. Patients' clinicopathological characteristics were compared between the nanocarbon group and the control group. For continuous variables, data were presented as mean (SD) and differences between the two groups were compared by the Mann-Whitney U test; for categorical variables, data was presented as frequency (%) and the Pearson's chi-squared test was used to compare the differences between two groups. Results: All the patients' characteristics between two groups did not achieve statistical significance (P > 0.05). Patients in nanocarbon group were more likely to be associated with more lymph nodes retrieved totally compared with control group (19.84 6.428 vs. 17.41 +/- 7.229, P < 0.001). The number of lymph nodes retrieved in nanocarbon group were more likely to be >= 12 than that in the control group (P = 0.005). Conclusions: Our study confirmed the safety of using carbon nanoparticles suspension as a tracer in colorectal cancer. More importantly, nanocarbon could significantly increase the detected number of lymph nodes in colorectal cancer, which can help improve the accuracy of lymph node staging and even improve patients' survival.
Efficacy and safety of second-line therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Fenping Lu,Kai Zhao,Miaoqing Ye,Guangyan Xing,Bowen Liu,Xiaobin Li,Yun Ran,Fenfang Wu,Wei Chen,Shiping Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12780-y

IF: 4.638

2024-08-21

BMC Cancer

Abstract:The selection of appropriate second-line therapy for liver cancer after first-line treatment failure poses a significant clinical challenge due to the lack of direct comparative studies and standard treatment protocols. A network meta-analysis (NMA) provides a robust method to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes and adverse effects of various second-line treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

oncology
Comparative effectiveness of first-line systemic treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Jiahuan Ai,Liuying Jian,Xiaoqin Wen,Xiaotong Huo,Xuanyi Yang,Jie Jiang,Tiantian Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03506-4

2024-05-17

Clinical & Translational Oncology

Abstract:No head-to-head trials had been performed to estimate the relative effectiveness of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) and androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSi) in the first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of various systemic treatment agents for patients with mCRPC.

oncology
Identifying optimal ALK inhibitors in first- and second-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Mingye Zhao,Taihang Shao,Hanqiao Shao,Caicun Zhou,Wenxi Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-11916-4

IF: 4.638

2024-02-10

BMC Cancer

Abstract:To compare the efficacy, safety and effects on quality of life of different ALK-inhibitors for global and Asian patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

oncology
Combination Adjuvant Chemotherapy with Targeted Drugs for Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Jinghui Wang,Li Luo,Dingxue Wang,Bin Guo,Jun Li,Zhu Yang,Dongxin Tang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.26312

2018-01-01

Journal of Cellular Biochemistry

Abstract:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most fatal diseases in the world. The efficacy of present chemotherapy treatments are limited and the addition of targeted drugs have been put into practice. However, the preferred treatments among adjuvant chemotherapies still remain controversial and uncertain. To evaluate the efficacy of different adjuvant chemotherapies combined with or without targeted drugs to determine the optimal treatment for patients with CRC in clinical practice. PubMed and Embase were searched for eligible articles and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. R (Version 3.2.5) software was utilized to conduct the Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Outcomes including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were displayed using hazard ratios. And the rank probabilities of each treatment were evaluated using the surface under cumulative ranking curve. A total of 75 RCTs published after 1997 were included in the data analysis. Overall, FOLFIRI+ cetuximab was found to be the most effective treatment in terms of long-term survival and FOLFOX was the most effective pure chemotherapy treatment. The addition of targeted drugs will greatly improve the efficacy of chemotherapy. Targeted drug cetuximab combined with the chemotherapy regiment FOLFIRI is the preferable treatment for patients with CRC in clinical practice.
Efficacy and safety evaluation of first-line systemic treatments for unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis

Huiling Shi,Yong Tan,Chao Ma,Yushan Wei,Fengling Shi,Juan Wang,Caihua Xu,Rongrui Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1397960

IF: 4.7

2024-09-09

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of various first-line initial treatment systemic regimens for patients with unresectable esophageal squamous carcinoma(ESCC), utilizing a network meta-analysis approach. Methods: A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials focusing on the primary treatment of esophageal cancer ESCC was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, up until November 17, 2023. The quality of the included studies was rigorously assessed using Review Manager software. Subsequently, data analysis was meticulously carried out employing R software. The first-line treatment regimens examined were: CD (Cisplatin + Docetaxel), CET-CF (Cetuximab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), CF (Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), N-CF (Nivolumab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), NI (Nivolumab + Ipilimumab), Nim-CF (Nimotuzumab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), P-CF (Pembrolizumab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), and Ser-CF (Serplulimab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil). The Primary endpoints included the overall survival(OS),progression-free survival (PFS),objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR).The secondary endpoint was adverse effects(AEs). Results: The analysis encompassed eight studies, incorporating a total of 3,051 patients with untreated esophageal cancer. There are 45 people in the CD regimen,32 in the CET-CF regimen,1,212 in the CF regimen,447 in the N-CF regimen,456 in the NI regimen,53 in the Nim-CF regimen,447 in the P-CF regimen and 368 in the Ser-CF regimen. The network meta-analysis revealed that, in comparison to the CF regimen, the other regimens (CD, CET-CF, N-CF, NI, Nim-CF, P-CF, and Ser-CF) did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). However, Ser-CF potentially offers superior outcomes in terms of OS and PFS when juxtaposed with other regimens. Notably, N-CF was associated with a substantial increase in the objective response rate (ORR), and CET-CF markedly improved the disease control rate (DCR). In terms of adverse effects, N-CF was more likely to cause anorexia, whereas CET-CF was significantly associated with nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, and skin disorders. Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that N-CF may provide the most favorable outcomes in terms of ORR, while CET-CF could be the optimal choice for enhancing DCR in patients with untreated esophageal cancer.

oncology
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Loulu Gao,Lin Tang,Zixuan Hu,Jieqiong Peng,Xiaoqian Li,Bo Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1269203

IF: 4.7

2023-09-21

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Background The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different third-line treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through a comprehensive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Additionally, the study aims to provide guidance on selecting appropriate third-line systemic treatment regimens for patients with mCRC. Methods We conducted a search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023, to include phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of third-line treatments for mCRC. The primary outcome assessed in the NMA was median overall survival (mOS), and other outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs). Results Ultimately, nine phase II/III RCTs involving five treatment regimens were included in this study. Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.32-0.52) was found to be the most effective treatment for mOS compared to best supportive care (BSC). TAS-102 plus bevacizumab also significantly improved mPFS compared to BSC (HR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.16-0.25). In terms of adverse events (AEs), TAS-102 (RR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.35-0.74) had a lower incidence of ≥3AEs compared to fruquintinib, but fruquintinib (RR 1.79, 95% CrI 1.10-3.11) showed better improvement in DCR than TAS-102. Subgroup analysis using the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranked the regimens based on the OS benefit. The results indicated that TAS-102 plus bevacizumab ranked first across age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization. Conclusion TAS-102, fruquintinib, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab, the regorafenib standard dose regimen (regorafenib), and the regorafenib dose-escalation regimen (regorafenib 80+) all demonstrated improved OS and PFS compared to BSC in mCRC patients. However, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab may be the optimal choice for third-line treatment in mCRC patients. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php , CRD42023434929.

oncology
Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations for Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Lihui Liu,Hua Bai,Chao Wang,Samuel Seery,Zhijie Wang,Jianchun Duan,Sini Li,Pei Xue,Guoqiang Wang,Yiting Sun,Xinyang Du,Xue Zhang,Zixiao Ma,Jie Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2021.03.016

IF: 20.121

2021-07-01

Journal of Thoracic Oncology

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Introduction</h3><p>A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated different first-line immunotherapy combinations, but the optimal combination strategy is yet to be established.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>We performed a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis by retrieving relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the <a href="http://ClinicalTrials.gov">ClinicalTrials.gov</a>, and the major international conferences. We included published and grey sources of randomized clinical trials comparing immunotherapy combinations with other treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients as first-line treatments. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020210501) to ensure transparency.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>We analyzed 16 studies involving 8,278 patients, including 10 immunotherapy combinations. For patients without programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) selection, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was shown to be comparable to sintilimab plus chemotherapy in providing the best overall survival (OS) benefit (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72–1.29). Furthermore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy appeared to provide the best progression-free survival (PFS, HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.36–0.55) as well as the best objective response rate (ORR, OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12–0.42). Subgroup analysis by PD-L1 suggested that nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus chemotherapy was associated with the best OS in patients with PD-L1 <1% and that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was associated with the best OS in patients with PD-L1 ≥1%. Pembrolizumab and sintilimab were associated with relatively fewer grade ≥3 adverse events when compared with other immunotherapies combined with chemotherapy.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>Our results suggest that anti-programmed death-1 combinations are associated with potentially higher survival outcomes than anti-PD-L1 combinations with comparable safety profiles. Moreover, pem-chemo and nivo-ipi-chemo appear to be superior first-line immunotherapy combinations for advanced NSCLC patients with positive and negative PD-L1 expression, respectively. Although atezo-beva-chemo treatment provided the best PFS and ORR, the addition of chemotherapy to immunotherapy would increase the toxicity, especially when anti-angiogenesis drugs are simultaneously added.</p>

oncology,respiratory system
Impacts of systemic treatments on health-related quality of life for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yunlin Jiang,Mingye Zhao,Wenxi Tang,Xueping Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-11937-z

IF: 4.638

2024-02-11

BMC Cancer

Abstract:There is limited evidence of comparative results among different treatments regarding impacts of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to compare efficacy of systemic treatments on HRQoL among patients with mCRC.

oncology
Efficacy and Safety of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Fei Lu,Yu Hou,Zhengting Chen,Jie Jiang,Xi He,Yaoxiong Xia,Ke Cao,Li Chang,Wenhui Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338211016369

2021-01-01

Abstract:Background: Triple-negative breast cancer constitutes approximately 12%-17% of all breast cancer cases, and >33% of patients develop distant metastases. Systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy is the primary treatment for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; however, the role of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients remains controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinical Trials registry databases up to June 1, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that investigated platinum-based vs. first-line platinum-free chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. We used fixed and random effects models to calculate pooled hazard ratios and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for progression-free and overall survival, objective response rates, and grade 3 and 4 adverse events. Results: Four randomized controlled trials ( N = 590 patients) were included. Platinum-based chemotherapy significantly increased the objective response rates from 43.1% to 62.7% (odds ratio 2.34, 95% confidence interval 1.66-3.28, P < 0.001). Three randomized controlled trials ( N = 414 patients) reported survival outcomes. Patients administered platinum-based regimens showed significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.82, P = 0.004) and a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.00, P = 0.05). Only 2 studies reported the rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events; grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more commonly associated with platinum-based chemotherapy (odds ratio 7.54, 95% confidence interval 1.37-41.60, P = 0.02) and grade 3-4 fatigue with platinum-free chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.68, P = 0.008). Conclusions: First-line platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with significantly increased objective response rates, longer progression-free survival, and a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall survival in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer at the high risk of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia.

oncology
Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yi Zhao,Jingting Liu,Xiuyu Cai,Zhenkui Pan,Jun Liu,Weiqiang Yin,Hanzhang Chen,Zhanhong Xie,Hengrui Liang,Wei Wang,Zhihua Guo,Shen Zhao,Wenhua Liang,Jianxing He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5460

2019-10-07

BMJ

Abstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from inception to 20 May 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first line setting for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC were included in a bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Results: 18 eligible trials involved 4628 patients and 12 treatments: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib), pemetrexed based chemotherapy, pemetrexed free chemotherapy, and combination treatments (afatinib plus cetuximab, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed). Consistent with gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.24), osimertinib showed the most favourable progression free survival, with significant differences versus dacomitinib (0.74, 0.55 to 1.00), afatinib (0.52, 0.40 to 0.68), erlotinib (0.48, 0.40 to 0.57), gefitinib (0.44, 0.37 to 0.52), icotinib (0.39, 0.24 to 0.62), pemetrexed based chemotherapy (0.24, 0.17 to 0.33), pemetrexed free chemotherapy (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20), afatinib plus cetuximab (0.44, 0.28 to 0.71), and gefitinib plus pemetrexed (0.65, 0.46 to 0.92). Osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were also consistent (0.94, 0.66 to 1.35) in providing the best overall survival benefit. Combination treatments caused more toxicity in general, especially erlotinib plus bevacizumab, which caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses by the two most common EGFR mutation types indicated that osimertinib was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the exon 19 deletion, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the Leu858Arg mutation. Conclusions: These results indicate that osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were associated with the best progression free survival and overall survival benefits for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC, compared with other first line treatments. The treatments resulting in the best progression free survival for patients with the exon 19 deletion and Leu858Arg mutations were osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, respectively. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018111954.
Comparison of efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapy in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yanqing Yang,Wei Chen,Lixian Dong,Lian Duan,Pengfei Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-024-03442-3

2024-04-18

Clinical & Translational Oncology

Abstract:The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to an increase in randomized controlled trials exploring various first-line combination treatment regimens. With the introduction of new PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, there are now more clinical options available. For the first time, the AK105 monoclonal antibody Penpulimab, developed in China, was included. The AK105-302 Phase III trial studied the efficacy and safety of Penpulimab combined with chemotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. To determine the optimal treatment options, we conducted an updated network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of these regimens.

oncology

Safety of first-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Network Meta-analysis of First-Line Systemic Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Overall survival with non-proportional hazards in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of first-line therapy in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety for first-line and second/further-line therapies in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of first- and second-line immunotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

The Optimal First-Line Treatment for Patients with Left-Sided RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Double-drug Regimen or Triple-Drug Regimen Therapy

A network meta-analysis of efficacy and safety for first-line and maintenance therapies in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Treatments in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: a Network Meta Analysis Based on Phase 3 RCTs

The safety and effectiveness of carbon nanoparticles suspension in tracking lymph node metastases of colorectal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Efficacy and safety of second-line therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparative effectiveness of first-line systemic treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Identifying optimal ALK inhibitors in first- and second-line treatment of patients with advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Combination Adjuvant Chemotherapy with Targeted Drugs for Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of first-line systemic treatments for unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Immunotherapy Combinations for Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Impacts of systemic treatments on health-related quality of life for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Comparison of efficacy and safety of PD-1/PD-L1 combination therapy in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis